ENDS LECTURE
CARBON SHOW, 20/10/11
LONDON
PARADISE REGAINED? MAKING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REAL
Introduction
Some of you will have had a difficult choice this evening; coming to this or going to ‘An Evening with the charismatic Alex Steffan (author of “Worldchanging: A User’s Guide to the 21st Century”) and Ellen Macarthur at the Royal Geographical Society.
Alex says: “We have inherited a whole set of solutions by conventional wisdom, many of them surrounding lifestyle choices. Almost all of us believe that someone who buys local food, who drives a hybrid, who lives in a well-insulated house, who wears organic clothing and who religiously recycles and composts and avoids unnecessary purchases is living sustainably. They are not. The parts of our lives that actually fall within our direct control are the tips of systemic icebergs, and often changing them does nothing to alter those systems: not individually, not in small groups, not even in larger lifestyle movements. If we’re going to avoid catastrophe, we need to change those larger systems, and change them for everyone, and change them quickly.”
Now, on one level, I would take issue with this, since he is describing my lifestyle, and I do profoundly believe that we can influence others with our lifestyle choices, whether they be about recycling, plastic bags, heating, local food, the car we drive or community energy, but at the macro- level, he is absolutely right. The politics of nudge - small incremental improvements year on year - are utterly insufficient for the challenges ahead. I would therefore absolutely agree with him that systemic change is the only game in town. Once you look at the earth as a single complex system, the challenge is to maintain the optimal conditions for life when terrestrial or external events menace it. Taking the systemic approach also enables us to look at how we can make the system more resilient by understanding the interaction and the effect of action in one part of the world on another.
In the Science Museum here in London is a ‘Science On a Sphere’ (SOS)® a room sized, global display system that uses computers and video projectors to display planetary data onto a six foot diameter sphere, analogous to a giant animated globe. It was developed as an educational tool to help illustrate Earth System science to people of all ages. Animated images of atmospheric storms, climate change, and ocean temperature can be shown on the sphere, to explain what are sometimes complex environmental processes in a captivating way. Sphere-casting can be used to map the progress of a tsunami or any other process. Of course, the data overlaid on it does not have to just be environmental as a recent demonstration of the transmission of H1N1 showed.
Global Action
Our role as stewards of the system is the premise is behind the global conferences that meet to discuss these issues: having their origins in the Earth Summit which took place in Rio in 1992.
• the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is now into its 17th meeting and the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change will meet in Durban this December; the process has had a roller coaster ride in the last few years with high hopes of global agreement on greenhouse gas emission reduction at Copenhagen dashed at COP15; and only slightly resuscitated in Cancun at COP16 last year
• the Convention on Biological Diversity dedicated to promoting sustainable development, had its10th meeting in Nagoya in 2010 which was described as ‘another ill tempered bout between the global haves and wanna-haves in which the fiercest blows are landing on the natural world
• Next year, 20 years after Rio, the Earth Summit is once again taking place there next June.
The good news is that countries across the world accept that action needs to take place worldwide on the climate change front and the biodiversity front and that such action needs to be framed in the context of sustainable development and accommodate developed and developing countries. And, to be fair, there is usually some inching forward on the issue under discussion.
The bad news is there is much more rhetoric about working together to tackle the problem than there is delivery. Thousands of politician hours across the world are spent in making commitments. Thousands of official support hours are spent writing ‘non-documents’ in the hope that somehow the right turn of phrase, the right couching of a project could lead to global agreement on actions – and turn a ‘non-document’ into a declaration.
The trouble with this kind of process is that in order for sufficient action to take place, UN members would need to come to these meetings thinking globally, and being prepared to act locally; they would need to offer themselves up to appropriate monitoring and evaluation of their efforts to create a whole that is larger than the sum of its parts; they would need to be altruistic, principled and confident of the evidence; they would need to see their country as part of the world system and not as a territory whose boundaries need protecting – and therein lies the rub. The world’s dependence on reliable sources of energy and water is so great that nations have gone to war over it.
