Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use, that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF-Environment, Local people, Future). The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s "sustainability" was employed to describe an economy "in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems." Ecologists have pointed to ''The Limits to Growth'', and presented the alternative of a "steady state economy" in order to address environmental concerns.

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability.

Definition of Sustainable Development

Image:Sustainable development.svg|right|300px|thumb|Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts.(2006) poly 138 194 148 219 164 240 182 257 219 277 263 291 261 311 264 331 272 351 283 366 300 383 316 394 287 408 261 417 224 424 182 426 154 423 119 415 87 403 58 385 40 368 24 347 17 328 13 309 16 286 26 263 43 240 64 224 84 212 107 202 Environment poly 324 219 334 226 343 234 351 242 359 251 366 263 371 276 375 287 400 279 417 272 438 263 453 252 466 241 477 229 488 214 497 193 482 189 463 188 423 188 398 191 376 196 352 204 Equitable poly 319 221 330 229 337 235 347 244 357 258 365 270 371 287 358 289 344 291 321 292 303 292 284 290 268 288 272 275 278 261 287 249 297 239 Sustainable poly 142 192 167 188 185 187 211 187 235 190 263 196 286 203 304 212 316 219 305 227 295 236 285 246 276 259 269 272 264 287 249 284 229 277 208 268 190 256 172 242 158 226 149 212 Bearable (Social ecology) poly 267 291 265 304 267 320 275 345 284 360 293 371 304 381 319 392 332 384 343 374 354 362 364 347 371 332 373 317 374 305 372 292 362 293 344 295 323 296 301 296 286 294 Viable (Environmental economics) poly 501 193 519 197 541 205 561 215 582 228 604 248 616 267 623 286 626 305 623 326 617 343 607 359 596 373 580 386 563 397 538 409 517 417 494 422 468 425 432 426 413 424 396 421 375 416 353 409 335 401 323 394 335 386 349 372 360 359 374 331 377 313 377 299 376 290 388 288 410 280 458 256 481 233 Economic poly 141 188 139 173 143 147 152 126 169 107 191 88 216 75 242 65 280 55 310 53 352 54 379 60 415 71 447 88 461 99 475 112 488 128 496 147 500 162 500 176 500 189 471 185 452 183 410 185 369 194 337 206 319 216 305 208 279 197 257 191 230 185 199 183 199 182 199 183 Social

In 1987, the United Nations released the Brundtland Report, which included what is now one of the most widely recognised definitions:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."

The United Nations 2005 World Summit Outcome Document refers to the "interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars" of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.

Indigenous peoples have argued, through various international forums such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Convention on Biological Diversity, that there are ''four'' pillars of sustainable development, the fourth being cultural. ''The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity'' (UNESCO, 2001) further elaborates the concept by stating that "...cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”; it becomes “one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence". In this vision, cultural diversity is the fourth policy area of sustainable development.

A useful articulation of the values and principles of sustainability can be found in the Earth Charter. It offers an integrated vision and definition of strong sustainability. The document, an ethical framework for a sustainable world, was developed over several years after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and launched officially in 2000. The Charter derives its legitimacy from the participatory process in which it was drafted, which included contributions from hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals, and from its use since 2000 by thousands of organizations and individuals that have been using the Earth Charter as an educational instrument and a policy tool.

Economic Sustainability: Agenda 21 clearly identified information, integration, and participation as key building blocks to help countries achieve development that recognises these interdependent pillars. It emphasises that in sustainable development everyone is a user and provider of information. It stresses the need to change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the integration of environmental and social concerns into all development processes. Furthermore, Agenda 21 emphasises that broad public participation in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.

According to Hasna Vancock, sustainability is a process which tells of a development of all aspects of human life affecting sustenance. It means resolving the conflict between the various competing goals, and involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity famously known as three dimensions (triple bottom line) with the resultant vector being technology, hence it is a continually evolving process; the 'journey' (the process of achieving sustainability) is of course vitally important, but only as a means of getting to the destination (the desired future state). However, the 'destination' of sustainability is not a fixed place in the normal sense that we understand destination. Instead, it is a set of wishful characteristics of a future system.

The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology.

