Content area
Full Text
Sustainable development initiatives inspire almost universal praise today since they offer win-win options for developing countries. Although many reports on this topic offer plans, strategies, and measures, the debate about how to accomplish such development remains unresolved. A comparative, case study analysis, based on Tanzanian and Malaysian efforts to scale up their national rural development strategy by joining the biofuels value chain with niche crops like Jatropha curcas, shows that the strategy offers more trade-offs than are readily acknowledged. The effects are analyzed using an institutional feasibility study framework to explore the trade-offs between social capital and economic capital within the global value chain (GVC) of biofuels. The findings suggest that rather than being win-win, sustainable development policies are similar to most types of policy reforms, which advocate for short-term adjustment costs that mar political-economic stability in the society, in the expectation of long-term gains. In conclusion we offer some public policy observations to support the policy makes aiming for the long-term sustainable gains and willing to internalize short-term losses.
I. Introduction
Promises for achieving sustainable development1 require not only a global commitment in order to enable the promotion of an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable solution, but also an understanding of the challenges that can undermine these solutions. It is a framework that sets the agenda for a the 'Future We Want' resolution drawn up at the recent Rio+20 event* 1 2 3 recognised three major challenges in promoting sustainable development while offering opportunities to develop win-win solutions for multiple challenges of our time.3 First, can the current economic structure be transformed into a less carbon intensive one without causing significant disparities and disruption between present and future rates of growth? Second, is there enough political commitment to making globalisation work for all nations and economic groups (e.g., to reduce carbon emissions and not use this as a trade barrier)? Third, will financial instruments (e.g., aid, loans, debt rescheduling, and investments) be used to push for technological fixes rather than for addressing other priorities of underdevelopment, such as unemployment and loss of biodiversity? These questions are particularly relevant for developing countries, and very important for developing countries that are challenged by energy, food and economic insecurities.
This article aims to provide insight...