CHAPTER 1

Sustainable Development in the Philippine Context

1.1. A Retrospect: Evolution of SD as a Concept
The concept of sustainable development (SD) has its early beginnings in the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm where the alarming state of the environment first received global attention. Widespread concern over the health impacts of environmental deterioration was prominent in the discussions. At that time, the ill effects of pollution and massive depletion of natural resources resulting from large-scale economic expansion and industrialization, took the center stage. This event could have been precipitated by the publication of "Limits to Growth" by Meadows, et. al. which painted a dire scenario for man's future prospects for development and very survival, given patterns of environmental decay around the world. The Stockholm Conference should have instilled greater awareness of the threats of environmental degradation but sadly, it hardly made waves in actually arresting the high rates of environmental misuse and abuse across the globe. Awareness and acceptance of the disturbing reality did not lead to action commensurate to the problem. More than a decade after that conference, the world was in no better shape as environmental degradation continued to escalate, threatening not only human health but undermining the development prospects of nations around the globe. Ironically, the momentum of development has conceivably overstepped the urgency of caring for the environment on which its future prospects ultimate depend. In response to this alarming situation, the United Nations created in 1984 the Brundtland Commission also known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) to examine the links between environment and development and find ways to bridge these two seemingly opposing forces. In 1987, the Commission published its report entitled "Our Common Future" where the notion of sustainable development was introduced. It was defined in general terms as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". As it turned out, the book transcended environment and development concerns but embraced the whole spectrum of development issues confronting countries all over. It put forward the idea that the intricate web of development challenges can only be addressed through a recognition of the interconnectedness and inextricable links of the different dimensions of development and the different peoples around the world.

Countries welcomed the idea of sustainable development with great enthusiasm and hope, at a time when pervasive poverty, widespread social unrest and moral degeneration were realities that existed side by side with unprecedented economic growth and while quality of life was increasingly being impaired by the health impacts of environmental degradation. Significant economic success has been achieved in many countries but development by and large failed a lot of people in a lot of respects. We see opulence in the midst of increasing despondence and desperation wrought by acute poverty and injustice. Conventional development has failed to secure for everyone the fundamental right to a decent standard of living. Sustainable development brought with it the promise of a new kind of development, and more significantly, prospects of a different tomorrow for the whole world. Sustainable development breathed optimism and hope for meaningful change. In 1992, building on the report of the Brundtland Commission, the United Nations launched an agenda for change, known as the Agenda 21, at the Earth Summit or UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the same time, a UN Commission on Sustainable Development was created to chart the course of sustainable development at the global level. The Philippines was one of the first countries that swiftly responded to the calls made at the Earth Summit. Three months after the Summit, the government established the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to oversee the implementation of the country's Agenda 21 commitments and formulate policies and programs that are supportive of sustainable development. In fulfillment of its mandate, the PCSD coordinated the formulation, through a consensus building process, of a national agenda and blueprint for sustainable development now known as Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21). Sustainable development may mean different things to different people. Too often, it has been easy to mistake the sustainable development movement for something other than what it really is. Rather than being an inherent or conscious misunderstanding of the concept, the differences in the view of what sustainable development means is borne out of the differences in the development context that each country/locality or individual finds it/himself in. There have been a number of myths surrounding efforts to advance sustainable development in the Philippines. The process of generating a full understanding and advocacy of sustainable development would require dispelling these various myths. In a variety of ways, some people have been missing the real point about SD.

