RIO PLUS 20
“A Green Economy In The Context Of Sustainable Development and Poverty Alleviation”
Alfredo Sfeir-Younis
(Cho Tab Khen Zambuling)
President, ZIHT
I. The Proposal: At A Glance
The UN decided to focus on two extremely complex problems for which we have little to show at present time: greening the economy and alleviating poverty.
It is well known that there is (a) plenty of literature and public debates on each of these themes, separately, and (b) little written of great value, which addresses both themes together. The latter will be the major challenge for the Rio Plus 20 Conference: how to address both themes under a common and coherent umbrella.
For the Rio Plus 20 Conference just to conclude that greening the economy will also be good for poverty alleviation will be rather naive and non operational. This type of statement has been repeated on many other fronts with no great results (e.g., what is good for the economy must be good for the environment). There is a need to go far beyond declarations and demonstrate how is this mutual benefit to be accrued. Despite this type of advocacy being repeated countless times, we are living on an environmentally fragile Planet, where the economics practiced today is far from being green and where poverty traps billions of people.
Let me say early in this note that this theme is not new. These issues were discussed extensively during the first world Conference on Development and Environment in 1972. As a student of this theme, I had to review all the dialogues that took place during that event, respond to many demands and write several papers. Furthermore, these issues were a core seed of the debate on Integrated Rural Development and Basic Needs (including food security). One example is that of rural forestry, environmental forestry, etc.; concepts that were developed in the late sixties!! I remember going around the world debating them and trying to make some sense out of by specific operational translation to socio-economic development.
Also, my PhD Dissertation contained an investment decision making model that would enable decision makers to assess the trade offs between growth, poverty alleviation and environmental quality. It was published as a book, “Decision Making in Developing Countries”, with Daniel W. Bromley, by Preager Publishing Company. Thus, several decades later we open this topic once again. What will Rio Plus 20 offer as truly new?
If one studies in detail the debate that took place in Sweden, in 1972, at the above mentioned Conference, you will note the similarities if not the repetition, several decades later, expressed in the background papers that have been prepared for Rio Plus 20; all is basically the same. The position and concerns expressed by Developing Countries rings extremely familiar today when we discuss what is believed to be a new concept: “greening the economy”.
For those of us who have been in this line of profession for decades, it all sounds like we are trying, once again, to create some traction around some “new” term, notwithstanding the fact that the fundamentals remain absolutely the same. And, it is not surprising that many well known economists make tremendous efforts to make this a different “monkey”. But there is too much still present and creating lots of discomfort in civil society and the public at large.
This note starts from the premise that the economy is far from being green, and that the attempts to eradicate poverty within a paradigm for sustainable development have been few and far between. Certainly their successes have been very much bounded by locality with little or no impact at the global level.
While some people will look into that part of the glass that is full, I have decided to look at that part of the glass that is empty. There is a good reason for it. How would I explain to the family that is living with less than one dollar a day, that has to drink sewage water, whose children die of preventable diseases, and who go to bed hungry at night, that somewhere else in the world there are many people who live where the glasses are all half full? I cannot do with a clear conscience, particularly because my glass is almost full. I am a person with many privileges and this forces me to engage with social responsibility. Let others to make claims for those who have their glasses full.
So, I have decided to write in service to those poor families, who hope for new opportunities, enhancing their power within their societies and improving their human and environmental security in the near future.
Furthermore, let us also be transparent on the issue of greening the economy: the present economic paradigm –market based valuation, discount rates, free trade, exclusion, no solidarity, etc– is not conducive to greening anything. Let us not try to tinker and propose marginal changes on the edges of this paradigm once more, as it will never yield the right results. Neither on the side of the environment nor on the side of poverty alleviation. This fact is true despite all of the very elegant and academic papers that have been written on the issues. This free market oriented approach has not delivered for many decades, and therefore, in my view, it will not yield what we expect now or in the future.
To green the economy, we must green economics, green economists and green humanity.
This statement is not meant to be a joke. It is a very serious proposition for which there are already some very promising, comprehensive and detailed methods on how to do so. The implications for educational programs, how do we formulate policies, etc., are immensely rich and effective.
Focusing on the human dimensions is the key, as it is human consciousness, awareness, concentration and coherence that will determine our ability to shift and change to another style of life on this Planet. It will not be free market economics that will do it!
