Discourses on Sustainable Development

The early roots of the concept of sustainable development can be traced back to the
development-environment debate. The economic growth model of development,
its adoption by most of the countries in the world and the realisation of the
consequences it produced in various forms of environmental degradation have
provided the historical context for the rise of the development-environment debate.

Modern technology characterizes the economic growth model of development, the

factory system of production and rapid industrialization and urbanization. The
Western countries initially followed this development model and prescribed it for
the less developed ones. The predominant underlying belief was that the
underdeveloped countries would eventually catch up with the industrialized
countries, provided they emulate the economic and social systems of the West. The
less developed countries adopted the Western model of development rather
uncritically.

The consequences of the adoption of the Western model of development by the

less developed countries were not all positive. Economic growth occurred, but it
was accompanied by a widened gulf between the countries in the North and the
South, and it also helped to promote economic disparities between the rich and the
poor sections within particular societies. It was realized that “development”
conceived simply as “economic growth” was an inadequate notion, and that
economic growth does not necessarily lead to the development of the lower strata
of society. This realisation caused a shift in development thinking and eventually
led to the inclusion of some additional criteria of development such as distributive
justice or equity, and improvement in the overall quality of life of the masses
(Dhanagare 1996: 7-9).

Moreover, it is more important to note that the examination of the impact of the
Western model of development on the quality of the global environment has led to
the critical reconsideration of this model of development. It is realised that the
reckless pursuit of industrialization and the use of resource-exploitative modern
technology for development has resulted in environmental deterioration to such an
extent that the very existence of all living species is endangered. There is a general
agreement that economic expansion, especially during the post-war period, has had
alarming consequences for the global environment (Munshi 2000: 253).
Industrialization required a continuous supply of energy and materials from nature.
It led to the constant accumulation of waste that resulted from accelerated industrial
production and increasing levels of consumption. There was a gradual deterioration
of nature. The “modern, industrial form of production induced increasingly severe
degrees of social inequality and growing environmental instability and
degradation... which, together, have more recently been conceptualized as the
“crisis of modernity” (Eduardo and Woodgate 1997: 85). The environmental
degradation that has occurred is marked by a large-scale extraction of finite natural
resources. Loss of forests, extinction of animal and plant species, depletion of the
ozone layer, air, water and soil pollution, loss of marine life and bio-diversity etc.
have occurred at an alarming rate and have posed a serious threat to the very
survival of life on this planet.

While examining the consequences of the Western model of development in the

context of ecosystems and economies of developing nations, Sunita Narain (2002:
13) comments that, the “Western economic and technological model is highly
material and energy intensive, it metabolizes huge quantities of natural resources
and leaves a trail of toxins, with highly degraded and transformed ecosystems in
its wake. It is this model that developing nations are also following for economic
and social growth, leading to an extraordinary cocktail of poverty and inequality
side by side with growing economies, pollution and large-scale ecological
destruction”. It is recognized that the “Western development model in its most
triumphant moments appears to be neither desirable nor universally applicable
because it is simply not sustainable” (Bernhard 1997: 113). Thus, the two basic
assumptions of the Western model of development, i.e. “first, development could
be universalized in space and, second, that it would be durable in time” (Sachs
1997: 71), had lost their validity.

Due to the strategies adopted for economic growth, environmental degradation and
exploitation of natural resources have become global phenomena. Eventually, the
increasing awareness of environmental problems has led to the emergence of
environmentalism. It is important to note that environmentalism has added an
important dimension to the ongoing development discourse. It has caused a
paradigm shift in our vision of development. It has compelled the intellectuals
concerned to think about what is being done to the ecosystem of this planet in the
name of development. The worsening environmental situation has led to the re-
examination and re-consideration of the policies, strategies and programmes for
development. As a result, the environment–development debate emerged and
became intensified in due course of time.

Initially, Development and Environment were seen as distinct entities. There was
a sharp division between those who supported development over the environment
and those who argued for the environment over development (Baviskar 1997: 196).
As another scholar observes, there emerged two different camps of protagonists
who inhabited two different mental spaces and regarded themselves as opponents
(Ibid: 71-72). This gave rise to the dichotomy of development versus environment.

