Three Pillars of Sustainable development
- Pages: 7
- Word count: 1673
- Category: Economics
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
As a consultant land manager, whom would you regard as key stakeholders and how would you go about engaging with them to balance, or reconcile, the three pillars of sustainable development in the subject area?
Sustainable development is defined as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In this essay, I will be tabulating all the three pillars of sustainable development which are; Economic growth, Social equity and environmental protection. And identifying the key stakeholders in reconciling a balance between the three pillars.
1.Chief (present)Villages will get compensation and improvement in their economic situation. Plays a vital role as village chief and accepted by villages as their leader.Relocate villages to higher communal land.
2.Chief (absent)Economic situation will not change. There are no written agreements on the dam proposal.Has full legal recognition as chief of the village.Dam will cause further land degradation such as over flooding in the village and their plantation.
3. Timber CompanyEconomically driven by timber products.
Help in the providence of job opportunities and has negotiated a license with the former chief.Over- cutting, soil erosion and mineral loss.
4.Entrepreneur (proposed dam)Promised payment for the dam and improve economic situation.Increase quality of life such as better homes, larger church and school facilities.Flooding of the village and their plantation, new relocation at higher grounds but less space for cultivation, housing.
5.VillagesEarn their income from the timber company and their farm produce.Agree with the proposal of new dam and relocation of their village to higher communal land.May have to loss on their cropping if the dam were to be constructed. And alienation from their land.
6.Landowners (customary land)Economically driven from the land lease the get from tenants on agricultural lease.Leases are for non-members of the customary ownership group.Land becomes less productive and loss its value.
7. Tenants Get incomes from cash cropping and loan from financial institutions.Are given land by the landowners and granted 30 years lease at nominal rentsLack of attention to the land may lead to land degradation and directly consumes the product of labor
8.Entrepreneur (proposed dam)Economically driven by the granting of the leases and operating on the land.Villages get higher lease rentalsAffect or erodes the basis of civilization and environment.
9.Entrepreneur (mineral water company)Economically driven by the extraction of mineral water at the bottom of the earth.Aquifer spreading under Village A customary land not included in lease.Produces clean mineral water below surface without affecting the natural plants and animals above the surface.
10.Tourism resortDriven by the arrival of touristsProvide job opportunities and revenue and investor confidence in the state.Conservation and beautification of the environment.
11.Ministry of LandsEconomically driven by the land leases that are crowned owned and collecting and redistributing land rents.
Administering of native land and improving landlord and tenants relation.Improve the land situation and to benefit the indigenous owners.
12.Ministry of TourismEconomically driven by foreign investment and tourists arrivals.Help maintain the social relation between foreign visitors and advertising their country to encourage more tourist arrivals.Maintain eco- tourism and improve the beauty and scenery of the land.
13.Foreign governmentEconomically driven by giving aids.Major aid donor to the state. Disposing of low-grade nuclear waste.
14.Media Economically driven by publishing their papers.Provide the public with the latest and updated current affairs.Reusing old newspapers (recycling)
15. NGO’s/ GreenpeaceEconomically driven through sustainability.Looks to preserving of plant, animals and natural environment and the protection of the basis of civilization. Protect the further degradation of the land, air and water and its conservation.
Hernando de Soto argues that the individualization of title and ownership will liberate access to capital and encourage productivity. Explore this statement in the context of the current scenario for the customary owners of land surrounding Village B and explain how the situation of the individual and the group may be improved, or worsened, under a de Soto model.
Hernando de Soto argues that by individualizing title and ownership to land will we have access to capital and an increase in productivity. In this essay I will be discussing to you the statement above to the context of the current situation for customary land surrounding Village B and to explain how individual and the group may be improved or worsened, under a de Soto model. Firstly, as de Soto argues, why there is a gap between the first world countries (rich nations) and the third world countries (poor nations). This is due to the fat that rich nations are able to formalize their property rights. Let us take a simple example, of a leasehold land (formal sector) and a squatter settlement (informal sector).