Green development is generally differentiated from sustainable development in that Green development prioritizes what its proponents consider to be environmental sustainability over economic and cultural considerations. Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it provides a context in which to improve overall sustainability where cutting edge Green development is unattainable. For example, a cutting edge treatment plant with extremely high maintenance costs may not be sustainable in regions of the world with fewer financial resources. An environmentally ideal plant that is shut down due to bankruptcy is obviously less sustainable than one that is maintainable by the community, even if it is somewhat less effective from an environmental standpoint.

Some research activities start from this definition to argue that the environment is a combination of nature and culture. The Network of Excellence "Sustainable Development in a Diverse World", sponsored by the European Union, integrates multidisciplinary capacities and interprets cultural diversity as a key element of a new strategy for sustainable development.

In fact, some researchers and institutions have even pointed out that a fourth dimension should be added to the three dimensions of sustainable development, since these three dimensions do not seem to be enough to reflect the complexity of contemporary society. In this context, the Agenda 21 for culture and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Executive Bureau lead the preparation of the policy statement “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, passed on 17 November 2010, in the framework of the World Summit of Local and Regional Leaders – 3rd World Congress of UCLG, held in Mexico City. This document inaugurates a new perspective and points to the relation between culture and sustainable development through a dual approach: developing a solid cultural policy and advocating a cultural dimension in all public policies.

Still other researchers view environmental and social challenges as opportunities for development action. This is particularly true in the concept of sustainable enterprise that frames these global needs as opportunities for private enterprise to provide innovative and entrepreneurial solutions. This view is now being taught at many business schools including the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University and the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.

The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development lists the following areas as coming within the scope of sustainable development:

Sustainable development is an eclectic concept, as a wide array of views fall under its umbrella. The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology. Different conceptions also reveal a strong tension between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Many definitions and images (Visualizing Sustainability) of sustainable development coexist. Broadly defined, the sustainable development mantra enjoins current generations to take a systems approach to growth and development and to manage natural, produced, and social capital for the welfare of their own and future generations.

During the last ten years, different organizations have tried to measure and monitor the proximity to what they consider sustainability by implementing what has been called sustainability metrics and indices.

Sustainable development is said to set limits on the developing world. While current first world countries polluted significantly during their development, the same countries encourage third world countries to reduce pollution, which sometimes impedes growth. Some consider that the implementation of sustainable development would mean a reversion to pre-modern lifestyles.

Others have criticized the overuse of the term:

:"[The] word sustainable has been used in too many situations today, and ecological sustainability is one of those terms that confuse a lot of people. You hear about sustainable development, sustainable growth, sustainable economies, sustainable societies, sustainable agriculture. Everything is sustainable (Temple, 1992)."

Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as pristine as naturally possible based on ideal-seeking behavior.

An "unsustainable situation" occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature's resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. Inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with the concept of carrying capacity. Theoretically, the long-term result of environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such degradation on a global scale could imply extinction for humanity.

! Consumption of renewable resources	! State of environment	! Sustainability
More than nature's ability to replenish	Environmental degradation	Not sustainable
Equal to nature's ability to replenish	Environmental equilibrium	Steady state economy
Less than nature's ability to replenish	Environmental renewal	Environmentally sustainable

Economic Sustainability

The Venn diagram of sustainable development shown above has many versions, but was first used by economist Edward Barbier (1987). However, Pearce, Barbier and Markandya (1989) criticized the Venn approach due to the intractability of operationalizing separate indices of economic, environmental, and social sustainability and somehow combining them. They also noted that the Venn approach was inconsistent with the Brundtland Commission Report, which emphasized the interlinkages between economic development, environmental degradation, and population pressure instead of three objectives. Economists have since focused on viewing the economy and the environment as a single interlinked system with a unified valuation methodology (Hamilton 1999, Dasgupta 2007). Intergenerational equity can be incorporated into this approach, as has become common in economic valuations of climate change economics (Heal,2009). Ruling out discrimination against future generations and allowing for the possibility of renewable alternatives to petro-chemicals and other non-renewable resources, efficient policies are compatible with increasing human welfare, eventually reaching a golden-rule steady state (Ayong le Kama, 2001 and Endress et al.2005). Thus the three pillars of sustainable development are interlinkages, intergenerational equity, and dynamic efficiency (Stavins, et al. 2003).