The starting point of this new paradigm is that WE ARE THE ECONOMY. That the economy –the managers of the household– is ultimately you and me. The economy is about people. Not only production but producers. Not only consumption but consumers. Not only trade, but traders. The economy is not something over there and we over here. This is what economists have led us to believe. They have atomized economics to hide the fact that it is about us. The results of this atomization? Is simply put — devastating: we are at the service of economics rather than economics being at our service.
Greening the economy in the outer world demands that we first green our inner selves. This is based on an important spiritual law: “The outer is like the inner and the inner is like the outer”.
In addition, economics has atomized the ways we think about nature. Most often than not, it considers it as a factor of production. Not as a live entity. Not as a completely interwoven set of lives and a collection of interdependent interactions between humans and nature. Thus, for economics, nature is “over there” to be exploited based on productivity, comparative advantage and competitiveness. This is what has created the massive devastation of the environment. This is an issue that was developed in detail on this website and, thus, it will not be further developed here. (www.silentpeacemeditation.com)
You must realize that nature can green itself without any assistance from us. But it is us – humanity who moves counter to nature.
How to green the economy is also a major question that we shall not leave at the mercy of economics. It is essential to address the “how”, so that we do not violate the fundamentals of natural law. Experience with single species forest plantations in Africa demonstrates how not to green the economy. I experienced this with my own eyes on the Ivory Coast, where some plantations yielded nothing after 40 years waiting to benefit from millions of dollars in foreign debt.
I have stated these concerns many times during the last 40 years. I have stated them to many of the chosen experts for this conference who, then, did not give much importance to greening the economy. Some in particular were strong opponents to anything that was proposed in this field. Apparently, they have been converted!
Economics is about human behavior under conditions of material scarcity. Repeat: it is about human behavior. This is the key to everything. We must not focus, for example, only on pollution, but on who pollutes and why we pollute in the first place. The last question –why do we pollute–is the key to the Rio Plus 20 Conference. This conference should not be simply about paradigms and more paradigms, or the reforming of the UN and its organizations, particularly when there is no recognized links between those paradigms and the level of human consciousness that is needed (as a necessary condition) to honor and comply with them.
If our consciousness, individual and collective consciousness, does not have the real experience of interdependence with nature, and with Natural Law, then, there is no significant possibility to green the economy.
It is not corporations who have to become green. It is the corporate owners, managers, and workers who have to become green, and then green their corporations. Most particularly the owners, those who buy stocks, etc.– and managers of those corporations.
In addition to the above, it is also essential to change the criteria for decision-making, if we are to green the economy.
Those of us involved in the issue for many years, are aware of the single bottom line (just let economics do its thing), the double bottom line (adding, environmental or social), and the triple bottom line (economic, social, and environmental). We soon found out that such approaches were flawed, and it never gave great results. Naturally, it was great as a theoretical framework that enlivened many conversations. Perhaps its greatest value was to create public awareness about the environmental and social dimensions of development and the responsibility of the different actors involved.
More importantly, it is essential to note that the name of the game is not to add more bottom lines!
Adding more bottom lines will do nothing to improve the situation. As before, it may create some awareness, however, there is a fundamental flaw in this approach; the relationships are not transitive, except when they are taken as a bundle of two (like the economic with the social). But, even in those cases where they are bundled in separate groups of two criteria, two bottom lines, there are major difficulties in reaching any conclusion due to difficulties in the forms of measurement and comparisons. Those of us who created this framework and had to work within it, came to the realization of the many limitations it possesses. Therefore, in addition to the issues of measurement and separability, with more that two bottom lines, it is quasi impossible to arrive at any generalizable policy conclusions.
To palliate the problems we faced with the triple bottom line at that time (seventies and early eighties), most development organizations opted, in practice, for a single bottom line as safety first strategy, and accompany it by rules and norms embodied on the so-called Environmental Impac Statement (EIS) and Social Impact Statement (SIS).
However, we also know now from development experience that the EIS and SIS seldom really corrected decisions that were based purely on an economic criterion. These Statements were often done too late in the project cycle to really stop many projects of doubtful external effects. The NGO community is extremely well aware of this reality, and there are some incredibly useful reports on the matter. One of them is that which was written some years ago against the World Bank, within the context of the Extractive Industries Sector. I, myself, was involved on those exchanges from the side of the World Bank. But, there are many more to illustrate this reality.
