Population, territory and sustainable development

18
In short, the definition of territory 6 used in this report establishes tangible spatial areas which in
some cases coincide with political, administrative boundaries, such as MADs, but in other cases are not
bound by such limits, such as sparsely populated areas. The different spatial areas defined are covered in
separate chapters. In addition, the definition includes a series of attributes defining territory as a complex
system, which go beyond the traditional restricted view based on its physical components and focus more
on its economic, social and cultural characteristics.
With regard to sustainable development, the definition put forward by ECLAC will be used in
this report given the Commission’s long tradition in this field. This definition is much broader than the
paradigms focused mainly or exclusively on growth (although growth is key) and highlights international
asymmetries and vulnerabilities, structural heterogeneity and internal social inequality as barriers to a
buoyant labour market and increasing productivity. Moreover, the concept of sustainable development
presented by ECLAC includes overcoming the deficit in citizens' rights in areas such as universal access
to basic services, social protection and the exercise of rights, especially economic, social and cultural
ones. Although the concept of sustainable development has been widely validated since it was formally
introduced in the Brundtland Report (1987), its use has been extended and diversified; this has given rise
to confusion and challenges from different angles. 7
The concept of sustainable development used in this report comprises three dimensions. First, the
heritage of nature, which consists of a base of ecosystems capable of reproducing themselves over time,
satisfying the space and natural resources requirements of new generations and ensuring global and local
natural equilibriums which, if disrupted, could have disastrous consequences for all or part of the planet
and its inhabitants. Second, the capital legacy, which includes not only its traditional economic forms
(productive, technological and financial) but also human, social and cultural capital. The latter have been
defined in various ways, but for the purposes hereof they are defined as follows, respectively:
(i) individual capacities for social performance (nutrition, health and education are fundamental goals);
(ii) trust in others; and (iii) the codes of conduct that facilitate peaceful, creative and fruitful interaction
between people. Third, civic heritage, which is grounded in institutional mechanisms for achieving formal
and substantive social equality designed to ensure respect for human rights, including economic, social
and cultural rights, for all people, regardless of natural differences relating to biology, family and social
background, upbringing or individual decisions.
Sustainable development requires progress in all three dimensions in order to be regarded as such.
Otherwise, it turns into stagnation, development that is spurious because it is exclusive, or fragile
development which does not provide the material foundations for survival. This approach to
sustainability, which is expanded to the point that it can be referred to as social sustainability (not only
environmental or economic sustainability, although it includes these two aspects) is not new. For
example, a comparative study on the social sustainability of cities defined sustainability as “development
that is compatible with the harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to
the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging
6
7
There are many other possible definitions; for some studies it may even be unnecessary or inappropriate to
define the term. For example, in the study by Cuervo (2011) it was concluded that the theoretical debate on the
concept of territory showed that territory is versatile, multidimensional and subject to multiple scales, which
means that it has to be malleable and flexible. It was therefore decided that a precise definition of the concept of
territory was unnecessary and not appropriate. This is not the case in this report, however, which requires a
precise, concrete definition of territory.
See the revision of this critique in Giddens (2009).