Para quem olha para a ideia de desenvolvimento, a partir da reconstrução da Europa do pós guerra, não pode deixar de notar que isso esta associado a construir qualquer coisa. Infra estruturas. Casas, Fábricas, Produtos para trocar no mercado.
Com a maioria de população a viver nas cidades e com a construção da agenda 2030, que trata dos problemas económicos, sociais e ambientais, a economia criativa pode ser prespetivada como uma proposta para a transição para um futuro sustentável. Como uma proposta da cultura para o desenvolvimento. Uma proposta centrada nas pessoas, no planeta e na prosperidade. Prosperidade relaciona-se com a economia. A economia sustentável não trata apenas do lucro, ou dos resultados, mas trabalhar com essa dimensão e com a inclusão social e cultural.
Por essa razão a economia criativa está na linha da frente do desafio da Agenda 2020 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Um mundo sustentável implica a dimensão económica, social e ambiental. Quer dizer que o produto oferecido tem que ser pensado desde o seu início até ao seu final como um produto sustentável.
Por exemplo, se se constrói uma casa, uma Estrada ou um outro qualquer equipamento, eles tem que ser sustentáveis. Por isso pensar a suatentabilidade tem que estar incluída no desenho do projeto. As industrias criativas tem que estar incluídas na discussão da sustentabilidade do produtos.
As estratégias de sustentabilidade têm que ser ambiciosas e criativas. Elas são sobretudo ação orientada. Nós estamos a discutir o desenvolvimento com um processo de mudança. Na cidade, numa região, numa rua, numa comunidade. Isso implioca uma certa ambição. Usar a criatividade, a inovação e a tecnologia para mudar os padrões de consumo e de produção. No conceito de desenvolvimento sustentável, tem que estar formulado a partir, da ideia base das industrias criativas: Criatividade, Conhecimento, Acesso à Informação e usar os instrumento dinâmicos que ela tem vindo a testar.
Is the world of policy and science responding to the latest advancements in science that we’ve entered the Anthropocene; that we can no longer exclude catastrophic tipping points; that we need a transition to a world within the safe operating space of planetary boundaries?
That’s the core question in this lecture, focusing first of all on the major global policy development within the United Nations of transforming the current Millennium Development Goals into the Sustainable Development Goals, which emerges out of the latest Earth summit in 2012. The big question is, what’s happening across the world in terms of how we address this?
And I’d like to start first, unfortunately just reminding us, of how are the current discussions on this area predominantly flavoured. Well, there seems to be three conventional choices to our future, which is debated in all the negotiation; from climate change, to biodiversity, desertification, chemicals, trade; and the first perception is that the rich nations, the rich minority in the world, largely the industrial countries, have had this fantastic journey of wealth and economic growth occurring at the expense of the Earth system. And now we’re waking up to the science, and the rich world is telling the poor world that, “Sorry guys, the party is over. You came too late. We’re pushing you off the ladder, and now we all have to chew the sour pill, and simply lock ourselves into a much, much less attractive future in terms of economic growth.” This is clearly causing a lot of the friction in many of the negotiations in, for example, on climate change.
The second approach seems to be that, “Well, things are going really bad. We all need to contract and converge, and this will be painful. It’s a burden-sharing pathway. Even the language in the negotiations uses this term.” Moving towards sustainability is a burden. In fact to the extent that many politicians say that, “Well, now that we have economic problems, we can not afford to take on this burden of taking care of the environment or the climate system,” which clearly violates everything that science is telling us.
And the third one is to say, “Well, let’s simply put the head in the sand, cross our fingers. Tipping points, probably something that hopefully cannot be correct,” and just move along and hope for the best.
So these seem to be the current conventional options, and I would argue, and many of my colleagues, and certainly Jeff Sachs at the Earth Institute, that this is, neither of these, are nor attractive, nor the pathway for the future. Instead the future lies in redefining sustainable development as a trajectory for growth and human well-being within a stable Earth system. And this is profoundly new opportunity, and a new way to address the pathways to the future.
