We consider that ‘sustainable development’ is a better presumption than ‘sustainable economic growth’ because it does not prioritise economic growth over the other two key pillars of sustainability – the environmental and social.
However, just giving this term more prominence without elucidation or adequate adjustment of other statements and policies creates more confusion and uncertainty about the respective roles of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable economic growth’:
• How can development ‘contribute’ to ‘sustainable development’ unless it is itself ‘sustainable development’? We think it would be clearer to have a simple presumption in favour of sustainable development as opposed to ‘development that contributes to unsustainable development’, or else explain what the difference is. This also means revising the references to the presumption in paragraphs 8 & 9.
• ‘Sustainable economic growth’ remains dominant. It is central to three paragraphs (2,3,5) describing the “Scottish Government’s central purpose”, the Government Economic Strategy (2011) and the National Planning Framework. In these three over-arching policy statements it plays a major and explicit role, while the role of ‘sustainable development’ remains largely implicit, if not subordinate to ‘sustainable economic growth’. The Scottish Government’s commitment to ‘sustainable development’ is only “reflected in its purpose”, and “reflected in the continued support for the five guiding principles set out in the UK’s shared framework for sustainable development”.
• While ‘sustainable development’ is identified as an objective which the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 requires the preparation of NPF and local plans to have recourse to, it is unclear how this plays out against the fundamental or over-arching requirement for ‘sustainable economic growth’.
• Presumably part of the motivation behind the notion of ‘sustainable development’ is a wish to prioritise long term benefit for the whole of society over short term benefit to some in society, but unless the environmental and social strands of sustainability in ‘sustainable development’ are fleshed out more in SPP and bolstered in other policies, how will they will be able to hold their own against the economic strand?
• While ‘sustainable development’ is a long-established, internationally accepted concept, the Scottish Government’s definition of ‘sustainable economic growth’ was only drafted recently (no date is given) in response to a Parliamentary Question and has no similar status. We fear that the definition of ‘sustainable economic growth’, as “Building a dynamic and growing economy that will provide prosperity and opportunities for all, while ensuring that future generations can enjoy a better quality of life too” boils down to “a growing economy…ensuring that future generations can enjoy a better quality of life”, which in turn will be interpreted as ‘sustained economic growth’ – i.e. economic growth above all else. ‘Quality of life’ needs to be explicitly defined to include more than the economic – and if social and environmental factors were included, then what we have isn’t ‘sustainable economic growth’ but ‘sustainable development’.
• The most straightforward solution to the problems identified above is for the Scottish Government to drop its focus on ‘sustainable economic growth’ and instead commit itself wholeheartedly to ‘sustainable development’. After all this would not preclude promoting economic growth, as long as that growth goes hand-in-hand with social welfare and environmental protection.
Read the full response: SAS SPP Sustainability response (PDF)
1 Comment