An expression translated from English, the term "sustainable development"
appeared for the first time in 1980, in the book written by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Then in 1987 came the publication of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report, Our Common Future, also called the Brundtland Report, after WCED chair GRO Harlem Brundtland. The report contained the first definition of the term sustainable development--development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainable development has a long-term vision taking into account the indisociable character of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development. Sustainable development became the quest of Graal, of governments and of political leaders, but this concept has often remained elusive and unattainable.
Are we now progressing towards sustainable development? If not, what are the obstacles? Conventional indicators of progress, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), do not take in account the fundamental human and ecological problems and do not bring answers to these questions.
As far as we can see, sustainable development is in the interests of our elected officials. But a nation is not made only of its elected officials: there are also those who carry them to their positions of power on the promise of a better life. What one notes and what unfortunately remains is that there is an economic language which is addressed only to those privileged enough to speak it and which does not reflect the wellbeing of the people and their environment. It is well and good for the stock markets to finish in the black and be able to pay pay off or erase their slate of foreign debt (as it is often the case for our countries). However if economic gains do not reflect the true quality of life of the populations, the latter will undoubtedly be disinherited from the dividends of growth. We are tempted to say sometimes that our economists fudge the books or simply that their employers (our governments) cultivate ignorance. Such a situation can continue for a time but not forever. Must we
continue to develop to the detriment of the environment and society? Does Africa have to follow in the footsteps of Western development, to be rewarded by the IMF with the title of "good student, studious pupil"? Are the objectives of sustainable development realizable and not utopian? There are many questions, but few answers. The observation we have made is that certain regimes devoid of inspiration grapple for the concept of sustainable development as for a life preserver. Yes, sustainable development can be a lifesaver, in particular for our people and all the people of the world in a general way. But it is first necessary to seek to see how to introduce it into our respective countries, considering each country has its geographical, socio-cultural, and economic specificities. What is valid for the North may not be valid for the South and vice versa. However we can all arrive at agreeing on certain points, such as deforestation, as being an obstacle toward the fight against global warming, or linear economics as a foundation of development which has shown its limits for a long time. But it is because we are too stubborn to maintain the idea, and also because old habits die hard, but especially because the unknown often creates fear, that we hesitate to adopt a new type of economics suitable for sustainable development--circular economics. There is theory, but not enough results. What are we missing? Grassroots involvement? Maybe it has been a problem, but what can you expect when in schools and training programs the message of the environment is almost nonexistent. Does the problem lie in our elected leaders? It is necessary to know the existing priorities and to make steps to move forward: one should not put the plough before the horse! School is a tool for education, the children constitute a vector of development; it follows that good programs of Education Relating to the Environment (ERA) for the children would be productive. “There exists a problem of engagement of individuals in local projects and movements. There is a lack of conscience citizens,” they tell us.
How can they claim to ensure the development and well being of their people without even holding preliminary discussions with the grassroots before making decisions? Regarding the safeguard of biodiversity and emancipation of the populations in the fight against climate change and its consequences, it should be said that there is an urgency of action. Nevertheless, the emergency measures, are not only unproductive but also draconian, even radical. Let us talk about sustainable development before adopting it. That will help us to avoid the mistake of our leaders: adopting rather than adapting ideas coming from abroad.
Paraphrasing the Brundtland Report, “To reach that point, corporations, public authorities and civil society will have to work hand in hand in order to reconcile three spheres which have ignored each other for a long time, the spheres of economy, ecology and society. In the long run, there will be no effective development if it is not economically effective, socially equitable and ecologically tolerable."






