Sustainability and social change

Interview

Angelika Zahrnt is an environmentalist, conservationist, economist and former chairperson of BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) who also served on the German government’s sustainability council. In 2009, Prof. Zahrnt won the German environmental prize for her decades of engagement in the environmental movement. In a wide-ranging interview with Open Citizenship, she discusses the challenges sustainability poses for societies and individuals, but also the many opportunities we have to change and overcome these challenges.

Do you think sustainability will always be considered an environmental concept, or does it have broader appeal? Is this vital for sustainability’s success? 

The concept of sustainability originally comes from the ecological realm, from forestry, and it became a political term through the Brundtland report. There it was clear that it is connected with social and economic questions. And in Rio 1992 it was also clear that sustainability is the concept that connects environment and development and includes environmental, economic and social dimensions, so the concept is broad. It is important for the success of sustainability that the social perspective is considered, but also that sustainability is defined as “strong sustainability”. That means that ecological limits, the availability of resources, the capacity of the soil and the atmosphere to absorb pollutants and the preservation of biodiversity are a central element. The economy and society can then develop within these ecological limits.

This concept has changed somewhat over time. Some people say that the environment, economy, and society are three columns that are equal. The ecological perspective takes a different position: for us, ecological limits are a frame within which the economy and society can develop. This position is also current. It is theoretically supported by the German federal government, but not in practice. But the SRU said in 2012, “responsibility within the limits”. So the SRU, the WBGU and the UBA [three major environmental advisory groups to the German government] all speak of this ecological core.

While you were at BUND you formed a cooperation with Misereor, the Catholic development organisation, to publish Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland (sustainable Germany). What were the lasting effects of this cooperation? What interesting coalitions do you see developing now in Europe and who would you like to see join forces in the future? 

In addition to Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland, we did a second study with the protestant development group Brot für die Welt. The long-term effects of the cooperation are visible in both BUND and the development groups. First, the demand from Rio to think about the environment and development together has had an impact on both organisations; it is normal now, for example, for the development organisations to pay more attention to climate negotiations and take the connection between climate and poverty into greater consideration. The connection has become well understood in these organisations. And there is also a political cooperation, both at the big international conferences and at events in Germany. So it is a good, enduring cooperation. And there is a climate network in Germany that would not have been possible without close cooperation on these studies.

In terms of new coalitions, I do not see anything in the sense of large organisations working together. Instead, I see a lot in Europe coming from the grassroots. Transition Towns, urban gardening and all these things are well connected to each other, but they have no real organisational structure and so right now there is no political power to really influence established politics. What I find important, and what is starting to happen now, is working together with the unions. There was a big event two years ago: environmental groups, the protestant church and the unions held a transformation congress and said that they wanted to continue to work together. That relationship has been maintained, especially by the churches, but it is still in the early stages. 

We need the unions if we believe that the transition to sustainability means saying good-bye to economic growth. Then we have to try to convince the unions, because they are strong advocates of growth, because they see that as the only way to create jobs. And if you say that we no longer want growth as our primary orientation, then you have to consider how to preserve jobs without growth. And that can only happen through a different distribution and shortening of working hours, which can only work with the unions. 

Cooperation with businesses is also important. We see with renewable energy that business is working to some extent with environmental groups, and I think this will continue to develop. There are businesses that really take sustainability seriously and see ecological orientation as part of their business sector, such as with organic agriculture and groups that use FSC [Forest Stewardship Council certification] or do transfers. I think these will continue to grow and be a possible coalition partner.

What trends have you seen in relation to sustainability since the release of Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland? What challenges has the EU begun to tackle, what challenges remain? 

Over the past 20 years, international equity and intergenerational equity have gained more acknowledgment and agreement. If the goal in the climate negotiations is that every person on the planet is allowed to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide by 2050, then that is a huge advance from the early 1990s, where industrial countries essentially held the position that industrial development had to continue. Then, no one seriously considered the idea that industrial countries would have to massively reduce their emissions and resource use, by 80% to 90%. But now, also thanks to the strength of developing countries, it’s clear that industrial countries’ exploitation of the Global South for the past 150 years simply cannot continue from an equity perspective, but also in terms of power. So a lot has happened so that people now see that sustainability includes this demand for equity, which needs to be realised. 

A lot has happened in terms of implementation: sustainability strategies – also a call at Rio – have been developed, and there are efforts to create systematic sustainability goals and work towards them across sectors. It is still far from being effective, but the understanding that we need to actively pursue these goals and that change will not happen by itself has started to take hold in the political realm. Instead, there is the growing understanding that we need to set goals and monitor them for change to happen. 

Increasingly, there is also the understanding that resource efficiency is not enough, but that lifestyles are also important in order to reach sustainability goals. It is important to prevent the resource waste that would happen if developing countries were to follow our lifestyle. In addition, the necessary changes [to reduce resource use] are an area for politics. This is slowly being acknowledged. This was all discussed in Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland, but such developments need time to mature from concepts to political issues and then finally to be politically realised. 

