Whose earth is it anyway? (Unconventional-A Point of View).

"The law locks up both man and woman,
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose,
Who steals the common from the goose."

--Anonymous

"Sustainability" is a word invented to establish a process of growth that would enhance the quality of life for all people. This world attempt at sustainability is about balancing the health of the environment and social considerations with economic efficiency, and without such a balance, they are often meshed in conflict. The problem is that the economic dimension has overwhelmed the environmental and social aspects, limiting the success of sustainability as a concept.

While economics itself is a useful tool, the emphasis of the global economy solely on economic efficiency has failed to adequately consider environmental quality, cultural values, heritage and human rights. The result has been to ignore valuable human heritage, while allowing private economic-profit motives to intrude on long-standing, publicly-owned resources like air and water. The global scale push-for-profits and privatization has led to environmental degradation and declining quality of life that will affect our human existence everywhere. It is time to audit the results of the economic dominance in the hope that another attempt at a balance is possible.

My criticism of economics is backed by personal and professional experience. I've worked, studied and travelled in many parts of the world, in order to understand the relationship between heritage and environmental policy. Equally important, I have worked and thrived in highly competitive free-market economic conditions. At first, I chose to pursue other directions because of concern for future generations; now that I have grandchildren, my concern is greater still. It is based on my observations that economic growth as a world policy without a plan or recognition of limits and with its increased consumption cannot be sustained. In fact, it is threat to their future.

Years ago, I enjoyed a two-year sojourn, alone, wandering around the world. I made the journey to have a better understanding of nations, cultures and histories. My observations have formed both negative and positive conclusions. Sadly, I reflect that much of the conflict in human history was and is based on human competition for natural resources. On the positive side, there have been many cultural examples of human innovation, solving what had to be difficult problems at the time. Those experiences evolved over time to become our human culture.

I ran a government environmental agency with a billion-dollar annual budget, with responsibilities that included managing in a drought, floods and fires. I had a large regulatory responsibility and established a successful cooperative plan with industries on energy, water, forestry fisheries and related issues. I have enjoyed a forty-year career as an environmental activist and in 2001 received the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Sasakawa Environment Prize, an annual award presented by the United Nations. This has been the pinnacle of my career because an international committee of peers independent of the United Nations and UNEP awarded it.

The world is struggling with enormous challenges. At the core of these problems is the management and distribution of natural resources--in many ways the same problems that ancient Rome failed to solve, but still exist today on a global scale. It is timely to write this article to reflect further on the crucial issue of economic growth at the expense of the health of the environment and quality of life on Earth. I see this era of "all things economic" as but another chapter in human history.

I see three problems in the economic emphasis of recent years. The first is the attempt at privatization--the taking-over of public assets, like water and air, which is in conflict with law and tradition. The conflict is that the economic sector's dominance ignores social considerations and fails to recognize the historic claims to public assets known as the "doctrine of the public trust". This doctrine embraces cultural traditions that are deeply rooted in humanity and would not disappear.

To proceed with economic dominance while ignoring tradition is a form of naivete. Attempts to privatize assets that have been traditionally owned by past generations of humanity is a threat for future generations. Public air and water have great monetary value, and large profits come easily when they are privatized. And so, the question of "Who owns air, water and land?" deserves to be asked constantly as a matter of policy and is essential to the debate over world trade.

The problem of economy overwhelming culture or tradition isn't new. There is ample record in ancient Greek and Roman laws, and some of the first laws of Rome were developed to protect public access to natural resources. They declared that public access to air, navigable waters and running water was so fundamental to civic society that private property rights had no stand to interfere. These concepts emerged over time to become the ongoing laws of modern nations. Challenges to them have been endless in the courts, and now the addition of technology and global business, especially attempts at privatization, seriously renew those old threats.

Economic policy based on money ignores important values of human heritage that are valuable beyond price, because they have emerged from ongoing human experience. These are important to the quality of life. Many of these traditions evolved when the pace of change was slower and problems could be worked out over time, but today the pace is fast and getting faster. Advanced technology and the global dimension of free-market economy tempt us to outrun reality.

The second problem is the failure of the current narrow focus of global profit-driven economics to address new environmental problems, such as shortages, pollution and climate change. An example is the disastrous effect on human health as the water quality declines. Global warming and the increase in carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) in the atmosphere as an aftermath of burning fossil fuels is another example.

Finally, the influence of money is so pervasive that economists have moved into every dimension of Government, industry and the non-profit sector, even though much of the unrestricted economic activity is devastating to the environment.

