|
|||
|
AGRO-ECOLOGICAL BLOGSustainability is MeaninglessAs we come to the end of one year and the pre-emergence of a new one, I find myself considering what I might like to see in 2011. There are a number of things that come to mind but one in particular that is relevant for the discerning Katerva audience. In 2011 I would like to see the word ‘sustainability’ utilised with appropriate depth, intelligence and ecological literacy (see http://katerva.org/blog/rise-of-the-ecologically-literate/), to actually have some meaning and substance. In recent weeks the ridiculous use or abuse of ‘sustainability’ has been highlighted to me in very direct fashion. In-house at Agro-Ecological we have long regarded it as a somewhat degraded term and we often try to come up with the most absurd examples of its use (sustainable deep sea drilling for oil, for example). I am sure everyone can come up with an example of their own. However when you find yourself talking with a senior executive whose company branding utilises the ‘s-word’ you would consider that it is legitimate or that they have some understanding of what it really means. Not so it would seem. In the course of a recent conversation it was clear that there was no reasonable understanding of what is actually involved with genuine ‘sustainability’ from an agricultural/investment perspective. Standard terminology seemed unfamiliar and it was obvious that the word sustainable was in New Zealand terms ‘Claytons sustainability’ (the sustainability you have when you are not having sustainability) or for those of you not from down-under ‘sustainability lite’ (with a strong emphasis on the latter!). For investors and consumers this means there is a need to go ‘beyond sustainable’ to treat the word with caution (if not something stronger) until those using the term have demonstrated that they are sufficiently cogent, genuine and competent in their usage. Or perhaps better still that they utilise additional terms and practices that are robust, measurable and specific. It means that although ‘sustainability’ is a buzz word and in a way a fulcrum for positive activity as it is with Katerva, it can also be a term open to abuse, which is why it demands further research and enquiry on the part of all authentic, sustainability focused investors/consumers. Agriculture seems to be one of those sectors where the continuum of the word’s use seems remarkably wide and certainly I have heard it used in ways that make one’s eyes water. The idea that an exotic tree monoculture that eliminates any chance of biodiversity below its suffocating canopy is in some way ‘sustainable’ is stretching the concept. It might even be described as ecologically illiterate but it is an example of activities being carried out in the name of ‘sustainability’. Consumers/investors are best advised to review the independent measuring/evaluation processes in place, the backgrounds of the individuals involved and to what extent an organisation is involved in sustainable practice, i.e. is it tokenism (green wash) or is it the entire and exclusive focus of the business? Is it sustainable by a single measure but conspicuously not in response to a holistic evaluation? In 2011 let us all make ‘sustainability’ mean something we believe in and can be proud of...something that is part of the solution. To some extent it comes back to the Gandhi quote used on the ‘Mission’ page of the Katerva website. “Be the change you want to see in the world” And just to embellish slightly, if I may, “don’t accept anything less!”
CommentsEric Zencey - "Theses on Sustainability: A Primer" see www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5502/ |
|
|||||||||