Our inability to promote the common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of economic and social justice within and amongst nations.(World Commission on the Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987, p.49)

The significance of sustainable development is that, by showing how environmental problems are inextricably linked to economic and social inequalities, it has brought development issues to the forefront of the environmental debate. The Brundtland Report deflected some of the criticisms of 1970s environmentalism--epitomised by the 1972 Stockholm Conference--that it was an elitist doctrine which placed the concerns of nature and the environment above the immediate basic needs of the world's poorest people. Instead, Brundtland emphasised two key features of the poverty-environment nexus. First, environmental damage from global consumption falls most severely on the poorest countries and the poorest people who are least able to protect themselves. Secondly, the growing number of poor and landless people in the South generates a struggle to survive that places huge pressure on the natural resource base. The resulting resource depletion--desertification, deforestation, overfishing, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity--continues the downward spiral of impoverishment by forcing more people onto marginal, ecologically fragile, lands. By underlining the interdependence between environmental and developmental issues, the Brundtland Report drew attention to the environmental impact of key North-South issues such as trade relations, aid, debt and industrialisation. It concluded that sustainable development is impossible while poverty and massive social injustices persist; hence the importance attributed to intragenerational equity alongside the more straightforwardly environmental principle of intergenerational equity.

However, putting intragenerational equity into practice can generate enormous political conflict, particularly along North-South lines. A key issue in international environmental diplomacy is the extent to which the rich North is willing to accept the political and financial responsibility for addressing global problems such as climate change and ozone depletion. The concept of sustainable consumption is even more contentious (see Box 5). The Brundtland Report was rather quiet on the need to change consumption patterns in the North; no doubt because its authors recognised that the issue was political dynamite. Subsequently, growing interest in sustainable consumption has helped direct attention to the disparities between mass consumption in affluent countries and the billion or more poorest people in the South whose basic consumption needs are not being met (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report, 1998).

Numerous initiatives have been launched with the twin aims of reducing the direct impact of Northern consumption on scarce resources and improving the social and economic lot of the communities who supply those resources. A sustainable development treaty between the Netherlands and Costa Rica aims to make the total coffee chain, from production to consumption, more supportive of sustainable development. The programme, which involves Costa Rican farming cooperatives, coffee-processing plants, Dutch coffee roasters and sales organisations, seeks to increase the market for sustainable coffee, protect the environment and improve social conditions in coffee-producing areas, and strengthen information and accounting systems (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Comprehensive Review of Changing Consumption and Production Patterns, 1999). Café Direct is a British scheme in which a group of 'alternative' trading organisations (Equal Exchange, Oxfam Trading, Traidcraft and Twintrading) buy directly from farming organisations in less developed countries such as Nicaragua, with a fixed minimum price, prepayment of orders and a commitment to a long-term trading partnership. Many of the producer cooperatives then invest their profits directly in community development projects, such as new schools (UNDP, 1998, p.90).

Of course, equity is not an exclusively North-South concern. According to the UNDP human poverty index, some 7-17 percent of the population in industrial countries is poor (UNDP, 1998, p.2). Homelessness, unemployment and social exclusion are common in rich nations too. Poor, socially deprived households are the least likely to pursue sustainable consumption. The pressures of competitive spending and conspicuous consumption in affluent societies exacerbate disparities between rich and poor, encouraging poorer households to go deeper into debt in their unsuccessful attempt to meet rising consumption standards, thereby crowding out spending on food, education and health. Achieving sustainable consumption will therefore involve both an overall readjustment in the levels and patterns of consumption in rich countries and the provision of basic needs to the socially excluded poor.

Thus the sustainable development paradigm, by emphasising the complex links between social, economic, political and environmental factors, introduces a new layer of dilemmas to the issue of equity and environment. In so doing, it underlines how 1970s environmentalism misdiagnosed the problem by its narrow and inaccurate focus on economic growth, over-population and nature protection.

Democracy

Sustainable development requires a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making ... (WCED, Our Common Future, 1987, p.65)

Although this democratic message was particularly aimed at developing countries, the encouragement of community participation through consultative processes, citizen initiatives and strengthening the institutions of local democracy is equally applicable in developed countries. It is vital that all local interests, whether poor inner-city or isolated rural communities, can participate in policy and planning decisions, such as urban development and transport planning, that have a direct effect on their lifestyles. Democracy can also play an important legitimation role, particularly in richer countries, where it is necessary to win public support for environmental initiatives that may have a detrimental effect on lifestyles, such as new eco-taxes or the regulation of car use. If information is widely available and people can participate in decision-making, they may see the need for action and be more willing to accept sacrifices in their material quality of life.

