Do you find that reasonable? Turning Saddam into a lamb with sustained development? I don't think so. People have got to be nuts to think this. Turning this idea into some kind of god is messianic false prophetic nonsense.
Moreover Powel's piece of tripe does not explain anything. It only is a bunch of vague claims without any string of logic. A poorly written advocacy at that.
Next in line is the environment factor that seems central in this. I am sorry, but the only thing central is that man has dominion over the environment and not the other way around. Man did not develop from the cave man to fly on the moon by worrying about displacing animals.
These people just think they are better than the ancestors, it is progressist crap masquerading as being pro-business. All it will do will depress business because people do not operate well when they are not given the basic dominions they were endowed with when born. Last but not least, any business can be sustained by one thing and one thing only: plain Bible honesty and morals. Forget the math, the economic forecasts, the ENRON miracles and the consumption/production theories.
In fact, what is the sustainable development? All it is, is a reduction of man's life to a pure consumer/producer, just like your average animal (hint: very bad for the environment). The only geneticaly superior entity on this planet (produces and consumes little) is the tree. You want good production/consumption? Kill animals and people, reduce the population, and plant trees. There, that's sustainable development. A consumerist Marxist obsession on consumption/production and equalities in consumption and production.
The world trend towards more democratic processes and market economy began under Thatcher/Reagan and has progressed quite well.Besides the current problems in S. America the largest threat to this trend is in the US.
As for your question as to the meaning of sustainable development, there is none. There is also no definition for "Civil Society". There will be 65,000 different definitions of sustainable development in Johannesberg. As Henry Lamb pointed out, there are major differences between sustained and sustainable development.
At the same time, those who in one breath praise capitalism and "free markets" and then in the next breath talk about all the little fishies, about social safety nets and about eco-tourism (remind you of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas L. "1960s Marxist Dressed Up In A Pin Sriped Suit 3rd Way Devotee" Friedman?) are actually practicing the ultimate in stealth Gramscian Marxism by increasingly layering the goals of "social justice" (or, an even better term, thanks to Thomas Sowell, "cosmic justice") onto capitalist ones. These people are dangerous and must be stopped.
Ironically, when confronted with assertions that geopolitics, nationalism and the middle class still matter, these same folks then don their "free trade" mantle. The incidious thing about "free trade" as currently defined is that along with the economic openness and standarization package, we also get the externally applied social micromanagement, destruction of conservative (with a small "c") culture and unilateral disarmament packages. After all, once one has signed up to truly global economic management, how can they defend, at a bottom line level, things such as Borders, Language, Culture and National Defense? Of course, one cannot since none of these things are "value added to" in the classical accounting sense.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world....