Arrow et al. (2004) and other economists (e.g. Asheim,1999 and Pezzey, 1989 and 1997) have advocated a form of the weak criterion for sustainable development – the requirement than the wealth of a society, including human-capital, knowledge-capital and natural-capital (as well as produced capital) not decline over time. Others, including Barbier 2007, continue to contend that strong sustainability – non-depletion of essential forms of natural capital – may be appropriate.

Three types of capital in sustainable development

The sustainable development debate is based on the assumption that societies need to manage three types of capital (economic, social, and natural), which may be non-substitutable and whose consumption might be irreversible. Daly (1991), for example, points to the fact that natural capital can not necessarily be substituted by economic capital. While it is possible that we can find ways to replace some natural resources, it is much more unlikely that they will ever be able to replace eco-system services, such as the protection provided by the ozone layer, or the climate stabilizing function of the Amazonian forest. In fact natural capital, social capital and economic capital are often complementarities. A further obstacle to substitutability lies also in the multi-functionality of many natural resources. Forests, for example, not only provide the raw material for paper (which can be substituted quite easily), but they also maintain biodiversity, regulate water flow, and absorb CO2.

Another problem of natural and social capital deterioration lies in their partial irreversibility. The loss in biodiversity, for example, is often definite. The same can be true for cultural diversity. For example with globalisation advancing quickly the number of indigenous languages is dropping at alarming rates. Moreover, the depletion of natural and social capital may have non-linear consequences. Consumption of natural and social capital may have no observable impact until a certain threshold is reached. A lake can, for example, absorb nutrients for a long time while actually increasing its productivity. However, once a certain level of algae is reached lack of oxygen causes the lake’s ecosystem to break down suddenly.

Market failure

If the degradation of natural and social capital has such important consequence the question arises why action is not taken more systematically to alleviate it. Cohen and Winn (2007) point to four types of market failure as possible explanations: First, while the benefits of natural or social capital depletion can usually be privatized the costs are often externalized (i.e. they are borne not by the party responsible but by society in general). Second, natural capital is often undervalued by society since we are not fully aware of the real cost of the depletion of natural capital. Information asymmetry is a third reason—often the link between cause and effect is obscured, making it difficult for actors to make informed choices. Cohen and Winn close with the realization that contrary to economic theory many firms are not perfect optimizers. They postulate that firms often do not optimize resource allocation because they are caught in a "business as usual" mentality.

The business case for sustainable development

The most broadly accepted criterion for corporate sustainability constitutes a firm’s efficient use of natural capital. This eco-efficiency is usually calculated as the economic value added by a firm in relation to its aggregated ecological impact. This idea has been popularised by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) under the following definition: "Eco-efficiency is achieved by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity." (DeSimone and Popoff, 1997: 47)

Similar to the eco-efficiency concept but so far less explored is the second criterion for corporate sustainability. Socio-efficiency describes the relation between a firm's value added and its social impact. Whereas, it can be assumed that most corporate impacts on the environment are negative (apart from rare exceptions such as the planting of trees) this is not true for social impacts. These can be either positive (e.g. corporate giving, creation of employment) or negative (e.g. work accidents, mobbing of employees, human rights abuses). Depending on the type of impact socio-efficiency thus either tries to minimize negative social impacts (i.e. accidents per value added) or maximise positive social impacts (i.e. donations per value added) in relation to the value added.

Both eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency are concerned primarily with increasing economic sustainability. In this process they instrumentalize both natural and social capital aiming to benefit from win-win situations. However, as Dyllick and Hockerts views the notion of sustainable development as dangerous because the consequences have unknown effects. He writes: "In economy like in ecology, the interdependence rule applies. Isolated actions are impossible. A policy which is not carefully enough thought will carry along various perverse and adverse effects for the ecology as much as for the economy. Many suggestions to save our environment and to promote a model of 'sustainable development' risk indeed leading to reverse effects." Moreover, he evokes the bounds of public action which are underlined by the public choice theory: the quest by politicians of their own interests, lobby pressure, partial disclosure etc. He develops his critique by noting the vagueness of the expression, which can cover anything It is a gateway to interventionist proceedings which can be against the principle of freedom and without proven efficacy. Against this notion, he is a proponent of private property to impel the producers and the consumers to save the natural resources. According to Baden, “the improvement of environment quality depends on the market economy and the existence of legitimate and protected property rights.” They enable the effective practice of personal responsibility and the development of mechanisms to protect the environment. The State can in this context “create conditions which encourage the people to save the environment.”