Let us add to this hopper another attempt to green the economy. During the last 100 years of development, economists have tried to move from financial rates of return, to economic rates of returns, and to, the short lived, social rates of return, to make their choices; in articular, public sector choices. They thought that such moves will lead to different choices and would shift the quality of development and environment. Maybe they did on paper, but not in actual reality.
Herewith another experience to reverse processes created by traditional economics in development practice. Actually, in the eighties, the UN, through UNDP, financed a major exercise dealing with “The National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs)”. Millions of dollars were allocated to developing countries so that they would somehow create the conditions to assess the major trade-offs between economic growth and environmental quality. While those NEAPs created lots of national awareness about the importance of sustainability and the greening of the economy, it did little in the end to change the situation. I was privileged to see and be close to many of the NEAPs. Every time there was an economic or financial crisis, those ideas were shelves somewhere in those countries.
I carried out an internal World Bank study on comparing the ideas and conclusions of the NEAPs with the National Economic Plans (NEPs) of the countries. The experience was extremely telling. The NEAPs advocated to dramatically increase the country investments and resources on environmental programs; this is to say, the countries were seen as under-investing on their natural capital. Contrary to this conclusion, the NEPs of the same countries were saying exactly the opposite: the countries were over-investing in natural capital.
Who actually wins the battles under those sets of circumstances? The ministry, or the minister, with higher level of political power and the one who is more influenced and controlled by the interventions of International Development Organizations (like the IMF). In simple words, the battles have always been won by the ministries of economy and finance. Thus, there is no greening of the economy. Economists were not green then and in my view many (not all) are not green now. The result is self evident, and there is no point in telling you the full story here. It is extremely clear why the UN picked up this theme among more than 100 themes available to be addressed in the Rio Plus 20 Conference.
Furthermore, greening the economy goes far beyond economics and the self defined economic sector. It must be an effort everywhere, in all the sectors of the economy with the engagement of all the social actors. So we go back once again to a framework that is too comprehensive without the appropriate “objective function” to force the major trade-offs in favor of a green economy.
And, here it lies the essence of the debate! If the objective function is economic growth, painted green, this will be a futile exercise. This is so, because of the known fallacy involved in such a process: “to grow now to clean later”. Many of the same economist advising the UN on these matters now stated before that “the cake must grow if we are to move to sustainable development later”. They have conditioned the greening of the economy to a growth-first strategy. I fully disagree with such an approach. One of the experiential realities is that countries that pollute or destroy the environment never go back to clean later.
Now, let us add to this puzzle the very important theme of poverty alleviation. From a paradigmatic perspective, the situation is the same. The fallacy promoted here is: “to grow now and do social justice later”. This has never been proven right or successful.
Thus, Rio Plus 20 Conference must devote all the time to reverse these fallacies, and subjugate economic growth to sustainability and social justice. Both as an objective, a vision, and not as a residual of economic growth. In the Rio Plus 20 Conference we have the unique opportunity to bring to the table a truly new paradigm whereby:
“SUSTAINABILITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ARE COMBINED TO GET THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES. THIS IS TO SAY, GROWTH AS A BYPRODUCT OF GREENING, AND REAL ATTENTION GIVEN TO ATTAINING HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.”
We have to address our challenges with right vision or, to say, with an objective function, that eliminates inequities and that embodies environmental sustainability into their fullest extent, so that we are able to green the economy and eradicate poverty.
The above is the main thrust of this paper. We want to make explicit what are the major conditions, instruments and policies that will reverse those two fallacies. Only then, will we find that the economy will be greener and that such greening will eradicate poverty. Otherwise, it will all be like playing with mirrors.
I know many people will be too nervous to open up the debate during Rio Plus 20 to this approach because it puts the market-based, neoclassical-economic, paradigm of free-trade on the back seat. In my professional view, I do not see any other way around that, if the objective is truly to green the economy and alleviate poverty.
Also, I would foresee that there would be nervousness on this matter because the approach offered here questions deeply the premise that economic growth (material growth) is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to attain sustainable development and the eradication of poverty.
But, let us all be warned: if we keep trying to do more of the same, we will get more of the same!