However, eventually, there also emerged an increased awareness about the fact that
human beings need both “development” and “environment”. As Balletmus has
expressed, there was “a growing recognition that the overall goals of environment
and development are not in conflict but are indeed the same, namely, the
improvement of human quality of life or welfare of the present and future
generations (cf Mohanty 1998:82)”. Such thinking led to the view that
“development” versus “environment” is a false dichotomy. This view is well
articulated in World Development Report 1992 — Development and the
Environment. It is argued in this report that the “economic development and sound
environmental management are complementary aspects of the same agenda.
Without adequate environmental protection, development will be undermined;
without development, environmental protection will fail…income growth will
provide the resources for improved environmental management” (World Bank
1992: 25). In fact, such a view underscored the need for reconciliation between
“development” and “environment”. The concept of “sustainable development”, as
defined in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED), titled “Our Common Future” (1987), represents such an attempt to
reconcile the goals of development as well as that of environmental protection.
Sustainable Development: Genesis and Evolution

According to Eduardo Sevilla-Guzman and Graham Woodgate (1997: 86-87), the

concept of “sustainable development” was the result of a dynamic gestation.

In 1972, the United Nations Conference on “Human Environment”, took place in

Stockholm, Sweden. The Stockholm Conference was historical in the sense that
environmental problems received formal recognition for the first time at the global
level. Modern industrial societies could realize that there is only “one world”. It
was also recognized that environmental problems are global problems requiring
international solutions, although the developed countries of the North and the
developing countries of the South do not necessarily share the same environmental
concerns.

A report titled Limits to Growth - the Work of the Club of Rome (1972-74) has
been credited as the first official study on global environmental deterioration. In
this report, there is an ecological analysis of industrialism. The report also focused
on the predicted results of continuing levels of resource depletion, pollution and
population growth. Due to this report, a sense of realisation grew that infinite
growth was impossible with finite resources. Then, a diagnosis of the factors of
global environmental deterioration brought out in a report titled Global 2000 —
commissioned by the U. S. President, Jimmy Carter and published in 1980 —
underscored that northern lifestyles cannot be reproduced globally.

Then, in the year 1981, the concept of “sustainable development” appeared for the
first time. It was enshrined in the title of a key document - World Conservation
Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, published
by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and UN Environment programme (UNEP).
According to the Strategy’s definition, “for development to be sustainable it must
take account of social and ecological factors, as well as economic ones; of the living
and non-living resource base; and the long term as well as the short term advantages
and disadvantages of alternative actions” (Starke 1990: 8-9).

In 1983, the United Nations set up the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of
Norway, as an independent body. Its objective was to re-examine the critical
environment and development problems on the planet to formulate realistic
proposals to solve them and to ensure that human progress will be sustained
through development without bankrupting the resources of future generations. The
WCED published its report titled “Our Common Future” in the year 1987. This
report presented the first official definition of the concept of “sustainable
development”. The contribution of “Our Common Future” (1987), is threefold: i)
it offers the first official definition of sustainable development, ii) it suggests, for
the first time, an international strategy for confronting the crisis of modernity, and
iii) it brings about a paradigm change in conventional thinking regarding the
notion of “development”.

Another document, “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living”
(published by IUCN, UNEP and WWF, in 1991), has suggested a revised global
strategy for the conservation of nature. More importantly, it was recognized by
this work that global nature conservation requires the participation of local people.

In 1992, representatives of over 150 countries met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),
popularly known as the “Earth Summit”. The Earth Summit established important
linkages between environment and development and contributed to the further
development of the concept of “sustainable development”. It produced the “The
Earth Charter”- a code of conduct or plan of action for the 21st century i.e.
Agenda 21, and Local Agenda 21 (LA21), an interpretation for local issues (which
came later); the Climate Convention — a convention to control climate change due
to atmospheric pollution, and the Bio-diversity Convention — a convention to
promote the conservation of bio-diversity. The Rio Declaration also set out the
framework of principles of conservation and use of forests and, established
important steps that are needed to ensure an environmentally stable and
sustainable planet (The Hindu Survey of the Environment 2002: 5-6).

Correspondingly, at the international level, many nation-states have been trying to

go ahead with the notion of “sustainable development”. They are striving to find
economic and political solutions for environmental problems. One also notices
periodical attempts to take stock of the progress made by the nations in the direction
 of “sustainable development”. For instance, in 1997, a “Rio+5” meeting was held
in New York to assess the progress towards “sustainable development”. Again, as
a further step, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held
in Johannesburg, from 26th August to 4th September 2002. The Johannesburg
Summit is recognized as “Rio+10”. The agenda for this international meeting was
much beyond the review of the progress made in the direction of sustainable
development in the 10 years since Rio. The agenda included every possible issue
related to the environment and development: energy, water and sanitation, health,
forests, consumption patterns, poverty, trade, globalization etc. Thus, the scope of
“sustainable development” was broadened.

