WORLDwrite Summit for Serious Development
School of Oriental and African Studies, London, June 12

Peter Rossi

Since its introduction to international policy making in 1987, sustainable development has been utterly pervasive. Nearly all decisions are checked against some sustainability measure. The question is though, is the concept actually any good, is it actually helping people in developing countries?

This examination of the sustainable development paradigm was the main aim of the conference, hence the substitution of 'serious' for sustainable. WORLDwrite is an educational charity aimed at challenging development stereotypes in younger people by providing them with opportunities to experience life in poorer countries first-hand. This day long conference was a continuation on this theme, as the audience of nearly 200 consisted mainly of schoolchildren aged between 14 and 16. WORLDwrite believe that developing countries should be allowed to choose the development path they see fit and that the West has no business choosing that path for them.

Ceri Dingle, the director, passionately outlined the aims of the conference, and of WORLDwrite more generally, in the welcoming address. The problem with sustainable development, or 'sustainabble' as she aptly renamed it, is that it does not allow people in the developing world to have what they want, instead telling them what they should have, or what technology is appropriate for them. It is thus a form of Western imperialism and is 'unnecessary'.

James Heartfield, writer and journalist, followed on, suggesting that technology and development is broadly a good thing, of which the greatest advantage is the 'winning of free time'. We can do things today that would have taken our forefathers much longer, and we also have opportunities that were not available to past generations. Julian Morris, director of the International Policy Network, argued that the concept of sustainable development is 'not completely stupid', but the problems come in the way it is promoted. The current backwards approach, of setting a future goal and then working towards it, encourages heavy handed regulation which often results in unforeseen, negative consequences. Instead, we need to promote a process orientated approach, based on free markets, rule of law and property rights.

The afternoon session saw Daniel Ben-Ami, author of Cowardly Capitalism, argue against the media and political focus on the extreme cases of poverty. In doing so, we 'relativise' the majority of poverty cases because they seem better off than the extreme cases, and we lower our horizons. Barrie Collins, lecturer on international politics, took a similar line to Ceri Dingle, and argued against the current form of imperialism we are imposing on the poorer nations. For example, we have recently been told in the press that Tanzania does not need an air traffic control system, and that the election in Zimbabwe would only be fair in Mugabe lost.

One of the highlights of a successful conference was the screening of a short film by Kirk Leech on the 'imprisoning of 40,000 people' in the Shoolpaneshwar sanctuary, India. The 61,000 ha sanctuary was created in 1989 as a result of campaigns by environmental groups such as the WWF, as compensation for the submergence of 11,000 ha of forest following the construction of the Narmada dam. The sanctuary is now advertised as a holiday destination, yet the indigenous population were not consulted, they are not allowed to hunt, carry weapons, damage trees, mine, or generally carry out the activities that were necessary to their lifestyle. A panther artificially introduced to the area, was removed only after it killed a villager. This is perhaps an extreme example of the effect of Western eco-imperialism, but aspects of this inhumane situation are contained in the rhetoric of most environmental NGOs.

In the final session of the day, a panel of students gave their point of view. Helena, 19, moved to the UK from Rwanda two and a half years ago, and, stating that they (people from her home in Rwanda) cut down trees so that they can cook and eat, asked a question that all anti-development NGOs should answer: 'what do you want us to do if we aren't allowed to cut down trees?' Similarly, Millicent from Ghana, challenged the West to 'let us have what you have'!

The only problem with the conference, perhaps unavoidably, is that issues were not discussed in sufficient detail, and suspect views aired by the schoolchildren were not really challenged. For example, although the general opinion was correctly hostile to NGOs, there were still too many calls to throw money at the problem. Subsequently, when I raised the issue of corruption as a hindrance to the efficacy of aid efforts, it did not go down too well. Also, Julian Morris' talk on private property rights and rule of law, which are sadly lacking in the third world (see for example de Soto's book The Mystery of Capital, 2001), seemed to go over the heads of some of the audience.

Overall though, the conference was a refreshing note in a debate that is unfortunately dominated by the often inhumane views of NGOs such as Greenpeace and the WWF. Who are we, the West, to tell those in developing nations not to exploit their environment in order to develop, so that we can organise eco-tourism? In the end, the matter seems to boil down to whether we value humans or the environment more, and to the detriment of the Third world, we seem to favour the latter over the former.