Dear Lucio,

it should be the one they newly defined here:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

Cheers, Kees

Dear C.J, in that UN site above there is no definition of sustainable development so there seems to be now no unifying model....now they are talking about "the sustairnable development strategy and 17 goals.... At least the bruntland commission, to ensure comparability and responsability, provided a definition, which apparently throught time was found lacking....and abandoned....

So the question now is what type of development model is behind the new sustainable development strategy being promoted globally; and capable of systematically achieving 17 different goals?....In other words, under what type of market this sustainable development stragety is going to be based....replicated?...

RIO/UNCSD seems to say under green growth markets, meaning eco-economic markets or green economy markets, meaning they have abandoned the traditional market model of Adam Smith's economic only market.   However, in the declaration signed and articles mentioned and even in this website you sent it is not clear what concept of sustainable development they are using, it is not given or mentioned or discussed anywhere.....  

It should be easy for them, this the the UN,  to clearly difined the type sustainable development model they are using and how this is link to the sustainable development strategy and how the two components are linked to the 17 different goals.... otherwise, they will be working in a caos environment:  how they are going to monitor and write comparable follow up reports required by the agreement; and evaluate progress and track conflictts that should be expected between goals and minimize them or prevent them....

Or is there a current definition of sustainable development or current model in that website somewhere and I missed it?

Dear Lucio

Happy New Year

They follow a model of bureaucratic and geopolitical sustainability only. 

Regards

Dear Lucio,

in that document I mentioned, it says:

"Broad and ambitious in scope, the Agenda addresses the three dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic and environmental, as well as important aspects related to peace, justice and effective institutions. 

The mobilization of means of implementation, including financial resources, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, as well as the role of partnerships, are also acknowledged as critical."

If in two sentences so much aspects are mentioned, can we expect a definition of sustainable development to cover this all? Is sustainable development not different at any place people are working to reach it and is it not our humane task to bring these practices at a level of co-existence that would be acceptable/bearable for all?

My counterparts and I work with farmers in Indonesia and other counterparts and I are working with learning situations in Lesotho, all very different from earlier work I was related to in China and Africa. Sustainable development has completely different meanings in these actual situations and we try to give them a place that is locally acceptable and nationally and internationally feasible. An overarching definition of sustainable development will not really contribute to the local solutions we are after.

Best wishes, Kees

An Agenda or strategy is not a model, it is a mean to sell /implement a model.  If you have a market model, then you can design a strategy/agenda how to sell it / implement it......A strategy/agenda can not come out of no where.....

Behind that sustainable development agenda/strategy, is there an economic develolpment model or an environmental development model or an eco-economic model/green market model or social developmennt model or an model or a socio-economic model or socio environmental model or an eco-social development model?  it is not cear....it is not a sustainability  market model for sure, so what is it?

If we know that we know the market structure and then we can see if those 17 goals can be concieved/delivered systamatically. from that structure....or are they implemting this sustainbaility agenda/strategy outside markets?....it is not clear.......What type of model means with type of market model the UN is using that can allow you to plan for and achieve those 17 goals at the same time? it is not clear...

I was born, raised and educated in a developing country before education in developed countries.....I know those actual situations you refer...,I lived them.... from both angles...

My apologies, this section should have said...

........

If we know that we know the market structure and then we can see if those 17 goals can be concieved/delivered systamatically. from that structure....or are they implemting this sustainable devellopment agenda/strategy outside markets?....it is not clear..

.....

Dear Lucio,

I have lived and worked in developing countries for decades. Your answer shows that I am right, there is no one of such models, so you should not search for one. There are only conditions that ask for measures to relieve or strengthen them from a humane point of view. That is your model.

Regards, Kees

The market structure the UN is using has to be one of the models I listed in my previous posting, but there is no way to know clearly or for sure from the two documents mentioned....as you appear to agree....Let's leave it here...C.J. you do not know, and I do not know....Perhaps some one else knows about what structure is behind the SD agenda and goals and will share it...

I am sure the UN team behind the strategy knows, but perhaps they will tell us later on at the end of the age of sustainable develolpment...