1.2 Missing the Point: Myths about Sustainable Development

Myth 1: Sustainable development just means environmentally responsive development, plain and simple. Sustainable development is often associated with environmental protection. At the annual sessions of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, this is evidenced by the lopsided representation of delegates, often dominated by environment ministers. Many national sustainable development strategies, particularly in industrialized countries are essentially "green plans". In a paper published by the UNDP in 1997, it has been observed that except for some notable exceptions, sustainable development strategies in industrialized countries are still mostly environmental in their focus. There is perhaps nothing that is utterly wrong in this perspective. For modern and advanced countries that have reached the pinnacle of economic and social progress, sustainable development may be rightfully viewed as a matter of the environment. Environment might indeed be the only " missing link" in their development efforts with their populace already receiving their fair share of the benefits of economic and social development. To the extent that international discourse on SD is dominated by these countries, environment inevitably comes out to be at the center of the SD agenda. The emphasis on environmental aspects can likewise be illumined by the fact that sustainable development was brought to worldwide prominence by a body created by the United Nations to explore the linkages between environment and development. It was the World Commission on Environment and Development which advanced the notion of sustainable development. Understandably so, sustainable development is typically equated with environmentally responsive development. Another view is that sustainable development probably emerged as an 'antidote' to the extreme ecocentric or purist views of environmentalists which emerged in the 1970s. These views propagated the idea that environment would need to be preserved at their pristine state and that development was proving to be an antithesis to environment preservation. The proponents of this perspective argues that environment must be protected at all costs. The reality of massive poverty in many places around the world, however, makes the argument quite indefensible if not incomprehensible. Sustainable development offered the compromise solution. Given the foregoing, the environmental dimension will necessarily be, for many people and countries, a convenient jump-off point for sustainable development discussions. The environment effectively brings out the interrelated nature of development decisions and highlights the need for integrated decision-making. Environmental issues are intertwined with many development issues and are intricately woven with the poverty situation in the country. With environment transcending territorial boundaries, it illustrates the shared and collective responsibility of all countries in pursuing sustainable development not only at the global level but also in supporting national SD efforts. The environment also brings out the importance of the systems perspective on development, that everything has a cause and effect. Therefore, effective solutions are

drawn not by merely addressing effects, a propensity in traditional development approaches, but by looking at the root causes of development problems. People can easily identify with environment issues considering its direct impact on people's health and their prospects for livelihood. The environment is clearly an important dimension of sustainable development, albeit not the only one. However, viewed from a strictly environmental point of view, sustainable development often loses its appeal among those who consider meeting more urgent basic needs as the more primordial concern of development. Considering the heavy expenditures needed to correct environmental ills of the past, focus on environment is open to question by those who direly need resources just to survive. Often, environmental issues are just symptomatic of deeper, larger development problems that are not too obvious. It may be a side-effect of economic marginalization, social unrest and political inequities. For a developing country like the Philippines, it may therefore be grossly misguided to equate sustainable development with environment because to this day the development challenges that country faces are far more complex and multifaceted. The country is at a stage where rights to even the most basic economic and social benefits of development have not been secured for all its citizens. While it would be desirable to get environmental stewardship intrinsic to the Filipino psyche, the reality is that for a lot of people, the quest for development is still a matter of filling up their stomachs, having roofs over their heads and getting safe water to drink. Beyond that, there are other dimensions as well that are considered of real importance such as governance, culture, moral and spiritual sensitivities and the Filipinos' unique aspirations.

Myth 2: Sustainable Development is but a set of new, specialized programs or projects. The practice of 'localizing' practically all development initiatives following devolution and decentralization efforts and a budgeting system that is driven by programs and projects have probably misled people into thinking that sustainable development is yet another program or project. This is reinforced by the fact that for every international conference, there is a tendency to simplify implementation by projectizing reform initiatives, the government simply comes up with new additional programs that are brought down to the local level. Hence, as efforts went underway for localizing PA 21, many local stakeholders had a project view of sustainable development. Viewed as a program, institutions operating within the scheme of budget ceilings, clamored for additional resources to finance new activities when asked to support sustainable development efforts. Hence, when sizeable budget appropriations were not forthcoming, support for PA 21 implementation suffered a major setback. It was seen as yet another burden that overextends already limited human resources in all governance levels. But the nature of the reforms required by sustainable development goes beyond adding new projects that call for incremental funding and other resources. Overall, embracing sustainable development would involve organizational development and reform which demands leadership and political will more than substantial infusion of incremental financial resources. If the Philippines will actually embrace SD as its governing development paradigm, the whole government budget would represent financing for sustainable development.

