Suchergebnisse

Abstract The focus on inclusive development within the 2030 Agenda highlights the contradiction between an inherent 'business-as-usual' approach subject to a few restrictions and a radical reformation of the global system. Inclusive development is elaborated through the idea of leaving no one behind, a human rights and a justice approach. Against this background, this perspective argues that there is need for clarity about the words used and about the implications of the words used. It defines inclusiveness to imply social, ecological and relational elements; that inclusiveness is not incorporation of the 'other' but based on recognition and epistemic justice; and that inclusiveness redefines the content of development. It argues that justice needs to be unpacked into issues of access to minimum resources and allocation of the remaining resources, risks and responsibilities. Achieving access in an unequal world will lead to crossing Earth system boundaries and is affected by increasing pollution. Both imply that access cannot be met without changing rules of allocation, with market-based allocation reproducing injustices. Finally, while inclusiveness requires greater partnership and responsibility, this is undermined by the way the 2030 Agenda ignores liability for harm caused to others. Sharpening the understanding of inclusion and justice among key stakeholders and a better articulation of the Earth system justice approach is a way forward.

Achieving sustainable development has been hampered by trade-offs in favour of economic growth over social well-being and ecological viability, which may also affect the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by the member states of the United Nations. In contrast, the concept of inclusive development emphasizes the social, ecological and political dimensions of development. In this context, this paper addresses the question: What does inclusive development mean and to what extent is it taken into account in the framing of the SDGs? It presents inclusive development as having three key dimensions (social, ecological, and relational inclusiveness) with five principles each. This is applied to the 17 SDGs and their targets. The paper concludes that while the text on the SDGs fares quite well on social inclusiveness, it fares less well in respect to ecological and relational inclusiveness. This implies that there is a risk that implementation processes also focus more on social inclusiveness rather than on ecological and relational inclusiveness. Moreover, in order to de facto achieve social inclusiveness in the Anthropocene, it is critical that the latter two are given equal weight in the actual implementation process.

Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

AbstractThe focus on inclusive development within the 2030 Agenda highlights the contradiction between an inherent 'business-as-usual' approach subject to a few restrictions and a radical reformation of the global system. Inclusive development is elaborated through the idea of leaving no one behind, a human rights and a justice approach. Against this background, this perspective argues that there is need for clarity about the words used and about the implications of the words used. It defines inclusiveness to imply social, ecological and relational elements; that inclusiveness is not incorporation of the 'other' but based on recognition and epistemic justice; and that inclusiveness redefines the content of development. It argues that justice needs to be unpacked into issues of access to minimum resources and allocation of the remaining resources, risks and responsibilities. Achieving access in an unequal world will lead to crossing Earth system boundaries and is affected by increasing pollution. Both imply that access cannot be met without changing rules of allocation, with market-based allocation reproducing injustices. Finally, while inclusiveness requires greater partnership and responsibility, this is undermined by the way the 2030 Agenda ignores liability for harm caused to others. Sharpening the understanding of inclusion and justice among key stakeholders and a better articulation of the Earth system justice approach is a way forward.

AbstractEnvironmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

The COVID-19 epidemic provides yet another reason to prioritize inclusive development. Current response strategies of the global community and countries expose a low level of solidarity with poorer nations and poorer people in all nations. Against this background, this paper addresses the question: What are the development challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic lays bare and what lessons can be learnt for the way recovery processes are designed? Using an inclusive development and DPSIR lens to assess the literature, our study finds that, first, the current response prioritises the 'state' and 'impact' concerns of wealthier classes at the expense of the remainder of the world population. Second, responses have ignored underlying 'drivers' and 'pressures', instead aiming at a quick recovery of the economy. Third, a return to business-as-usual using government funding will lead to a vicious cycle of further ecological degradation, socio-economic inequality and domestic abuse that assist in exacerbating the drivers of the pandemic. We argue instead for an inclusive development approach that leads to a virtuous cycle by emphasizing human health, well-being and ecosystem regeneration. We conclude that the lost years for development did not commence in 2020 with the onset of COVID-19; the downward trend has actually been waxing over the past three decades. From this perspective, COVID-19 may be the shock needed to put the last first and transform vicious into virtuous cycles of inclusive development.