Now, are we seeing anything like this fourth realm in the area of policy, and I would argue that yes, we are. Science is increasingly connecting between the Earth system science and the policy domain by putting forward analyses, such as this one, which indicates clearly how we could envisage a transition towards a sustainable development paradigm where the economy serves society within a safe operating space, where we can even define global sustainable development goals.
Here suggesting six broad goals on livelihoods, on sustainable food security, on sustainable water, on universal access to clean energy, on healthy and productive ecosystems, and on transparent and efficient governance on urban societies, and that we can actually today, from science in dialogue with different stakeholders of society, define science-based global planetary boundaries, which would be the outer component of this circle. Inside we can have very, very aspirational social goals, such as ending poverty. And inside that we can put in place the economic instruments that will provide the incentives to steer markets, innovations towards these goals. What you see here is a big change. It means that the planet defines the boundaries within which we can develop.
Now the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the knowledge platform in the world set up by UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon to support the implementation of the SDGs, has suggested a set of Sustainable Development Goals entirely in line with planetary boundary thinking.
Yes, ending poverty. Yes, securing economic growth. But look at goal two: achieving development within planetary boundaries. Truly setting humanity on a pace where people and planet operate together.
Now, this has been fed in to the open working group of the United Nations, the general assembly collation of nations working on designing the new Sustainable Development Goals. And this is the latest outcome of that work, which has been shared with all nations in July 2014. And so far the general assembly is suggesting 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
A large number one could argue, and lets not dwell whether these are too few or too many, but just to single them out in terms of different categories. And what you see here is that of those 17, 13 in fact are social-economic aspirational goals to secure a world where all citizens have a good development and lifestyle for the future.
So you have, for example, goals of ending poverty; ending hunger; ensuring health; inclusive and equitable educational access, etc. They are aspirational, and very ambitious, and very concrete.
Four of the goals define planetary boundaries. There’s one on water, one on oceans, one on ecosystems, and one biodiversity. And this is actually a great, great advancement compared to the Millennium Development Goals, which had only social goals, and quite abstract rhetoric statement on environmental sustainability on its seventh goal.
So this is an example of how the world is gradually moving towards a paradigm of development within planetary boundaries. Now the question is: are though, these 17 goals matching up to the science?
And here unfortunately I would argue that the answer is so far no. And just to give you a stark example of how this looks like. Here I’ve just taken a few examples of the social goals and the targets that are set up. And look at these targets: ending poverty, the target is for example, very concrete; by 2030 to eradicate extreme poverty for all people in the world living less, or eradicate all people living less than $1.25 US per day.
For hunger, very concrete goals on exact number of people that will be lifted out of hunger by 2030. And so it goes for essentially all the social goals. Very quantified, aspirational targets that can be monitored, that can be evaluated, and that the world can be kept accountable to.
Let’s now look at the sister goals on planetary boundaries. Here we have all four of them, and I’ve taken the most concrete targets under these goals. And if you read carefully, you’ll see there’s nothing like a quantification. There’s no attempt to set quantified science-based targets. Good language, but not putting us on a trajectory that we need, because we all know that what we measure is actually what gets operationalized and taken seriously.
So this is one of the gaps where science has an opportunity, and where we need to truly need to put more effort in terms of matching the targets on planetary boundaries type goals with quantifications, just as the social goals.
Another challenging issue is actually the narrative. To recognize, and this is illustrated in this graph, that among the 17 goals for Sustainable Development Goals, they’re not playing the same role in terms of serving humanity. I believe that now is the time to take the planetary boundary thinking seriously and acknowledge that the goals setting global and environmental resilience in place, shown here as the floor for human development, forms actually a prerequisite, the basic conditions on oceans, ecosystems, climate, nitrogen, phosphorous, to enable us to achieve the social goals.
So to put it very simple, there is no possibility for us to eradicate poverty, to eradicate hunger, unless we meet the global sustainability goals on climate, oceans, and ecosystems. And this hierarchy, where the Earth system is a prerequisite to reach our social goals, is something that has to be recognized, because today the discussion is still on the pillars that there is trade-offs and contradictions between environment and development. Of course there are challenges, but we need to seek the synergies and realize that there is no negotiation with the Earth system. The planet cannot be negotiated with.
