In 1987 the “Brundtland report” was presented at the United Nations, advising measures for the conservation of biodiversity, the reduction of the consumption of fossil fuels and their substitution by renewable energy sources. The objective of such measures was that, in the future, the population had its needs covered in health, education and housing, as well as access to drinking water.

This exhibition, explained in these terms, can be accepted in all cultures and by all peoples. From here, the influence that the Brundtland report has exerted on public opinion, state and global policies.

The Brundtland report presents two conditions to achieve the above objectives, which may not arouse such widespread consensus. The first proposed that the population reduce consumption in such a way that, by covering their needs, it does not compromise the resources that future generations may need to cover theirs. From this condition derives the current concept of “sustainability”. The second was the adoption of measures to control the population.

In summary, the Brundtland report proposed conservation of biodiversity, reduction of fossil fuel consumption, reduction of consumption (sustainability) and population control.

But if we ask ourselves what happened from 1987 until today, with the Brundtland report proposals, we obtain the following data:

(1) Population evolution in millions of inhabitants:

• Norway: 4,176 in 1987 now days 5,367 is + 28.5%
• World: 5,000 in 1984 now days 7,837 is + 56.7%

(2) Evolution of oil consumption in barrels / day:

• Norway 165,000 in 1984 to 232,000 in 2012 + 40.6%
• World 62 million in 1987 to 100.7 million + 62.4%

It is observed that both in Norway (country of which Brundtland was environment minister for 5 years and prime minister for 10 years), and in the world (United Nations territorial objective), apparently the population has not been controlled nor has reduced consumption of fossil fuels.

So, the questions that arise are, why is there still talking of sustainability if apparently the objectives of the Brundtland report have not been achieved in 34 years? And why has sustainability become the central axis of the economic recovery strategy at state and global levels for the next 30 years?

We do not have the exact answers to these questions, but we can observe some trends:

• Many central banks or equivalent are issuing huge amounts of public debt to finance projects, one of the main characteristics of which must be sustainability.
• Merging processes are being developed between companies with the aim of creating larger entities whose sustainability stands out.
• The transformation of companies to new more productive, digitalized, and sustainable business models is being promoted.
• Many entrepreneurs are thinking that the State is their preferred partner, and they are asking for help so that their company can become larger, more competitive in a global economy through greater motivation of workers and greater acceptance of the user given the perception that these are sustainable activities.
• Although there are more examples, we can summarize the current situation in two expressions that have been successful in the media:

“Digitization and sustainability will be, starting now, the nucleus that sprouts the seed of a new meaning of the word progress”

“Have the ability to generate economic, social and environmental well-being and know how to adapt to both the objectives of sustainable development and the new technological environment”

Highlighting the words “seed”, “progress” and “new technological environment” reminds us of a situation that already occurred between 1798 and 1960.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus in his book “Essay on the principle of population” predicted that overpopulation would cause the extinction of the human race, by the year 1880, due to food shortages. This prediction made governments react through innumerable interventionist economic measures and, although it proved to be unreal, it subsequently influenced two thinkers: John M. Keynes and Paul R. Ehrlich.

Keynes published in 1919 “The economic consequences of peace” considering population pressure as a cause of economic instability and, Ehrlich, published in 1968 “The demographic explosion” that has influenced the environmental movement and the development of contraceptive methods.

In some way we could consider that Malthus, Keynes and Ehrlich were precursors of the Brundtland report (1987).

So, from 1798 to 1987 (189 years) it was not considered that there were other options to those exposed (population control, consumption reduction and state interventionism). However, in 1960 a researcher developed methods to increase food production, which opened optimistic perspectives for the future of humanity.

In fact, Norman E. Borlaug saved millions of people, and for this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, by introducing the use of hybrid wheat seeds investigated in the Sonora desert.

There, far from the big cities, the debate forums and the decision-making centers, Borlaug, with modest facilities, accompanied by farmers and people from the desert, managed to find the solution to the problem exposed 162 years earlier (1798 to 1960) by Malthus. After his death, his children expressed:

“We would like him to take his life as a model to create improvements in the lives of others and to work making efforts to put an end to human misery.”

Thus, at the beginning of the 21st century we find two proposals, Borlaug (Nobel 1970) and Brundtland (UN 1987), on how to face the challenges of the future of Humanity. The question is, where will the population and the decision-making centers go?

So far, we can see some actions recently launched:

(1) Many governments are managing huge amounts of money, released by their central banks, through so-called economic recovery plans.

(2) Many of the recovery plans are published within a few days to make the request for participation by the interested parties.

(3) Among the conditions to access the recovery plans, the followings stand out:

3.1 It is necessary to establish collaboration between the public sector and the private sector to guarantee the use of these funds.

3.2 Access to these funds has the form of a grant for the public sector and a loan for the private sector.

3.3 The main relevant objectives of the projects that must be cited to access these funds are digitization, sustainability, mobility, electromobility and artificial intelligence in order to achieve a more dynamic and inclusive labor market and promote the competitiveness of all the value chain.

(4) However, many economists and businessmen consider that in some countries they will not be able to take advantage of these funds because:

4.1 That country has structural flaws derivable from insufficient previous investment in research.

4.3 Due to the short submission deadlines, projects may show methodological deficiencies in the case of companies without specialized departments to request state aid. As for projects presented by companies with departments specialized in requesting state aid, it is likely that they are not big news.

4.4 The terms used to define the projects (digitization, sustainability, mobility, electromobility, artificial intelligence, dynamic and inclusive labor market and competitiveness of the entire value chain) seem, in the eyes of many economists and entrepreneurs, unlikely to give rise to productive investments.

4.5 Many economists and entrepreneurs consider that a heavily intervened economy may cause that many of the projects that are successful in their research, at the end are not going to become productive investments.

(5) Finally, many citizens consider that public administrations overvalue the expected results to grant themselves the supposed success of the recovery plans.

In view of the facts, and the opinions expressed, in Transparency we ask ourselves:

1.  Is it possible that the current attempts of central banks and governments do not immediately give the expected results and that the solution, to the current difficulties, will emerge within many years as it happened with Borlaug regarding the problem raised by Malthus?
2. Is it possible that, when subsidizing public institutions out of credits requested by governments, the public debt grows to levels much higher than the country’s GDP?
3.  If the solution arrives after long time, is it possible that the accumulated public debt, which must be returned with taxes to citizens and private companies, could be a reason for social unrest?
4. If the public sector has already assigned its annual budget, does the subsidy provided for the recovery funds mean an increase of remuneration for the current structure or an increase of hiring in the public sector?
5. Is there a possibility of over-indebtedness because the ruling classes encourage projects in the name of economic recovery and sustainability?
6. If the middle class might have to pay the public debt with its taxes, why does it accept the implementation of these recovery plans without being consulted?

At Veterinaria Digital we support all initiatives that are looking to improve the quality of citizens life in general and the agricultural sector, and at Transparency we support that the funds for this are managed in a transparent manner, maintaining a reasonable level of public debt and a reasonable size of the public sector in relation to the size of the population.