Actions To Greening and Alleviating Poverty at Once
To be consistent with the above, any action proposed here –to green the economy and alleviate poverty at the same time– must start with the identification of actors who are central to address the greening of the economy. Actors that are traditionally poor and that hold the key to benefit the rest of the world. Thus, the programs very briefly outlined here are all about these actors. A different approach will not, in my view, address the two goals simultaneously.
Indigenous Peoples. Rio Plus 20 must bring to the center stage of all debates the life and role of indigenous people. They are the key to maintain huge tracks of land and sub-soils in green conditions for all the citizens of this Planet to benefit. This is in addition to their fundamental contribution to attain the greening of the Planet with new concepts, practices, instruments and alternative forms of natural resources management. To maintain them out of the debate and showcase a hand full of them, pretending that we listen to indigenous peoples is a shameful situation. When I participated in the Rio 1992 Conference, it was a true disaster for indigenous peoples. A missed opportunity.
Shanty Towns. Rio Plus 20 must come out with a sort of “Marshall Plan” to green all the Shanty towns of the world and dramatically increase the level of welfare of people living in the most deplorable conditions. Trees, vegetable gardens, and so many other ways to improve people´s welfare while taking care of the environment.
Artisanal Fishermen. Rio Plus 20 must pay careful attention to the blue-ing of our planet and protect the fishing grounds that supply animal proteins and income support to billions of people. There should be specific programs not only to green their villages and living areas but also to combine the greening with the blue-ing wherever the artisanal fishermen reside.
People in Social and Community Forestry. Rio Plus 20 must develop a worldwide financial master plan to expand and accelerate all existing and create new social and community forestry programs, including the establishment of all the necessary conditions to ensure success at the local and community levels. There is sufficient experience for this master plan to succeed and yield benefits practically immediately. We must set a target of 100 billion hectares in a period of 5 years. These programs will be organized and led by local communities, with great emphasis on women’s leadership and guidance.
Small Holders Agriculture. Rio Plus 20 must pay particular attention to small holders agriculture. These small farmers and their mini farms can make a major contribution to a different form of greening, when compared with corporations and their industrial forestry plantations. In contrast to the devastating effect of industrial forestry, small holder agricultural farmers will put more emphasis on fruit trees and indigenous varieties. One billion small farmers should be assisted and guided in a period of five years.
Trees For Peace. Rio Plus 20 should endorse the Zambuling Institute For Human Transformation’s programs, all going in the direction of greening the Planet while assisting the poor. Three of them are outlined here: Trees For Peace, Greens For Peace, and Bees for Peace. This paragraph is about Trees for Peace, where the ultimate target is to plant as many trees as the number of inhabitants populating the Earth. So, for example, a family of 4 will plant 4 trees, and sooner rather than later a tremendous greening of the Planet will take place.
Greens For Peace (Vegetable Gardens). Rio Plus 20 should endorse and find financing to have billions of vegetable gardens around the world. This program is called Greens For Peace, which similar to the one just above will benefit the poor and, as a result, will bring peace in the world. There are proven methods now that can be easily scaled up. This is also a program that empowers poor people, particularly women and the elderly. There will be a tremendous shift towards empowering the poor while greening and bringing food security to the poorest families in the world.
Bees For Peace. Rio Pus 20 should endorse and support Bees For Peace, which is a tremendous complement to all the above-mentioned programs. Bees will increase the productivity of the greening in addition to provide a major source of income via the production of honey. It will create employment for the poor and it will bring a new form of nature conservation, integrating a multiple set of programs.
III. Mechanisms and Processes
Improved Mechanisms For Human Interaction.
The Need For a “Global Social Contract”.
Basis For a “New Eco-Morality”.
IV. Dimensions to Keep In Mind
But, let me say that whatever debate we would like to have on the sustainability of development, a few important dimensions are to be kept in mind. For example: First, the importance of all forms of interdependence, particularly that with Nature. Second, the nature of our inter-temporal interactions with other human beings and with nature. Third, the nature of our spatial interactions within our countries as well as among all nations within the Planet. Fourth, the long-term nature of development and the myopia of the market and that of existing political systems. Fifth, the misrepresentation of market values in relation to the natural environment. No importance to ecological values, values in-situ, aesthetic values, etc. Sixth, the disregard for our common heritage and the increased importance of global public goods.
