Watch out: there’s a new paradigm about!

When I was last a student it seemed almost compulsory to weave a “paradigm shift” into every piece of work – indeed it was surprising that universities did not have paradigm spotters clubs. To a great extent this was because sustainable development was beginning to emerge as a mainstream concept, and was having an impact on old ways of thinking. In the ensuing decades we have all become familiar, and to varying extents, comfortable with this as a context for economic and social development.

However the “development” part of sustainable development firmly roots it in concepts like “economic growth and development” and “wealth creation”. Philosophically I have always been uneasy about these notions, particularly wealth creation which infers a god-like capacity to make something out of nothing. Their predication on increased consumption, coupled with rising populations, calls the long term sustainability of sustainable development into question.

The new paradigm on the block is “degrowth”. It was first aired by the Club of Rome in “Limits to Growth”, and was subsequently developed by French academics. The arguments for economic degrowth are twofold: the limits to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem; and, the social reality that increased prosperity does not bring increased wellbeing. The social argument for degrowth is very similar to the theories of Buddhist Economics first popularised in the West by Schumacher, also in the 1960’s.

These arguments are steadily gaining credence, so much so that the second European Degrowth Conference was held in Barcelona recently. Given that painful economic adjustments seem inevitable over the coming decade the time may well be right to begin implementing something akin to zero growth/degrowth strategies.

What will this mean for forestry? Primarily it will mean returning to operating within the natural carrying capacity of the ecosystem. This will mean a departure from “productive” commercial conifer plantations on many sites, and an increase in the timber grown and harvested from native and mixed woodlands on sites more appropriate for their establishment and management. It will also mean an increase in the ecosystem services forestry provides, which will contribute to the improved wellbeing of all of us.

That said, there is no denying that it will mean a decrease in the volume of wood based consumer goods, which will be mirrored by similar decreases in production in many other sectors. This may not necessarily be a bad thing, particularly if it is mirrored by waste reduction and a collective re-assessment of wants and needs.  Indeed, if the transition is managed carefully, may indeed result in improvements in levels of well being.

However old habits related to the pursuit of wealth will not be changed easily and must be given an outlet.

Instead of basing wealth creation largely on exploitation of natural resources, in the future we will need to base it more on exploitation of the virtual real estate and intellectual property rights of an ever expanding and increasingly versatile world wide web. Indeed this may be one of the twin pillars of future sustainability, rather than sustainable “development”. The other will be far more careful management of natural resources, ensuring that we maximise their capacity to support economic activity without damaging the underlying ecology or its capacity to deliver the ecosystem services which will be all important to future wellbeing. The latter is something that the forestry sector can begin to address now.