Vagueness of the term

Some criticize the term "sustainable development", stating that the term is too vague. For example, both Jean-Marc Jancovici and the philosopher Luc Ferry express this view. The latter writes about sustainable development: "I know that this term is obligatory, but I find it also absurd, or rather so vague that it says nothing." Luc Ferry adds that the term is trivial by a proof of contradiction: "who would like to be a proponent of an “untenable development! Of course no one! [..] The term is more charming than meaningful. [..] Everything must be done so that it does not turn into Russian-type administrative planning with ill effects." sustainable development has become obscured by conflicting world views, the expansionist and the ecological, and risks being co-opted by individuals and institutions that perpetuate many aspects of the expansionist model.

Basis

Sylvie Brunel, French geographer and specialist of the Third World, develops in ''A qui profite le développement durable'' (Who benefits from sustainable development?) (2008) a critique of the basis of sustainable development, with its binary vision of the world, can be compared to the Christian vision of Good and Evil, an idealized nature where the human being is an animal like the others or even an alien. Nature – as Rousseau thought – is better than the human being. It is a parasite, harmful for the nature. But the human is the one who protects the biodiversity, where normally only the strong survive.

Moreover, she thinks that the core ideas of sustainable development are a hidden form of protectionism by developed countries impeding the development of the other countries.^[how?] For Sylvie Brunel, sustainable development serves as a pretext for protectionism and "I have the feeling that sustainable development is perfectly helping out capitalism".

"De-growth"

The proponents of the de-growth reckon that the term of sustainable development is an oxymoron. According to them, on a planet where 20% of the population consumes 80% of the natural resources, a sustainable development cannot be possible for this 20%: "According to the origin of the concept of sustainable development, a development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, the right term for the developed countries should be a sustainable de-growth".

Measurability

In 2007 a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated: “While much discussion and effort has gone into sustainability indicators, none of the resulting systems clearly tells us whether our society is sustainable. At best, they can tell us that we are heading in the wrong direction, or that our current activities are not sustainable. More often, they simply draw our attention to the existence of problems, doing little to tell us the origin of those problems and nothing to tell us how to solve them.” Nevertheless a majority of authors assume that a set of well defined and harmonised indicators is the only way to make sustainability tangible. Those indicators are expected to be identified and adjusted through empirical observations (trial and error) see also Ecological footprint.

The most common critiques are related to issues like data quality, comparability, objective function and the necessary resources. However a more general criticism is coming from the project management community: How can a sustainable development be achieved at global level if we cannot monitor it in any single project?

The Cuban-born researcher and entrepreneur Sonia Bueno suggests an alternative approach that is based upon the integral, long-term cost-benefit relationship as a measure and monitoring tool for the sustainability of every project, activity or enterprise. Furthermore this concept aims to be a practical guideline towards sustainable development following the principle of conservation and increment of value rather than restricting the consumption of resources.

See also

Applied Sustainability

Bright green environmentalism

C. Arden Pope

Carrying capacity

Centre for Development and Population Activities

Civilization

Clean tech law

Cleaner Production

Conservation biology

Conservation development

Conservation ethic

Cultural landscape

Ecological economics

Ecologically sustainable development

Environmental issue

Green building

Green Globe

Hydroelectricity

Industrial Ecology

Living Planet Index

Limits to growth

Geothermal energy

Maximum sustainable yield

Micro-Sustainability

Natural environment

Natural landscape

Nature

Outline of sustainability

List of sustainability topics

Passive solar building design

Renewable energy

Residential cluster development

Social sustainability

Solar energy

Stewardship

Strategic Sustainable Development

Sustainable fisheries

Sustainable forest management

Sustainable land management

Sustainable living

Sustainable yield

Sustainopreneurship

World Cities Summit

Zero carbon city

Organizations and research

2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership

2010 International Year of Biodiversity

Afrique verte

Agronomy for Sustainable Development

Appropedia

Dashboard of Sustainability

Earth Charter

Greenhouse Development Rights

Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)

Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)

International Institute for Environment and Development

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

International Mountain Day - December 11

International Organization for Sustainable Development

National Center for Appropriate Technology

National Strategy for a Sustainable America

Solar Net International

Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future

Sustainable Tourism CRC

The Earth Institute

TERI – The Energy and Resources Institute

The Sustainable Urban Development Network (SUD-Net)

The Venus Project

United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

World Cities Summit

References

Further reading

Book Review on ''An Introduction to Sustainable Development'' by Peter Rogers, Kazi Jalal, & John Boyd Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, Published online June 18, 2008

Beyerlin, Ulrich. Sustainable Development, ''Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law''

Li, Rita Yi Man. , ''Building Our Sustainable Cities" Illinois, Published by Common Ground Publishing.

Mark Jarzombek, "Sustainability - Architecture: between Fuzzy Systems and Wicked Problems," Blueprints 21/1 (Winter 2003), pp. 6–9.

External links

Globe Awards-the Leading Sustainability Awards

CII - ITC Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Development

The Sustainable Development Research Program of the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

European Sustainable Development Network - ESDN - Sustainable development policies and strategies in Europe

World Bank website on sustainable development.

Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan

World Creative Youth Forum (WCYF) 2009 - Upcoming international youth forum on Education for Sustainable Development in May 2009 in the Philippines

WWW-Virtual Library Sustainable development - Links to sustainable development sources

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

The Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University views environmental and social needs as business opportunities.

U.K. Sustainable Development Commission

Appropedia - a Wiki focused on sustainable international development and poverty reduction

Citizens Network for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development Law & Policy

Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future

Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Pakistan

Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, based at Columbia University

Peter Ainsworth on degrowth and sustainable development Published on La Clé des langues

Category:Sustainable environmental design Category:Sustainable urban planning Category:Sustainable architecture Category:Sustainable building Category:Academic disciplines Category:Millennium Development Goals Category:Environmental social science

af:Volhoubare ontwikkeling ar:تنمية مستدامة bg:У�?тойчиво развитие ca:Desenvolupament sostenible cs:Trvale udržitelný rozvoj da:Bæredygtig udvikling de:Nachhaltige Entwicklung et:Jätkusuutlik areng el:Αειφό�?ος ανάπτυξη es:Desarrollo sostenible eo:Daŭrebla disvolviĝo eu:Garapen iraunkor fa:ت�?سعه پایا fr:Développement durable fy:Duorsume ûntwikkeling gl:Desenvolvemento sustentábel gu:અક્ષય વિકાસ ko:지속 가능한 발전 hi:टिकाऊ विकास id:Pembangunan berkelanjutan is:Sjálfbær þróun it:Sviluppo sostenibile he:פיתוח בר-קיימ�? kk:Тұрақты дам�? ltg:Tvereiguo raisteiba lt:Darnusis vystymasis hu:Fenntartható fejlődés mk:Одржлив разво�? arz:تنمية مستدامة ms:Pembangunan mampan nl:Duurzame ontwikkeling ja:�?続可�?��?�開発 no:Bærekraftig utvikling nn:Berekraftig utvikling oc:Desvolopament sostenible pl:Zrównoważony rozwój pt:Desenvolvimento sustentável ro:Dezvoltare durabil�? ru:У�?тойчивое развитие si:තිර�?ාර �?ංවර්ධනය simple:Sustainable development sk:Trvalo udržateľný rozvoj sl:Trajnostni razvoj sr:Одрживи разво�? fi:Kestävä kehitys sv:Hållbar utveckling ta:நில�?த்த மேம்பாட�? uk:Сталий розвиток vi:Phát tri�?n b�?n vững zh:可�?续发展

Michael Norman Shaw, Baron Shaw of Northstead (born 9 October 1920) is a British Conservative Party politician who served as a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1960 to 1964 and from 1966 to 1992.

At the general election in October 1959, Shaw contested the Labour-held marginal constituency of Brighouse and Spenborough. He lost by only 47 votes to the sitting MP Lewis John Edwards, who died the following month.

At the resulting by-election in March 1960, he won the seat with a majority of 666 votes over Labour's Colin Jackson. However, Jackson regained the seat for Labour at the general election by a majority of 922.