Each of the above dimensions demands a separate presentation.
Going Beyond Material Choices. In addressing our natural environment, countries must go beyond material choices alone. For the moment, debates and private or public decision making processes regarding the environment are dominated by purely material considerations: a desired material outcome belonging to a material instrument or solution. This is said, notwithstanding the fact that many material interventions are crucial to curving down environmental depletion (e.g., carbon fund, taxes, technological change, regulations).
In many ways, this is the form we have adopted to address the problems facing humanity. The emphasis of policy makers is on attending only material/external solutions to environmental problems. These solutions have reached serious limits in effectiveness terms –particularly when applied as single-standing and separate from other possible non-material solutions.
I am of the view that material solutions ought to be complemented with spiritual ones.
It is not difficult to see why this is so, when dogmas, some cultural knots, or daily trends and fashions convey the idea that our material existence is all that really matters. By refocusing on the non-material dimensions of life and on our spirituality, we suggest very strongly that:
(a) there is a direct link between the state of our inner welfare and the environment and
(b) the state of the natural environment may deeply affect our process of spiritual transformation.
These suggestions apply more forcefully to our collective forms of transformation.
There are many others who believe that material-technology-driven solutions will eventually make the environmental problems go away. For these people, technology always represents the magic bullet. But we all know that it is not.
V. Green Economy As a Bundle of Rights and Responsibilities
The theme of environmental rights is not short of controversies, both conceptually and in its application and implementation. But greening the economy without attention to rights and responsibilities will be a major mistake. There are many reasons why people are bringing rights into the picture:
First, the negative results, and the lack of progress made, regarding environmental improvements. It is the negative results of development (particularly those persistent ones and those that are difficult to reverse with existing instruments), the ones that move public policy and public opinion towards the consideration of human rights. The arguments get even stronger when these negative impacts create negative externalities, degrade a public good or generate a public bad.
Second, the need to address the collective significance of many individual human rights. Given that many of the human and social interactions are intimately intermingled with economy, environmental interactions, the environment, forestry and other natural resources have become the center stage of new collective human rights. Many of the constitutions have been modified around the world to control and manage the allocation of private individual rights as they affect collective rights. Thus, someone may own a given forest but the law may, in many cases now, stop the exploitation of that forest if it is seen as a medium of human interaction.
In greening the economy, it is important to realize that environmental rights are, for the moment, derived rights. This makes the debate rather difficult, although the connection with other rights illustrates better some of the foundations of the right to a clean and safe environment. Its jurisprudence is linked to many other fundamental rights, examples of which are:
1. right to life –people will not be able to live if the natural environment is destroyed;
2. right to an adequate standard of living –the environment is a major source of human betterment and material welfare;
3. right to health –a dirty environment implies diseases and illnesses that decrease human well-being;
4. right to food –the production of basic foods comes mainly from land, water, and other natural resources and, thus, to destroy the environment will create hunger and famines;
5. right to water –as in the other natural resources, humans cannot live without clean and safe water;
6. right to property–this is an essential right in relation to the way in which natural resources are accessed, allocated, managed and controlled;
7. right to information –it is essential to inform the public of the hazards and negative external factors caused by the progressive deterioration of the environment or the depletion of natural resources (e.g., biodiversity);
8. right to equality –this has to do with issues of burden in terms of both who is affected by a deteriorated environment (ozone layer depletion, global warming, depletion of Amazon) and who is to bear the cost of abatement or of implementing a comprehensive precautionary principle-based development strategy;
9. right to participation –as the natural resources ultimately belong to the human collective, or have clear collective dimensions, the participation of potential beneficiaries or those who will be affected by changes in environmental quality, participation is seen as an essential right;
10. right to cultural preservation and diversity—the environment is an essential component of cultures and their capacity to survive in this age of globalization and, thus, the connections between the quality of the environment and culture (there are other dimensions); and
11. rights of indigenous peoples–the ancestral nations who actually have protected and maintain the Earth resources for thousands of years are to participate and be heard, and their rights protected, respected, and realized.