Despite the human race’s absolute and total reliance on a successful ecosystem, in Nagoya, last year, shockingly, it transpired that not one country had met the biodiversity conservation targets they signed up to in 2000. The conference has led to a ‘we must try harder approach’ to meet new (non-binding) strategic targets going forward to 2020 and has therefore been celebrated as having had a positive outcome. But how do we measure the outcome? Were the increased greenhouse gas emissions of all the delegates and their teams’ air travel worth it? Where was the public outcry about the failure of government leaders to secure the longer term survival of humanity? Where indeed was the press coverage? The fact that as a human race our survival depends fundamentally on arresting the decline of species and habitats was notable by its absence. In Wales the Countryside Council did a quick vox pop just before Nagoya of people in a city centre park asking what biodiversity was. Answers ranged from ‘something to do with nature’ to ‘is it the name of a pop band?’ Clearly, we have some way to go to making these issues matter at the local level.
I did have high hopes of the major international initiative to draw attention to The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (the TEEB study) in 2010 which sought a new way of describing the threat in ways the developed world could relate to. The study has drawn attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions to move forward. One outcome for that study was to establish a global standard basis for natural capital accounting. Various estimates establish the cost of biodiversity and ecosystem damage potentially at 18% of global economic output by 2050 – or between 2-6 trillion US$ pa. In the UK alone, I’m told, pollination without bees (and far more inefficiently) will cost us in the region of £435m pa. Since politicians are always being told ‘It’s the Economy, stupid’ – the phrase that probably won Bill Clinton the US Presidency in 1992, having a solid evidence basis of the fiscal value of the environment is not before time.
One relative international success has been the Kyoto Protocol which differs from other commitments in that it is legally binding on the signatories. The Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. The 191 signatories take general action in support the 37 ‘Annex 1’ countries which have agreed to reduce their collective emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Each of the Annex 1 countries is required to submit an annual emissions report.
I believe that the Kyoto Protocol has been profoundly successful for its signatories, as
• It is the only binding international climate law we have
• It represents collective action: Kyoto has an "aggregate" goal – the total equals individual country targets.
• Developed countries which ratified Kyoto are on track to achieve the protocol's target of an average decrease in emissions of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
• It has triggered the enactment of national legislation in the majority of OECD countries, including the EU’s landmark 20-20-20 targets.
• It has helped drive the growth of the renewables industry in Europe and in big developing countries that are covered indirectly by Kyoto's carbon markets.
• It was altruistic. Kyoto's first commitment period put the onus of first action on the highest and richest historical emitters.
The stakes at the Earth Summit next year are high. For the last few years there has been a global tussle about the future of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires next year. This is an important debate. Some argue that without a second Kyoto commitment period, climate change action will fall apart. Others look to new arrangements. What is certainly true is that any backtracking of world effort when the physical evidence of climate change is amassing daily will allow global leaders to walk away. They will be not be thinking and acting globally, but thinking and acting locally.
Earth Summit agenda
Having attended Posnam, Copenhagen and Cancun, and both witnessed and participated in attempts to reconcile the unreconcilable, I am now convinced that voluntary agreements are insufficient to tackle the issues humanity now faces and that collective action of the scale and pace needed requires legal underpinning. The Earth Summit in Rio is almost upon us. Two key themes will be debated– the institutional framework for sustainable development and the green economy. The website tells us, “The scope of a theme such as the 'institutional framework for sustainable development' is potentially vast, as sustainable development is a wide and all-encompassing concept”. Critically; there is no agreed definition of sustainable development.
A number of actions are proposed including,
Monitoring and Enforcement of global agreements on environment and sustainable development
The role of international environmental arbitration – e.g. an International Environmental Court
One can immediately see that the intention is to create a more binding second Kyoto commitment period - we will have the first indication of whether this idea has legs when the EU makes a decision on its position later this month, but with the position of the Euro occupying the full attention of politicians across the Eurozone and with growth forecasts being revised downwards on a daily basis in this ‘Age of Austerity’, the enthusiasm is likely to be subdued. We also have to remember that it was the monitoring and enforcement issue (by whom – and with whose authority) which derailed the discussions at Copenhagen
The other key proposition is to establish an international environmental court. Interestingly, Polly Higgins campaign to establish “Ecocide” as the fifth crime against humanity has an increasing number of supporters. In her book “Eradicating Ecocide”, Polly highlights the need for enforceable, legally binding mechanisms in national and international law to hold to account perpetrators of long term severe damage to the environment. She says, “At this critical juncture in history it is vital that we set global standards of accountability for corporations, in order to put an end to the culture of impunity and double standards that pervade the international legal system.” As an ex barrister who fully understands the legal system, Polly is a powerful proponent of changing the territory: establishing the fifth crime against humanity inextricably links our futures with the health of the planet. In a remarkable demonstration of this principle, on 30th September, Michael Mansfield QC conducted a mock prosecution in the UK Supreme Court in the Royal Courts of Justice of the Athabasca Tar Sands . It took just 50 minutes for the jury to return with two unanimous guilty convictions of ecocide against the CEO’s of the oil companies operating in the Athabasca Tar Sands. They returned a not guilty verdict for the charge of ecocide of the oil spill. This was not a guaranteed outcome. The court was packed, as was the hall outside where it was being live streamed online b People around the world were watching online and following updates on twitter – 120,000 tweets were recorded by lunchtime . “Once upon a time people did grievous harm to the environment without fully understanding the consequences of their actions. That defence is no longer available, and that sure knowledge we now have entails equally sure moral obligations. In this context, the idea of establishing the crime of Ecocide is both timely and compelling.” commented Jonathan Porritt.
