Sustainable Development: Meaning, Concept and Policies | Ecology

After reading this article you will learn about:- 1. Meaning of Sustainable Development 2. Concept of Sustainable Development 3. Need 4. Tragedy of the Commons 5. Indicators 6. Policies.

Meaning of Sustainable Development:

The term sustainable development became fash­ionable in the 1980s in both the world conserva­tion strategy and the book entitled “Our Common Future”, known as the Brundtland Report, 1987. These two publications have led to detailed discussions over the implications of sus­tainable development for academic enquiry, policy making and action.

For the academic community, there has been an explosion of interest in the defi­nition of the term sustainable development as well as numerous studies, which have attempted to measure or model sustainable, as opposed to un­sustainable development.

From the perspective of policy makes, in both the private and public sec­tors of the economy, a growing number of agen­cies has seen that sustainable development appears to be an important paradigm for the twenty first century.

Concept of Sustainable Development:

The concept of sustainable development (SD) can be defined as maintenance and sustainable utilisa­tion of the functions (goods and services) pro­vided by natural ecosystems and biospheric pro­cesses. Conversely, in a situation of unsustainability, where the limits of the biosphere’s carrying ca­pacity (CC) are exceeded, not all of the environ­mental functions can be fully fulfilled anymore. Let us recall some of the concepts and defini­tions of SD which integrate ecological and eco­nomic regimentations.

These concepts suggest that SD is:

1. To maximise the biological system goals (ge­netic diversity, resilience, biological productiv­ity), economic system goals (meeting basic minimum needs, equity etc.), and social sys­tem goals (social justice, people’s participation, etc.) simultaneously;

2. Improving the quality of human life while liv­ing within the CC of supporting ecosystems (The World Conservation Union (IUCN), UNEP and Worldwide Fund for Nature, 1991). SD classically portrayed as the interface bet­ween environmental, economic and social sustainability, and the ideas inherent in SD are of­ten presented in visual terms.

Indeed, a study of the visual devices used in the literature (SD art) and the ideas behind them could be a fascinating topic for analysis in itself. In Fig. 25.2, which is perhaps the most common type of presentation of SD, there are three interlocking circles, with SD representing the point where all three overlap. This diagram has had much appeal in the literature, per­haps because of its stress on circularity and non­linear inter-linkage.

Need of Sustainable Development for Improving Quality of Life for the Present And Future:

Today the whole world, particularly the develop­ing countries, face a near-crisis situation, both eco­nomic and environmental. Policy-makers find it difficult to formulate programmes that would work under the present situation of escalating popula­tion on the one hand diminishing that would work under the present situation of escalating popula­tion on the one hand and diminishing resources on the other.

The environmental decadence inevitably weakens economy, which, in turn leads to social disintegration. Human history is replete with such instances and the remains of past civilizations in the archaeological sites of the world bear testimony to this.

These civilizations were not able to cope with the pressures of the degraded environments. Kautilya, the wise minister in the court of Chandragupta Maurya, said that “stabil­ity on an empire depended on the stability of its environment”.

The link between environmental and socio-economic degradation cannot be over­looked particularly because, in the past, what took hundreds of years is now getting telescoped into a few decades. Today, very few have the compre­hension and the capability to break this vicious circle successfully. In our own country, in the post- independence period, our attitude was dominated by developmental growth and we did not have a culture of pollution control.

The following are the environmental problems facing the country where priority action is needed and if solved could as well lead to sustainable de­velopment:

1. Population stabilisation;

2. Integrated land use planning;

3. Healthy cropland and grassland;

4. Woodland and re-vegetation of marginal lands;

5. Conservation of biological diversity;

6. Control of pollution in water and of air;

7. Development of non-polluting renewable energy systems;

8. Recycling of waste and residues;

9. Ecologically compatible human settlements including slum improvement;

10. Environmental education and awareness at all levels;

11. Upgrading environmental law; and

12. New dimensions to national security.

These are the very issues that are posing threat to our environment as a whole, and to sustainability, in particular. These require immedi­ate attention; otherwise, gains from the develop­mental activities will be ephemeral. The threats to our long-term ecological security are real and are growing slowly and insensibly but surely.

Tragedy of the Commons:

The debate over the correct diagnosis of the World’s Environmental Problems can be traced back to ideas such as the tragedy of the common argument. In 1968,Hardin published his essay or the “Tragedy of the commons”. He argued that if a group of herdsmen continue to use the com­mon land for their grazing then it is in the inter­ests of each herder to maximise their profits by adding extra cattle to their herd.

