The Rise and Fall of Sustainable Development

• Author: Jorge E. Viñuales
• Published date: 01 April 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12021
• Date: 01 April 2013

The Rise and Fall of Sustainable Development

Jorge E. Viñuales

Sustainable development is turning brownish. Too

many disparate initiatives are being conducted under

its banner. The concept of ‘sustainable development’ no

longer provides an adequate umbrella for the main

challenge currently faced by global environmental

governance – namely implementation. Its very

strengths are turning into fatal weaknesses. Vague

enough to bring all States and other stakeholders to

the negotiating table, the concept of ‘sustainable devel-

opment’ was very successful in managing the political

collision between ‘development’ and ‘environment’

throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. It was a formi-

dable tool to find balance as well as for normative

development. But it is inadequate to navigate the

implementation phase. This article introduces an

alternative model, based on four strategic priorities

(participation, differentiation, decarbonization, and

innovation and technology diffusion). It maps differ-

ent levels at which these priorities could be pursued in

order to make global environmental governance more

effective. The article is not against the concept of ‘sus-

tainable development’ as a worthy ‘fight’. It is about

the need to use another ‘weapon’ to spearhead efforts

to meet the challenge of implementation.

INTRODUCTION

When attempting to tackle a broad question, one faces

two main perils. First, if poorly designed, a broad ques-

tion may be a dead end. Social science terminology can

clarify this risk. A question that seeks to understand the

dynamics of an ill-defined ‘dependent variable’ stands

limited chances of success, irrespective of the efforts

invested in answering the question. Indeed, sooner or

later, one will be forced to redefine the initial question

(the initial dependent variable) to be able to provide a

meaningful answer. The second peril lies in the types of

answers that broad questions may require. Broad ques-

tions sometimes call for broad answers. Such answers

may advance our understanding of a phenomenon but

may not be easily used for guiding policy efforts. Thus,

the type of answers one seeks is an important consid-

eration in shaping the type of question one asks.

These basic observations provide the background for

the broad question addressed in this issue of RECIEL.I

asked several distinguished contributors a broad ques-

tion, the inadequacies of which I remain responsible for.

The question is as follows: What fundamental aspects of

global environmental governance must be changed in

order to make progress in the implementation of inter-

national environmental law? This is certainly a broad

and risky question. Yet, I decided to pursue it neverthe-

less on the basis of two considerations. First, in the

run-up and immediate aftermath of the Rio+20 summit,

the question appeared fitting. Paragraph 20(a) of the UN

General Assembly resolution convening the Rio+20

summit had set as its main objective the assessment of

‘the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the

implementation of the outcomes of the major summits

on sustainable development’.1The focus was clearly

on implementation and the international community

seemed open, at least intellectually, to fresh ideas.

Second, I endeavoured to clarify the target of this ques-

tion by identifying four ‘Gordian knots’ that, in my view,

would need to be cut before meaningful progress

can be made in the implementation of international

environmental law: participation; differentiation;

decarbonization; and innovation and the dissemination

of technologies. Articles were elicited for each of these

more specific targets, although some of the articles

provide answers that cut across the four issues.

In this framing article, my purpose is to clarify the ques-

tion by spelling out its underpinnings as well as intro-

ducing a conceptual model that would help perform the

tasks that the concept of ‘sustainable development’

seems increasingly unsuitable to perform. RECIEL

offers perhaps the most appropriate setting for placing

this debate on the agenda of academics and policy

makers. Born at the time of the Rio Conference of 1992,

RECIEL has advanced the agenda of sustainable devel-

opment for more than two decades, and it reaches not

only lawyers but also social scientists more generally, as

well as policy circles. Thus, this article seeks both to open

a debate and to outline a future research programme.

THE SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT SNAKE

Where should we start if our goal is to improve the

implementation of international environmental law?

1Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Imple-

mentation of Agenda 21 and the Outcomes of the World Summit on

Sustainable Development (UNGA Resolution A/RES/64/236, 24

December 2009).

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 22 (1) 2013. ISSN 0962-8797

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

3