Anda di halaman 1dari 7

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE (OUTLOOK BY RADICAL AND REFORMIST APPROACH)

Paper for Environmental Science Assignment

FITTRIE MEYLLIANAWATY PRATIWY NPM. 250120110531

SUSTAINABLE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MAGISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF PADJADJARAN BANDUNG 2012

INTRODUCTION What Sustainability is? The most important concept in current environmental thinking is sustainability, to investigate about sustainability we need to know about the definition of sustainability. Paul Ekins and Les Newby (1998) determined that sustainability is The capacity for continuance more or less indefinitely into the future. In generally, sustainability have been discussed in many development concept during the last 20 years for establishing the libration of global condition of human life when it became the driving concept behind the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio 1992. Based on this, we can conclude the position of suistainable development is not only face by one based factor but with the interdisciplinary concept which resulted the sustainable development concept. In Globaly, sustainable development is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. There is an additional focus on the present generations responsibility to improve the future generations life by restoring the previous ecosystem damage and resisting to contribute to further ecosystem damage (Wikipedia 2012). Sustainable development has three key pillars of development (elaborated through the Brundtland report) focused arround economic, social, and environmental sustainability (UNWCED 1987).

DISCUSSION Concept of Sustainable Development: Reformist and Radical Perspectives Adams (2001) showed that sustainable development has distinct characteristics of radical and reformist approaches concept. I will analyse both and discuss how the theory and practice of sustainable development relates to these principles and critize the strength and weaknees from the proposes and the basic characteristics. These paper specifically will focus on how interaction of sustainable development and environmental can build from theoretical approach of radical and reformist perspectives and
2

show the outline implications of each matters. I elaborate on two key points in this paper. First, investigate the position of sustainable development from these perspectives. Second, I discuss reasons for this and argue that and show the fundamental epistemological and ontological differences between understanding of sustainable development from each perspectives. Radical Environmentalism In any references, radical environmentalists can be recognized by their diagnoses and prescriptions regarding the environmental crisis. In generally, their diagnoses involve a critique of the dominant streams of occidental religion and philosophy, which are said to desacralize nature. Prescriptions generally include anthropocentric and hierarchical attitudes (especially capitalist and patriarchal ones). Accomplishing this is generally believed to require resacralizing and reconnecting with nature (which is usually gendered as female, as in mother earth or mother nature or sometimes the earth can be conceptualized as a living organism like the Gaia hypothesis determined), combined with direct-action resistance to oppression in all forms. Radical environmentalism it self has a differences characteristics fundamental conceptual, there are three movements based on radical principle: neo-Malthusian, deep ecology, eco-socialism and eco-anarchy (Grist 2007). In specifically, radical environmentalism has more deep thoughts to face the environmental problems and move on within change our perspectives by philosophy sentric emphasis.

Reformist Environmentalism Reformism is the belief that gradual changes through and within existing institutions of a society can ultimately change a society's fundamental economic relations, economic system and political structures. This belief grew out of opposition to revolutionary socialism, which contends that revolutions are necessary for fundamental structural changes to occur (Wikipedia 2012). Different from radical environmentalism perspective, reformist environmentalism thought sustainable development are responsibility for specific understanding of policy and practice including environmental valuation, energy efficiency and emissions efficiency, green consumption, voluntary carbon, regulation. Reformist environmentalist will focus on practices for market environmentalism that environment not just face by ecological functions but has non use value or usually called green
3

value for green consumption and lifestyle. The same direction with these explanation, Adams (2001) also said that change in the individuals behaviour is fostered through social forms of cooperation and participation at the local level.

Organizing Conflicting Environmental Discourse Illustrate of environmental discourse are often in conflict, this is not a new observation and become a controversion for a long time. Dryzek (1997) develops a taxonomy for organizing conflicting environmental discourse which classify by two dimensions. First dimension is concern in path to move away from the condition created by industrialism: reformist and radical. Second dimension is concern in the character of the alternatives proposed: prosaic or imaginative. So, He also describe about the environmental paradigm and divides to be four categories. 1. Radical and Prosaic: its also called survivalism and defined by its attention to limits and carrying capacities. Its called radical because its depend on challenges of economic growth and power relations. Its prosaic because solutions are proposed within the constraints of industrialism. 2. Reformist and Prosaic: its also called environmental problem solving. These discourses are prosaic because the economic-political status quo of industrialism is taken as a given. 3. Reformist and Imaginative: defined by the search for sustainability and determined by sustainable development and ecological modernization. 4. Radical and Imaginative: These are includes green radicalism. The discourses imagine radically different understandings of the environment, human-environment interactions, and human society.

