The nexus of sustainability & social equity: Virginia's Eastern Shore (USA) as a local example of global issues.

• Author: Flint, R. Warren

Abstract

The practice of sustainable development requires society to equally and simultaneously address economic enhancement along with actions that offer environmental protection, while also insuring that the most disadvantaged people in our communities are provided the ability to improve their quality of life. The ethnic and class stratification of different societal sectors represents one of the most tenacious forms of inequality in any part of the world. For this reason, where inequities persist in severe forms, ideas about balancing economic development and environmental preservation may be particularly contentious. The primary premise of this paper assumes that without equity considerations economic and environmental sustainability objectives of a region cannot be achieved.

If we expand the meaning of environmental equity or justice beyond disproportionate impact from pollution on public health, and combine issues of populations that are disproportionately affected by environmental insults as well as adequate access to environmental benefits, then we have a paradigm under which to explore mechanisms for poor people to derive equal benefits from the advantages of environmental related business income. By exploring how poor people might benefit from nature-based business activities as an example, we can begin to demonstrate important linkages between a foundation of good environmental quality and the prosperous development of economic activity in certain societal sectors that might otherwise not make this connection.

This paper addresses a Virginia Eastern Shore (USA) case history example to explore whether or not a nature-based economy and consideration of a targeted, value-added tax on this industry's income can finance the transition of a region's neediest citizens to a better quality of life and in-turn a more amenable setting to further enhance economic development in the region that is environmentally sustainable. A focus on environmental equity emerges as key in this discussion because of the historical disregard for the environmental health and rights of disenfranchised peoples, where a disproportionate and dangerous ecological price for economic growth has been paid by poor people and people of color, both in the United States and in other nations. Thus, the nexus of sustainable development and equity, where equity considerations loom large in the search for economic development that does not degrade natural resources.

Introduction

The increasing gap between rich and poor peoples and nations, and the growing environmental, cultural, ethnic, religious, and social crises around the world represent major challenges in moving towards global economic security. Nation-states and local communities must consider how to preserve and strengthen their economic, environmental, and social characters simultaneously if they are to sustain the extant quality of life and enhance it for the future. Positive change in any one of these three areas, however, will undoubtedly bring change in the others that may not be perceived or experienced as beneficial for all community members. In addition, the value accorded to economic or environmental enhancement may be dependent upon one's place in any community characterized by inequality.

In the United States, for example, the racial stratification of Whites of European ancestry and African Americans represents one of the most tenacious forms of inequality. In locales where racial inequities persist in severe forms, ideas about balancing economic development and environmental preservation may be particularly contentious. A community's poorest and most disenfranchised members may view concern about protecting the environment over pursuing economic opportunities as an unnecessary and needlessly expensive luxury that will only cost them the ability to attain financial well-being. This disconnect is often caused by the fact that while the environmental and economic viewpoints of a community's sustainability are frequently discussed (unfortunately often separately), the equity perspective is the most poorly understood.

This paper explores the issues surrounding sustainable development, with particular emphasis on social equity in the distribution of the costs and benefits incurred for promoting economic prosperity while preserving the natural environment. We first outline the concept of sustainable development and its three components: economic vitality, ecological integrity, and social equity. We then discuss how a disproportionate and dangerous ecological price for economic growth has been paid by poor people and people of color in the United States and in other nations, and by developing nations in the global economy. Herein, we suggest lies the nexus of sustainable development and equity: sustainability objectives cannot be truly achieved without regard for equity and justice considerations. We then turn to a local example of these global issues in the exploration of sustainable development on the Eastern Shore of Virginia (USA), a relatively pristine place of ecological importance in which equity considerations loom large in the search for economic development that does not degrade natural resources.

Sustainable Development

Until now, the most dramatic changes that our forefathers and foremothers experienced were droughts, floods, famine, or war. But because of a technology and cultural evolution all of this is changing. Some may say changing for the better because of new innovations in technology. One can wonder though, what cost are these changes exerting on our future? Social injustice, economic exploitation, and environmental pollution are not natural. They are consequences of thinking that has molded human development for more than 200 years.

The growing scale of disease, child abuse, crime, injustice, energy shortages, lack of good jobs, extinction of species, poverty, destruction of forests, pollution, breakdown of families, global hunger, and civil unrest are critical factors alerting decision-makers, market forces, and civil society in general that something needs to change. Making matters worse are issues that, when they come to light, only widen the disagreement gaps, increasing conflict between for example the "environmentalists" most concerned about nature and the "conservatives" most concerned about economies. Adopting principles of sustainable development is the only way of comprehensively addressing all these across-society issues toward the seeking of sound solutions, while also lessening the disagreements.

Achieving sustainability, however, is not merely about a series of technical fixes, about re-designing humanity or re-engineering nature in our continuing desire to compete in the global economy. It must be understood and approached as a moral/ethical issue as well as a scientific and technical challenge (Flint et al, 2000: p. 192). Sustainable development is about re-connection with nature and developing a profound understanding of the concepts of care that underpin long-term stewardship of the places we call home, offering people an ability to fully appreciate the environment's relationship to our economic and social systems.

The concept of sustainable development can be traced to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987: p. 5), also known as the Brundtland Commission. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (more accurately known as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) brought the issues to international prominence and produced the worldwide action plan Agenda 21 (United Nations, 1992). Further attention was brought by various national councils aimed at implementing the plan and by a five-year review of Earth Summit progress (United Nations, 1997).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Sustainable

development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: p. 7). This definition recognizes that all life depends on natural resources. The failure to protect the physical environment threatens the future as well as compromises the present. Sustainable development proponents argue that problems in the economy, environment, and society are interrelated and global in context. Economic prosperity can only truly occur alongside a healthy natural environment, coupled with healthy social systems. This is best demonstrated in the hierarchical presentation of Figure 1 that illustrates how the socio-economic spheres of communities must always be considered within the larger environmental sphere of influence. This conceptualization suggests how economic and cultural activities are integrated into natural processes.

The U.S. President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD, 1996: p. iv; Anderson and Lash, 1999: p. iv) added a key idea to the World Commission's definition: "A sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and future generations." Meeting the needs of present and future generations, however, requires more than outright economic growth. As Bartlett (1999: p. 53) notes, current population and consumption rates cannot be maintained indefinitely on a global scale because of limiting natural resources. More importantly, the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits of growth will not be long tolerated by those to whom such benefits do not accrue, especially in an age of technology which transmits visions of wealth to those in poverty. Sustainable economic development must be both environmentally sound and shared fairly among societal members. Thus, sustainable development comprises three parts: economic vitality, ecological integrity, and social equity (Figure 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

As Figure 2 shows, the overlapping circles demonstrate the...