SD interventions should not be separate and distinct from what government agencies, for instance, would normally do. The ideal situation would be that everything an agency does, without any exception, should be contributory to and in the spirit of sustainable development. SD simply changes the nature and character of the development programs and the ways of doing them. It does not necessarily call for a new, additional set of development activities. Many of the new activities could be in the form of advocacy and knowledge enhancing initiatives which may not require huge budgets. The use of the phrase implementing sustainable development may also have contributed to a misunderstanding of what sustainable development actually is. It has given the impression that sustainable development is a program that is implemented as part of a wider development effort. Development and for that matter, sustainable development is not something that is implemented. It is a state or a process that we should strive for , seek or pursue. Myth 3: Sustainable Development is an entirely new development idea. As the original PA 21 emphasized, the elements of sustainable development have been practiced by earlier generations of Filipinos but was somehow lost in the subsequent generations' aggressive pursuit of industrialization and modernization. Our ancestors have observed principles, values and traditions that are consistent with the essence sustainable development, such as respect for nature as an inseparable aspect of life, spirit of sharing with and caring for fellowmen, a great sense of community as evident in tribal communities, strong moral and spiritual beliefs, etc. Today, many of the indigenous cultural groups continue to apply the sustainable practices and principles that they have observed for hundreds or thousands of years. Rather than being an entirely new and innovative view of development, embracing sustainable development is to a great extent bringing Filipinos back to the some of the positive values and traditions that have shaped early Philippine society. It is actually a sense of what matters to us as a people in our pursuit of development. One trailblazing aspect of sustainable development is in the process of governance and decision-making required by the inextricable links between and among the different dimensions of development. The problem with sustainable development being viewed as a completely new idea is that some development practitioners may postpone effort to support it while they wait for a comprehensive guide to do it, acting on the pretext that there is no prior established knowledge about it. It comes across as a virtual unknown, hence, there could be reluctance in readily adopting the idea. Myth 4: Sustainable Development is primarily geared towards meeting Philippine commitments in international conferences and agreements such as the Earth Summit. Since the 1992 Earth Summit, sustainable development has been placed at the forefront of development discussions in the Philippines. Inadvertently, however, advocacy strategies might have put across an impression that sustainable development is being pursued for the sole purpose of meeting international commitments. Hence, it was quite difficult for

a majority of stakeholders to identify with sustainable development because international agreements and commitments can be far too divorced from their daily struggles. While global citizenship is an intrinsic component of SD, it should not be viewed as the raison d'tre for pursuing SD in the Philippines. The pursuit of sustainable development should not be couched on substantiating Philippine participation in international conferences and agreements but should be primarily motivated by our inherent desire to secure a better life for Filipinos. For someone who even has to struggle just to put a decent meal on the table, meeting Philippine commitment in international conferences may not be the most convincing argument for joining the SD bandwagon.

1.3 Getting the Point: Uncovering the Essence of Sustainable Development

Since 1987 when the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development introduced the notion of sustainable development, it has taken on a lot of meanings. This is to be expected because sustainable development is a normative concept and is thus context based. The fact that countries differ in their development context has animated global and national discourse on what sustainable development is all about. Discussions have advanced from purely theoretical and cerebral exercise to the practical underpinnings of sustainable development. Nonetheless, there seems to be a point of consensus, which is emphasized in the Philippine Agenda 21, that sustainable development must be rooted in the national context. Given the numerous perspectives on SD, it could be difficult and perhaps not advisable to come up with a universally applicable or acceptable definition of sustainable development. When a country just "imports" another country's definition, without adapting it to its own peculiar situation, then the misconceptions arise. The differences in the concept of sustainable development across countries suggest the diversity of the development reality that countries find themselves in. While the meaning of sustainable development emanates from global discussions, it must be rooted in the context of Philippine reality and aspirations. The framers of the Philippine Agenda 21 came up with a definition of sustainable development that is uniquely suited to the development reality in the Philippines. The essence of sustainable development has been defined in PA 21 as the "harmonious integration of a sound and viable economy, responsible governance, social cohesion and harmony and ecological integrity to ensure that development is a life-enhancing process. The ultimate aim of development is human development now and through future generations". This definition is very appealing in its broadness and depth but has unfortunately come across as too academic, providing little practical guidance. The real essence of sustainable development lies in the breath of its scope and in its fundamental nature as a paradigm, philosophy and approach.

