Resetting our Goals?

In his piece, Development as a Buzzword, Gilbert Rist presents a very negative perception of the loosely defined word development, and I can understand why.  Too often I see something that is clearly being built only for the privileged or that will negatively affect the poor or the environment, and people are okay with looking past these facts in the name of development.  The word development seems to have some magical power that if the developers slap it onto whatever they are doing people can look past the social and environmental harm and only see the good things the new development will bring.  

I experienced a clear example of this on a field trip my classmates and I took for our water resources class.  We visited a sustainable-development site in Aqaba, Jordan.  On the coast of the Red Sea neighboring the Israeli border, Jordan is building a resort complete with upscale homes, restaurants, a shopping mall, a golf course, marina, and at least three swimming pools.  As this is a very water scarce region, I was surprised to see the construction of the golf course (being watered in the middle of the day when evaporation occurs at the highest rate),multiple swimming pools, and marina.  We were told that the water was coming from a fossil aquifer deep under ground.  Fossil aquifers are non-renewable sources of water.  The way the Aqaba Development Corporation was able to call the new construction sustainable was because they were building solar panels that would provide electricity to the new development.  This all seemed like greenwash to me.  The new development also fits Rist’s idea of sustainable development: “‘Sustainable development’ is nothing but an oxymoron, a rhetorical figure that joins together two opposites.”  The new construction was not sustainable at all since it was using non-renewable water to feed very water intensive activities; however, the corporation was able to call it sustainable because one small part that they were constructing used renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.  

Above: 'Greening the Desert' watering the new golf course in Aqaba

The new development plans

The new development in Aqaba was also being built only for the rich.  The people who could afford the homes would only be the rich and most of the homes would be bought as a second home.  The developers told us that the only thing open to the public would be the mall, but it would probably be filled with high-end stores that the normal worker could not afford.  This further proves Rist’s opinion that development fails to address poverty and instead widens the gap.  The only good thing I could see in this development was that the land was being converted from a mine field into something safer.  After the peace with Israel, the corporation went in and removed thousands of mines that lay near the border and is now using that land for the development.  

This development does mean different things to various people.  To the Aqaba Development Corporation, the Jordanian government, and the people who would eventually inhabit the homes, this new development was a great thing.  It was a tourist attraction that would bring in revenue.  For the environment, this new development put more strain on its resources and took away habitat from plants and animals.  For the people who lived in Aqaba, it could be a good thing if they found work within the new places, but all the high-end shops could bring in high-end restaurants which could inturn raise the cost of living.  

I do not think development is as bad as Rist makes it out to be.  Yes, I do think that it can widen the gap between rich and poor and destroy the environment, but what is the alternative?  As a society we can not stay stagnant.  If we did not develop the current structures in place still have income disparities and negative effects on the environment.  Rist did not mention the work of charities, NGOs, or non-profits who try to help the less fortunate or protect the environment.  These ‘goodwill’ organizations do not develop in the way that we typically think, but maybe they develop new protected land or turn a building into low income housing.  I think, as a society, we need to critically examine new development in order to discover who is benefiting and loosing.  We also need to stop accepting development as a magical word that makes everything good, but, at the same time remember that not all development is bad.  Maybe it is wishful thinking, but what if the income generated by the new development in Aqaba was used to fund a national park or given to charities.