These are all human rights that have extensive jurisprudence and, in most cases, have clear justifiable elements associated with them. Attempts to link human rights and the greening of the economy have been made for a number of years. While there is no international agreement as to exactly what Environmental Human Rights are, they can be broadly grouped in three areas as:
- The right to a clean and safe environment. These are ‘substantive’ rights. They are the most basic rights, and the hardest to define. Many organizations would support the idea that “clean water and food security” are “basic human rights”.
- The right to act to protect the environment. This right is inherent in the UN Declaration and associated Conventions, through the right to organize and to free assembly.
- The right to information, access to justice, and to participate in environmental decision-making. These rights enable citizens to play an active part in creating a healthy environment, and they are directly linked to the key points in several UN Conventions and Declarations. In Europe these rights are enshrined in the UNECE ‘Aarhus Convention’ (the European Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Decision-Making). Other regions will need to consider how best to deliver these rights within local circumstances.
VI. A Human Consciousness Approach To Greening.
Regulations per-se are not ALWAYS effective. They need a system of true justice. But what is justice? How does one self-realize justice? The ultimate question and perhaps the most interesting of all is “Why people pollute.” It is essential not to trivialize the answers. However, experience shows that there are at least a couple of important reasons why people pollute. Herewith some important ones:
Going With Your Emotions. Emotions are inner blockers. This may surprise many people. However, it is very difficult to come into focus when you are dominated by your positive or negative emotions. Many believe that in a positive state you will be able to focus your life better. This is not the case, and the results are usually the creation of negative emotions a few days later. Neither the positive nor the negative emotions help you to refocus. The real refocusing takes place within your neutral mind. It is there where you will be able to go back to the fundamental canvas of human transformation.
Constantly Experiencing Stress. Stress is the most devastating element in your personal and collective transformation. Stress may be understood as an individual as well as a collective factor. Communities are subject to stress. Cities are subject to stress. Countries are subject to stress. The Earth is now being subjected to stress. Under stress all your dimensions go out of focus. The mind fixes itself into the immediate and disregards all the rest in your life.
Living in Constant Fear. Fear is a major source of negativity and a hindrance to spiritual transformation. There are many sources of fear: uncertainty, the unknown, and inadequacies, etc. To get rid of fears is a major issue and it often takes a lifetime to do, particularly when the causes and conditions are difficult to identify and tackle. It is to a large extent t is to a large extent disappointing that there are so many fear factors in our lives and to see how these factors become increasingly important and influential.
High Levels of Toxicity. Toxicity is very prominent in our society. People get intoxicated with drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and much more. However, we are also intoxicated with bad thoughts, intent and actions. The negativity involved is very powerful and destructive. Toxicity numbs our senses and as a result, we do not have the right perception of reality. Also, we may get very passive and inactive as a result. Many of our societies are intoxicated. It is essential to change directions and detoxify as much and as soon as possible.
Our Values and Belief System. Our values and belief system is a major filter in our lives. At times, it looks like it is our correct compass and the right source of orientation, when in fact, it is often the contrary. This implies that we always need to review and revise our values and see whether these are leading us in the right direction. Some people maybe sinking in their own value system.
The Discriminating Mind. The discriminating mind is now excessively developed. While its importance is essential, this development has quieted or diminished the power of the non discriminating mind. That mind that is in the neutral space and is basically non judgmental. If discriminating mind dominates, we tend to pay too much attention to the outside and little to our inner existence. The mind gets attached and excited by external factors and it loses the ability to search for the essentials of inner development and transformation. Everything gets out of focus.
Not Being On The Path of Our Mission. Our mission is the true point of reference for every aspect of our lives. Nevertheless, many people do not know what their mission is and, thus, walks through life disoriented and dissatisfied. When someone is not within the path of one’s mission, everything becomes random or outside the domain of centeredness. Too much friction, suffering, and decay are the result of the reminder missions and paths in life. To be in focus means to be delivering your mission. There is no other criteria so fundamental for refocusing.
VII. Greening The Economy Via Empowered Development
It is the inner minds and souls of people that need to be changed in order to green the economy. It is the inner minds and souls of those actors who are responsible for environmental degradation and sustainability that need to change. The type of change suggested here is not something societies will attain by fiat. Human transformation processes need to shift and through such shifts people will behave differently. The future of greening the economy rests on the creation of a collective consensus about the quality of life we want to have as a collective.