Efforts have been made and this illustration is from a recent analysis by Kate Raworth, who development the Doughnut Model of social-equity within planetary boundaries, trying to see: are the current Sustainable Development Goals meeting up with the planetary boundaries framework? And that analysis shows quite neatly that yes, in fact, there are basically opportunities to match up all the boundaries. So even though there are only goals stated for oceans, water, ecosystems, and climate, there is text under the food security goal regarding nitrogen and phosphorous, there is text under the industrial development with regards to chemical and aerosols, so we have an opportunity now to set quantifications for all the goals within the UN framework that we are today seeing being developed.
The challenge is to get science-based quantifications right. And as shown by Kate’s analysis here on the social floor, essentially we have everything we need in place with regards to equity, with regards to education, hunger, poverty, etc. So this quite an exciting opportunity to take the analysis to a new level.
We’ve noted that there are two main regions in the world where there is still extensive, extreme poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa, with investments in agriculture and infrastructure, and a rapid reduction of fertility rates can break free of extreme poverty. So to can the second region, South Asia. Indeed, South Asia’s been making notable progress, but there are still around 400 million poor people in South Asia. And still major challenges of poverty in both the rural and the urban areas.
What distinguishes South Asia from other regions? Of course, many aspects of wondrous culture traditions and physical environment. But the one that I would want to underscore is the extraordinary population density of South Asia. Consider India, with its 1.2 billion people out of 7.2 billion people total in the planet. That’s roughly 15% of the world’s population, yet India has just 2.5% of the world’s land area. And many parts of that land mass of India are very dry, or even desert. Have a look at the map of population density where countries are shaded according to their population density. And you see that India and its next door neighbor, Bangladesh are indeed shaded as two of the most densely populated parts of the world. The numbers indeed are quite staggering. Bangladesh has on average 1,200 people per square kilometer, India about 410 people per square kilometer. The nited States by contrast has about 32 people per square kilometer. And so, the population density in India is more than 10 times higher than in the United States. And the implications of this throughout India’s history have been adverse. Indian farms are very, very small. Indian farmers traditionally have been able to grow only a small amount of food. And have eked out an existence of poverty in the thousands of Indian villages from time immemorial.
The cities, too are extraordinarily dense and crowded as India’s and South Asia’s cities more generally have increased. Many people thought the situation was hopeless for South Asia looking in the 1950s and 1960s. They said population is already so large and it continues to rise. India and its neighbors don’t have a chance to feed itself. People forecast that there would be mass dying from mass starvation. Bangladesh, when it gained independence in the early 1970s as notoriously called a basket case, absolutely hopeless. Now thank goodness this has not proven to be the case. And indeed India has been one of the best economic performers in recent years. And it has taken a pride of place as one of the leaders of the information technology revolution with wonderful engineering wonderful innovation in using information technology for economic development. And through IT it has become integrated into the whole world economy. Often in cutting-edge industries using information technology with great programming and systems developed by India’s engineers, some of the world’s finest. How did this happen? How did India avoid the fate that was so widely predicted for it? Well there we have to start naturally with agriculture, because once again India was overwhelmingly a small holder, peasant society living in villages and living in poverty.
It was a great breakthrough in technology that enabled India to begin this lift off into sustained rapid economic growth. And that breakthrough in technology has been given a famous name that is the green revolution. The revolution in crop yields that really started in Mexico and India in the 1950s, and then has spread to most of the developing countries, still to be enjoyed by Sub-Saharan Africa. What is the Green Revolution?
Well the Green Revolution starts with the individual pictured here a great hero of mine, Norman Borlaug. A Nobel Peace Prize winner who, as a highly skilled agronomist, a seed breeder, using his great ingenuity developed high-yield seed varieties for wheat, working in Mexico in the 1940s and the 1950s. Norman Borlaug was invited to India in the early 1960s. His counterpart was another absolutely wondrous a, agronomist pictured here, another hero of mine, M S Swaminathan. The two of them took seeds that Norman Borlaug had developed for Mexican conditions and planted them in Indian soils and Indian conditions. First year didn’t work out that well. They looked again. They decided on a different approach The second year proved that lo and behold, Mexico’s varieties developed by Borlaug for Mexican conditions worked beautifully in the Indian conditions. And they decided from that point on, that a green revolution for India could be within technological reach. To make it happen they had to add a third to this great triumvirate, and he’s shown here.