Has the time come for the world leaders to make a stand to allow those whose actions threaten our environment to be brought to account? Oil spills in the US, New Zealand and in the Niger delta have caught world imagination. Is it sufficient?
The other key agenda at the Earth Summit is the ‘Green Economy’.There is as yet no agreed definition of what constitutes a green economy, but according to the website "One strand approaches the question through the analysis of market failure and the internalization of externalities. Another takes a systemic view of the economic structure and its impact on relevant aspects of sustainable development. A third focuses on social goals (jobs, for example) and examines ancillary policies needed to reconcile social goals with the other objectives of economic policy. Finally, a fourth strand focuses on the macroeconomic framework and development strategy with the goal of identifying dynamic pathways towards sustainable development"
Somehow, I know that although the sentiments are right, the language is not going to lead to a storming of the barricades. But the measures proposed are definitely worthwhile:
(a) Getting prices right, including removing subsidies, valuing natural resources and imposing taxes on things that harm the environment (environmental "bads") in order to internalize externalities, support sustainable consumption and incentivize business choices. It builds upon some of the earliest writings in environmental economics
(b) Public procurement policies to promote greening of business and markets;
(c) Ecological tax reforms based mainly on the experience of European countries. The basic idea is that shifting the tax base away from "good" factors of production such as labour to "bad" factors such as pollution will allow for a double dividend: correcting environmental externalities while boosting employment
(d) Public investment in sustainable infrastructure (including public transport, renewable energy and retrofitting of existing infrastructure and buildings for improved energy efficiency) and natural capital, to restore, maintain and, where possible, enhance the stock of natural capital. This has particular salience within the current recessionary context, given the need for public expenditure on stimulus packages;
(e) Targeted public support for research and development on environmentally sound technologies, partly in order to compensate for private underinvestment in pre-commercial research and development, and partly to stimulate investments in critical areas (such as renewable energy) with potentially high dynamic scale economies, and partly to offset the bias of current research and development towards dirty and hazardous technologies;
(f) Strategic investment through public sector development outlays, incentive programmes and partnerships, in order to lay the foundation of a self-sustaining process of socially and environmentally sustainable economic growth;
(g) Social policies to reconcile social goals with existing or proposed economic policies.
Would anyone here disagree? But since the Green Economy has no legal or even agreed policy meaning, how do we get countries to take action? Here in the UK, a government which self declared that it intended to be the ‘greenest government ever’ is rapidly backtracking. Despite evidence from Sir Nicholas Stern and others that we should be investing now to save in the future, one of the reasons climate change has dropped down the agenda is the recession, as though somehow thinking about climate change is a luxury for the good times not our best defence in the bad. The planet pays no regard to politics and carries on regardless. The current mantra, that we can’t afford to take action which might put our economy at a disadvantage, may ride roughshod over existing protections such as in the planning system. Why is the argument that the green economy presents the best opportunity for sustainable job creation in a time of rising unemployment falling on deaf ears?
Each of the global conferences, attended by UN members, is attempting to find a way forward on these tricky issues on a world-wide basis. And their work is valuable. If we take a systemic approach, then continuing global dialogue around these issues is important – and increasingly important as each year passes. But, it is not the game changer it was thought to be at the first Earth Summit; because unless individual countries are prepared to negotiate on a UN wide basis from a position of thinking globally and being prepared to go back to their own country and act locally in the interests of wider humanity, the de minimus position might just be that the world averts wars through this dialogue, but does not achieve the global understanding necessary to preserve our ecosystem. I’m always reminded of what Nazmul Chowdhury, Head of Project at Practical Action in Bangladesh said in 2009, “Forget about making poverty history. Climate Change will make poverty permanent.”