Have a nice day and thank you for participating

Dear friends, Sharing here my most recent publications as food for thoughts:

Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299885202_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures

Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299882613_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith%27s_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One

The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind

Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298353982_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations

Article Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Point...

Article Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s m...

Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...

Data Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sust...

Hi

This is what I got from the designers of the SDGs at the UN: 

Paris Agreement was basically a globally agreed framework for SDG 13 and UN follows the following embedded implicit definition:

SDGs call for socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable economic growth and in order to achieve SDGs good governance is an integral element. These four interacting components provide the framework for global development agenda.

I am recalling the definition from memory and its not a verbatim definition.

I reckon I read it in the SDSN report on SDGs.

Hope it helps

Dear Amir, good day.  That is not a sustainable development model....Goals are not models, agendas are not models, otherwise you have 17 goals and therefore you have either 17 different models in one or 17 goals, one from 17 different sustainable development models....Which sustainable development model can allow you to achieve 17 different goals at the same time?....They supposedly are following green markets, green economy, green growth...some of those goals are inconsistent with the structure of those models...

And as you apparently found out, they do not clearly say which model they are following now, but presumably they are following the green market based sustainable development model or the economy-environment partnership based sustainable development model….They are implemented policies of global scope and not clear green market knowledge based thinking behind it….

Because it is not clear in the documents available I asked the question to bring attention to this curiosity…

Thank you for your comment Amir…

Dear Dr. Muñoz,

I believe Paris Agreement is technically a treaty which is political and the result of the work of lawyers. It's not the work of sustainability experts and not what happens in practice.  Low Emissions Solution Conference in Nov. 2016 in COP 22 in Morocco is going to be a "no-negotiation" [no politics] conference. A technical approach to Paris Agreement, if you will. Therefore, I think the global community has not yet reached any certain model to devise the development agenda. So far, it has been politics. Of course, I am not trying to defend the agreement, though, I consider it a positive step after the failures in Kyoto and Copenhagen in the past two decades considering it is the biggest treaty that we have agreed on unanimously as human beings in terms of the # of member states.

I do agree with you that for an international agreement such a definition (and perhaps developing a model) is necessary though I think we need to go beyond that. I had a similar discussion recently on this. Here is part of the argument that I think is related to the issue of having a global agenda on sustainability.

 "The sustainability discourse suggests that the initiators of sustainability are, just, the agents on change, however, the challenges ahead of us are humongous. The right approach to sustainability is not through enforcement, in my submission. What we need is a transformation, in short, change of attitude, change of mindset, and change of behavior. Not as simple as we put them next to each other. It takes a generation, at the best estimate. The global sustainability agenda has contemplated certain mechanisms part implemented since 2000 like the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), part mentioned in THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, by UN, etc. yet these measures are still lacking because the diversity of cultures (how they would react to sustainability) and how it can be absorbed in each society has not been considered. As far as a holistic (systemic) approach with the human interaction at its epicenter is not devised, these discussions would be to no avail."

 Many thanks for starting such an interesting discussion.

Best,

Amir

Dear Amir, good day.

The Paris agreement 2015 is the global political endorsement of the the shift to green markets and green growth formalized in 2012 at the RIO +20 conference/UNCSD/The future we want....Have not you seen UNDESA handbook to the green economy 2011/2012?, have not you seen OECD towards green growth and low carbon development, have not you seen the world bank inclusive green growth and support of low carbon development?...and so on....

That means the partnership of the economy and environment is the bases of the green market officially and politically now making green market based sustainable development the dominant development paradigm in old capitalist countries so in old capitalist countries the paradigm is green markets/green capitalism...no doubt.

What got my attention is that the 2015 political declaration and the new 2015 sustainable development agenda have goals outside green markets, and if it is outside green markets means they are implementing these global programs through "dwarf green markets"....

Before 1987 we were managing social and environmental externalities and we failed given the associated levels of environmental and social degradation the bruntland commission found and use as the basis for calling for social and environmental inclusion in our economic models....inclusion means internalization....as you may know, even after 2012 shift to green market/green growth they seem to be still trying hard to manage environmental issues as externalities instead of internalizing them as the bruntland commission asked...