The minister of agriculture of the mid-1960s, Minister Subramaniam. The idea was to multiply the Sonora, Mexico seeds that Norman Borlaug had developed and that M S Swaminathan had helped to prove would work in India. To combine them with fertilizer and irrigation and transport facilitation, so that India could begin to experience a major takeoff of crop yields. Now, the picture you’re looking at here shows the green revolution for the whole developing world. You see that yields up until the mid 1960s were still under 1,000 kilograms per hectare of arable land. That is one ton per hectare. But then, look what happens after that.
The march up the yield curve to the point where in recent years, yields on average in the developing world have been between 2.5 and three tons per hectare. With many parts of the developing world achieving more than three tons per hectare. Well fortunately, India is one part of that overall green revolution. It hasn’t had the most stupendous of the results but it has had important beneficial results, as shown in this picture. First you see Mexico’s take off. That’s where Norman Borlaug first developed the high yield seeds. India and Pakistan lagged far behind Mexico already by the early 1960s. Mexico had jumped to two tons per hectare, whereas India and Pakistan were averaging still under one ton per hectare of land. Then came India’s green revolution, also undertaken in Pakistan. And the average yields start to rise of all of the feed grains: wheat, rice, maize, and of other grains where improved variety seeds were also developed and combined with fertilizer and good water management. Well, India and Pakistan did not catch up with Mexico, which went on to more than four tons per hectare planted. India and Pakistan have reached more than two tons per hectare. Well over doubling the average yields of the pre-green revolution crops. This has been the key to India feeding itself. To defeating those pessimistic forecasts of mass hunger. And of helping to set off a process of more rapid economic growth. But, there’s a problem.
The problem is that India’s population growth remained rapid as well. Have a look at India’s population growth. In 1950 India’s population was about 400 million, a huge and already densely populated country. By today, that population has tripled. So while grain production has roughly increased four-fold, population has tripled, not undoing all of the gains per person, but unfortunately undoing many of them. And measuring India’s feedgrain production per person shows what this has meant. Have a look at this graph which shows the feedgrains per capita from the beginning of the 1950s til close to today. The curve was rather significantly rising up until the mid 1970s. The spikes in the curve come from the fact that some years are good monsoon years and others are bad monsoon years. So, some years are extra good yield, and other years are crop failures and even disaster.
But on average the curve was rising up to the early 1980s. It’s really then that the population increase started to bring the whole burden, because the increase of output per person essentially stopped. And from the early 1990s onward India is now producing less feedgrain per person than it did 20 years ago. This has created a new round of troubling hunger. So, when one takes the combination of a green revolution that produced great results. But not as strong as in some other parts of the developing world. And then, a still fast growing population that continues to grow rapidly today.
Because the United Nations forecasts that today’s population of 1.2 billion could still reach 1.6, even 1.7 billion Indians within a few decades. We have a problem that India’s rapid development, while very real, is still burdened, held back by problems in the countryside. And we can see this by looking at one stark indicator, and that is childhood stunting. Childhood stunting is an indication of chronic undernutrition of young children. When young children don’t get the nutrients they need, they don’t achieve their potential height for age. And stunting signifies a significant reduction of height per age relative to the potential of a population. When you look at where stunting is in the world today, alas, it is in many parts of tropical Africa. And it is, alas, continuing throughout South Asia, and with India being the country with by far the largest number of children that are stunted.