Sustainable development is a broader and more holistic view of development. Multidimensional development Sustainable development is not some conceptually idea as some people are wont to assume. It is principally a broadening of the way we see development. To a great extent, the concept of development has gone beyond the traditional standpoint of economic development. As countries achieved high economic growth rates amidst social turmoil or rising social ills, the importance of the social dimensions figured in development efforts. Then in the 1970s, widespread environmental degradation begun to undermine growth prospects and human health. Subsequently, environment was seen as another important dimension that need to go into the development equation. In the more recent times, good governance was seen as another crucial factor in development process. Debates over the appropriate kind of development is way past the quantity versus quality impasse. Nevertheless, what happened over the years was a slow, incremental reorientation in development thinking, a broadening of the concept of development as new learning come about and as experience gains more ground. The proponents of sustainable development effectively brought all these efforts together, to once and for all, come up with a notion of a true and more holistic, meaningful development. The PA 21, in advocating sustainable development, brings out succinctly the things that should matter to the Philippines as a nation in its quest for development. It goes beyond the three pillars of development-economic, social, environmental, and posits that development would also have to be viewed on moral, spiritual, cultural and political grounds. Sustainable development, more than anything else is a rethinking of what development ought to be, what difference it ought to make in the lives of our people. It focuses attention on the quality of life instead of level and quantity of development. PA 21 definition reveals the many facets of development and points out that all the dimensions of sustainable development are equally important and interrelated. It is therefore no longer a question of "economy or environment nor of tradeoffs". One cannot be achieved without the other. Decisions on the economic dimension will inevitably have an impact on the environment or culture. Political decisions often raises social and moral questions. Sustainable development is therefore a kind of development that does not bask in the glory of a high GNP growth on one level or a high HDI on another level but in the supreme dignity of citizens enjoying all the elements of a decent standard of living.

Long-term Development Wealth creation knew no limits in the past. The vast environmental resources used to be considered infinite and mostly free. The doctrine of capitalism has encouraged growth maximization almost without any regard for what it holds for the future. It has led to overconsumption of natural resources and disregard for the assimilative capacities of the environment for waste because of its focus on serving the welfare needs of the present generation. Recent history has taught us the folly of going after short-term gains. As a holistic development approach, SD takes a long-term perspective on development. It is now generally accepted that the perpetuation of the human species, and Mother Earth

inevitably depends on what we do now. Some of the effects of actions done now only show up years or decades later. Certainly, one should not be satisfied with a development that enriches the present generation while impoverishing the future because that is tantamount to jeopardizing the future of one's own children and his children's children. Equitable Development It is development founded on the value of sharing. Hence, the global definition of sustainable development presupposes the importance of inter-temporal, intra-generational and intergenerational equity in development. Sustainable development is a kind of development that does not favor only a few or only those who have the clout to influence development decisions but gives equal opportunity to all members of society (intragenerational equity), its benefits will not only accrue to the present generation but all generations to come (intergenerational equity) and it does not prefer immediate, short term benefits over long term benefits (intertemporal equity). It is development that "builds a humane, equitable and caring society cognizant of the need for human dignity for all". Sustainable development is about giving our children new hope for a better world, "a world free of indignity and indecency occasioned by poverty, environmental degradation and patterns of unsustainable development" . Sustainable development posits that development should, without prejudice, benefit all, including women, youth, children, vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.
vi

Sustainable development is a paradigm, philosophy and framework of development . Primacy of Human Development As a paradigm, sustainable development redefines our model or standard of development. It proposes a pattern of development that is guided by a set of well-defined principles, precepts or tenets. It advances that the ultimate purpose of development is , above all, human development. Therefore, a high GDP does not mean much for sustainable development if it does not translate in the improvement of the lives of the majority or if economic oppression deprives them of their sense of dignity and human potential. Sustainable development is development for and by the people. It recognizes ecological integrity, economic development, social harmony, responsible governance, moral and spiritual development as the mutually reinforcing and supportive pillars of a lifeenhancing development. Values-Driven and Principled Development As a philosophy, sustainable development is driven by a set of core values. These values are imbedded in the PA 21's set of principles and parameters of sustainable development (see Chapter III & IV). The pursuit of sustainable development must permeate the beliefs, value systems and theoretical foundation that guide the way a person conducts his life, how a government conducts its affairs and how the private sector conducts their business. Multi-stakeholder Decision-making As a development framework, sustainable development prescribes a new system of governance, a new approach for development decision-making. Stripped to its substance, sustainable development as an approach is about making planning, policy-making, programming, and other development processes a little better by means of an integrated and inclusive manner of decision-making. It advocates a process of development that is participatory, consultative, community based, multi-stakeholder and pro-active. It views development as a shared goal and therefore a collective responsibility of all sectors of society, thus, highlighting the value of consensus-building and partnerships. PA 21 in effect advocates a systems perspective on development that considers both the causes and effects of development actions. It advances the view that everything is interconnected and as such development cannot be sold on a retail basis, it would need to be delivered as a whole package. This implies that economic, social, or environmental projects cannot be pursued independently of each other nor is it enough to have a set of projects/initiatives separately for each dimension. After all, development cannot be considered sustainable just because a country has a rising GDP, a comprehensive set of social welfare projects or environmental projects. One has to ensure that the impact of one on the other does not negate overall welfare gains. SD is therefore inconsistent with sector-oriented decisionmaking.

