اقتصاد محیط زیست در ارتباط با دموکراسی، ایدئولوژی و سیاست
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|10970||2013||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4830 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Ecological Economics, Volume 95, November 2013, Pages 221–225
Two recent studies and policy documents are discussed in the present article. One is a UN report prepared by experienced politicians as input into the 2012 Rio de Janeiro Conference, the other a study about the ecological economics of biodiversity. The UN report is of interest in informing about the thinking of politicians and their recommendations for action. It is however a consensus report where more fundamental changes in perspectives are not considered but rather avoided. A number of ecological economists participated in the second study on biodiversity. They demonstrated consciousness about many of the critical arguments about Cost–Benefit Analysis but finally argued in favor of relying on the conceptual framework of neoclassical economics with its CBA. The present author is criticizing this idea of “mainstreaming” the economics of biodiversity contending that radical change in perspectives is needed.
In June 2012 the so called Rio + 20 Conference took place. This is one of the recent events that should interest us as ecological economists. In the present essay I will first take a look at one of the official UN policy documents prepared for the Rio de Janeiro Conference 2012. As a kind of follow-up of the Brundtland report Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), a new report was commissioned by the UN Secretary General. 22 experienced politicians worked together with assistants to produce the report Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing (United Nations Secretary General's High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012). The seriousness of many sustainability issues was underlined and a large number of proposals for action listed. Some of the main messages by ecological economists such as the listing of present sustainability threats and the embeddedness of the economy in the biosphere and ecosphere are certainly part of the 2012 UN report. But already the consensus nature of the report suggests that the deviations from mainstream thinking are limited. Fundamental issues about perspectives are largely avoided, perspectives that may refer to the role of science in relation to politics, paradigms or theoretical perspectives in economics, political (and other) ideology as well as the possibility of radical change in political economic systems. I have elsewhere (Söderbaum, 2012) pointed to a need for a broadened dialogue including such fundamental perspectives. These issues will now be discussed in relation to ecological economics. Are also our publications and dialogue limited in scope? What can be done to improve the relevance of our contributions? Do we tend to avoid discussing big issues for tactical or other reasons? If so, in relation to whom do we behave tactically? Are we eager to be accepted among mainstream economists, among other ecological economists, in relation to politicians, actors in various professional roles or perhaps the public at large? Ecological economists are certainly part of the dialogue on some arenas. At issue is what our role is or should be. One of the more recent attempts to influence the development dialogue is connected with a book edited by Pushpam Kumar with the ambitious title The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological Economics Foundations (TEEB, 2010). A significant number of members of the ecological economics community contributed. This so called TEEB study is hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with Achim Steiner as the Executive Director. Pavan Sukhdev acted as study leader and is also connected with UNEP's the Green Economy Initiative. The ambition and scope of the TEEB project are indicated by financial support from the EU and single European governments and also by the existence of additional publications with recommendations directed to specific actor categories. Titles of these advisory studies are “TEEB in National and International Policy Making”, “TEEB for Local and Regional Policy”, and “TEEB in Business and Enterprise” and there is also a website for citizens (www.teeb4me.com), the idea being “to reach citizens and encourage viral spread of TEEB ideas and concepts” (http://www.teebweb.org/teeb-s). This amounts to a massive effort of influencing various actors. At issue is now whether the message of TEEB, 2010 responds well to the demands of the present situation.