What’s the conclusion? Well, one could talk about many wondrous aspects of India’s development and its rapid growth in information technology and in areas of manufacturing. Its leadership in global engineering, and India’s real potential. It’s also true to say, as M S Swaminathan has emphasized repeatedly in recent years, India needs a second green revolution. Not exactly like the first one because this time it’s going to have to be oriented not only towards more yields, but it’s going to have to be oriented even more consciously towards protecting the natural environment. India is going to need to get more crop per drop of water, more efficient water use. It’s going to need to get more output per input of fertilizer. Because the extent of pollution caused by the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorous-based fertilizers has also become very large. India is going to have to focus on higher yields on the existing farmland, because further expansion of farmland means the elimination of remaining forest areas and encroachments on very endangered ecosystems. So India needs a second green revolution. That’s going to have to be science based and dependent on very ecologically focused strategies to economize on water, on fertilizer on land use to get the maximum output per unit of input to ensure environmental sustainability. India and South Asia more generally, also face the continuing challenge represented by MDG 3, and that is gender equality. In traditional society women face massive burdens.
Not allowed to, to be in the labor force. Very subservient, not allowed to own or inherit property. Not allowed to manage money often. And the burdens of gender inequality of course, were passed traditionally from mother to daughter. One of the great breakthroughs therefore to note in India’s and South Asia’s recent advances is the continued empowerment of women and girls, gender equality in the South Asian context. And one of the greatest ways that this has been accomplished started in next door Bangladesh a country that was viewed as a hopeless basket case in the early 1970s, but pioneered one of the greatest grassroots directions to unlock the poverty trap. And that has been through women’s groups of empowerment and microfinance. You know the famous non-governmental organizations that arose in Bangladesh, Grameen Bank of Mohammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate, Brock and other great NGOs which pioneered women’s empowerment in the villages, and undertook a massive expansion of microfinancing through a group lending process. And it’s because of that, that microfinance spread throughout the world as a new powerful tool for grassroots empowerment, for gender equality, and for a breakthrough out of extreme poverty. One of the notable features of these women’s groups and the microfinance has been that by empowering young women in Bangladesh, it also gave these young women the sense and the incentive to reduce the fertility rate, to have fewer children. After all, the mother’s now in the labor force. She’s earning her own income. And she knows now through knowledge gained through her peers that having fewer children will enable her to invest more in each of her children so that they have a chance for a better life. And when you look at the decline of the fertility rate in Bangladesh, it is wonderful, good news. Back at the time of independence, Bangladesh’s total fertility rate was around seven, meaning that on average, a woman would have seven children. On average that would mean half of them of course, girls. For every 100 women they would be having 700 children, 350 of whom would be girls, and so in one generation 100 mothers would be raising 350 future mothers. You can imagine how rapidly the population would be growing. But because of microfinance, because of women’s empowerment, you see that the fertility rate on a voluntary basis came down extraordinarily rapidly, so that as of today the fertility rate is at the so called replacement level. Each woman on average is having two children, one of them a daughter. Each woman therefore is you could say, replacing herself with a daughter who will become a mother of the next generation. Leading over the longer term to a stabilization of the population and a much, much better chance for economic development. South Asia, like Sub-Saharan Africa therefore has the end of extreme poverty within reach. But it will require a major effort. Another green revolution, focused investments in infrastructure, empowerment of women, and especially completing the demographic transition as well so that India, like Bangladesh, reaches the replacement rate sooner rather than later. Gives itself that added opportunity to combine its wondrous capabilities in services and information technology in industry with a newly renovated ecologically friendly agriculture. And with a society that is running on the full empowerment of its women alongside its men. Go back to start of transcript.
Sobre a necessário conciliação entre os objetivos de longo prazo com o desejo do imediato
Como Conciliar a necessidade de obter mudanças rápidas no desenvolvimento da economia, com as mudanças sociais que ocorrem no tempo lenta.
A mudança implica uma transformação estrutural que ocorrem em diferentes dimensões temporais. Como se concilia as transformações no curto prazo no longo prazo
A compatibilização entre o desejo e a realidade, ou a arte de transforma desejos em realidade.
A questão da errância como percurso sem destino (o bêbado).
A alegoria do posta. O poste que ilumina a errância. Todos os postes estão em torno do bares
Qual é a formulação do sucesso. A taxa de variação é formulada em torno de si e independente das outra. A escolha dum indicador é ideológico e não liga o curto prazo e o longo prazo.
Na análise liberal o curto prazo subpõe-se ao longo prazo