Introduction and principles - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 10

layer and biological diversity. The Brundtland Report identified the following chief
characteristics of sustainable development: it maintains the quality of life, it maintains
continuing access to natural resources and it avoids lasting environmental damage. It
means living on the Earth's income rather than eroding its capital (DoE et al. 1990). In
addition to a concern for the environment and the future, Brundtland also emphasizes
participation and equity, thus highlighting both inter- and intra-generational equity.
There is, however, a danger that “sustainable development” may become a weak
catch-all phrase; there are already many alternative definitions. Holmberg & Sandbrook
(1992) found over 70 definitions of sustainable development. Redclift (1987) saw it as
“moral convictions as a substitute for thought”; to O'Riordan (1988) it was “a good idea
which cannot sensibly be put into practice”. But to Skolimowski (1995), sustainable
development
struck a middle ground between more radical approaches which
denounced all development, and the idea of development conceived as
business as usual. The idea of sustainable development, although broad,
loose and tinged with ambiguity around its edges, turned out to be
palatable to everybody. This may have been its greatest virtue. It is radical
and yet not offensive.
Readers are referred to Reid (1995) and Kirkby et al. (1995) for an overview of the
concept, debate and responses.
Turner & Pearce (1992) and Pearce (1992) have drawn attention to alternative
interpretations of maintaining the capital stock. A policy of conserving the whole capital
stock (man-made, human and natural) is consistent with running down any part of it as
long as there is substitutability between capital degradation in one area and investment in
another. This can be interpreted as a “weak sustainability” position. In contrast, a “strong
sustainability” position would argue that it is not acceptable to run down environmental
assets, for several reasons: uncertainty (we do not know the full consequences for human
beings), irreversibility (lost species cannot be replaced), life support (some ecological
assets serve life-support functions) and loss aversion (people are highly averse to
environmental losses). The “strong sustainability” position has much to commend it, but
institutional responses have varied.
Institutional responses to meet the goal of sustainable development are required at
several levels. Issues of global concern, such as ozone-layer depletion, climate change,
deforestation and biodiversity loss, require global political commitments to action. The
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992 was an example not only of international concern, but also of the
problems of securing concerted action to deal with such issues. Agenda 21, an 800-page
action plan for the international community into the twenty-first century, sets out what
nations should do to achieve sustainable development. It includes topics such as
biodiversity, desertification, deforestation, toxic wastes, sewage, oceans and the
atmosphere. For each of 115 programmes, the need for action, the objectives and targets
to be achieved, the activities to be undertaken, and the means of implementation are all
outlined. Agenda 21 offers policies and programmes to achieve a sustainable balance
between consumption, population and the Earth's life-supporting capacity. Unfortunately