oundaries. But at the same time, private recognitionof what is possible in the current political context needsto be matched with forceful public emphasis on what isnecessary.Start with the public position. Key global environmentalindicators are now deteriorating with frightening rapidity.As far as scientists can tell, three planetary boundaries havealready been crossed, with another three at imminent risk.This is happening because of economic growth – primarilyin high income countries, but increasingly in emergingeconomies too. Sustainability advocates need to show thatif the post-2015 agenda does not focus on the need forgrowth and development to take place in a fundamentallydifferent way, then it will just replicate existing problems,at larger scale.world’s 7 billion (and counting) human inhabitants toshare between them.As they pursue this strategy, sustainability advocatesneed to bear in mind that while political space is acutelylimited at present, they can expect much more room formanoeuvre to open up at key points between now and2015 – for example in the aftermath of major shocks suchas extreme weather events or resource price spikes. Noonecan predict such events, but it is absolutely possibleto anticipate them, given the direction of travel over thelast few years. When such moments occur, everythingdepends on having the right ideas ready ‘on the shelf’. Nowis the moment to pre-position these ideas – and lay downclear markers about what it will actually take to solve thecrisis of global unsustainability.6Sustainability advocates also need to be much more seriousand determined about how to characterise the dividing linebetween the approach they believe is necessary, and thelow ambition alternative. They have been deeply unwiseto allow the choice to be framed as one between bottomup/ low ambition and top-down / high ambition, when infact both approaches are bottom-up in the sense that theyare based on the need for flexibility in national approach.Instead, they need to make clear that the key dividing lineis that where the low ambition approach is based on theidea that natural systems will somehow award ‘marks foreffort’, their approach is based on identifying, and thendoing, what science indicates is in fact necessary.Within the post-2015 process, the High Level Panel is –for now and for the foreseeable future – the only gamein town. Those Panel members who are serious aboutsustainability need to organise themselves (by the end ofJanuary at the latest) around a clear set of propositions,and then orchestrate a ‘moment’ at which they bring theirasks to a head. Developing country governments will beespecially crucial, given that they have most to lose fromunsustainability and have the greatest moral authority inthe post-2015 process. Indonesia, Mexico and Colombiaare likely to form the indispensable core of any coalitionof progressive-minded developing country governmentson the Panel.Above all, issues of sustainability need to be rescued fromthe environmental prison in which they are currentlylanguishing. Environmental summitry has become theworld’s principal breeding ground for multilateral zombies(staggering on, moaning piteously, never quite dying)with few if any really significant wins in the 15 years sinceKyoto. This should surprise no-one, mirroring as it doesthe fact that in capitals all over the world, environmentministers lack the clout to make change happen. Instead,issues of resource limits need to be brought to the heartof debates about how we develop – not in some vague,aspirational way, but by starting from quantified estimatesof how much environmental space is available for theIn substantive terms, sustainability advocates should playfor four key outcomes in the Panel’s report. First, explicitrecognition that avoiding dangerous natural resourceand ecosystem thresholds must be a core part of thefuture global development agenda, and that globalisationneeds to become not just inclusive and resilient, but alsosustainable. Second, goals on access to energy, food andwater, again with clear acknowledgement of natural limitsand the need for sustainable resource management inevery case. Third, if the post-2015 framework includesprovision for countries to pledge voluntary national targetson sustainability, then these should at least be buttressedby transparent accountability and review mechanisms.NYUCICClimate, Scarcity and Sustainability in the Post-2015 <strong>Development</strong> Agenda
Fourth and finally, the Panel should make explicit referenceto the need for global development to take place withinplanetary boundaries – and recommend the creation ofa formal global monitoring mechanism, as outlined inoption 2. This approach would avoid the Panel having toquantify planetary boundaries itself, or get into acutelydifficult distributional issues when there is insufficientpolitical space to reach a deal - but would still buildvital political momentum around the idea of planetaryboundaries, and create a clear ‘hook’ for political pressurein the future. At a point when the global sustainabilityagenda is losing momentum rapidly, and potentially at riskof stalling altogether, building these long term agendasfor the future may be the most important contributionthat the Panel can make.7Climate, Scarcity and Sustainability in the Post-2015 <strong>Development</strong> AgendaNYUCIC
Change language