The global development goals adopted by the United Nations and its member-states for 2016 to 2030 are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), collectively called the SDG Agenda. The SDGs have succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which sought to reduce poverty and hunger worldwide from 2000 to 2015. The SDGs, however, have a higher ambition: zero poverty and zero hunger by 2030 in a world projected to become truly inclusive, peaceful, prosperous and, yet, sustainable.
The word “sustainable” has become the mantra for the SDGs. So why have the framers of the SDG Agenda chosen “sustainability” as the unifying theme for the new global development goals?
The word sustainable became popular worldwide after the release by the Brundtland Commission of Our Common Future (1987), a UN Report on the degraded global environment. Gro Brundtland of Norway and her UN team articulated the need for “sustainable development” to arrest the continuing deterioration of the human environment and depletion of natural resources. The team explained: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
In short, there are natural limits to what countries may do in the exploitation or harvesting of natural resources, such as forests and minerals. Once those limits are surpassed, floods, desertification and, now, global warming, follow. Growth and development are interrupted and reversed. And the next generation faces a truly bleak future. There is no need to belabor all of the foregoing, for so much has already been written about them.
However, the application of the term “sustainable development” has widened. It is used in describing the limits in other areas of human endeavor. If there is unsustainable environmental exploitation, there is also unsustainable economic progress and unsustainable
sociocultural development. On unsustainable economic development, the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis and the 2008-2010 global financial crisis have educated the world that exuberance over markets that are not backed up by real production creates bubbles and is simply not sustainable. On the other hand, overproduction can also lead to unsustainable economic development if there is no sustained consumption from a populace with limited incomes or wages.
As to social sustainability, this refers largely to the stability of supporting social institutions, especially governance structures and processes, obtaining in a given society. If the gap between the rich and the poor is so huge, and if the social and economic arrangements prevent the poor from getting their grievances redressed or addressed, then social and other conflicts naturally develop. Thus, the “Arab Spring” broke out in 2010 in Tunisia when the pleas for vending space and justice of a jobless Tunisian went unheeded, forcing him to commit self-immolation. Unfortunately, the movement for Arab democracy was hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists, who resorted to the promotion of terror and sectarian violence.
In the West and countries in the developing world, deep social inequality and exclusion have spawned anger and revolts, such as the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Kilusan ng 99 porsyento and numerous strikes and uprisings by workers, farmers, indigenous peoples and other marginalized segments of society. Sometimes, workers are pitted against workers, as what seems to be happening in some European countries, where migrant workers are portrayed as job snatchers when the real problem is the failure of some governments to create a sustainable program of job creation and social integration. The point is that society can never be stable or enjoy sustained peace amid so much inequality, ghetto-like exclusion of large segments of society and disempowerment of the many through political rules favoring governance by a few.
This is why the 2005 World Summit on Social Development and the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development raised all the three pillars of sustainability—environment, economic and social—as crucial to global and national development. The two international meetings also pointed out that these three dimensions of sustainability are interrelated or interdependent. For example, the excessive reliance on fossil fuel due to the unabated production of car guzzlers exacerbates climate- change risks, which often affect the poorest the most.
More and more sectors in society are paying attention to the triple sustainability challenges. In the business sector, there is an increasing number of firms seeking CSR certification on sustainability. They submit their products and services to certifying or auditing bodies so that these goods and services can be marked “environmentally friendly” and “trade fair”. A number also seek certification on the “social acceptability” of their operations insofar as the local or host community and other stakeholders are concerned. In short, companies that take corporate social responsibility try to balance the profit requirements of their shareholders with the development needs of society’s stakeholders. Thus, the CSR “3Ps” battlecry—people, planet and profits.
However, the most significant global response to the triple sustainability challenges is the SDG Agenda, which integrates all aspects of sustainability into a holistic program of inclusion and sustainable development for all. Instead of the three Ps of the CSR-conscious companies, the SDG Agenda talks of the five Ps: people, planet, peace and prosperity through partnership.
For the Philippines, meeting all the three sustainability challenges are critical if we have to grow and develop as a nation. Our environment is fragile, as reflected in various indicators—balding forest lands, declining mangrove stock, urban congestion and pollution, and so on. The sustainability of the economy is also problematic given our weak industrial and agricultural base and our overwhelming reliance on two major sources of national income—OFW remittances and call center/BPO business. Escalating tensions in the Middle East and rising xenophobia in developed countries are weakening the demand for OFWs, while robotics and artificial intelligence are threatening the manpower market for the call center/BPO sector.
As to social sustainability, the nation is now divided on so many political issues, pitting the different political groups and segments of society against one another. The World Bank warned that inequality in the Philippines is most worrisome compared to our neighboring countries. The Marawi crisis also shows that extreme Islamic fundamentalism has taken roots in Mindanao and, God forbid, in other parts of the archipelago. The list of issues dividing the nation is fairly long, and solutions are not easy to find.
The triple sustainability challenges are complex and formidable. There are no easy answers or solutions. And all three have to be addressed in an integrated and coherent manner. Can the Duterte administration do it?