Key terms that underpin this research are now discussed, commencing with an examination of the term ‘sustainable development’.
2.3.1 Sustainable Development
The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is not new. It is reported that this concept was applied to agriculture in the eighteenth century, forestry in the nineteenth century and to fisheries in the 1950’s (Lamberton 1998; Kula 1994). However, the true birthing of this concept was left until the 1970’s, which brought with it a new global consciousness about problems related to the environment and development (Wheeler 1998). Wheeler considered that the catalysts for change in ‘global consciousness’ included such events as the rise of ecological problems and the ‘1973 oil embargo during which millions of
13 people suddenly realized that their fossil fuel use could not continue to expand forever’ (p. 488).
One of the most widely adopted definitions for sustainable development utilized today appeared in ‘Our Common Future’, known as ‘The Brundtland Report’ in 1987 (The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)). This definition (referred to as the Brundtland definition after the Chair of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland) was relatively general in nature offering a global perspective on sustainable development.
‘Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (p.8).
Within the report it was argued that a more holistic view of sustainable development was required if the sustainability2 agenda were to be achieved. The report argued that this view should encompass three fundamental components: environmental protection, economic growth and social equity, and that these components needed to be integrated (WCED 1987 p.49). Further, the report argued that the model of development based on economic growth was unsustainable in the long term.
As discussed by Sneddon et al. (2006), the Brundtland definition has been a critical marker – it initiated an explosion of work on sustainable development and sustainability through which we chart the course of sustainability thinking and practice today. Whilst this definition is widely used, it has been estimated that there are over 300 varying definitions of sustainable development that have been coined (Johnston et al. 2007) with tremendous diversity in the definitions and interpretations (Hopwood et al. 2005; Giddings et al. 2002). What is clear is that the meaning of sustainable development still remains open to discussion with agreement not yet reached on exactly what the term
means (Harding 2006; Bebbington2001; Jacobs 1999) with researchers even considering
the term as ‘confusing’ (Aras and Crowther 2009; Bebbington 2001; Redclift 1993a,
2 The terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ are often used interchangeably but they mean different things.
Sustainability refers to the ultimate goal or destination whilst sustainable development is the pathway or framework followed to achieve it (Harding 2006).
14 1994), ‘vague’ (Robinson 2004; Mozaffar 2001; Mebatru 1998; Redclift 1993b) ‘unknowable’ (Milne et al. 2008) and an ‘oxymoron’ (Redclift 2005).
Whilst the Brundtland definition has its strengths, which include the bringing to the global forefront the important linkage between the environment and development and the stimulation of a vast amount of work on sustainable development (Jacob 1994), various concerns and criticisms have been made of this definition.
Such criticisms include Schmuck and Schultz (2002) who argued that a limitation of the definition includes the focus of the term ‘needs’– that is, ‘needs of the present’ and ‘future generations to meet their own needs’. The term ‘needs’, in the context of the Brundtland definition refers specifically to humans and human needs (WCED 1987 p. 46) with the exclusion of environmental needs (Redclift 2005). This was further considered by McCloskey (1999) when he stated ‘there is also the question of meeting the needs of other living things and affording them living space’ (p.155). Whilst it could be concluded that in meeting the needs of humans, environmental needs may also be met to some extent, the focus of the Brundtland definition clearly emphasizes one main type of need, human, rather than focusing cross-sectionally across all needs, whether human or not. With the focus of the definition towards human needs, development arguably is geared towards meeting these needs. As acknowledged by McCloskey (1999), the term is committed to harnessing the environment to meeting human needs and growth. The definition further does not provide any specifics as to what actually is a ‘need’ but rather is broad and open (Mannberg and Wihlborg 2008; Redclift 1993a and b). The definition does not state what ‘needs’ are to be included and what ‘needs’ are to be excluded. As considered by Schmuch and Schultz (2002) the basic biological needs of water, food and reproduction would have to be included but what about non-essential or luxury ‘needs’ and what about ‘needs’ that are specific to certain cultures and societies? Beckerman (1994) in discussing this point, stated:
‘..people at different points in time, or in different income levels, or with different cultural or national backgrounds, will differ with respect to what ‘needs’ they regard as important’ (p. 194).
15 This was further highlighted by Doyal and Gough (1991) who point out that ‘needs’ mean different things to different people A further criticism of the definition encompasses the changing of needs over time. Each society defines needs in its own way and, over time, these needs change. Therefore, as needs change over time, it is unlikely that the needs of future generations will be the same as those of the present generation (Redclift 2005, 1993a and b).
