Sustainable development and ecological modernisationhave brought together representatives from all sections of society – politi-
cians, business, trade unions, churches and environmental and consumer
groups – to discuss how sustainable development can be implemented.
Despite this widespread enthusiasm, the precise meaning of sustainable
development remains elusive.
◗ A complex and contested concept
The sheer proliferation of definitions of sustainable development is evi-
dence of its contestability; for example, Pearce et al. ( 1989 :173–85) provide
a‘gallery’ of over forty definitions. The most widely used definition, taken
from the Brundtland Report, is that ‘sustainable development is develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987 : 43). This def-
inition sets out the two fundamental principles of intragenerational and
intergenerational equity, and contains the two ‘key concepts’ of needs and
limits (ibid.: 43). The concept ofneedsdemands that ‘overriding priority’
should be given to the essential needs of the world’s poor, both North
and South. Poverty and the unequal distribution of resources are identified
as major causes of environmental degradation: ‘Sustainable development
requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the oppor-
tunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life’ (ibid.: 44). Crucially, the
Brundtland Report stresses that these goals can only be achieved if consump-
tion patterns in the richer countries are readjusted. Secondly, the concept
oflimitsrecognises that the current state of technology and social organ-
isation imposes limits on the ability of the environment to meet present
and future needs, so we must moderate our demands on the natural envi-
ronment. Yet Brundtland rejects the crude anti-growth arguments of the
1970s, asserting that ‘Growth has no set limits in terms of population or
resource use beyond which lies ecological disaster’ (ibid.: 45). Indeed, Brundt-
land demands a revival of growth in developing countries to help alleviate
poverty and provide basic needs, although it seeks a more ‘eco-friendly’ type
of growth that is ‘less material- and energy-intensive and more equitable in
its impact’ (ibid.: 52).
Acentral distinguishing feature of sustainable development as a policy
paradigm is that it shifts the terms of debate from traditional environ-
mentalism, with its primary focus on environmental protection, to the
notion of sustainability, which requires a much more complex process of
trading off social, economic and environmental priorities. Box8.4shows
that the Brundtland definition is as much concerned with economic and
social development as it is with environmental protection.Developmentis
aprocess of transformation which, by combining economic growth with
broader social and cultural changes, enables individuals to realise their
full potential. The dimension ofsustainabilitybrings the recognition that