Raworth's a Safe and Just Space for

¶ … Raworth's a Safe and Just Space for Humanity Reading Response: Raworth, "A Safe and Just Space for Humanity" Who should determine the dimensions and boundaries of an internationally agreed social foundation and an environmental ceiling, and how? As Raworth states in the Executive summary to "A Safe and Just Space for Humanity, "human-rights advocates have long highlighted the imperative of ensuring every person's claim to life's essentials, while ecological economists have emphasized the need to situate the economy within environmental limits" (2012), and this dichotomy forms the basis of her visual framework for sustainable development.

Raworth goes on to describe her doughnut-shaped framework as a fusion of the goals sought by both human-rights advocates and ecological economists, observing her creation to be "a closed system that is bounded by both human rights and environmental sustainability" before asserting that "the resulting space -- the doughnut -- is where inclusive and sustainable economic development takes place" (2012). 2.

What are the implications of this framework for drawing up new global development goals beyond 2015, as part of the MDG and Rio+20 processes? Raworth devotes the first section of her discussion paper to the concept of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the often convoluted processes used to allocate resources and address poverty on a geopolitical level.

In the author's appraisal of the situation "any vision of sustainable development fit for the 21st century must recognize that eradicating poverty and achieving social justice is inextricably linked to ensuring ecological stability and renewal" (Raworth, 2012), and the framework she constructs is intended to guide the Rio+20 process of devising new goals and objectives regarding global poverty, resource allocation and sustainable development.

As Raworth describes the link between her framework and the MDG and Rio+20 processes, "progressing towards that vision requires clear goals and indicators to act as a compass for the journey ahead & #8230; (and) this Discussion Paper aims to present a framework and explore ideas that could help to provide such a compass" (2012). 3.

How could the framework be adapted regionally or nationally to reflect the importance of regional thresholds for many planetary boundaries? Raworth devotes much of her discussion paper to the concept of addressing humanity's most pressing issues from an inclusive planetary perspective, rather than the traditionally exclusive system in which individual national and regional interests dictate the formation of policies which are inefficient in terms of sustainable development and resource allocation.

According to Raworth, humanity's well-being is wholly dependent on nine distinct Earth-system processes, and "because of the global importance of these processes, and because of global trade in resource use, none can be governed at the national level alone, and so a planetary perspective is essential for shaping their governance" (2012). Nonetheless, the author frequently acknowledges how the incredible diversity which defines humanity on the regional and national level can complicate the pursuit of globally agreed upon goals and objectives. 4.

How could inequalities in global resource use be represented graphically within the framework? Throughout the discussion paper various graphic and tables are employed to provide a visual element to the startling data compiled and presented. For example, Figure 2. Falling below the social foundation: An illustrative assessment based on Rio+20 priorities combines the traditional pie-chart with a modernized "word-cloud" format to depict an image in which "social dimensions with two indicators in Table 1 are represented by split wedges, showing both of the deprivation gaps" (Raworth, 2012).

To graphically represent inequalities in global resource use, the author could use the same format to depict various industrialized nations' use of arable land, fresh water and other essential but finite natural resources as compared to their non-industrialized counterparts. 5.

How could this framework be extended to explore the fair shares of effort needed, between and within countries, to bring humanity into the safe and just space? Recognizing the incredibly complex nature of the geopolitical map -- one which includes nearly 200 nations with distinctly different capabilities in terms of natural resources, environmental regulation, and population demands -- Raworth spends much of the discussion paper's fourth section examining the concept of "fair shares of effort." In the author's estimation "the diversity of natural resource endowments between countries (in terms of their land mass, forests, biodiversity, freshwater, marine resources, and oil and minerals), their very different histories of resource use, and their contrasting levels of economic development, add further dimensions of complexity" (2012) to the ongoing effort to alleviate global poverty in a sustainable manner.

To reconcile this divide, Raworth advocates a principle which was.