The name of this blog, Rainbow Juice, is intentional.
The rainbow signifies unity from diversity. It is holistic. The arch suggests the idea of looking at the over-arching concepts: the big picture. To create a rainbow requires air, fire (the sun) and water (raindrops) and us to see it from the earth.
Juice suggests an extract; hence rainbow juice is extracting the elements from the rainbow, translating them and making them accessible to us. Juice also refreshes us and here it symbolises our nutritional quest for understanding, compassion and enlightenment.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Development Does Not Mean Growth

There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about development, sustainability, sustainable development and growth.  Some of it may simply be a lack of clear definition and some of it may be deliberate obfuscation.

Much of the confusion stems from a poor description or understanding of the word development itself.  The root of the word is Old French: de-envelop.  That is, peeling back, getting to the core.  Quite the opposite of how the word is commonly thought of; to add to or increase.

Growth on the other hand, very clearly implies adding on, extending, becoming bigger, more more and yet even more.

Clearly, the world is finite and continual growth is not possible.  Development, however, is and should be, possible.  We desperately need to discover the core of what it means to be human on a finite planet that we share with 7 billion other humans. 

To be human and to live good, healthy, fulfilling lives there are some fundamental (core) needs that must be satisfied: fresh, clean water and sanitation, food, security, adequate housing, income, health, education, energy supply etc.  For some of us these are satisfied, but for many millions and billions of humanity there is clearly need for development.

For example, over 900 million people do not have adequate food supplies, yet 1/3rd or more of all food produced never reaches an human stomach.  One in five of us live on less than $1.25 per day and 51.2 million people are forcibly displaced because of persecution, conflict, other forms of violence or human rights violations.  It is estimated that nearly one in three people do not have regular access to essential health care.

So, for much of the world there is an urgent need for development.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the rich nations are hell-bent on growth – specifically, economic growth.  Consider these quotes from Western leaders (from the US, Germany and Australia):
“The most important thing that the United States can do for the world economy is to grow, because we continue to be the world’s largest market and a huge engine for all other countries to grow.” – Barack Obama 
“We need a growth-oriented, sound fiscal policy, we need investments by the state…” – Angela Merkel 
“As always, stronger economic growth is the key to addressing almost every global problem.” – Tony Abbot
That growth is not sustainable.

The term sustainable development has entered the jargon over the past decade or two.1  What does the term mean?  One model that attempts to illuminate it has been conceived by Kate Raworth, writing for Oxfam.2 

The Doughnut

Fig 1 (Oxfam)
Raworth likens her model (Fig 1) to a doughnut, with social foundational needs forming the inside circle of the doughnut and an environmental ceiling forming the outside circle.  Between the two (the core of the doughnut) is the “safe and just space for humanity.”  Getting to that space and maintaining ourselves within it is the goal of sustainable development. 
“Moving into this space demands 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.”
Raworth has identified eleven dimensions to the social foundation and nine dimensions to the environmental ceiling.  Furthermore, Raworth has quantified how well we are doing against each of these dimensions (except the three social dimensions of jobs, voice and resilience, and the two environmental dimensions of atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution). 

How are we doing?  Not very well.  How equitable and efficient are we?  Not good. (Figs 2 & 3)

Fig 2 (Oxfam)

We have exceeded the ceiling for biodiversity loss, climate change and the nitrogen cycle and are dangerously close to the ceiling for the phosphorous cycle and ocean acidification.

Fig 3 (Oxfam)
In terms of the social foundation, we have not yet met any of the “developmental” needs for any of them,  We are getting close on education, food, water use and electricity.  We still have challenges in the areas of social equity, health, sanitation, and the employment gap between men and women.  We have an enormous challenge in terms of representation by women in national parliaments – the gap stands at 77%.

Is the doughnut useful?  Yes, it is.  If only because it provides us with a conceptual framework within which to understand sustainable development and guide policy making that provides the social foundations, yet does not crack the environmental ceiling.

Clearly, we have some work to do.

1.  Indeed, as far back as 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”
2. Kate Raworth, “A Safe and Just Space for Humanity,” Oxfam Discussion Paper, February 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.