See the economic model can be stated as:

T = aBc

It has a dominant model, the economy(B) and two externalities, social(a) and environmental(c)

See the green market model can be stated as:

GM = aBC

It has a partnership, the economy and the environment(BC) and on externality, social(a).

Under green markets environmental issues are endogenous issues, they are no longer externalities....

If they are no longer externalities, and they are treated still as externalities then development is taking place either through a dwarf traditional market or a dwarf green market and therefore they are being implemented in full violation of the theory-practice consistency principle....

Since you are interested in these issues and you are interested in sustainability issues you may find these papers interesting:

Beyond traditional sustainable development: Stating specific and general sustainability theory and sustainability indices using ideal present-absent qualitative comparative conditions

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276522_Beyond_traditional_sustainable_development_Stating_specific_and_general_sustainability_theory_and_sustainability_indices_using_ideal_present-absent_qualitative_comparative_conditions

Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276222_Linking_Sustainable_Development_Indicators_by_Means_of_PresentAbsent_Sustainability_Theory_and_Indices_The_Case_of_Agenda_21

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market

Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of the Perfect Sustainability Market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303014272_Beyond_Green_Market_Thinking_What_would_be_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Sustainability_Market

Wish you a nice day Amir

Article Beyond traditional sustainable development: Stating specific...

Article Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Prese...

Article Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of...

Article Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of...

Dear Dr. Muñoz,

It's an interesting perspective. Thank you very much for the information, the food for thought and sharing your publication.

This is indeed an interesting topic and the contributions from Dr Lucio are well appreciated, thanks for your generosity 

Thank you very much for your share of interesting and useful publication, Dr. Lucio. I have just started to research on sustainable consumption and production as a goal of sustainable development that has been discussed in this forum.

Dear Chi, thank you for commenting, I think the following  6 papers can provide you some food for thoughts on how sustainable production and consumption can be dealt with within green markets and within sustainability markets.  You can read them when you have time.

Respectfully yours;

:

What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244562_What_If_Markets_Have_Always_Been_Distorted_Would_It_Then_Be_a_Good_Fix_to_Add_Fair_Trade_Margins_to_Correct_Distorted_Agricultural_Market_Prices

The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointing Out the Structure of the Old Agricultural Development Model After Internalizing Environmental Externalities.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244857_The_Past_Versus_the_Present_in_Development_Thinking_Pointing_Out_the_Structure_of_the_Old_Agricultural_Development_Model_After_Internalizing_Environmental_Externalities

The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towards Agricultural Sustainability

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244871_The_Present_Versus_the_Future_in_Development_Thinking_Towards_Agricultural_Sustainability

Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277199_Complex_and_Man-made_Markets_Are_We_Currently_Approaching_Sustainability_in_a_Backward_and_More_Chaotic_Way_in_Terms_of_Economic_Thinking

From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is This a More Socially Friendly Strategy?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277722_From_Traditional_Sweatshops_to_Green_Sweatshops_Is_This_a_More_Socially_Friendly_Strategy

Article What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be...

Article The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointin...

Article The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towar...

Article Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching S...

Article From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is This a M...

Good day everyone

I am sharing here this article unpublished and you can use it as food for thoughts:

Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam Smith’s Model to Make It Environmentally Friendly and Shift it Towards Green Markets or Is It a Distortion on Top of Another Distortion?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309463581_Is_Environmental_Externality_Management_a_Correction_of_Adam_Smith%27s_Model_to_Make_It_Environmentally_Friendly_and_Shift_it_Towards_Green_Markets_or_Is_It_a_Distortion_on_Top_of_Another_Distortion

Have a nice day

Article Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam...

Dear friends, here sharing my most recent article which I trust you may find interesting in terms of food for thoughts:

If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to Go: Does This Means the End of Rational Decision Making Thinking or Is This Just a Temporary Block of a Perfect Paradigm Shift to Green Markets?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312092336_If_Going_From_Free_Markets_to_Non-Free_Markets_is_the_Way_to_Go_Does_This_Means_the_End_of_Rational_Decision_Making_Thinking_or_Is_This_Just_a_Temporary_Block_of_a_Perfect_Paradigm_Shift_to_Green_Mark

Article If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to...