Shaw returned to Parliament at the 1966 general election, when he was elected for the safe Conservative constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. He held that seat until it was abolished for the February 1974 general election, when he was re-elected for the new Scarborough constituency. He continued to represent Scarbrorough until he retired at the 1992 general election, making a total of 30 years as an MP.

He also served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 1974 until 1979, when MEPs were not directly elected, but were chosen by the House of Commons and House of Lords as delegates.

In 1994 some time after retiring from the House of Commons, he was created a life peer with the title Baron Shaw of Northstead, of Liversedge in the County of West Yorkshire. He was educated at Sedbergh School.

References

''Times Guide to the House of Commons'' 1987,

UK General Elections since 1832

External links

{{s-ttl | title = Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby | years = 1966–Feb 1974 }}

{{s-ttl | title = Member of Parliament for Scarborough | years = Feb 1974–1992 }}

Category:1920 births Category:Living people Shaw of Northstead Category:Old Sedberghians Category:Knights Bachelor Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs Category:UK MPs 1959–1964 Category:UK MPs 1966–1970 Category:UK MPs 1970–1974 Category:UK MPs 1974 Category:UK MPs 1974–1979 Category:UK MPs 1979–1983 Category:UK MPs 1983–1987 Category:UK MPs 1987–1992 Category:People from Scarborough, North Yorkshire Category:Conservative Party (UK) MEPs Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom 1973–1979

ro:Michael Shaw, Baron Shaw of Northstead fi:Michael Shaw

{{infobox christian leader | type	Pope| English nameBenedict VI| imageBenedettoVI.jpg| birth_name???| term_startJanuary 19, 973| term_endJune 974| predecessorJohn XIII| successorBenedict VII| birth_date???| birth_placeRome, Papal States| deaddead|death_dateJune 974| death_placeRome, Papal States, Holy Roman Empire| otherBenedict}}

Pope Benedict VI (died June 974) was pope from January 19, 973 to June 974.

He was born in Rome as the son of Hildebrand and was chosen with great ceremony and installed as pope under the protection of the Emperor Otto I (936–973) on January 19, 973. During his pontificate, Benedict VI confirmed the privileges of some of the monasteries and churches. On the death of the emperor, the people of Rome confined him in the Castel Sant'Angelo. After a period of less than two months, he was strangled by order of Crescentius I, the son of the notorious Theodora, to prevent his release by Sicco, the imperial envoy of Otto II (973–983).

External links

Encyclopædia Britannica

References

9th edition (1880s) of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Category:974 deaths Category:Popes Category:Italian popes Category:10th-century archbishops Category:Murdered Roman Catholic priests Category:Italian murder victims Category:People of medieval Rome Category:10th-century Italian people Category:Year of birth unknown

af:Pous Benedictus VI be:Бенедыкт VI, Папа Рым�?кі br:Benead VI bg:Бенедикт VI (папа) ca:Benet VI cs:Benedikt VI. da:Pave Benedikt 6. de:Benedikt VI. et:Benedictus VI es:Benedicto VI eu:Benedikto VI.a fa:بندیکت ششم fr:Benoît VI gl:Bieito VI, papa ko:�?황 베네딕토 6세 hr:Benedikt VI. id:Paus Benediktus VI it:Papa Benedetto VI jv:Paus Benediktus VI ka:�?��?��?��?��?��??�?��?��?� VI sw:Papa Benedikto VI la:Benedictus VI hu:VI. Benedek pápa mk:Папа Бенедикт VI nl:Paus Benedictus VI ja:�?��?��?�ィク�??ゥス6世 (�?��?��?�教皇) pl:Benedykt VI pt:Papa Bento VI ro:Papa Benedict al VI-lea ru:Бенедикт VI sk:Benedikt VI. fi:Benedictus VI sv:Benedictus VI tl:Benedicto VI ta:ஆறாம் பெனடிக்ட் (திர�?த்தந்த�?) th:สมเด็�?พระสันตะปาปาเบเนดิ�?ต์ที�? 6 uk:Бенедикт VI vi:Giáo hoàng Bi�?n �?ức VI war:Papa Benedicto VI yo:Pope Benedict VI zh:本篤六世