With the usage of such a definition, how can the needs of future generations not be compromised when the present generation is concerned with meeting their own needs? From the outset, however, the Brundtland definition purposely was not made specific. It was made general in order to offer a global perspective on sustainable development and to allow it to mean different things to different people, cultures and societies. If specific needs had been quantified in the definition from the outset, the needs of today’s generation would probably be quite different from when the definition was formulated in 1987. This was considered by Redclift (2005) who highlighted that needs change over time. The definition was formulated to ensure that it encompassed the needs of this generation and future generations, whatever those needs may be.
With the use of such a generalized definition of sustainable development, Holden and Linnerud (2007) considered that it has brought with it a level of vagueness which has caused some to dismiss the concept altogether whilst Springett (2003) argued that the term can be made to mean what one would like it to mean. Concerns about the definition have resulted in many attempts to redefine the term. Jabareen (2008, 2004), Connelly (2007), Hopwood et al. (2005), Robinson (2004), Pezzoli (1997a and b) and Gladwin et al. (1995) provide overviews of these attempts in their respective studies. Other researchers have highlighted the implications of concerns raised. Berke and Conroy (2000) noted that there is no general agreement on how the concept should be translated into practice. McCloskey (1999) stated that it is not an operational concept whilst Buhr (2007 p. 57) considered sustainable development to be ‘a tricky piece of work’ to put into practice. Bell and Morse (2001) provide perhaps the more colourful analogy, in describing the term:
16 ‘Sustainable development has become something of a holy grail in modern times, similar to the Yeti or Loch Ness Monster, there have been many claims of sightings but verification has been hard to come by’ (p. 292).
However, as Byrch et al. (2007) argue, a definition of sustainable development describes how things should be based on the fundamental beliefs of the individual defining the term and it can be nothing more because as Dryzek (1997) points out ‘sustainable development is not proven or demonstrated, but rather asserted’(p.123). Other researchers have considered that providing such a loose concept could easily allow businesses and governments to be in favour of sustainability without any fundamental change to their present course by pursuing Brundtland’s support of economic growth as sustainable growth (Hopwood et al. 2005 p. 40; Springett 2003 p. 82; Jacobs 1999). However, as was considered by Robinson (2004), there can be some advantages in leaving the term open to what is actually meant because attempting to provide a precise definition has had the effect of excluding those whose views do not fit that definition. Ball (2004a) further considered that it may not be possible to agree on a common definition because ideas differ between different communities and societies. Robinson (2004) argued that leaving the definition open and imprecise would allow for the emergence of a more precise definition from practical attempts at implementing sustainable development, rather than having definitional rigour imposed from the outset. Perhaps this may be the more appropriate approach for the development of this term –sustainable development may need to be put into action in organizations which will allow for the gradual evolvement over time of a more precise and definite term.
2.3.2 Sustainable Development at the Local Government Level
While there has been significant discussion at international, national and state level as to how sustainable development can best be achieved and the implications of any approach adopted, it is increasingly recognized that the sustainable development agenda needs to be driven at the local community level if it is to be effective(Ball 2002). As such, with their proximity to the local community, local government authorities have been recognized as primary agents in contributing towards sustainable development (Ball
17 2004a). Although the Brundtland definition has dominated the world view of sustainable development due to its global perspective, this is not an appropriate definition to utilize at the local community level. Roosa (2008) argued that whilst sustainability might be a global ideal, to think globally is irrational; rather the way to affect change is to think and act locally. By focusing on sustainability at the local community level, local government authorities can directly change the economic, social and environmental outcomes of their individual communities. Thus, if local authorities each took up the sustainable development agenda; in doing so, this can collectively impact on sustainability at a broad global level.
At the local level what is needed is a definition to operationalise the broad, general view of sustainable development identified by the Brundtland Report. Whilst it has been previously argued that the term perhaps should be left open to allow for its gradual evolvement, Page and Proops (2003) argued that such defining is important as it provides a foundation for policy articulation and formulation.
‘Theories, ideas and concepts matter, and they matter a great deal. They are not only the foundations on which we build our perceptions and ‘constructions’ of the world, they also are the basis for policy articulation and formulation. Poor concepts and poor theories lead to poor understanding and poor policies…’ (p. 3).
Further, Byrch et al. (2007) concluded that there is a risk of not ever being able to achieve sustainable development if we cannot agree on what it is whilst Hilden and Rosenstrom (2008) considered the fuzzy concept has to be refined before it can be used. In following this pathway as highlighted by Gray (2010) there is the risk that the term ‘sustainability’ may enter common discourse and become largely trivialized. While Schaltegger and Burritt (2009, 2006) have argued that the term has become a buzzword largely to ‘greenwash’ activities by corporations.
