This statement is the most widely accepted definition of the term “Sustainable Development”. That is not to say that it is a good definition, but rather one that prevails as, being couched in diplomatic “constructive ambiguity”, it neither offends nor makes anyone grab for his/her wallet.

The term expresses the yearning to improve the quality of life for humanity without damaging the environment, but has its roots in an earlier debate within the United Nations in the late 70’s and early 80’s when, on what later became the road to Rio, developing countries’ claim to the Right to Development was questioned by some though, (in fairness) not all developed countries.

The adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986 settled this point when it recognised development as an inalienable human right by virtue of which all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development.

This “Road to Rio”, was a painstaking and lengthy negotiation which saw the (erstwhile) Third World make innumerable concessions, but also great strides against powerful interests which, to this day, continue to attempt to set back the clock.

One of the most significant achievements of the (since then called) developing countries was the recognition in Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration (also known as Agenda 21) of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities which declares that States shall cooperate to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem and that, in view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. In this Rio Principle developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

Both the recognition of the Right to Development and Principle 3 of Agenda 21 are significant developments in the debate over sustainable development that has traditionally been carried out between developing nations struggling to better the lot of their peoples and some developed countries (again, not all) which, whilst refusing to abandon their own unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, would put a cap on the development of others on the basis of environmental “concerns”. “We destroyed half the planet with our development”, the argument goes, “if we let you develop, you’ll ruin the other half”.

One of the major stumbling blocks for sustainable development in the Greater Caribbean has been the misperception on the part of the public and even some government officials that it refers exclusively to environmental matters. Thus when leaders ask the inevitable: “what’s in it for me?” the only decent answers seem to come from so called “tree huggers” (and I mean that in the kindest way).

However, behind the facile definition quoted above, the real hard-core negotiators who duke it out (often over a comma) until the wee hours in the UN catacombs have developed a working model that defines sustainable development as a platform supported on three pillars: Economic, Social and Environmental.

This imagery is instrumental in ensuring that no one aspect is “taller” than the others and currently frames the international debate on sustainable development. It is also the one to bear in mind when considering regional initiatives such as the ACS´s proposal to have the Caribbean Sea declared a Special Area in the context of Sustainable Development and the entry into force of the ACS Convention Establishing the Sustainable Tourism Zone of the Caribbean, particularly given that progress toward sustainable development will require significant increases in the flow of financial resources to support the implementation of national and regional policies.

Mr. Luis Carpio is the Political Adviser of the Association of Caribbean States. The views expressed are not necessarily the official views of the ACS. Feedback can be sent to mail@acs-aec.org

(end)

01 September, 2004