The precautionary principle

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.(Agenda 21, Principle 15)

	Six rules for a precautionary world
	Tim O'Riordan has identified the following guidelines to help policy-makers put the precautionary principle into practice: 1. Where unambiguous scientific proof of cause and effect is not available, it is necessary to act with a duty of care. 2. Where the benefits of early action are judged to be greater than the likely costs of delay, it is appropriate to take a lead and to inform society why such action is being taken. 3. Where there is the possibility of irreversible damage to natural life-support functions, precautionary action should be taken irrespective of the forgone benefits. 4. Always listen to calls for a change of course, incorporate representatives of such calls into deliberative forums and maintain transparency throughout. 5. Never shy away from publicity and never try to suppress information, however unpalatable. In the age of the internet, someone is bound to find out if information is being distorted or hidden. 6. Where there is public unease, act decisively to respond to that unease by introducing extensive discussions and deliberative techniques. (From Economic and Social Research Council, The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust, Special Briefing No. 5, 1999, p.17.)

The precautionary principle is consistent with the notion of ecological sustainability in that it is about relieving pressure on the environment and giving it more 'space'. It is also a practical expression of intergenerational equity because to protect the world for our descendants we need to be sure that our actions will not cause irreparable harm to the environment. The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provides a good illustration of this issue. The great promise of GM crops, for example, is that by increasing agricultural productivity they can make a real contribution to preventing hunger and starvation in the poorest countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Yet GMOs are also characterised by chronic uncertainties about the possible threat they pose to ecosystems. Should companies be given free rein to develop these products, as has largely been the case in North America, or should governments invoke the precautionary principle to justify a step-by-step approach employing strict safeguards on trials and the use of moratoriums on production, as has occurred in Europe? The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety agreed in January 2000 explicitly invokes the precautionary principle by giving countries the right to refuse to accept the import of GM agricultural products. The principle of intragenerational equity also drives the precautionary principle when industrial countries accept the burden of helping poorer countries prevent damage, such as climate change, that might arise from their future economic development.

It is important to note two qualifications within the above United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) definition. First, the qualification 'according to their capabilities' implies that less developed countries might not have to apply the approach so rigorously--this idea has informed the use of the precautionary principle in the ozone and climate change treaties. Secondly, it is not clear what kind of cost--benefit analysis should determine whether measures are 'cost-effective'. Are these internal or external costs? How should future costs be discounted and, given the uncertainties involved, at what stage of decision-making should they be applied? Not surprisingly, there is plenty of disagreement about precisely what the precautionary principle involves. A strong interpretation would effectively reverse the burden of proof so that the responsibility is vested with the polluter (the factory that wants to release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere or the water company wishing to dump sewage in a river) to prove that an activity is safe before it is allowed. Similarly, if damage has already occurred, the relevant industry would have to prove it was not responsible: guilty until proven innocent! The advantage of this tough approach should be that industries would be less inclined to risk releasing a pollutant if the onus rested with them to prove that they had not done so. A weaker version may simply encourage policy-makers to act cautiously in accordance with the old adage that 'it is better to be safe than sorry', although it is less clear what this might mean in practice. It is significant that O'Riordan's suggested rules for applying the precautionary principle, no doubt influenced by recent difficulties encountered by the British government in dealing with both BSE and GMOs, are underpinned by strong democratic principles of openness and participation.

Policy integration

The objective of sustainable development and the integrated nature of the global environment/development challenges pose problems for institutions ... that were established on the basis of narrow preoccupations and compartmentalised concerns.(WCED, Our Common Future, 1987, p.9)

There are problems for the environment posed by the segmentation of the policy process into distinct sectors such as industry, agriculture, transport and energy. Individual ministries pursue narrow sectoral objectives with little consideration for their overall environmental impact. This fragmentation of responsibility is a major obstacle to sustainable development because environmental considerations need to be integrated into the formulation and implementation of policies in every sector. Individual ministries must broaden their horizons and discard their narrow compartmentalised concerns. Integration involves the creation of new structures, the reform of existing institutions and the transformation of established policy-making processes. In short, it requires an administrative revolution. However, there are many structural and political barriers impeding integration.

Planning
Sustainable development must be planned. Only free-market environmentalists believe that the unfettered market can, of its own volition, produce sustainable development. There are too many complex interdependencies between political, social and economic factors to leave it to chance; equally, those complexities set limits as to what can be achieved by planning. What is at issue is not 'whether' but 'how much' planning should take place--and which policy instruments should be used.

Governments have to work with a wide range of non-state actors to achieve sustainable development. As Agenda 21 makes clear, every level of government--supranational, national, regional and local--has to plan sustainable development strategies. Yet this exhortation is not a recipe for a state-planned economy. An active planning role does not mean that the government has to shoulder the responsibility for implementing sustainable development alone. On the contrary, the sustainable development discourse is enthusiastic about partnerships of all shapes and forms. However, it is interesting to speculate whether those political systems with a strong planning tradition, such as France and Japan, will be able to adopt this principle more easily than those where the planning tradition is weaker, such as the USA or the UK.