Sustainable development was seen as comprising three components: economic

development, social development and environmental protection (Reddy 2002: 10).
The newspaper reports that appeared during the Summit period highlighted that,
there were discussions and debates over many issues including a call for reduction
of poverty, saving the planet’s fast-dwindling resources from further plundering,
criticism against the European and American pattern of agricultural subsidies and
a need to eliminate the trade-distorting subsidies, dispute on the definition of
globalization and demands by the Third World countries for more aid, finance and
fairer trade.

Thus, various international events and publications have contributed to the making
of the concept of “sustainable development”. Let us now understand the definition
and meaning of the concept of “sustainable development” as formulated and
elaborated in “Our Common Future” (1987).

Concept of Sustainable Development as Defined in Our Common Future (1987)

The definition of the concept of Sustainable Development put forward in the

report titled Our Common Future (1987) is:

“Sustainable development is the 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” (cf Science Age
1987: 30).

To understand the meaning of the definition, let us understand the core issues
addressed in the above definition. First is the issue of economic growth. Economic
growth is not only considered essential for poverty reduction but also for meeting
human needs and aspirations for a better life. Second is the issue of limitations of
the environment’s ability to meet the needs of the present and future generations.
Due to the pressures generated by growing societal needs, societies are using
modern technologies for extracting and utilizing limited natural resources. If we
continue to exploit existing limited natural resources, future generations will not
be able to meet their own needs. Thus, the environment’s ability to meet present
and future generations’ needs has certain limits. This realisation is reflected in the
definition. Thus, the concept of “sustainable development” is based on an
integrated view of development and environment; it recommends pursuance of
development strategies to maximize economic growth from a given ecological
milieu on the one hand, and to minimize the risks and hazards to the environment
on the other; for being able to meet the needs and aspirations of the present
generation without compromising the ability to meet those of the future
generations.

In short, the above definition of “sustainable development” implies that: (i) we

should direct our efforts towards redressing the damage already done to the
environment by earlier unsustainable patterns of economic growth and,
(ii) we should follow such a pattern of development which avoids further damage
to the planet’s ecosystem and ensures meeting of the needs of present as well as
future human generations.

a) “Sustainable Development”: Requirements

While elaborating on the concept, the report Our Common Future (1987) also
brings out the requirements of “sustainable development”. For a better
understanding of the concept, some of the important requirements of “sustainable
development” can be highlighted:
 Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to
all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life………………… the
promotion of values that encourage consumption standards that are within the
bounds of the ecologically possible and to which all can reasonably
aspire………that societies meet human needs both by increasing productive
potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities for all…… demographic
developments are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the
ecosystem……..At a minimum, …development must not endanger the natural
systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and
the living beings……the world must ensure equitable access to the constrained
resources and reorient technological efforts to relieve the pressure……that the rate
of depletion of non-renewable resources should foreclose as few future options as
possible……the conservation of plant and animal species……….. that the adverse
impacts on the quality of air, water, and other natural elements are minimized to
sustain the ecosystem’s overall integrity” (cf Science Age 1987: 30-31).

It is also added that, in essence, sustainable development is a process of change in

which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and
enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (cf
Science Age 1987: 31).

b) Sustainable Development: Policy Objectives

The report, Our Common Future (1987) also recommends that to move on the path
of sustainable development, all nations are required to bring about certain policy
changes. It has been noted that the “critical objectives for environment and
development policies that follow from the concept of sustainable development
include: (i) reviving growth; (ii) changing the quality of growth; (iii) meeting
essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation; (iv) ensuring a
sustainable level of population; (v) conserving and enhancing the resource base;
(vi) reorienting technology and managing the risk; and (vii) merging environment
and economics in decision making” (Ibid: 32).
c) Sustainable Development: Suitable Strategy

Regarding suitable strategy, the report, Our Common Future (1987), notes in its
broadest sense that the strategy for sustainable development aims to promote
harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature. In the specific
context of the development and environment .…the pursuit o f s u s t a i n a b l e
development requires: (i) a political system that secures effective citizen
participation in decision-making, (ii) an economic system that can generate
surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and sustained basis, (iii) a social
system that provides for solutions to the tensions arising from disharmonious
development, (iv) a production system that respects the obligation to preserve the
ecological base for development, (v) a technological system that can search
continuously for new solutions, (vi) an international system that fosters sustainable
patterns of trade and finance, and (vii) an administrative system that is flexible and
has the capacity for self-correction. These requirements are more like goals that
should underlie national and international action on development” (Ibid: 38).

