The terms ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ are subject to diverse interpretations. For C21 it thus was and is important to define them clearly (see image). In fact, our first team outing (2008) was exclusively focused on defining those terms for our work.

Even though we are aware of differences in interpretation by some stakeholders, for us, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ are one and the same in terms of their core meaning and values. The latter represents the long-term goal, while the former refers to the pathway of getting there. 

From its 16th century origin in the context of forest management, to the Brundtland Commission Report (UN, 1987), sustainable development was fundamentally defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

In our view, this is a simple and sound approach. It should, however, not be anthropocentric and therefore also address the ‘needs’ of species other than humans. As the dominant species on Earth, it is our job, our moral duty, to do so. Furthermore, human development depends on ecosystem services in many dimensions of our social and economic life.

A modern definition of sustainable development should be based on science, including general analytical approaches such as carrying capacity/ecological footprint and planetary boundaries/earth system processes, as well as specific drivers such as GHG emission budgets and the probabilities of transitioning to emission-free. Equally, there must be careful inclusion of ‘quality of life’ factors (such as defined by WHO) as well as ‘equity’ drivers (for which we really like this approach by ODI).

Our work is guided specifically by UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement (a legally binding international agreement on climate change, under UNFCCC), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (an international convention, under UNEP).

No trade-off

Key to note on sustainable development is the evolution of interpretation of the interplay between the three main domains – society, ecology, and economy. When first discussed 30 years ago, the main understanding was one of balancing interests, meaning that there would always be a trade-off between the three. Essentially the notion was that a healthier environment would have to result in lower quality of life and/or lower economic performance. 

Today we know that this trade-off notion is misleading. On the one hand we better understand the actual value ecology brings to the economy and to society (ecosystem service, quality of life, etc). On the other hand, we experienced technological innovation. Clean, solar power was prohibitively expensive 30 years ago. Today, it is the cheapest source of energy, some five hundred times cheaper than it used to be. Deploying it rapidly will allow us to advance a big part in addressing climate change (i.e. an advance in ‘ecology’). At the same time, it makes our economic system more competitive and creates more jobs, as well as offers social advantages in terms of rapid electrification, island solutions, etc.

While we are very worried about the urgency with which humanity has to address many things relating to sustainable development, and particularly regarding climate and biodiversity, we are at the same time positively confident that sustainable solutions (‘cleantech’) are, or soon will be, at our disposal. What is needed most today is execution - the scaling-up and implementation of solutions. This in turn depends on core technology and process advances, ‘technical innovation’, and at least as much on policy framework incentives, ‘policy innovation’.