In an article published by this paper on December 8, we were introduced to a Kayonza-based carpenter, Mr. Habiyaremye, who makes furniture from banana fibres.

This type of innovation is worth applause as it touches our mental comforts and opens our eyes and minds into possibilities beyond what we are used to. As the writer suggested, not so many people can think of alternative uses of banana trunks other than agricultural waste, after harvesting.

This was one of the reads in 2015 that I was happy to come by. To me, it was such a great inspiration which, as I put in my immediate comments to this article, quenches my research curiosity as it offers a quality empirical explanation that, a bottom- up intervention into sustainable development (SD) has value worth considering in making the social, economic and environmental/ecological perspectives of SD operational even at the global scale.

Habiyaremye’s example indeed offers a very simple yet successful contextual perspective, which one can place in the global frame of SD for a quick evaluation.

The pillars on which the concept of SD is built, compound three fundamental objectives that Habiyaremye’s project seems to meet; to continue producing riches in order to satisfy the needs of the world’s population (economic pillar), to reduce inequalities between the peoples of the world (social pillar) and to avoid degrading the environment that future generations will inherit (environmental pillar).

It was therefore satisfying and inspiring to read the innovation that Habiyaremye is putting forward. It remains a powerful example that can be used to interrogate global universalities of SD as well as offer an alternative approach for dealing with the assessment of the same at various scales of development; the so-called micro/local verses the macro/global lens.

So, why is this and other similar bottom-up interventions rather difficult to sell? I see the starting point here as the historical trajectory of SD itself. Although concerns over the environment have gradually grown, the concept of sustainable development is a relatively new one.

People became more conversant with it only after the Rio Summit of 1992. The felt need for action has consistently been based on the fact that production and consumption in cities cause adverse environmental impacts both now, at the local scale and also in the longer term, and at a global scale.

They both use resources of land, water, energy and minerals and emit wastes into the environment. Of closer relevance here is the construction industry, which is said to constitute up to 20 per cent of greenhouse gases, a magnitude that cannot be ignored.

In the traditional world, our forefathers largely depended on natural materials; locally sourced, locally processed and locally assembled in all aspects of their everyday life. In the modern world, due to globalisation and modernisation, our buildings and interior design elements such as furniture are made of materials sourced from different places world over.

Thinking of achieving SD, one cannot be ignorant to the vast differences between a global and local lens of looking into the same; with varied scales, expectations and outcomes.

However, it is important to confront the challenges that modern lifestyles pose to the environment, try to slow down and reflect on our actions towards the appreciation of values that traditional lifestyles had to offer to the environment.

The difficulty of integrating the global and local lensin analyzing any single case cannot be over-estimated. What seems to be required is a new type of ‘in between/hybrid notions’ in order to synchronize the top-down and bottom-up reading ofSD.

The typical ‘guided’ SD versus the ‘mainstream’ SD can best be captured as a dialectic relationship, that has all to do with striking a balance between competing and conflicting interests, the global and the local, the current and the future.

Habiyaremye’s and many other similar ventures definitely play a key role in the broader path to SD. Such a synthesis of the contextual processes that are shaping local realities could further reveal the virtual ineffectiveness in implementing global policies and programs.

In Rwanda today, regardless of whether or not SD in the global sense is achievable, the bottom–up lens cannot be ignored; the social or economic sustainability and their environmental relationships at the very ‘grass root’levelsremain fundamental.

It is this way of thinking that makes melean towards the definition of SD by Forum for the Future as"a dynamic process, which enables all people to realise their potential and improve their quality of life in ways that simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth’s life-support systems.” and remain optimistic that Humanity has the ability to make development more sustainable.

The writer is an architect and urban designer with keen interest on the dialectical relations between Architecture and Society.

josemwongeli@yahoo.com