Criticisms of the Concept of Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland

Commission, has been subjected to critical scrutiny by many scholars. The
criticisms not only point out the logical contradictions and semantic ambivalence in
the term but also centre on its vagueness/ambiguity of the terms/phrases included
in the definition, point towards difficulties at the operational level and attempt to
uncover implicit assumptions and political motives.
a) Sustainable Development: Logical Contradiction and Semantic Ambivalence

Scholars like Ramesh Deewan, take an extreme stand and express the view that the
concept of sustainable development represents a contradiction in the term itself. He
remarks that development and sustainability are not only incompatible with each
other, they are contradictory as well. In other words, sustainability is not
development (cf Dhanagare 1996: 10). Such a view implies that the term
development used in any sense — say economic growth or growth with equity or
improvement in quality of life or modernization — inevitably leads to an increase
in the level of consumption and also to the exploitation of natural resources.

According to Wolfgang Sachs, the linkage of the term sustainable to development

 has created a terrain of semantic ambivalence. In his words, within the new
concept, the locus of sustainability has subtly shifted from nature to development;
while sustainability previously referred to natural yields, it now refers to
development. And the perceptual frame also changes, instead of nature,
development becomes the object of concern and, instead of development, nature
becomes the critical factor to be watched. In short, the meaning of sustainability
slides from conservation of nature to conservation of development” (Sachs 1997:
73).

b) Definition of Sustainable Development: Vague and Ambiguous

In the opinion of Sukhamoy Chakravorty, the phrase sustainable development

…says nothing precise and, therefore, means anything to anybody (cf Agarwal
1992: 51). Anil Agarwal adds: for a logging company it can mean sustained
projects; for an environmental economist it can mean sustained stocks of natural
forests; for a social ecologist it can mean sustained use of forest; and, for an
environmentalist, it can mean a clean heritage for our children. But surely
confusion cannot be more productive than clarity” (Ibid: 52)
The observations of William F. Fisher show persons with different viewpoints holding
different philosophical positions, having different goals in mind and advocating
different means to achieve desired ends using the same moral vocabulary of social justice
and the same economic rhetoric of sustainable development. In his view, sustainable
development has become a term that is used to justify whatever one does and, by
implication, criticize those with differing goals, strategies, and opinions (1997: 9). Widely
debated Sardar Sarovar Project in India is the case in point. Fisher writes dam proponents
and opponents seem sincere in their commitment to goals of sustainable development
and social justice, but what they mean by these terms differs.

Is the Sardar Sarovar Project an Example of Sustainable Development?

William F. Fisher’s observations are quite illustrative in this context. He writes,

“The proponents of the Sardar Sarovar Dam insist that sustainable development is
compatible with large scale, ambitious, centrally controlled schemes, which are
capable of mitigating the effects of natural catastrophes and meeting the increasing
needs of a growing economy for food water and energy. ….From their perspective,
the Narmada runoff is a perennially renewed resource that currently goes to waste.
Dam advocates argue that domesticating this untapped resource would enable
Gujarat to “sustain” its economic growth and the standard of living of its population.
Project planners and supporters argue that the readily apparent and increasing needs
for water in drought-prone areas, for both agricultural growth and a growing
economy, justify the projected means and the costs of damming the Narmada and
relocating those currently residing in the submergence area of the reservoir.”

On the other hand, “critics of the Sardar Sarovar Project ……question the portrayal of
Sardar Sarovar as an example of sustainable development and see it instead as
another project that will overexploit the available resources to the detriment of the
poor and the benefit of the rich. They argue that by any measure the project is
unsustainable and unjust. ……They note that the size and comprehensiveness of
schemes like Sardar Sarovar require that these schemes be initiated, financed and
managed by the state as the guardian of the interests of the people. For these critics,
sustainable development is not top-down but bottom-up. It requires that
development efforts be decentralized and requires the involvement of local people
at all levels of the design, appraisal, and implementation of projects. ……for them,
sustainable development should be as concerned with justice and equity as it is with
an ecologically sustainable use of resources. From the perspective advocated by
these critics, large scale, centrally controlled schemes are incompatible with
sustainable development…” (Fisher 1997).