Leasehold land (formal sector):Vs.Squatter settlement (informal sector):
•Can raise funds
Example, mortgage, improvement (value)•Can not raise finds example, mortgage, improvement (value)
•Legal occupation of land
•Illegal occupation of land Figure 1: Leasehold land (formal sector) and Squatter Settlement (informal sector) Source: Rao, M. 2004
In the above table, it shows the difference between the formal sector and informal sector. Therefore, in comparison to rich nations and poor nations, there has been a gap between the two nations because the rich nations are able to ‘formalize’ their property rights and have liberate access to capital and encourage productivity than compared to poor nations, which are operating in the informal sector. So in the context of the current scenario surrounding Village B of individual ownership to the land, it would improve their situation under the de Soto model as they can: raise finance, gain capital, have legal occupation to the land and encourage productivity, than compared to a group (customary) ownership. However, in a certain point under the de Soto model of encouraging the individual against communal ownership, it may worsen the real situation.
Figure 2: Communalism and Contemporary Permaculture.
Source: Boydell, S., and Small, G., (2001), adapted from Mollison, B. (1998) In the above diagram, Mollison argues that individual ownership would only worsen the problem in its long term costs, though individualizing ownership to land and title would liberate access to capital and development, to a certain extent it could lead to further exploitation of the land and leading to war and wastes.
However, in the customary land, the communal ownership and sharing amongst groups, depicts the co-operation and a sense of belonging and peace and plenty for basis of human civilization. In contrast, to Village B, the de Soto can also have some disadvantages and worsen the real situation that is already at hand, leading to the degradation or wastes of the land which the villages all depend on. So, the de Soto model can both benefit and worsen the situation in Village B. Likewise, whatever strategy that we implement, we must bear in mind that it would encourage sustainability and productivity and provide access for capital.
Develop a Dubois style ‘Importance of Stake & Power/ Importance of the Relationship’ model and a Walker & Daniels style dual concern model (‘Concern about others welfare and outcomes/ Concern about ones own welfare and outcomes’) to explain the multiple stakeholders interests in the eventuality of the proposal to store spent nuclear waste going ahead.
Dubois style ‘Importance of Stake & Power/ Importance of the Relationship’ model:
Figure 3: Dubois style ‘Importance of Stake & Power/ Importance of the Relationship’ model Stakeholder 13:
The foreign government is at the high collaboration and co-operation point because they have more influence on the state their relationship and power because they are one of the major aid donors. Their interests are in the dumping of their nuclear hazardous waste on the land of their aid recipients. They are also, at this point because they have high co-operation and can group people into doing things or for provision.
Stakeholder 11 & 12:
The two government statutory governments hold high participation into the proposal to store nuclear waste from going ahead because they are responsible for the care of the land and maintaining its attractiveness.
The media also play a role in these as they report such matters concerning the general public and less avoidance and withdrawal.
Stakeholder 1, 2, & 15:
These two chiefs have important roles to play in the decision of the usage of their land and have full legal recognition of the participation of the accommodating of the nuclear waste. The NGO’s are also interested in this situation as they dictate that the movement and the disposal of the hazardous waste do not damage the environment or the basis of civilization. These three stakeholders also hold good bargaining powers into compromising the disposal of the waste.
B.) Walker & Daniels style dual concern model (‘Concern about others welfare and outcomes/ Concern about ones own welfare and outcomes’)
Figure 4: Walker & Daniels style dual concern model (‘Concern about others welfare and outcomes/ Concern about ones own welfare and outcomes’)
Stakeholder 1 & 2:
The two chiefs have high concern for their people and also for their future generations, in yielding and accommodating these toxic wastes.
The media will always try and attract attention but have less concern for
others and are uncompetitive
The foreign government is highly concentrating on them but is very competitive.
Stakeholder 11, 12, & 15:
The statutory governments and NGO’s will highly considering the welfare of others and will be looking to resolutions into solving this waste disposal situation and look into that it does not harm the environment or humans both in the short term and long term costs.
1. Boydell, S., and Small, G., (2001), adapted from Mollison, B. (1998)
2. ESD. (2003), Brundtland Report, [Website]. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Development. Available: http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Sustainability/Older/Brundtland Report.html [2003, 29/06/2003]
3. Mollison, B., (1998), Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual, Tyalgum, NSW, Tagari Publications
4. Rao, M. 2004
5. Soto, H. D. (2000), The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else: Basic Books, New York.