Despite many successes in creating a more integrated and stable global economy, a new report by the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability — Resilient people, resilient planet: a future worth choosing — recognizes the current global order’s failure, even inability, to implement the drastic changes needed for true “sustainability.”
The panel’s report presents a vision for a “sustainable planet, just society and growing economy,” as well as 56 policy recommendations for realizing that goal. It is arguably the most prominent international call for a radical redesign of the global economy ever issued.
However, for all of its rich content, Resilient people, resilient planet is short on concrete, practical solutions. Its most valuable short-term recommendation — the replacement of current development indicators (GDP or variants thereof) with more comprehensive, inclusive metrics for wealth — seems tacked on almost as an afterthought. Without quick, decisive international action to prioritize sustainability over the “status quo,” the report risks suffering the fate of its 1987 predecessor, the pioneering Brundtland Report, which introduced the concept of sustainability, similarly called for a paradigm shift, and was then ignored.
Resilient people, resilient planet opens by paraphrasing Charles Dickens: The world today is “experiencing the best of times, and the worst of times.” As a whole, humanity has achieved unparalleled prosperity; great strides are being made to reduce global poverty; and technological advances are revolutionizing our lives, stamping out diseases, and transforming communication.
On the other hand, inequality remains stubbornly high, and is increasing in many countries. Short-term political and economic strategies are driving consumerism and debt, which, together with growth in the global population — set to reach nearly 9 billion by 2040 — is subjecting the natural environment to growing stress. By 2030, notes the Panel, “the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy, and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental limits are threatening supply.” Despite significant advances in the past 25 years, humanity has failed to conserve resources, safeguard natural ecosystems, or otherwise ensure its own long-term viability.
Can a bureaucratic report — however powerful — create change? Will the world now rally, unlike in 1987, to the panel’s call to “transform the global economy?” Perhaps real action is born of crisis itself. As the panel points out, it has never been clearer that we need a paradigm shift to achieve truly sustainable global development.
However, who will coordinate an international process to study how to encourage such a shift, and who will ensure that -scientific findings lead to meaningful public policy processes?
First, there must be a significant international and interdisciplinary research effort to tackle these issues comprehensively; the panel’s recommendation to establish an international science panel is therefore a step in the right direction, but creating such a body will take time, and the challenge is to get the best science to policymakers quickly.
The 2010 Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress, commissioned by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, echoed the current consensus among social scientists that we are mismeasuring our lives by using per capita GDP as a yardstick for progress. We need new indicators that tell us if we are destroying the productive base that supports our well-being.
The UN University’s International Human Dimensions Program (UNU-IHDP) is already working to find these indicators for its Inclusive wealth report (IWR), which proposes an approach to sustainability based on natural, manufactured, human and social capital. The UNU-IHDP developed the IWR with support from the UN Environment Program, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the different components of wealth by country, their links to economic development and human well-being, and policies that are based on social management of these assets.
The first IWR, which focuses on 20 countries worldwide, will be officially launched at the upcoming Rio+20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro. Preliminary findings will be presented during the Planet under Pressure Conference in London in late March.
The IWR represents a crucial first step in transforming the global economic paradigm, by ensuring that we have the correct information with which to assess our economic development and well-being — and to reassess our needs and goals. While it is not intended as a universal indicator for sustainability, it does offer a framework for dialogue with multiple constituencies from the environmental, social, and economic fields.
The situation is critical. As Resilient people, resilient planet aptly puts it, “tinkering around the margins” will no longer suffice — a warning to those counting on renewable-energy technologies and a green economy to solve our problems. The panel has revived the call for a far-reaching change in the global economic system. Our challenge this time is to follow words with action.
Partha Dasgupta is a professor of economics at the University of Cambridge and chair of the Scientific Committee of the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change. Anantha Duraiappah is executive director of the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change and a visiting professor at Beijing Normal University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry