Ecologize Growth

Ecologize Growth from StormCloud Media on Vimeo.

Wimar Witoelar wawancara dengan Elfian Effendi (Greenomics Indonesia)

Kerusakan Alam Dalam Hitungan Ekonomi

Edisi 469 | 07 Mar 2005 |

Selamat bertemu kembali pembaca Perspektif Baru, bersama saya Wimar Witoelar.

Pada kesempatan ini kita akan melihat perspektif baru mengenai masalah-masalah di sektor pembangunan terutama di kehutanan dan pertambangan. Kita akan berbincang-bincang dengan Elfian Effendi, beliau adalah Direktur Greenomics Indonesia. Pertama kali bertemu Pak Elfian di suatu seminar dimana beliau memberikan suatu pandangan baru yang sangat berkesan pada saya. Walaupun seminar itu menghadirkan pakar-pakar ekonomi senior yang membahas satu sektor tertentu, tapi pada waktu Elfian bicara mengenai ekonomi lingkungan, saya jadi tergugah, terbangun dan ingin mengetahui lebih banyak mengenai topik ini.

Apakah pekerjaan anda yang menyangkut analisa ekonomi itu berbeda dengan analisa ekonomi seperti yang biasa dilakukan oleh banyak orang?

Greenomics Indonesia ini mempromosikan suatu konsep ekonomi hijau atau disebut dengan Green Economics. Jadi Green Economics ini filosofinya adalah economics of enough, yaitu suatu perekonomian yang mencerminkan suatu sisi kecukupan dari aspek efisiensi dalam pemanfaatan sumberdaya alam.

Kalau saya dengar kata "Enough" itu jadi teringat filmnya Jennifer Lopez. Tapi dalam hal ini, apa yang dimaksudkan dengan "Enough" atau kecukupan itu ?
Yang saya maksud dengan kecukupan misalnya daya dukung hutan alam kita ini sudah tidak bisa lagi dieksploitasi secara masif . Tingkat eksploitasinya dilihat dari tahun 1970 sampai tahun 1990 cukup tinggi. Dalam hal ini pemerintah harus segera membuat batasan-batasan pemanfaatan hutan alam pada tingkat yang sangat relevan dengan daya dukung ekologi kita. Sehingga pemerintah harus segera mendeklarasikan bahwa eksploitasi ini sudah cukup, sudah tidak boleh lagi ada eksploitasi dan hutan alam kita harus segera direhabilitasi.

Kalau begitu sama dengan konsep film Jennifer Lopez "Enough". Dia disiksa-siksa sampai akhirnya berteriak, it’s enough… Saya berontak… Tadi juga anda bilang, "Enough, sudah cukup alam kita disiksa". Jadi kira-kira begitu konsepnya?
Ya betul. Misalnya praktek penebangan liar hutan di Riau, Kalimantan. Dan sekarang praktek penebangan liar di Papua, yang saya pikir sudah berlangsung lama tapi pengungkapan yang sistematis baru dilakukan beberapa hari kemarin.
Di Riau, setiap akhir tahun, sekitar 80 kabupaten terendam banjir dalam skala besar karena hutannya sudah terlalu lama disiksa sehingga mereka marah. Padahal hutannya sudah bilang "Cukup.. Cukup… Jangan lagi", namun tetap saja dieksploitasi dan kebanyakan secara illegal. Termasuk juga di Kalimantan Barat dan Kalimantan Tengah, hutan produksinya dieksploitasi dengan luar biasa. Biaya ekonomi akibat banjir atau yang biasa disebut dengan externality (eksternalitas) yaitu biaya yang diakibatkan oleh bencana-bencana, biasanya tidak dimasukkan ke dalam perhitungan ekonomi.

Kita mengenal masalah lingkungan sebagai masalah yang sangat fundamental bahkan suatu masalah moral yang mengandung tanggung jawab orang terhadap hidupnya sendiri dan terhadap dunia. Kemarin saya ikut acara bedah buku, dengan judul "Batas Nalar", di buku itu dikatakan bagian-bagian mana yang dibilang nalar, mana yang passion, mana yang rasio, mana yang emosi. Sekarang ini kelihatannya masalah lingkungan betul-betul sudah sangat tinggi tingkatnya, sehingga masalahnya menjadi emosi dan moral. Bagaimana hal-hal seperti ini diungkapkan melalui ilmu ekonomi? Apakah ilmu ekonomi bisa menunjukkan kejahatan terhadap lingkungan?
Ilmu ekonomi sebetulnya merupakan instrumen yang universal, karena ilmu ekonomi selalu berkaitan dengan aspek uang. Semua orang kenal uang dan membutuhkannya. Sehingga kerugian-kerugian akibat kerusakan lingkungan ini, jika kita ukur dengan uang akan menjadi menarik bagi para pihak terutama pengambil keputusan dan masyarakat itu sendiri. Sejauh ini pemerintah jarang sekali memperkenalkan kerugian di lingkungan dalam bentuk uang. Ini permasalahannya. Dan Greenomics adalah sebuah lembaga yang mempromosikan kerugian lingkungan kita dalam bentuk uang.

Tadi anda katakan adanya kerugian dari segi uang. Kalau mengalami kerugian, orang pasti tahu. Lalu Mengapa harus anda yang tunjukkan kerugiannya? Kenapa orang-orang itu tidak tahu adanya kerugian?
Saya pikir pemerintah dalam beberapa komponen sudah tahu. Hanya saja jika pemerintah yang menyampaikan, mereka menganggap policy atau kebijakan yang mereka keluarkan akan tidak efektif dan merugikan keuangan masyarakat. Tapi yang perlu kami garis bawahi, sampai sekarang belum ada standar baku di pemerintahan misalnya Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup atau Departemen Kehutanan, dalam menghitung berapa kerugian-kerugian ekologi yang dimunculkan akibat eksploitasi berdasarkan keputusan yang mereka keluarkan. Ini juga sangat di sayangkan. Sebuah studi di World Resource Institute memperlihatkan bahwa pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia turun hingga 40- 60%, kalau dihitung berdasarkan kerugian uang yang timbul dari sektor lingkungan.

Untuk saya yang awam sangat mengherankan, sebab saya pikir lingkungan terpaksa dirusak demi kesejahteraan, demi keuntungan uang tapi menurut anda pengrusakan itu adalah kerugian. Saya ambil contoh, misalnya orang bicara soal sektor pertambangan. Industri pertambangan bilang jika keuntungan perusahaan maju, rakyat sekitar juga turut maju. Tapi menurut anda sebetulnya tidak lengkap kalau dibilang maju, justru rugi. Dimana beda perhitungannya?
Perhitungan yang dibuat oleh industri pertambangan adalah perhitungan angka nominal, uang nominal, misalnya Rp. 10 Triliun, sekian triliun dan sebagainya. Namun tanpa memperhitungkan kerugian yang dialami masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitar lokasi pertambangan, yang harus minum air yang sudah terkontaminasi, tailing yang dibuang ke laut, yang menyebabkan ikan mati sehingga menurunkan produksi masyarakat dan sebagainya. Hal semacam ini tidak masuk dalam hitungan mereka, tidak termasuk dalam struktur biaya dan keuntungan dari perusahaan itu.

Jadi biar saja yang memikul kerugian itu penduduk setempat yang tidak termasuk dalam perhitungan untung rugi perusahaan?
Iya

Sekarang kita masuk dalam konteks daerah. Saya baca di koran ada liputan di suatu media mengenai pendapat anda yaitu "Daya Dukung Ekologi Aceh Makin Menurun". Ketika saya baca, saya pikir ini menarik sekali, tapi ketika lihat tanggalnya 24 September 2004, sebelum terjadinya bencana Tsunami. Kalau sekarang, apakah ada aspek ekologi akibat bencana tsunami di Aceh?
Ini bisa menjadi sangat kritis. Sebetulnya pada proses rekonstruksi di Aceh yang harus dipahami oleh Presiden, Bakornas atau pemimpin-pemimpin di Aceh. Jangan sampai proses rekonstruksi di hilir, misalnya di daerah pesisir atau dekat pesisir tidak mengindahkan aspek-aspek yang harus kita perhatikan di hulu, misalnya Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS). Jangan sampai kita memindahkan masyarakat pesisir ke dekat Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS) atau di dalam kawasan lindung, hal ini akan menimbulkan datangnya lagi banjir dari hulu atau gunung dan penduduk yang dipindahkan akan terkena bencana lagi. Sehingga akan terjadi double disaster (bencana ganda). Yang pertama adalah bencana yang terjadi karena memang kehendak Tuhan, yang kedua adalah Man Made Disaster yaitu bencana yang kita buat sendiri dan membuat masyarakat Aceh kembali menderita. Airnya sama, yang pertama dari laut, yang kedua air dari gunung yang kita ciptakan sendiri.

Sekarang kita bicara mengenai Greennomics. Pertama kali saya dengar, saya kira Greenomics itu kantor pusatnya di Seattle atau di Washington dan ada cabangnya di Indonesia. Barangkali anda bisa cerita sedikit mengenai Greenomics?
Greenomics didirikan pada tanggal 14 Desember 1996 di sebuah kota kecil di Aceh Selatan. Ketika itu saya bekerja sebagai staf lapangan di World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) sebagai analis ekonomi lingkungan. Ketika itu saya merasakan, jangankan di tingkat daerah, di tingkat nasional saja pemahaman terhadap kerugian ekologi yang harus dihitung dengan nilai uang sangat terbatas. Sehingga sebagai analis, saya membuat riset khusus untuk mengetahui berapa persen eksploitasi hutan di Aceh Selatan yang menyebabkan penurunan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Hasilnya adalah sekitar 96%. Walaupun gelar saya S1 tapi saya mendapatkan banyak referensi, bantuan dari kolega-kolega Internasional dan ini sangat membantu. Waktu itu saya kirim hasil riset tersebut ke World Research Institute. Mereka balas surat saya dengan menyebut "Dear Elfian Effendi PhD….." Ha.. ha.. ha… Setelah dapat surat itu saya jadi kurang bernafsu lagi ambil Doktor..

Mesti disimpan ya suratnya.
Akhirnya saya pikir lebih baik saya membuat suatu lembaga yang memang mempromosikan pemahaman tentang kerugian ekologi yang harus dihitung dengan uang. Namun ide itu sempat terhenti, karena kemudian saya bekerja di USAID untuk The Natural Resources Management, juga sebagai analis ekonomi selama 4 tahun. Di situ saya banyak mendapat pelajaran dan pengalaman baru dari teman-teman internasional. Setelah itu saya pikir sudah waktunya bagi saya untuk melanjutkan kembali ide lembaga Greenomics yang kami buat pada tahun 1996. Jadi sekitar akhir tahun 2001 saya melanjutkan lagi Greenomics dan ketika itu Nabiel Makarim meminta saya menjadi staf ahli khusus. Tapi hanya beberapa bulan karena ternyata ada beberapa sisi yang tidak cocok terutama untuk kasus pertambangan.

Dalam pekerjaan yang anda jalani sekarang apakah anda merasa punya dampak pada pemikiran orang? Apakah pemikiran orang di Indonesia mengalami kemajuan dalam aspek ekonomi lingkungan?
Ada beberapa efektivitas dari hadirnya Greenomics. Yang pertama, misalnya untuk sektor pertambangan, Greenomics menjadi salah satu advokator utama untuk menghitung berapa kerugian pertambangan di hutan lindung. Hasil perhitungan Greenomics ini masuk dalam dokumen materi Judicial Review untuk Perpu I tahun 2004 dan digunakan resmi oleh teman-teman organisasi non pemerintah secara nasional. Perhitungan kita ini juga diakui kevaliditasannya oleh Menteri Kehutanan, ketika itu Bapak Prakosa, yang menolak pertambangan di hutan lindung. Tetapi karena aspek politis kita tidak tahu efek yang keluar. Yang kedua adalah Greenomics, Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) dan Departemen Kehutanan (Dephut) membuat sebuah MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) tentang pemberantasan KKN di Departemen Kehutanan. Salah satu hasilnya adalah kita berhasil mengembalikan uang negara tidak kurang dari Rp. 1,1 Triliun.

Bagaimana caranya? Barangkali anda bisa sedikit elaborasi soal itu?
Pada mulanya Dephut memiliki niat yang cukup baik untuk memberantas praktek KKN. Karena semua orang tahu departemen ini merupakan ladang basah untuk korupsi. Kemudian Dephut mendiskusikan hal ini dengan Greenomics dan mereka juga meminta ICW, jika berkenan, untuk membantu, karena ICW selama ini dikenal tidak mau sembarangan dan mereka juga sangat kredibel. Setelah melalui beberapa penaksiran dan diskusi, ICW memutuskan untuk ikut membantu.
Maka pada tanggal tanggal 18 Desember 2003 kita membuat MOU dan tidak sampai 6 bulan kita sudah memperluas item MOU sampai ke seluruh kegiatan inti Dephut. Sehingga pada saat itu sudah mulai banyak progress yang baik, diantaranya ditemukan banyak pengusaha yang menunggak dana reboisasi dengan kerugian sekitar Rp. 1,23 Triliun. Dengan bantuan teman-teman pers, kami umumkan ke publik siapa penunggaknya. Tentu dengan resiko yang besar dan resiko nyawa juga, tapi itu tidak apa-apa, masalah Lillahi Ta’ala saja, karena kalau kita bekerja terlalu banyak pikir-pikir, tidak akan bisa menghasilkan apa-apa.

Ini berkaitan dengan cerita anda yang saya baca di koran bulan November 2004, mengenai Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (GERHAN). Anda menyatakan gerakan tersebut lumayan bagus tapi anda tidak terlalu yakin. Baru-baru ini Presiden menegaskan "Enough"!! Sekarang tidak main-main lagi. Kita tangkap pelaku illegal logging. Menurut anda itu sesuatu terobosan atau bagaimana?
Saya pikir ini sebuah niat baik, tapi saya tidak yakin. Seharusnya penegasan ini sudah dilakukan sejak 100 hari pertama pemerintahan SBY. Sebenarnya pada 100 hari pertama, kami sudah sampaikan kepada Menteri Kehutanan untuk segera mengeluarkan Peraturan Pemerintah (Perpu) Anti Illegal Logging karena sistem peradilan kita yang terlalu lama. Ketika itu Menteri Kehutanan tetap bersikukuh untuk mengeluarkan Instruksi Presiden (Inpres). Saya sampaikan juga bahwa ketika masa pemerintahan Gus Dur, kita pernah membuat Inpres penanganan illegal logging di Taman Nasional Leuser dan Taman Nasional Tanjung Puting. Namanya juga Inpres, tentu efektivitas sistem peradilannya masih harus menggunakan sistem peradilan yang lama, tidak bisa membuat peradilan Ad Hock [sic] dan sebagainya. Jadi pelajaran regulasi yang kita peroleh dari pemerintahan Gus Dur, harus disempurnakan lagi dalam bentuk sebuah Perpu. Perpu ini akan memungkinkan pemerintah segera membuat peradilan Ad Hock dan bisa menangkap pelaku illegal logging dengan tidak membutuhkan bukti yang terlalu detail sehingga bisa langsung bisa tangkap.
Saya pikir niat baik ini akan menjadi sempurna kalau Presiden segera mengeluarkan Perpu Anti Illegal Logging. Jika instrumennya masih Inpres, saya khawatir nantinya akan lebih banyak kompromi dan akan bekerja hanya bila diungkapkan oleh teman-teman pers dan dilupakan jika tidak diberitakan.

Mengenai pemikiran-pemikiran anda, apakah ada harapan untuk dilembagakan dalam kurikulum ekonomi atau lembaga-lembaga tertentu, selain perjuangan lepas seperti yang anda lakukan sekarang?
Sebetulnya beberapa universitas sudah memiliki kurikulum ilmu ekonomi lingkungan. Hanya saja kelemahan teman-teman kita di kampus adalah terbatasnya empirical exercise di lapangan dan bersentuhan langsung dengan policy content sehingga materi-materi yang disampaikan sering out of date dan juga ilmu-ilmu yang dipelajari terlalu teoritis. Padahal di luar sana tidak perlu ada sebuah sistem ekonomi dengan model yang sangat luar biasa, sebuah perhitungan stastistik yang mendalam, itu tidak perlu. Cukup hanya beberapa hal penting saja yang perlu disampaikan. Sehingga kadang-kadang Greenomics susah melakukan ekspansi karena masalah keterbatasan sumber daya manusia Indonesia sendiri.

Maksudnya ekspansi itu untuk memperluas usaha anda dan maksud dari kurang sumber daya adalah kurangnya orang untuk mengerjakannya? Apakah tidak bisa diwaralabakan dengan membuat satu kelompok lalu diajarkan. Belum bisa sampai ke situ?
Greenomics walaupun memang sebuah organisasi non pemerintah teknis yang berbasis di Indonesia, namun kita selalu menggunakan standar internasional. Referensi-referensi kita selalu yang terbaru dan studi kita yang lakukan harus di-review oleh tingkat internasional

Apakah anda berkenan menjawab pertanyaan pembaca mengenai topik yang kita bahas ini? Karena biasanya suka ada yang tanya.

Bisa melalui email di elfian@greenomics.org atau buka webnya di www.greenomics.org. Banyak teman-teman dari seluruh Indonesia yang bertanya mengenai studi ekonomi lingkungan, advokasi ke Pemda dan sebagainya. Bersama teman-teman di Greenomics, kami sering membantu dan menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut. Kalau ada topik yang menarik biasanya kita tindak lanjuti sendiri. Banyak teman-teman di Greenomics yang bekerja sukarela, kadang-kadang dalam 1 tahun, 8 bulan tidak punya gaji .Tapi karena ini sebuah gagasan bagus yang harus kita dorong maka kita tetap semangat menjalankannya. Tapi saya senang karena banyak didukung oleh tokoh-tokoh misalnya Mas Teten Masduki dari ICW, Mas Wimar Witoelar

Bukan tokoh tapi bantu saja ha.. ha.. ha.. buat pembaca yang ingin tahu lebih banyak mengenai Greenomics atau topic yang kita bahas silahkan kirim email ke Pak Elfian atau buka web Greenomics atau bisa menghubungi Yayasan Perspektif Baru melalui telp di (021) 72790028 atau Fax di (021) 722 9994. Terima kasih.

Sumber: http://www.perspektifbaru.com/wawancara/469/

The Full Seas Act and the College of the 21st Century - by Brian Czech

We just can’t have a perpetually growing population, perpetually growing consumption, or perpetually growing economy. To think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet (Earth comes to mind) is equivalent to thinking we could have a stabilized economy on a perpetually diminishing planet. In other words, we could gradually squish the $70 trillion global economy into one continent, then one nation, then one city… you get the picture. It’s becoming an “information economy,” right? So eventually we could squish it into your blackberry, leaving the rest of the planet as a designated wilderness area![...]

Ecoliteracy: EE, ESD, EfS, Earth Education - Ivan Fukuoka

Introduction

The root cause of global environmental problems can be traced to a large extent to the currently dominant neoliberal industrial-capitalistic ideology, its derivative the neoclassical economic system and its cult of managerialism. Central to this belief is the [obsolete] assumption of unlimited economic growth driven by consumerism and consumption is possible. However, we must remember that centrally planned socialist or communist and "semi-socialist" state economic systems like China and Russia are also equally responsible for the destruction of their respective local/regional environments too.

The trouble with maintaining growth-economy that relies endlessly on converting natural resources faster than its regeneration is that it is not possible on two counts – first, the planet has limited reserves of natural resources and second, the Earth's growing population demands have surpassed the regenerative capacity of the planet (Wackernagel (2002) in Brown, 2006, p.6). This unsustainable practice is further exacerbated by modern industrial society education system as schools and universities  continue to teach neoclassical [i.e.growth-economy] rather than steady-state or ecological economics to students.

The clarion [economic] call here is to live within the means of our ecological regenerative interests [i.e. sustainable] and not on the principal reserves of ecological capital [i.e.unsustainable]. In financial term this situation is call a debt which is clearly not a sustainable way to live on a finite planet.

Further examination revealed that the underlying causes of unsustainable activities are usually unaddressed or ignored social problems (i.e. inequality, poverty, injustice etc). It is a systemic [human] problem of values and vision, of motive and meaning as well as of ethics and ideologies – these are the real root of environmental problems. Ecological Footprint proponent Professor William Rees put it this way, ‘…the “environmental crisis” is less an environmental and technical problem than it is a behavioral and social one’ (Rees, 1996, p.xi). To which he concluded that ‘it can be resolved only with the help of behavioral and social solutions’ (ibid.).

As the ‘environmental crisis’ alarm continues ringing the public (led by academics, scientists, radical educators and activists) are awaken and became conscious of the underlying cause of our environmental problems. A quick look at today’s news and magazines will display the planet-wide ecological destruction as scientific reports and studies from almost every parts of the world confirmed that the ‘environmental crisis’ is not only continuing but progressively worsening (Sachs,1996, p.243). Some with unprecedented direct/indirect local, national/regional and global consequences for human like climate change, food/water shortages, dwindling oil reserves etc. The planet-wide reality is this, unlimited conversion of natural resources or ecological capital (i.e. forests, oceans, fauna and flora including indigenous civilisations) into commodities for trades and consumption will have adverse ecological effects on the whole planet ecosystems. And this may interfere seriously with the provision of free ecological services such as fresh air, water availability, agreeable climate etc.

Environmental education (EE) particularly Education for Sustainability (EfS) and its many variants (i.e. Education for Sustainable Living, Education for Sustainable Future etc.) are instrumental in transmitting the concepts, values and principles of planetary ecological sustainability into public consciousness. When the transmission is successful and understood and formed strong ecological worldview then the next step would be the implementation or practice of this worldview so that the goal of achieving ecologically sustainable society is possible. However, we must understand that education cannot achieve this goal alone - it must work in cooperation and in synergy with other transformative agents of [social and cultural]change who shared similar goal in all walks of life.

The context: Sustainable Development is Qualitative Improvement

Before we proceed, I would like to mention about the two types of ‘sustainable development’ approach. The first approach is the ‘flexible’ sustainable development approach of the ‘Brundtland Report’ (WCED, 1987) which was endorsed during the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED, 1992) and later co-opted by pro-growth neoliberal forces in the second Earth Summit (WSSD, 2002), Johannesburg, South Africa. This approach has been subject to much controversy and criticism by ecocentric leaning groups and supporters. They argued about its proximity with pro-growth/status-quo proponents which are part of the problem.

And the second type is the ‘genuine’ sustainable development approach which calls for the reduction of [economic] growth to achieve a ‘steady-state-economy’ through ecologically sustainable development pathway. This school of thought is supported by scholars and thinkers from the Club of Rome with their report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al.) and by those inspired by the ideals of E.F. Schumacher’s book Small is Beautiful. Thus sustainable development becomes the arena for two contesting worldviews of sustainability – the pro-growth technocentrism and the pro-development ecocentrism. These two perspectives are identified by Turner (1988) as ‘...the sustainable growth and the sustainable development modes of thinking’ (Turner in J.Fien and T.Trainer, 1993, p.30).

Consumerism popularised through various media and powered by global transnational corporations created an almost homogenised model of economic aspiration. This condition is particularly true for many third world countries with access to ‘western’ culture and is well represented by the ‘American Dream’. As observed by Carley and Spapen: “The consumption patterns represented by the American dream, encouraged by global marketing, television and advertising, condition social and economic aspiration of people and households around the world” (Carley and Spapens, 1998, p.29). Hence, prolonging the cycle of consumption and consequently further depleting the world’s finite resources.

UNSW's academic Dr Ted Trainer remind us that ‘...the core problems in our economy derive from the fact that it is a free enterprise or free market system. Participants are free to produce, purchase and work as they as individuals wish. This sounds ideal, but unless an economy is under considerable social control it will mostly serve the rich and powerful and deprive the poor.’(Trainer, Website, 1995).

The founder of ecological economy Professor Herman Daly explains that ‘...the term sustainable development is used as a synonym for the oxymoronic sustainable growth’ he further added that ‘[i]t must be saved from this perdition’ of misunderstanding (Daly, 1996, p.193 in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith). He did so by making a clear distinction between the meaning of growth and the meaning of development – growth in his view is quantitative physical expansion whereas ‘development’ is qualitative improvements. He then defines sustainable development as ‘...a process of qualitative improvement without quantitative increase beyond environmental [regenerative and absorptive] capacity’ in other words ‘development without growth’ (Daly, 1996, p.18-9). And considering that we all live within a finite and non-growing planet, I think it made complete sense for sustainable development to be identified as qualitative improvement and not with quantitative [economic] expansion of sustainable growth. To me this ecologically based sustainable development is the true mark of genuine sustainable development.

Table 1 – This graph shows that human has exceeded consuming one planet around mid 1980s.

Sometime in mid 1980s the world has past consuming one planet!

Disposable Planet, BBC website retrieved on 01 Sept 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/big_picture/

• It would take 1.2 Earths to regenerate resources at the rate we are using them.
• Humans started to exceed nature's ability to regenerate from the mid-1980s onwards. 
• In 1961 humans were using 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere. By 1999, that had risen to 120%.(Source: PNAS, adapted from “Disposable Planet”, bbc.co.uk website)

So it is now clear that the concept of ‘sustainable development’ as growth is misleading and is undeniably ‘part of the problem’ whereas the notion of ‘sustainable development’ as qualitative improvement is ‘part of the solution’ for social-environmental problems. The challenge ahead for those who have seen and understood the root of the problem is to assist the transformation process from the old social-economic regime of growth towards a more holistic and ecologically sustainable paradigm. In this context [environmental] education plays the critical role of guiding and ensuring smooth transition towards the ecologically sustainable global society – by steering the currently reductionist-mechanistic-Cartesian ‘traditional’ education system towards a more inclusive ecologically based environmental education (i.e. Education for Sustainability, Education for Sustainable Living, and Educating for Sustainability) in which principles, languages and stories of ecological sustainability are prominently featured, studied and practiced (Capra and Pauli, 1995, pp.2-3).

Education for SD (ESD) – More conventional approach to EE

ESD evolved from many past conferences that involve educators. This can be traced back to the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972) in Stockholm, Sweden which endorsed environmental education to address increasing environmental problems (i.e. pollutions) as the result of industrialisation. ESD is a vision of education that seeks to balance human and economic well-being with cultural traditions and respect for the earth’s natural resources through transdisciplinary educational approaches to achieve a sustainable future (CEE India,(n.a)).

The concept of sustainability contained in the ‘Brundtland Report’ (WCED, 1987) was originally developed from early 1980s by Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute – ‘[he] defined a sustainable society as one that is able to satisfy its needs without diminishing the chances of future generations’ (Brown (1981) in Fritjof Capra, 2002, p.200). However as noted by Capra, ‘...this definition does not tell us anything about how to build a sustainable society’ (ibid.) within the Earth’s ecological limits.

Thereafter the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) and its publication ‘Our Common Future’ defined the concept of 'SD' as ‘...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Previously, environment and development tended to be thought of as two separate areas – the need for [economic] development on the one hand and the need to protect the environment on the other. During the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the main focus of SD appeared to be the environmental side. While the social aspects like poverty [social-injustice] though seen as important it was not on priority in the main documents from the Earth Summit (i.e. Rio Declaration and Agenda 21). Instead the emphasis is more on protecting the natural environment through a global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem.

A decade later a more integrated model of SD approach was endorsed at the World Summit on SD (WSSD, 2002) in Johannesburg, South Africa. Its declaration states that sustainable development is built on three interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of—economic development, social development and environmental protection—which must be established at local, national, regional and global levels (WSSD, 2002). WSSD model had a strong emphasis on the socio-economic aspects such as poverty, inequity, poor quality of life and associated human suffering while still highlighting how current actions are leading to environmental degradation. And its inter-sectoral approach appeared to be geared for better quality of life for everyone now and for the generations to come – which means it seeks to secure long-term [strong] sustainability.

However, there are unfinished ‘homework’ from the ‘Brundtland Report’ on issues concerning unclear definition of SD and questions like – ‘whose development needs?’ and ‘whose future generations?’ – raised by the South remains unanswered. Furthermore, the underlying issues of inequality due to unrestrained growth-economy, unregulated financial markets and its repercussions are avoided from being discussed in Johannesburg. With this burden of unresolved issues and criticisms in the background it will be difficult to expect any real paradigm shift or transformation to emerge from ESD programmes sponsored or endorsed by the United Nations. In addition, the culture/characteristic of ‘democracy’ in the UN assembly itself is an impediment as it is [mainly] dictated by dominant member nation/s (i.e. the US, Russia, China) thus preventing it from exercising decisive power. In short, the UN (and its agencies) is not an effective agent to implement radical socio-ecological change.

Education for Sustainability (EfS) [More radical approach to EE]

Education for sustainability was the result of many international agreements (WCED 1987, Rio Earth Summit 1992, Johannesburg WSSD 2002) and the global call to actively pursue sustainable development. The interesting difference is that it facilitates new orientation for current practice in environmental education and environmentalism.

Some of the new and distinctive components in EfS are its systemic and critical thinking approach towards achieving a sustainable society. This is done by encouraging learners [and educators] to think beyond treating symptoms like raising awareness or involve in a one-off environmentally friendly activities. But to ‘think-through’ employing critical and systemic thinking to identify the root cause of the issues then work actively towards positive outcomes (Tilbury, D. and Cooke, K. (2005) in Aries).

It also regards people not as the problem instead it views them as agent of change in whatever level of their involvement in life. And more radically it challenges the concept of integration by arguing that integration maintained the status-quo and does not challenge unsustainable practice because it is transformation and innovation that lie at the heart of sustainability.

This new orientation attempts to move beyond education in and about the environment approaches to focus on equipping learners with the necessary skills to be able to take positive action to address a range of sustainability issues. Education for sustainability [supposedly]motivates, equips and involves individuals, and social groups in reflecting on how we currently live and work, in making informed decisions and creating ways to work towards a more sustainable world. Supported by the principles of critical theory, EfS aims to go beyond individual behaviour change and seeks to engage and empower people to implement systemic changes (Tilbury, 2004 in Aries).

After reviewing the main theme in EfS, which is critical and systemic thinking approach. I think the approach will have to overcome the challenge in its implementation because historically speaking radical ideas flourish when there is a person, a character which has been exemplified by many educators (i.e. Montessori, Friere or the Buddha). So shifting from symptom-based treatment to a more thoughtful process of critical and systemic thinking requires fairly developed [western-education] and limited participants.

Education for Sustainable Living/Futures: Developing Ecological Literacy

Education for Sustainable Living/futures (EfSL) originates from the awareness that current [traditional] education system is not geared for living sustainably therefore inconsiderate of future generation needs and requirements. To live sustainably according to Fritjof Capra we do not have to reinvent the wheel. He said we can learn from older sustainable societies or mimic or copy nature, he further added ‘…[that] the outstanding characteristic of the biosphere is its inherent ability to sustain life, a sustainable human community must be designed in such a manner that its technologies and social institutions honor, support, and cooperate with nature's inherent ability to sustain life’ (Capra, n.d.)