A glaring example of the ability of economic interests to influence international efforts to achieve sustainability recently surfaced in the British scientific journal, New Scientist. In 1972, the first Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm; its goal was to launch global efforts to achieve sustainable development and to establish a new United Nations agency for the environment. I was at the Conference working with Barbara Ward and Margaret Meade. At the time, they had been informed that powerful economic interests were undermining our efforts, which was disturbing and impossible to prove until January 2002.

According to the story in the New Scientist, "a secret group of developed nations conspired to limit the effectiveness of the (Stockholm) Conference". The thirty-year-old British Government's records of this group were released, as required by law, earlier this year. Known as the Brussels group, which included Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, it met secretly in 1971 to influence the outcome of the Conference. A document written in 1971 by an official in the British Department of the Environment described the group's position: "A new and expensive international organization must be avoided, but a small, effective central coordinating mechanism ... would not be welcome, but is probably inevitable." Certainly, the Conference had limited accomplishment, and our adversaries had ample funds. The released document explained our problems.

Economists respond to questions about public ownership of natural resources by pointing out that the modern world, burgeoning with population growth, may be better able to enhance the quality of life by applying technological advances and economic policy. Their argument bears consideration. There is a need for capital resources to achieve sustainability, and the need for economic partners is recognized. The shortage of money for development is a real problem, but getting the capital can be done in innovative ways. For instance, a global green tax on fossil fuels could create the required funds, and it would be a basis of helping to control [CO.sub.2] in the atmosphere.

My point of this failure of theoretical economics as a public policy device signals a very serious problem. The recent collapse of world fisheries was caused in part by a no-plan, no-management, free-competition fishery, which means the loss of one third of the protein source the global population enjoyed each year. The world is faced with problems like growing shortages of food, and water problems so severe that one third of the world faces shortages and drinks polluted water. These problems won't be solved by economics alone. Water shortages have drawn the focus of privatization efforts, and there have been mixed results. There have been and continue to be serious conflicts with tradition, where the public faces losing what had been an inherited resource that was understood to be a permanent public asset.

In the United States, the collapse of Enron, a huge multinational resources company, included failure at privatizing public water. Enron had a subsidiary in California trying to acquire publicly-owned water and sell it back to the cities. The environmental movement challenged the company's effort from a legal and public trust position, and Enron gave up. They were also trying to acquire water in India and elsewhere. The firm's bankruptcy is the largest in United States history. Recently in La Paz, Bolivia, foreign corporations attempted to take over the publicly-owned drinking water infrastructure. Riots ensued, lives were lost and foreign corporations withdrew.

My final example involving water is the lure of simple economic fantasy on a large scale, which is likely to lead to a tragedy of historic scale. Increased industrialization is desired in India and China, but to get water for more factories, both countries are taking lands out of agricultural production. Controversial huge dams are being built. Such strategies have serious social and environmental consequences that are ignored by economic emphasis. Lest I be seen as suggesting that California, where I live, is any better, it is so lacking in water policy that it is letting its rivers go dry too. Though the state is a desert, there are few restrictions on drilling wells for more water. Consequently, they are drilled with abandon, and the underground water table is dropping in many areas. Here, economy rages ahead of environment and social aspects too.

Another example is air pollution, a result of economic growth that does not value the health of the environment or the public right to clean air, which is an enormous public trust issue. Recently, a scientific journal confirmed that the particulates from burning coal for energy cause cancer and other health problems in humans, especially in urban centres. Diesel truck particulates were also confirmed in the article as problems. The list goes on.

I have described sustainability as a balance between economic efficiency, health of the environment and social considerations to enhance quality of life. Land-use issues are frequently addressed from the economic point of view and overlook social considerations. Historically, competition for land is well known as a source of conflict. Throughout human history, disruptive anger came from the landless poor. Many an empire has fallen over land ownership conflicts and reports on wars and rebellions over these appear daily in the press.

The question is how can a nation deal with a conflict like land use? Efforts at land redistribution have an uneven success record, but a completely different social approach to the landless problem has worked. Sweden's "Everyman's Right" provides a social example. Swedish citizens tend to have a relaxed attitude about ownership due to an innovative way of extending access and use of both public and private land. Everyman's Right is a practice that grew out of the past and is now established by law. It means every citizen is free to enjoy access to any land in Sweden. Its vast farms and forests, whether privately or publicly owned, are available for walkers. "No trespassing" signs are unusual and generally meant for military security areas. The relevance of this? Individuals have the pleasure of knowing they can enjoy a walk anyplace. They have a sense of ownership of the nation. There is also a tax saving to Swedes from this "access for everyone" approach. Currently in the United States, there are bond issues in the millions and billions to be voted on regarding the money being used for land acquisition.