This consensus will be attained out of empowering people. In turn, this will be attained out of meaningful participation and representation in decision and policy making. Thus, the next paradigm shift to green the economy must be “Empowered Development”. This is not just political power. But, it is a composite of inner and outer power, so that people become sensitive to the values of nature, over space and time, and to the contributions nature brings in terms of both material and spiritual transformation.
VIII. Key Conditions To Green the Economy and Alleviate Poverty
There are important necessary conditions for greening the economy in a sustainable way, while, at the same time, alleviating poverty. These conditions will never take place within an ethical and values/beliefs vacuum. On the contrary, they are essential to provide a holistic body and context from where human interactions will bring the greening of the economy.
Shared Vision. It is essential to create a shared vision of our future. The process in generating that vision must be empowering, participatory and encompassing. The shared vision must be strategic and instrumental in creating the conditions for change and human betterment.
Effective Networks. There is a need to create global consensus and this is to be attained via social and other forms of networks. Civil society is to play a fundamental role in the advancing of new and effective networks, which must be inclusive and should embrace new language and new forms of interaction.
Appropriate Communication Strategies/Instruments. The real content of networks and human interactions must be strengthened via effective communication strategies and instruments. We live in the era of communications but it is essential that we protect its content and scope. Values play a critical role in defining such content.
New Basis For ‘Learning’ and ‘Being’ in Society. In the end, education and human resources development will always play a fundamental role in shifting to a new societal plane. However, education must not only embrace learning but also all the instruments and activities to establish the foundations for self-realization. Human beings must develop the ‘being’ through learning. Nature and sustainable development must be part of that process of ‘being’.
Nurture The Values of Life. It is essential to understand sustainable development as the holistic process to nurturing the values of life. For the moment, sustainable development is dominated by economic and financial values and human interests that are far from a life sustaining civilization. Examples of the values of life are love, compassion, caring, solidarity, collective responsibility, solidarity, interdependence, respect for nature, etc.
Investing in Spiritual Capital. The material revolution we witness today is failing because we have not created a parallel and integrated spiritual revolution. This is one where we gain inner and outer identity and approach life from its most sacred place. Our spirit is a powerful form of capital and, thus, we must invest in expanding it and managing it properly.
Managing Better Our Natural Capital. The Earth is limited in many respects and it is essential to better manage our natural capital. These management improvements will not only benefit humanity via material welfare but via spiritual welfare as well. Our inner and outer connections with nature are to be properly understood and practiced everywhere. Depletion of our natural capital is a suicidal path for humanity.
Creating The Next Social Revolution. Greening the economy will be eminently social, as population and human settlements abounds in this planet. Technological change will not yield positive results without immersing such technologies in strong social systems. Thus, the next stage of shifts is in the social arena that has been abandoned and subjugated to economics and financial matters.
Revolution in Values. The outcomes we see today are the direct result of the decisions we make. And, these decisions are the result of our values and belief systems. Thus, to change the outcomes will demand a major revolution in values, all in favor of spiritual and human values. This is the essence of the next stage for most societies. These values must be collective and universal in nature.
Adoption Of Collective Governance. Most decisions require rules and processes. These are becoming increasingly complex as the collective nature of human existence rises over traditional ways of human interaction. This is particularly true in the case of the environment and sustainable development. To succeed in our goals and objectives for sustainability, we must find new forms of governance that are compatible and coherent with the challenges at hand. These new forms of governance will include the private, government and civil society.
Reconciliation Between Economics and Spirituality. The shift to a life sustaining civilization faces a major challenge of reconciling our material and non-material existence. What we may call the reconciliation process between economics and spirituality. This is an essential process to be fostered as most of the issues confronting humanity are ethical, moral and spiritual in nature. Today, the dominance of economics and its values is responsible for most environmental destruction.
Respect For Human and Ecological Rights. As stated earlier, greening the economy embodies rights and responsibilities. Collective rights and responsibilities are very important as these are appropriate to the effective management of our natural capital. It is not possible to ignore the needed laws, rules, regulations and institutional arrangements to realize all forms of human rights, including environmental rights.
Synergize Our Collective Interdependence. We live in an interdependent world. This is a multidimensional phenomenon that includes our interdependence among human beings and between human beings and livings beings and nature. These forms of interdependence should be nurtured and respected so that our collective future is expanded and shared better among all actors in this planet.