To undertake theoretical development of sustainable development at the local government level an initial commencement point needs to be firmly established. The
18 next section commences this process by defining sustainable development from the local government perspective.
2.3.3 A New Definition of Sustainable Development
The services and functions that are provided by local government authorities are at the community level. They deal directly with local householders, businesses and industry within their communities. As such, sustainable development at the local authority level should be established by reference to the community and the activities undertaken within a community encompassing the three fundamental components of sustainability development: environmental protection, social equity and economic growth.
Such an approach to sustainable development needs, as a bare minimum, to maintain the current levels of environmental protection, social protection and economic growth within the community and, where possible, to improve. Such an approach is similar to that of Pearce and Warford (1993) who interpreted sustainable development as the requirement to maintain, possibly to improve but not to let decline. However, Pearce and Warfords’ approach was focused towards economic sustainable development in terms of human welfare. To achieve sustainable development, the focus of sustainable development needs to extend beyond just economic sustainable development to consider the environmental and social spheres of which are considered critical to the progression of sustainable development. In doing so, this would provide for the progression of environmental protection, social protection and economic growth for both today’s generation and future generations. Thus, sustainable development at the local government level is defined as follows3:
‘Sustainable development is development at the local community level which seeks to maintain, integrate and where possible, improve environmental protection, social equity and economic growth within the community’.
19 Agenda 21 has been argued to be a key catalyst in commencing the sustainable development agenda in local authorities (Tanguay et al. 2010; Keen et al. 2006; Ball 2004a; Neil et al. 2002; Cotter and Hannan 1999). Agenda 21 will now be reviewed.
2.3.4 Agenda 21
In 1992, as a direct result of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), an action plan for sustainable development was released called ‘Agenda 21’. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive blueprint that sets out actions that can be taken at the global, national and local levels to contribute to global sustainable development.
Agenda 21 called upon local governments around the world to take a course of action to implement that blueprint. As stated in Agenda 21:
‘Because so many problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and sub-national environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development’ (Chapter 28 paragraph 28.1).
Local government is of central importance today in the pursuit of global sustainability (Ball 2004a; Christie 2000; Brown 1997). Of the actions identified in Agenda 21 that would need to change to move towards sustainability, many require active involvement by local authorities. Mercer and Jotkowicz (2000) considered it to be two-thirds of all actions whilst Christie (2000) considered it to be approximately half the actions identified in Agenda 21 that require local government involvement.
Local Agenda 21 (LA21) was developed to focus on implementing sustainable development at the local government level with the establishment of a national LA21
20 program in 1997. It was anticipated that key outcomes from a national program would include an integrated decision-making model taking into account all foreseeable economic, social and environmental considerations, the establishment of long-term, integrated action plans and continual improvement changes towards sustainable development (Cotter & Hannan 1999).
Whilst Australia’s formal LA21 program was established in 1997, many local authorities had commenced and/or implemented programs prior to that date. The progress of Australian local authorities towards a LA21 process was examined by Whittaker (1997), as a result of a mail survey sent to 770 authorities by the Australian National Local Government Environment Association (Environs Australia). A total of 192 replies was received from local government authorities, representing a 25% response rate.
It was found that 121 respondents were working on some form of sustainability program though only thirty-four of these respondents were working on LA21 sustainability processes4. Whittaker (1997) noted that this area of research is fraught with difficulties because there is considerable ambiguity surrounding the form and content of LA21, thus many authorities had difficulty deciding whether they were developing LA21 sustainability processes or not. As a result, care in interpretation of the results is important.
It was further found by Whittaker (1997) that whilst local governments displayed a strong commitment to the environment, they were less inclined to the development of an overarching sustainability initiative to incorporate social and economic programmes. This was seen to be one of the shortcomings of the LA21 process - its emphasis was aimed towards environmental protection (Upton 2002) rather than on three separate but integrated components. Even with this shortcoming, LA21 has been and still is essential to the sustainable development process in Australia – by emphasizing the finite nature of the world’s environmental resources and sustainable development issues, it has been a major player in the commencement of the sustainability agenda in local government.
21 With local government being at the grass roots level, it is in a key position today to lead by example towards the attainment of sustainable development, encompassing the three
pillars, environmental protection, economic growth and social equity. Such a
contribution can begin with accounting and reporting for sustainability (Keen et al. 2006; Neil et al. 2002).