So… What should we do?
We should emphatically not give up hope! Instead we need to re-frame the debate. If the world goes to Rio next year without a clear idea of what sustainable development means, let’s define it. In law. This debate needs to be framed in a way that garners support across the political spectrum; is clear legally and that reintroduces a values system to politics and decision making. And I believe that the way forward is for countries to re-frame their political debate in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability is our best defence.
Access to natural resources has always been a cause of conflict and a weapon of war. John Beddington, Government Chief Scientist, identifies the perfect storm of ‘food shortages, water scarcity, insecure energy and a growing population’. Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute says ‘the threats to our security now are climate change, population growth, falling water tables, soil erosion, collapsing fisheries etc. And we can’t say we don’t have the resources to save civilisation; we do. The question is how we use those resources.’ In many areas the challenge of providing food, energy and water for a growing population can’t be met without collaboration.
But could discussions about the environment provide a less charged political entry point for collaboration? Initiatives to preserve ecosystems across political borders can go some way to establishing peaceful relations between otherwise rival communities – in their enlightened self-interest. If so,how? It still requires clear commitment and laws at the country level to make changes.
So, if the journey between the Earth Summits from 1992 – 2012 has delivered some action but not enough; if the global opportunities facilitated by modern technology are not galvanising us into sufficient action and since our day to day existence is inexorably local, I believe we have to redefine the terms of this engagement. We are in the territory of Geddes and Schumacher; with many economies now flat or in decline; financial systems in crisis and the climate increasingly erratic, can we seize a ‘back to the future’ moment for the ideas promoted in the 1973 seminal text, ‘Small is Beautiful’ which questioned then the drive for relentless GDP expansion.
From global to local - the Wales experiment
I want to take us on a journey focused on the quality of life and community well-being based on the experience of one small country committed to this agenda – and that country is Wales. When the new, devolved National Assembly for Wales came into being in 1999, it had a new and unique duty to make a Scheme on how it proposed to promote sustainable development in the exercise of its functions. Progress on the Scheme must be reported annually to members and any incoming administration must review the effectiveness of the Scheme. This was seen as extremely innovative and exciting duty, representing a new kind of democracy. It was supported by members of all parties. Assembly Members often mentioned the existence of the duty positively.
But there was no definition of sustainable development. Broadly there was support for what is usually known as the ‘Brundtland’ definition after Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the DG of the WHO, who chaired 'Our Common Futures', the World Commission on the Environment and Development which came up with the following:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
- the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."
But how was this to become real?
Wales looked to learn from others and at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in 2002, Wales became a founding member of the nrg4SD, a global network of regional governments promoting sustainable development which has members across the world which also acts as a voice and representative of sub-national governments. It is the only international network on sustainable development matters with a worldwide presence and representing solely sub-national governments. And this is an important tier of operation in terms of getting things done. Jonathan Porritt, when Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, said, ‘Wales and Scotland may well be close to the ‘Goldilocks’ (‘just right’) scale for doing SD.’ A common refrain from policymakers in Edinburgh and Cardiff is that it is much easier than in Whitehall to bring all the relevant stakeholders round the table, and to grasp the linkages between production, consumption and well-being that are at the heart of a rigorous understanding of unsustainable and sustainable forms of development’.
I think that is true and it is certainly true to say that the experience of other nrg4SD members, the development of the innovative Wales for Africa programme as a contribution to millennium development goals, the commitment to fair trade which led to Wales becoming the first fair trade country in the world all helped successive Welsh Governments to develop a greater understanding of sustainable development in the Welsh context; moving from the development of high level indicators on the economy, social justice, environment, the ecological footprint and well-being – in recognition of the need for metrics against which real performance can be measured - to articulating the values and policy direction needed to underpin those values. And if we just take the ecological footprint as an example, clearly paradise is truly being lost on our watch when we know that by the 1980s, humanity’s demand on the planet exceeded the earth’s ecological limits, and now exceeds the earth’s regenerative capacity by about 30%. This demands action.