On the question of the EU or even the issue of growth, this is something that the most recent German Enquete Commission took up. But it is very tedious, and there is a lot of aversion to dealing with it because we have no idea how an economy without growth could work. The growth debate is also taking place in the EU, but there are several conflicts between the verbal acknowledgment of sustainability and the calls for growth from economic actors.  When conflicts arise between sustainability and growth, the decision has always been made for growth. You can see this both in the emissions trading scheme and dealings with the automobile industry: the economic pressure is stronger, which is the same in the EU. We have debates on “beyond growth” and “beyond GDP”, but on the other side we have the Lisbon Strategy and the 2020 growth strategy. So there are two different paradigms where often the conflict is not resolved, nor is it acknowledged that these are really two different directions. And in most cases the decision is made to go in the direction of growth.

One difficult aspect of sustainability is that it can be defined differently depending on who is doing the talking. Is this a good or a bad thing? Should sustainability strive for a more universal definition, and if so, how?

On one hand it is good that sustainability is no longer a term that is only understood in expert circles, as was the case 20 years ago. Now sustainability is a well-known term, which is used and considered positive, and is generally understood as “We have to protect our planet for our children and sustainability is important for international equity”. So there is a general understanding that is positive. The negative aspect is that it has become a buzzword; when everyone uses it, especially in marketing, it is used as a loose category rather than a guiding principle for action. I believe that the question of defining “what is sustainability?” is centrally important, so that the term does not somehow become completely apolitical and meaningless. So this debate about ecological limits really has to be continued.

You have talked about the importance of civil society in the transition to sustainability. What needs to happen and what can civil society organisations do? 

I believe that civil society organisations can do a lot. They can think up new ideas, develop visions, create concepts from these visions, develop policy measures and projects, create small projects that they can institute themselves. They can start preparing for the necessary transition away from growth. 

They can also exert political pressure. An example of this is the German energy transition, which started as a protest against nuclear energy but at the same time was supported by draft concepts developed by ecologically-minded research institutes. Then came practical projects like small wind turbines and solar panels, trade shows, public advocacy for this new way. There were small businesses. All of this made the political aspect possible, because these alternatives demonstrated that it was actually possible to phase out nuclear energy. The transition only succeeded because these alternatives were being developed in theory and practice and exerted a continuous political pressure through public debate, demonstrations and lawsuits. This interaction is, I believe, very important.

It is also important for civil society organisations to operate actively at the international level, which is also increasing.

Is sustainability an elitist proposition?  Is it feasible/ appropriate to demand change from communities whose lifestyles are already restricted by narrow financial and occupational limits? 

I do not think sustainability is an elite project. Sustainability is a proposition to ensure a good life for all, worldwide and in the future. This means a big challenge for wealthy people and wealthy nations. But in both cases – the elites here and the so-called developed countries generally – the wealthy have the largest ecological footprint. Those in Europe who earn less money also use fewer environmental resources, much like those in poor countries. The goal of both low earners in the rich world, and poor countries in general, is to follow the practised example of elites, what we see on television. And that is not possible on a global scale. 

So it is critical for people with a large ecological footprint to make changes and develop a lifestyle that requires far fewer resources, as well as to reduce income inequality so that luxury goods and status consumption are not so prevalent or important. In that sense, the elite need to make the most dramatic changes in order to live a materially more modest lifestyle. And society needs to reduce income and wealth inequality within individual countries, but also internationally. 

To answer the other question about whether people or communities with less financial leeway can take up sustainability, I think so. Because sustainability offers many solutions for leading a good life even with a lower income. If I start an urban garden or become more self-sufficient, then I can live well even with a smaller income.

You served for some time in the German sustainability advisory council. Could you describe the council’s engagement with the public and the effect this had on its work?

That “some time” was 12 years. I was there from the beginning. Public relations is an important area for the sustainability council. We sought to influence the public for example through our position and research. For example, we developed concepts for how to massively reduce land use, what an agricultural system would look like if it were 100% organic or how to envision a circular economy. We did not just develop these positions; we also discussed them with the public. The council holds an annual sustainability conference where over 1,000 people engaged with sustainability come to exchange ideas. It is not just an issue of information, but also of strengthening the connections between people working in a common area. We want to show that there is progress, and it is important for those working at the local level, who can feel isolated, to see that there is a sustainability community.

What role do individual actions play? What are some things that people can do now to work towards sustainability? 

I think this question is really easy to answer today. So many forms of advice have come out in the last few years related to environmentally friendly consumption, at home, in the garden, with transportation and building. In the area of “what can I do?” there are several sustainability shopping guides. The German sustainability council developed a sustainable product guide that explained different labels, where to find free exchange shops and what other opportunities exist. That was our most popular brochure. There are even internet platforms. So I think that for someone who wants to make a change and reduce her or his ecological footprint there are a lot of tips and guides out there. 

It is also important that we change not only what we buy – such as organic or energy-efficient products – but also how much we buy. So it is not only about sustainable consumption but a sustainable lifestyle. This means buying less, keeping things longer, repairing thing and thus reducing our resource use. That is one thing. This also includes several social aspects: doing things together with others, defining ourselves not through what brands of clothing we have on but through personal qualities independent of consumer trends.

The second important aspect is to be politically active. That is a task that individuals can undertake not only in their communities, but also in firms and political parties. So you both do something practically and are engaged in NGOs. For those who are convinced that sustainability is an important project for the future there really are a huge number of possibilities to be actively involved and do something.