SD involves harmonizing otherwise conflicting policies and programs by finding innovative ways of resolving conflicts and minimizing trade-offs. Mainstreaming sustainable development does not necessarily call for developing new development programs but implores reform in decision-making processes and structures in order to change the way we do development. It rejects over-centralization of decision-making and advocates for the development of synergies through the coordinated actions of the three key actors in sustainable development. It is not about co-optation of the corresponding roles of these actors but forging creative and collaborative partnerships. Three-folding view of Society Sustainable development recognizes that the key actors in sustainable development are the government, business and civil society, representing the three realms of modern society: economy, polity and culture. The Philippine Agenda 21 states that these realms and actors, while functionally different, are interacting, dynamic and complementary components of an integrated whole. This suggests that in order to humanize development , there must be an interplay of market forces, state intervention, and civil society participation. Creative social unity and harmony can only occur from a respect and appreciation of the mutually enhancing perspectives and roles of key actors and ultimately in their free choice to collaborate towards achieving the higher common good of society. Sustainable result is the result of government, business, civil society "acting together, united by a common purpose to seek a better life for all Filipinos". The foregoing attempt at elaborating people's otherwise notional views suggests that sustainable development is as much a process as it is a desired goal and state of development. It must be emphasized that this conceptual enrichment has been borne out of the extensive practice and experience in implementing SD through various means and modalities. Hence, the process is not a unidirectional process, concept has dictated how sustainable development should be practiced and vice versa, practice has informed the further evolution of the concept. It maybe noted that even without a unified conceptual understanding, many have responded to the imperatives of SD and have pursued programs and activities or individual actions that are supportive of SD in whatever means they have seen fit. Such initiatives are what have served to enrich our conceptual understanding of SD.

1.4 The Antithesis: What is Unsustainable Development?

Knowing what sustainable development is should make it easier to recognize unsustainable patterns of development. PA 21 characterizes unsustainable development as jobless and ruthless (in the realm of the economy), rootless (in the realm of culture), futureless (in the realm of nature) and voiceless (in the realm of polity) vii.

Unsustainable development is characterized by the following undesirable forms or patterns of development:

A weak economy that is manifested by: boom-bust economic cycles unmanaged budget deficits high indebtedness and trade imbalances pursuit of limited sectoral interests with substantial negative impacts on the other sectors serving the interest of only a few or a small segment of the population suffering the costs instead of benefiting from globalization widening gap between the rich and the poor displacement of people from their source of livelihood and cultural roots marginalization and exclusion of some sectors of society from benefiting from development

An uncaring social system that: is unable to provide for the basic needs of everyone breeds social tension and conflict due to overt inequities breeds social ills such as drug addiction, prostitution, crime erodes cultural values harbors a general feeling of low well-being and hopelessness among constituents

Worsening environment wrought by: misuse and abuse and disregard for carrying capacity considerations pursuit of short-term selfish interests by influential segments of society attitude of apathy and failure to accept environmental protection as a personal issue and responsibility misplaced values that fail to recognize the spiritual connection of man with his environment

A weak governance system characterized by: lack of political will to deliver development, iniquitous political structures, massive corruption, political patronage and dynasties heavy sector orientation and lack of coordination structures among the different sectors leading to compensating effects that negate welfare gains highly centralized structures for decision-making

general lack of transparency and accountability among institutions