Underneath each of the high level indicators is a set of policy actions to contribute towards ‘sustainable resource use’, ‘sustaining the environment’, a ‘sustainable economy’, a ‘sustainable society’ and the ‘well-being of Wales’. Increasingly, it is the latter that is coming to the fore. Wales is already the UK’s poorest nation. It has a disproportionate number of people working in the public sector and therefore at greater risk as public finances dry up.
In 2005, the well regarded and sadly now defunct Sustainable Development Commission worked with governments across the UK to produce ‘One Future, Different Paths’ which proposed a shared UK understanding of sustainable development; with a common purpose outlining what we are trying to achieve and the guiding principles we all need to follow to achieve it. Underpinning principles were
• Achieving a Sustainable Economy: Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (Polluter Pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised.
• Promoting Good Governance; Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society – engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity.
• Using Sound Science Responsibly:
Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the Precautionary Principle) as well as public attitudes and values.
• Living Within Environmental Limits: Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations.
• Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society: Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, creating equal opportunity for all . Having expert advice from the SDC was critical in generating cross party support for this agenda in Wales and by 2009 with the publication of the Government’s current Scheme, “One Wales One Planet,” a more sustainable Wales was being described as a country which
• lives within its environmental limits, using only its fair share of the earth’s resources so that our ecological footprint is reduced to the global average availability of resources, and we are resilient to the impacts of climate change;
• has healthy, biologically diverse and productive ecosystems that are managed sustainably;
• has a resilient and sustainable economy that is able to develop whilst stabilising, then reducing, its use of natural resources and reducing its contribution to climate change;
• has communities which are safe, sustainable, and attractive places for people to live and work, where people have access to services, and enjoy good health;
• is a fair, just and bilingual nation, in which citizens of all ages and backgrounds are empowered to determine their own lives, shape their communities and achieve their full potential.
Taking the agenda forward in Wales
“One Wales One Planet” 2009 was seen as a seminal document in Wales. Produced by the government with inputs from the Wales Climate Commission and NGOs, it was the first Scheme since the introduction of the duty 10 years earlier, that articulated a collective commitment from all ministers to use sustainable development as the central organising principle of government. Previous Schemes had had individual actions. This Scheme made an explicit commitment to bring down Wales’ ecological footprint to its fair share within the lifetime of a generation. More importantly, as the Welsh Government wrestled with another all party commitment, how to deliver 3% annual greenhouse gas emission reductions to contribute to UK Climate Change targets by 2050, it found that framing that debate in the context of sustainability created greater political consensus.
To make sustainable development real, it must be outcome focused. In order to test whether the political commitment to have sustainability at the heart of government policy making was delivering different outcomes through the civil service, the Welsh Auditor General decided to investigate whether the concept was adequately embedded in the government’s own business practices. There was room for improvement.
Separately, WWF Cymru commissioned a piece of independent research looking at ministers’ policy commitments and whether they were actively delivering on the overarching agenda. Once again this was a mixed picture, although for the first time, key policy decisions were taken in Wales on waste, on climate change, on retrofitting housing, on planning, on education, on health that were directly linked to sustainable development and were inherently different from decisions being taken elsewhere in the UK.
Three key lessons came out of this experience. First, that the existence of the duty was supported across all parties and seen as beneficial, as were the regular reporting arrangements which kept the issues in front of members; second, that the regional government level which is very close to its population is probably the optimum for delivery of SD, and third, that the existing legislation from the Government of Wales Act, although innovative, was inadequate to deliver systemic change.
In light of this, in its manifesto for the 2011 election, the Government party, the Labour Party, outlined its vision for
" a sustainable Wales to become a ‘one planet’ nation by putting sustainable development at the heart of government; creating a resilient and sustainable economy that lives within its environmental limits and only using our fair share of the earth’s resources to sustain our lifestyles."
That commitment is now being taken forward. The First Minister of Wales announced in June that the Government of Wales would, “Legislate to embed sustainable development as the central organising principle in all our actions across government and all public bodies’ and to monitor that externally through a new independent sustainable development body for Wales (following the demise of the UK wide Sustainable Development Commission).
