Sustained and sustainable

"There is much talk about sustainable development these days. Everywhere there is a broadening consensus that one of the important goals of every country is to create the sort of economy that continually expands to satisfy the needs of all its citizens."

Words taken from the beginning of an opinion column by Franklin W. Knight, published on February 16. Indeed, there is a lot of talk about sustainable development these days, but many who do the talking - including Mr Knight - clearly don't understand the meaning of the words they are using.

What Brother Knight is talking about here is the need for 'sustained development'. And he is right, of course, for with the poor of the world clamouring for better economic conditions, and with the population of the world constantly growing, there is the need for an ever-increasing pool of resources to spread around. If social and economic conditions in countries like Jamaica are to improve, the economy must grow faster than the population, and we must sustain this economic growth over many decades.

But that is not what 'sustainable development' means. The most often-quoted definition of sustainable development is the one put forward by the Brundtland Commission (the World Commission on Environment and Development) convened by the United Nations in 1983: 'sustainable development' is economic growth that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Having it both ways

In other words, you can have 'sustained' development that is not 'sustainable' development. You can have sustained economic growth over decades that meets the needs of present generations, but which prevents future generations from having the same sustained economic growth. In fact, you can even have decades of half-dead, miasmic, emaciated economic growth that prevents future generations from having any growth at all, which is closer to our own situation in Jamaica.

Let me explain. A country rich in millions of acres of forests can base its economic development on the harvesting of timber; and the economy may experience sustained growth in double digits over many decades as the lumber is produced; but unless replanting takes place, one day, the last tree will be cut down, and the economic growth from that source will cease. Without reforestation, which provides trees for future generations to harvest, those decades of sustained growth are unsustainable. Having sustained development over many decades is important, but having development that is infinitely sustainable is even more important.

One of the mainstays of Jamaica's economy is bauxite mining. Our economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s was based on this industry, but a little thought will reveal that this is not sustainable, since bauxite, once mined, is gone forever! Future generations of Jamaicans will not have the same opportunity of benefiting from bauxite mining as present generations, because mining has no equivalent to reforestation. Therefore, despite what the Ministry of Mining may say, there is no such thing as sustainable mining, and any country that builds its future on mining has an unsustainable future.

Shun depletable industries

Tourism is a more sustainable industry, for millions of visitors can experience Dunn's River Falls, the Black River Safari, and the beaches of Negril, Montego Bay and Ocho Rios for centuries to come, as long as we keep these attractions in good order. But there is a limit to our ability to grow our tourism industry without destroying the very natural resources on which our tourism is based. Too many tourists packed in at Dunn's River Falls will destroy it, will exceed what we call its 'carrying capacity'. Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the need to expand the economy.

You can have sustained growth in tourism for only so long, until you reach the carrying capacity of Jamaica to comfortably entertain tourists. And remember, we can't expand our tourism to the point where Jamaicans lose access to our own resources - like beaches - because we are reserving them for tourists. That would be socially unsustainable.

And so Brother Knight (as well as the Government and the private sector) needs to realise that essential to the concept of sustainable development is the underlying health of the natural environment, for unless we can properly dispose of our garbage and sewage, unless we can find a way to retain our populations of fish and birds and other wildlife, Jamaica will not be as attractive a place to visit, or for us to live in.

What frightens me is that our politicians may have signed international treaties committing us to 'sustainable develop-ment' while thinking they are signing on to 'sustained development'!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a natural-resource manager.