There are many important similarities between EfS and EfSL. Among them are the shift from structure to process; from parts to the whole (holistic-view); from objective to contextual knowledge and the prominent one being its systemic view and approach towards education. EfSL also shares at least one significant similarity with ESD, which is its focus on quality instead of quantity.

EfSL such as embodied in ecological–literacy concern itself with principles and values that foster respect for Nature’s biogeochemical cycles and processes this must be facilitated and promoted at all level of EfS. Because when a person, a community or business is ecologically illiterate then it reduces the possibility to achieve sustainable futures. Borrowing from David Orr rather funny but serious comments is that: ‘...ecological illiterates...will have roughly the same success as one trying to balance a checkbook without knowing arithmetic’ (Orr, 1992, p.86).

When ecoliteracy becomes the norms and widely understood by the majority of the planet citizens then the goal of building an ecologically sustainable society is closer to realisation. Education for sustainable living when implemented properly will insure that everyone will have a sustainable future living on this planet. 

Conclusion

“[T]he concept of sustainable development did emerge as a means of combining economic and ecological needs” (Odum and Garret, 2005, p.468). And the goal of sustainable development is sustainability, a journey and destination that is to be [socio] culturally negotiated. (Aries,n.a.)

The first priority for any true citizen of this Earth is to learn and realised that the primary goal of sustainability is to live within our environmental/ecological limits. To do so, what we need is not better technologies or new ideologies but social-intelligence, such as  sensitivity, care and respect – convivial and vernacular capacities we used to have and experienced but now lost or forgotten in our quest for being ‘civilised’, sophisticated and super-modern – to the point that we care-less for life and care more for the lifeless.

When this happened frequently then it’s time to rethink and reconsider all our basic assumptions, models and paradigms. EE, ESD, EfS and others like education for sustainable living/futures provide the tools to reorient our direction towards appreciating life and the living – a condition and tendency commonly found in our young. Eminent biologist Professor E.O. Wilson call it ‘Biophilia’.

Because in the end what is the use of having an educated person whose character cannot appreciate life or the living. Otherwise what radical author Derrick Jensen said about '...civilisation is inherently unsustainable' (Jensen, 2008) can be further elaborated to include industrial civilisation is absolutely unsustainable—will soon be a reality.

References

Brown, L. (1981) in Fritjof Capra (2002), The Hidden Connections (p.200). London: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Elliot, J. (1999). An Introduction to Sustainable Development (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Fien, J and Trainer, T. (1993). A Vision of Sustainability. In J. Fien (Ed.) Environmental Education: A Pathway to Sustainability (p.29). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Capra, F and Pauli, G. (Eds.) (1995). Steering Business Toward Sustainability (pp.2-3). Tokyo: The United Nations University

Capra, F. System thinking. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/education/sustainability.html on 22 October 2008.

(n.a.).CEE India retrieved from http://www.ceeindia.org/esf/esd.asp on 22 October 2008.

Carley, M and Philippe Spapens, (1998). Sharing the World: Sustainable Living and Global Equity in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan

Daly, Herman E. (1999). Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics: Essays in Criticism, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Daly, Herman E. (1996) Sustainable Growth? No Thank You. In J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Ed.). The Case Against The Global Economy: and for a turn toward the local (p.193). San Francisco: Sierra Club.

Disposable Planet, BBC website retrieved on 01 Sept 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/big_picture/

Jensen, D. (2008). Personal communications.

Meadows, H.D., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: global collapse or a sustainable future. London: Earthscan Publications.

Tilbury, D. and Cooke, K. (2005) A National Review of Environmental Education and its Contribution to Sustainability in Australia: Frameworks for Sustainability. Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability. In Aries website, retrieved from http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/portal/about/relationship.htm#innovation on 22 October 2008.

Trainer, T. (F.E.) The Simpler Way: Analysis of global problem. Retrieved 18 May 2005, from http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/09c-Our-Economic-System.html

Odum, E. P. and Barret, G.W. (2005). Fundamentals of Ecology (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Ophuls, W. and Boyans, Jr. S.A. (1992). Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited: The unravelling of the American Dream. New York: W.H.Freeman and Company.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. New York: State University of New York Press.

Sachs, W. (1996) Neo-Development: “Global Ecological Management”. In J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Ed.) The Case Against The Global Economy: and for a turn toward the local (p.243). San Francisco: Sierra Club.

Wackernagel, M. (2002) in L. Brown (2006).Plan B 2.0: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.