In the Swedish system, there is far less need to have public ownership of vast areas to create new parks because people are free to hike wherever they want, and the lands are still used by private owners for economic productivity, food or forests. Any open space in an urban setting has great profit potential if a developer can get access, and the pressure to develop is enormous. Yet, citizens' efforts have often prevailed.

Examples of traditions involving citizens in the protection and defence of public lands are among my favourites. In Nairobi, Kenya, the Uhuru Park was created after independence. A group of foreign investors proposed to build a high-rise hotel in the park. Politicians were willing, but the public held demonstrations and faced the soldiers and police. The foreign investors withdrew.

Sustainability gives us an attempt to solve these problems by inventing a broader process that includes health of the environment, social needs and economic development. The balance of these issues was the basis of the launch of sustainability in Stockholm in 1972. For many of us, at the 1992 Rio Summit as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the hope was the dream of the industrialized North applying taxes to itself so that the funds could be used to assist the development and technology needs of developing nations. But as in Stockholm, fossil fuel interests, led by the United States and Saudi Arabia, opposed and blocked the concept.

For me, at the end of the day, the most serious impact of the economic approach is on the well-being of the individual. I offer a story suggesting the importance of the concern for the individual. I once did a study of the British National Trust--a private NGO that maintains 200 estates, 600,000 acres of land and 600 miles of coastline. The Trust has nurtured its principles of preserving English landscapes on a permanent basis. Its success includes a very large volunteer force that does much of the work. On leaving the magnificent estate Charlecote Park, the place where Shakespeare was arrested for poaching deer, I stopped at the gatepost entrance to query a workman who was working on the stone fence. He was in his seventies or eighties, dressed in threadbare work clothes. I asked him how far the next village was and if it had a hotel. "Well, its about eight miles", he said, "and I've never travelled that far. I don't know if it has a hotel or not." Then he asked, "Did you enjoy your visit?" I responded with enthusiasm. "It's a beautiful place", he said, adding: "I'm retired and like many of us in the area, I volunteer here. I see us as helping to maintain a future heritage." It was the high point for me, the brightest memory of visiting the Trust sites. That conversation about the pleasure of volunteering has always stayed with me.

In the end, strengthening and passing on heritage is much of what humanity is about. But it isn't a matter measured simply by money, profit and loss. In fact, a lot can be lost if we lose track of what humanity is about, and narrow economic emphasis on advancing world trade is doing that. One example to make my point. India's leap into free trade has meant ill-planned huge dam projects and agricultural lands being taken out of production to get more water for factories. But an exciting success story about advancing the concept of sustainability is taking place in the Netherlands, where health of the environment and the quality of life are in balance with economic growth. The Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) aims to achieve total environmental recovery in 35 years. Similar efforts are in place in New Zealand, Singapore and several Scandinavian countries.

The NEPP model is successful for several reasons: the most important, I believe, is having a written plan, with vision and objectives. Business and Government work out their involvement, while a third player--the environmental movement--stands outside either criticizing or commending to the media. The Plan's success includes several hundred thousand industries, literally all the manufacturing in Holland, signing on and managing toward total environmental recovery. The long-term effort includes a doubling of the economy, while problems like pollution are disappearing. (see www.rri.org for more information on NEPP.)

Since 11 September, there is a need for the international environmental community to be more bold. So I come to the point of suggesting an international effort to create a visionary "Global Green Plan", based on what the Netherlands and other countries have started. The United Nations is the institution that can provide the leadership to involve industry and Governments in this international effort. The technology and management expertise are available for such a large-scale effort, and following a successful model is sound management practice. A United Nations-sponsored Global Green Plan would be a sustainable development guide to achieving total environmental recovery and economic growth in this century.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) follows ten years after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. At that Summit, ideas were big and hopes were raised that environmental restoration could be accomplished equitably for all nations. The past decade, however, has failed to live up to those expectations. Environmental decline continues and poverty worsens.

At this critical time in history, only the United Nations can provide a vision of sustainable development as an alternative to war and a way to bring about peace. We can make no wiser investment in the future for children everywhere.

Huey D. Johnson is President of the Resource Renewal Institute, a non-profit non-governmental organization that supports innovative environmental management strategies worldwide. He is the winner of the 2001 UNEP Sasakawa Environment Prize.