Interestingly, in 2010, Andrea Ross wrote an article, ‘It’s Time to get Serious – Why Legislation Is Needed to Make Sustainable Development a Reality in the UK’. She argues that ‘the UK is now at a stage where specific legislation is required to drive the implementation of sustainable development further forward. Legislation directed at the implementation of sustainable development could potentially address many of the current shortcomings by increasing the priority, support and protection afforded sustainable development across government(s) as a long term policy objective. Legislation could have a significant symbolic and educational impact in making people understand what is at stake. Moreover, it could crystallise the policy framework already in place and thus, turn what is now, at best, good practice into meaningful legal obligations, supported by monitoring and review mechanisms which impose significant consequences for failure. Finally, legislation could set out how tools such as environmental assessment, procurement practice, research funding and public consultation relate to sustainable development and their role in the overall framework for implementation.”
I absolutely agree with this analysis and it is interesting that her legal journey and our political journey reached a consensus around the same time.
• What will make sustainable development real? Defining it in law.
• What will make the indicators real? Defining them in law and setting up a process for managing conflicting priorities.
• What will make the central organising principle real?
1. By introducing a legal framework for a sustainable development strategy which requires specified public bodies to refer to it in the context of their sustainable development objectives.
2. Auditing its delivery through usual audit mechanisms and
3. Establishing the office of a Commissioner for Sustainable Futures as a strong and independent champion of the environment and future generations with significant powers and duties
The big question is what would a sustainable Wales look like? A cross party vision was agreed last year: ‘across society there is recognition of the need to live sustainably and reduce our carbon footprint. People understand how they can contribute to a low carbon, low waste society. These issues are firmly embedded in the curriculum and workplace training. People are taking action to reduce resource use, energy use and waste. They are more strongly focused on environmental, social and economic responsibility, and on local quality of life issues, and there is less emphasis on consumerism. Participation and transparency are key principles of Government at every level, and individuals have become stewards of natural resources.’
This is a vision about taking control of our future and our children’s future. The question is would you want to live there? And this is not a question about a physical Wales, much as I could advocate its undoubted charms including the opening of the Wales Coast Path next year, but a virtual Wales, a country which was at the forefront of the carbon revolution, determined to pay its debt by being at the forefront of a new more sustainable world - or anywhere else that takes these actions in recognition of humanity’s role as stewards of natural resources.
Mark Twain once said, ‘if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always had” and that is no longer good enough. I profoundly believe seeing life though a sustainability lens enables better decision making and provides the moral compass linking our activities with effects across the world. Wales may be a small country; it may be the poorest part of the UK but it has strong community values. It is the first Fair Trade nation in the world, it achieved greater greenhouse gas reductions last year according to the inventory published this month than any other part of the UK; its recycling performance exceeds any other part of the UK and its new waste legislation is creating green job opportunities; it has had the largest retrofitting housing programme using renewables in the UK; it has continued to focus on fuel poverty when budgets have been removed elsewhere; its health policy is focused on prevention; Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship is a mandatory element of the Welsh education system at all levels and its new early years education programme has sustainability principles throughout. We have to start from where we are and a small, smart, well connected country with a new devolved governance system may just be the place to test and develop systems which are fit for the future
I hope that the Wales example will be able to be taken to the Earth Summit and inspire others to embark on the same journey. I have not found another country with this organised commitment to institutionalise sustainability in legislation, and I hope that the Welsh experience, with its failures and successes will help others. Not quite paradise regained, but a recognition that this earthly paradise is worth saving.
The legislation will take time to make and is anticipated to reach the statute books by 2015. I hope that leading thinkers and practitioners of sustainable change and innovation will share their time, insights, experiences, hope and fears so that the pathway to country-scale transformation is a shared one. Tim O’Riordan in his masterly essay on ‘Sustainability in the Age of Austerity’ says ‘the manner in which sustainability is presented needs to change to fit the national mood of anxiety and frugality over the coming decade. It seems timely to portray a new form of social enterprise economy, where investment is social betterment and individual wellbeing takes on a higher purpose, and the overall value of nature’s bounties are included in national accounts. After all, we face a future, not experienced since the end of the last war, when our offspring may be financially worse off than their parents, with fewer jobs of a conventional kind to choose. If this is to be the case, then sustainability needs to embrace the confidence, sense of self worth and capacity to adapt to new forms of employment and living that all people need to experience before they can become true citizens.” We must rise to this challenge.
After all, as Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change”
Jane Davidson,
Director INSPIRE, Trinity Saint David University, October 2011