A lesson from the Archbishop of Canterbury: it is time to reclaim sustainable development

This week I am reflecting on Rio+20 and considering how we rise to some of the big challenges facing us and the natural world.  I am not claiming to have all the answers but simply want to continue the debate.  I will argue that we need to do more to inject emotion into the debate, refresh the way we inspire people to take action, choose to fight the right battles but also get down to the brass-tacks of mainstreaming the environment in decision-making.  It is to this rather dry topic that I turn to today.

I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  It might have something to do with the fact that he once gave my little girl a cheery little wave outside Canterbury Cathedral.  Or more likely because, when he intervenes politically (which is understandably a rare event), he speaks a lot of sense. 

This weekend his forthcoming book was heavily trailed.  In it, he takes issue with the idea that economic growth, defined as increasing production, is necessarily a good thing. He argues that this mindset creates new demand for goods and thus new demands on a limited material environment for energy sources and raw materials. He says "By the hectic inflation of demand it creates personal anxiety and rivalry. By systematically depleting the resources of the planet, it systematically destroys the basis for long-term wellbeing. In a nutshell, it is investing in the wrong things."

This is not as revolutionary as it first sounds.  It has echoes of the 2005 definition of sustainable development (in Securing the Future) that argued that a sustainable economy was a means to an end (to create a healthy and just society that lived within environmental limits) rather than an end in its own right.  This has to be right.

Which is why I was delighted that the UK Government rearticulated this definition in the National Planning Policy Framework published earlier this year.  My worry is that attempts to apply the term in the real world have floundered and some might have given up bringing the concept to life.  I think that it is time to reclaim and revitalise this term.

In the run up to Rio+20, the RSPB, in partnership with Green Alliance, published a series of essays on sustainable development - a term that celebrates its 25th anniversary this year.  I was also pleased to see that the Labour party also commissioned some new thinking to compete with that emerging from the Deputy Prime Minister.  We need fresh ideas to help us rise to the crises of biodiversity loss, climate change and extreme poverty and turn the sustainable development dream into reality.

But some of the answers might be found in the nuts and bolts of decision-making.  I recently dipped back into a publication which the RSPB produced a few years ago (Think Nature)  which tried to indentify the key principles which would help us live within environmental limits.  It was essentially a guide to influence policy making and decision-taking.  Looking at these principles again today, they still seem relevant.

They are a little dry (sorry) but have a read and let me know what you think. 

1. Environmental limits should be defined
While it might be possible to quantify absolute limits for some things (such as the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases which would trigger catastrophic climate change) it is harder to quantify limits for others (such as how many bitterns do we want/need).  But that simply provides a greater reason for politicians to make judgements on what limits they deem to be socially acceptable.  This is why the RSPB continues to support a target-led approach to nature conservation and natural resource protection. These targets provide a focus for conservation, encourage scrutiny and ensure accountability.  Defra seems to agree as it has some ambitious targets in its Natural Environment White Paper and England Biodiversity Strategy.

2. Living within environmental limits should be core to governmental strategy
I don't really mind how its done, but public bodies and all parts of government need clear direction. They should be charged with living within environmental limits in the context of sustainable development. While there are merits in enshrining this in law in a consistent fashion, living within environmental limits requires more than a duty and will need to be complemented by the other tools and principles described below.

3. Decision-making should be informed by sound science
I think that most of us would prefer politicians to govern by evidence rather than anecdote.  Science matters, should be invested in and should inform policy making. 

4. Policy making should be coherent and consistents
Incoherent and inconsistent government policies can confuse and disempower the public. Arguing for a low carbon economy on the one hand and then sanctioning the expansion of aviation capacity on the other (a trait of recent governments) does not send the right signals to business and individuals.  Politicians should clearly communicate the scale of the challenge, and explain the nature of policy reform and behavioural change required to live within agreed targets.

5. Government should play a leadership role and demonstrate best practice
The coalition Government was right to set ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for each Whitehall department.  We need a similarly diligent approach to  meet or exceed their natural enviornment targets on their land estates.

6. Public participation should be core to decision-making
This ought to be core to the Big Society ideology.  Increased civic engagement and participation of environment stakeholders will help improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of government policies and ensure that socio-environmental concerns are addressed alongside economic issues. An inclusive approach is likely to create more confidence in the policies and decisions, and in the institutions that develop and deliver them. 

7. Monitoring progress should include indicators of wellbeing
There seems to be growing consensus that GDP is too crude a measure of prosperity. Alternative indicators of wellbeing, which assess whether we are living within environmental limits, should be adopted instead.

8. Scrutiny and accountability arrangements should have teeth
Every government needs a constructive critic capable of giving truth to power (a bit like a prococious teenager).  We need parliamentary select committees but these should be complemented by strong, independent champions of the environment to ensure transparency and accountability. If well resourced and properly mandated, these agencies can report on the state of the natural world, assess government performance; advise central government to influence change in policy and legislation; and act as a focus for public concern.

9. The true value of the natural environment should be assessed and taken into account when developing and implementing policies
Yes, this does mean improving our understanding of the services that nature gives us, where possible improving our understanding of their value and reflecting these values in decision-making.  This is why I am a fan of the Natural Capital Committee.  I shall return to this soon.  Valuation is unlikely to be a panacea, as it is impossible to put a price on everything that nature gives us (what price a redshank?), but it can certainly help.

10. Government should be prepared to intervene through fiscal, policy and legislative reform
It is an inconvenient truth that no environmental problem has ever been solved through voluntary means alone.  Governments should be prepared to deploy the right mix of regulation and incentives.  Without this, we will continue to bear the costs of greed and short-term thinking, and will increasingly suffer the impacts of failing to live within our environmental limits.  I'd hope the Archbishop of Canterbury would at least agree with me on that one.

How do you think we should mainstream the environment in decision-making?

It would be great to hear your views.