Compare and Contrast: Radical and Reformist Concept for Sustainable Development Bassically, the conceptual of environmental perspectives (radical and reformist) that showed by Grist (2007) and Dryzek (1997) have the same fundamental material to built the sustaianable development. It is not effectively choices, but it is about pereception to face the environmental crisis problems. Based on two environmental perspectives reformist and radical environmentalism, sustainable development concept can built within these both perspectives by develop a
4

comprehend approaches. Although, every perspective has a differences theory and practice but we can compare and contrast the placement of sustainable development on this. Eventhough, there are as many criticisms of radical environmentalism as there are differing ideas, emphasis, and priorities within these movements, for examples criticisms come from other environmentalists as well as a wide variety of religious actors, social justice advocates, and political theorists. Some of the typical arguments are not directly or obviously related to religion. But, radical environmental has its own peculiar. The example of radical environmental likes Biocentrism, or eco-centrism, is The recognition of intrinsic values or moral status in non-human nature Eco-centric perspectives critique the approach of instrumental valuation of natures services (as seen in market environmentalism). Instead they espouse the deep ecology perspective where there are no dualities between human and nature. An extreme form of this approach would see people as organisms with no special rights over other creatures, which may lead to ecofascism (Adams, 2001). This argument has historically been most prominent over discussions of conservation and biodiversity preservation in sustainable natural resousrces development such as the local wisdom in Baduy Society, there is a conservation forest that protect with their own cultural value. Different with radical perspectives, reformist is more compromised, for example green consumption, likes Girst (2007) said that green consumption involves the manufacture of products that are more environmentally sustainable, used by niche markets located mostly in the wealthy economies. In terms of environmental and social sustainability this has led to the development of markets for organic foods, fair-trade goods, the Forestry Stewardship Council accreditation scheme for timber produce and the Marine Stewardship Councils sustainable fishery certification scheme and green investment products, amongst others. These green product will supporting by green market and its more compromised because its no compulsion to choose. But, there is a regulation to arrange these movement like ecological modernization system that related to market environmentalism under the umbrella of sustainable development. It is a regulation-oriented programme that became dominant from the mid-1980s, originating in a policy approach to pollution control (Carter, 2001). Technology and procedural innovation is perceived to provide a panacea for sustainable development under this approach, with an underlying utilitarian, rationalist, managerialist perspective to the types of change
5

required (Adams 2001). Here I enclosed the summary of radical and reformist approach for sustainable development on table 1. Table 1. Summary of Radical and Reformist Approach for Sustainable Development Parameters Reformist Sustainable Radical Sustainable Development Development Growth with resource use Limits to growth, environmental Perspective on efficiency, techno-centrism limits (Neo-Malthusian);holistic economic growth Ecology (Deep Ecology);no growth and development (Eco-sosialism) Neo-liberal and participatory Eco centric, anti-capitalist, Marxist Paradigmatic approach Resource use efficiency, Equity, Limits to consumption and Key goals decreasing pollution to output population Natural capital can be substituted Natural capital cannot be Approach to substituted by other capitals. Tradecapital substitution by equal amounts of generated industrial capital. Trade-offs must offs must be avoided through be costed and judged carefully means advocated by the separate with appropriate tools approaches (often used in combination) Sources: Girst (2007) following Adams (2001) with modified

CONCLUSION Basically, sustainable development can be outlook from both the radical and reformist. Sustainability will happen if the action taken in line with the theory developed and thinking of these three crucial aspects (social, economic, environmental). In my opinion, however, in terms of understanding, most of the sustainable development is more emphasis on the process in which the object is obtained from certain stages such as those developed and it more compromised in the reformist perspective, but the radical perspective can be used in deep understanding of sustainability concept for example, nature is not just as fulfilling needs but also supporting our system within interaction between human and nature as a carrying capacity and the value of environmental services can not be ignored and I think these is can be submitted by cultural value and local wisdom. So that, I recommend that sustainable development can be supporting by both of those perspectives, it doesnt mean environmental discourse problem can be solved just by these

concept, but we need more responsibility to take care of our nature and pursuing the sustainable development it self for libration of the ecosystem.

REFERENCES Adams, W.M., 2001. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. Routledge, London, 2nd Edition Carter, N., 2001. Sustainable Development and Ecological Modernisation, The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. CUP Dryzek,J.S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Journal of Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5(1):Pg. 65-66. Girst, N. 2007. Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich. 28 pages. Paul E. and Less N. 1998. Sustainable Wealth Creation at the local Level in an age of globalization. Journal of Regional studies, Vol. 32 (9): Pg.865. UNWCED (Editor), 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wikipedia. 2012.