Halfway through the UN 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (2015–2030), the achievement of most of the proposed targets have been lagging behind, as has been confirmed in recent UN and UNESCO reports. While these reports mostly provide external features which cause the delay, this paper analyses and addresses possible features within the UN 2030 Agenda which might explain that shortfall. These include an unflagging belief in economic growth and a lack of an analysis of causes, as well as problems to do with costs and benefits of particular SDGs. Hence, the application of some SDGs might be counterproductive for the environment – and thus for sustainability. This article highlights outcomes of analyses of the Agenda, zooms in on SDG4 on education and presents alternative, more promising avenues concerning the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda and the alternative approaches are interpreted in terms of a shallow ecological (mechanistic) and a deep ecological (organic) worldview. We then propose ways forward for critical policy discourse analysis that may enhance the capacity of the UN 2030 Agenda in the direction of what they are meant to do: global cooperation toward a sustainable rearrangement of human life on earth.
LINK
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
I shall use this editorial to express my mixed feelings about the COVID-19 pandemic that affected our lives strongly, personally and professionally, in very different ways for over two years. Going back to our schools, colleges and universities, without even wearing facemasks, sometimes feel a bit unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity also touches upon the way we think and act in our daily work. We are virtually standing at a crossroads: are we returning to our previous routines or moving ahead by incorporating our new pandemic-related experiences into our routines?
DOCUMENT
Anthropocentrism is the belief that value is human-centered and that all other beings are means to human ends. The Oxford English Dictionary defines anthropocentrism as “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence”. Anthropocentrism focuses on humanistic values as opposed to values found in non-human beings or ecosystems. With the popularization of the concept of ecosystem services, the idea of protecting the environment for the sake of human welfare is reflected in the SDGs. Within the SDGs, the instrumental use of the environment for the sake of alleviating poverty, combatting climate change, and addressing a range of other social and economic issues is promoted. Since the conception of the SDGs, there has been a discussion about anthropocentrism in ‘sustainable development’ (e.g., Kopnina 2016a and 2017, Strang 2017, Adelman 2018; Kotzé and French 2018) and how the SDGs can be antithetical to effective responses to sustainability challenges. The SDGs’ accent on economic growth and social equality as well as environmental protection actually result in ethical as well as practical paradoxes. While central to the SDG’s is ‘sustained and inclusive economic growth’ (UN 2015), the prioritization is on the economy, NOT the planet that nurtures both social and economic systems. Anthropocentrism, in this case, refers to the exclusive focus on short-term human benefits, whereas biodiversity loss is not considered a great moral wrong (Cafaro and Primack 2014). The three overarching anthropocentric SDG goals, economic growth, resilience, and inclusion, will be critically examined below and ways forward will be proposed. “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in 'Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Life on Land'. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_105-1 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Expectations are high for digital technologies to address sustainability related challenges. While research into such applications and the twin transformation is growing rapidly, insights in the actual daily practices of digital sustainability within organizations is lacking. This is problematic as the contributions of digital tools to sustainability goals gain shape in organizational practices. To bridge this gap, we develop a theoretical perspective on digital sustainability practices based on practice theory, with an emphasis on the concept of sociomateriality. We argue that connecting meanings related to sustainability with digital technologies is essential to establish beneficial practices. Next, we contend that the meaning of sustainability is contextspecific, which calls for a local meaning making process. Based on our theoretical exploration we develop an empirical research agenda.
MULTIFILE
Anthropocentrism is the belief that value is human-centered and that all other beings are means to human ends. The Oxford English Dictionary defines anthropocentrism as “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence”. Anthropocentrism focuses on humanistic values as opposed to values found in non-human beings or ecosystems. With the popularization of the concept of ecosystem services, the idea of protecting the environment for the sake of human welfare is reflected in the SDGs. Within the SDGs, the instrumental use of the environment for the sake of alleviating poverty, combatting climate change, and addressing a range of other social and economic issues is promoted. Since the conception of the SDGs, there has been a discussion about anthropocentrism in ‘sustainable development’ (e.g., Kopnina 2016a and 2017, Strang 2017, Adelman 2018; Kotzé and French 2018) and how the SDGs can be antithetical to effective responses to sustainability challenges. The SDGs’ accent on economic growth and social equality as well as environmental protection actually result in ethical as well as practical paradoxes. While central to the SDG’s is ‘sustained and inclusive economic growth’ (UN 2015), the prioritization is on the economy, NOT the planet that nurtures both social and economic systems. Anthropocentrism, in this case, refers to the exclusive focus on short-term human benefits, whereas biodiversity loss is not considered a great moral wrong (Cafaro and Primack 2014). The three overarching anthropocentric SDG goals, economic growth, resilience, and inclusion, will be critically examined below and ways forward will be proposed. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319959801 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
There is increasing evidence that humans are not living sustainably. There are three major drivers of the unsustainable approach: population, consumption and the growth economy. There is widespread denial about these issues, but they clearly need to be addressed if we are to achieve any of the possible sustainable futures. The first and second versions of the ‘World Scientists Warning to Humanity’ both highlight the problem of increasing human population, as do the IPCC and IPBES reports. However, all have been largely ignored. The size of an ecologically sustainable global population is considered, taking into account the implications of increasing per capita consumption. The paper then discusses the reasons why society and academia largely ignore overpopulation. The claim that discussing overpopulation is ‘anti-human’ is refuted. Causal Layered Analysis is used to examine why society ignores data that do not fit with its myths and metaphors, and how such denial is leading society towards collapse. Non-coercive solutions are then considered to reach an ecologically-sustainable human population. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article will discuss social, environmental, and ecological justice in education for sustainable development (ESD) and Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG). The concept of sustainable development and, by extension, the ESD, places heavy emphasis on the economic and social aspects of sustainability. However, the ESD falls short of recognizing ecological justice, or recognition that nonhumans also have a right to exist and flourish. An intervention in the form of an undergraduate course titled Politics, Business, and Environment (PBE) will be discussed. As part of this course, students were asked to reflect on the three pillars of sustainable development: society, economy, and environment, linking these to the fourth concept, ecological justice or biospheric egalitarianism. Biospheric egalitarianism is characterized by the recognition of intrinsic value in the environment and is defined as concern about justice for the environment. Some of the resulting exam answers are analyzed, demonstrating students’ ability to recognize the moral and pragmatic limitations of the anthropocentric approach to justice. This analysis presents ways forward in thinking about the role of “ecological justice” as the ultimate bottom line upon which both society and economy are based. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100261 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The study of moral reasoning in relation to sustainable development is an emerging field within environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). The vignette method was used to evaluate the perception of the relationship between environmental and social issues in the Dutch upper elementary school children. This case study is placed within two broad areas of tension, namely between the need to address urgent environmental problems and to promote pluralistic democratic learning; and between the value of environment as an economic asset and deep ecology perspective. Results of this study indicate that the children are able to critically think about the moral dilemmas inherent in sustainable development and distinguish between different values in relation to environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.12.004 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