Not only does the term sustainable development mean different things to different
persons or groups; b u t its meaning also differs for one set of nations from
that of the other. As Sevilla-Guzman Eduardo and Graham Woodgate (1997: 86)
have brought out, the official discourse as represented in the Brundtland Committee
report, Our Common Future… seems to differentiate between the meaning of
sustainable development as it applies to industrial nations and its implications for
countries whose economies are relatively less industrialized. For the latter, … first,
it means the realisation of the potential for economic growth. second, it promotes
generalized increases in levels of consumption……For highly industrialized
nations, sustainable development allows for the continued realisation of a nation’s
growth potential, so long as it is not achieved at the expense of others. Such growth
will continue to be industrial as, according to the World Commission on
 Environment and Development (1987), industrial production is of “fundamental
importance to the economies of the modern societies and an indispensable motor
of growth”.

C. R. Reddy also views the Commission’s definition as “simple but vague”

(2002: 10). In the words of Wolfgang Sachs (1997: 74-75),

“upon closer inspection, one notes that the definition given by the Brundtland
Commission does not refer to ‘the greatest number’, but focuses instead on the
‘needs of the present’ and those of the ‘future generations’. While the crisis of
nature has been constitutive of the concept of ‘sustainable development’, the
crisis of justice finds only a faint echo in the notions of ‘development’ and ‘needs’.
In the definition, the attention to the dimension of time is not counterbalanced by
equal attention to the dimension of space. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that
the canonical definition has resolved the dilemma of nature versus justice in favour
of nature. But two crucial questions remain unanswered: ‘What needs?’ and
‘Whose needs?’ Is sustainable development supposed to meet the needs for water,
land and economic security or the needs for air travel and bank deposits? Is it
concerned with survival needs or with luxury needs? Are the needs in question
those of the global consumer class or those of the enormous numbers of have-nots?
That the Brundtland report remained ambiguous throughout, largely side-stepping
the crisis of justice, has not been without consequences in the years that have
followed.”

c) Critique Relating to “Politics of Sustainable Development”

K. R. Nayar (1994: 1327) looks at the concept of “sustainable development” as a

political instrument and is critical of many aspects of the Commission’s definition.
He argues that “the concept of sustainable development has emerged from those
countries which themselves practice unsustainable resource use” (Ibid: 1327), and
further adds that “the politics of ‘sustainable development’ is that at present it is
anti-south, anti-poor, and thereby anti- ecological” (Ibid: 1328-29).

Nayar also comments that “the need” concerning sustainable development is

affluence rather than basic, or opulence rather than squalor. Because, when basic
needs become an integral component of a developmental model, the question of
 unsustainability does not arise”. He further adds, “The cyclical relationship
between poverty and environmental degradation is conceptualized in simplistic
terms”. The assumption is that, as poverty increases, natural environments are
degraded and when environments degrade, the prospects for further livelihood
decrease, environmental degradation generates more poverty, thus accelerating the
cycle. While the basic factors which generate poverty are kept outside this
framework, it also does not consider the role of lopsided development which
degrades the ‘natural’ capital, and the issue of the artificially inflated impact of the
poor on an already lower quality of ‘natural capital’ set in motion by factors other
than poverty” (Ibid: 1327-28).

While uncovering the implicit political motive behind the Western concern for
curtailment of population growth in developing countries for sustainable
development, Nayar expresses the view that “sustainable development is visualized
as a solution to make available raw materials continuously so that the production
system, the expanding market and the political system are not threatened. The raw
materials in the developing countries, therefore, need to be protected and their
population growth curtailed so that resources would remain easily available.”
Again, in his opinion, “The Not-in-My-Back-Yard or Nimby syndrome is mainly
responsible for ecologically unsustainable development projects including
hazardous industries shifting out of these countries to developing countries. When
the aim is to suggest patchwork solutions to the unsustainable production system
of the north, population growth in the south automatically becomes the target of
the debate on sustainable development” (Ibid: 1328).

References
Agarwal, Anil 1992. “What is Sustainable Development,” Down to Earth, June 15th: 50-51

Fisher W.F. 1997. “Development and Resistance in the Narmada Valley”. In Fisher W.F.(ed)
Toward Stainable Development – Struggling over India’s Narmada River. Rawat Publications:
New Delhi

Salunkhe, S.A. 2003. “The Concept of Sustainable Development: Root, Connotations and
Critical Evaluation”, Social Change Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 67-80