As the total stock of cattle increases, greater demands on a limited food supply for the cattle are made, so that, sooner or later, overgrazing occurs. The obvious result of this individually rational action is ruinous. As Hardin (1968) notes, “Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd with­out limit—in a world which is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pur­suing his own best interest in a society that be­lieves in the freedom of the commons, freedom of the commons brings ruin to us all”.

Hardin suggest that there are solutions to this problem. First, he suggests that a certain maxi­mum stock of cattle per capita must be agreed by the herdsmen. Any additional cattle above the per capita limit must, of course, be slaughtered (culled). This upper limit is the carrying capacity of the ecosystem (commons).

The major problem asso­ciated with this solution is that the people affected must agree to this policy by mutual coercion. This is one policy suggested by Hardin (1968), but this policy also presupposes a human population policy to limit the number of herdsmen, otherwise the tragedy would only be delayed.

Sustainable Development Indicators:

In 1983 the Brundtland Commission was estab­lished by the World Commission on Economic Development to enquire into a global agenda for change. A key feature of the agenda was to pro­pose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond. There have been several different approaches which have attempted to incorporate sustainability into decision making. These ap­proaches cover environmental, economic and socio­political indicators.

Sustainability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for SD. The latter warrants a delicate balance of policies and priorities that are aimed at social, environmental, and economic development. One of the fundamental issues in the focus on SD is to ensure the uninterrupted supply of envi­ronmental goods and services, in the contempo­raneous and futuristic time frames.

Public institu­tions have a responsibility to plan and act so that there is no undersupply of these public goods and resources. Environmental protection is an eco­nomic as well as ethical issue. Requiring polluting entities to bear the full environmental costs of their activities constitutes only a fair arrangement.

If the existing markets did not have the capability to incorporate factors based on environmental knowledge and feedbacks, but would rather wait for the ecological feedbacks to surface in economic terms, it may be too late or too expensive to cor­rect the damage done by then.

In other words, the current structure of markets is not fully capable of responding to environmental issues with any foresight. The lagged adjustment is socially sub- optimal for resource management. Let us also re­call Amartya Sen’s (1985) observation that goods and commodities are important for enriching hu­man lives, but their effectiveness in welfare en­hancement depends on the traits of the society and its institutions. Thus, the focus extends to the fulfillment of human capability to cope with changes.

Historically, the rise and fall of civilizations was inextricably linked to the vagaries of climate changes and variations in the judicious use of natu­ral resources. These disturbances led to the up­rooting of populations, the elimination of seg­ments of populations when severe hunger and famine afflicted the habitats, and they affected geopolitics.

To begin with, human settlements were usually influenced by the existence of natural re­sources, especially water—it was no coincidence that settlements were located mostly along river- banks. Most civilizations flourished as “water civi­lization”, including those which began in Egypt along the Nile River and in south-west Asia along the Indus River system. These were later aban­doned when, over a period of time, the territory became a desert.

The Mayan civilisation in the Western hemi­sphere began to flourish around the third and the fourth centuries AD; the civilisation collapsed rather suddenly during the tenth century, a period which also coincided with temperature rise and climate change in the region.

Similarly, the collapse of the Mali Civilisation in Africa in the fourteenth century was attributed to severe changes in climatic factors; see, for example, A1 Gore (1991) for a dis­cussion on the historical highlights of possible connections between climate and civilisation. Both the climate change and environmental mismanage­ment contributed to these disasters.

There is no major evidence to suggest that climate change was due to human influences prior to the twentieth century. Environmental disregard, especially with respect to natural resources, was considered the prime cause of major problems in the erstwhile flourishing regions.

Thus, the pros­perity and relative stability of the above civilizations were not sustained. The de-stabilisation problems that affected the water civilisation societies can be traced to the management of water and soil: lack of appropriate conjunctive use of ground and surface waters led to soil salinity and desertifica­tion; water shortages and consequential disputes abound in history.

The lessons of economic history indicate the mismanagement of natural resources and the en­vironment led to the disasters cited above. In com­parison, the current period is faced with human- induced climatic changes, as well as the problems of environmental degradation.

These combined problems, tend to lead to much more complex and potentially disastrous situations than ever felt be­fore in human history. This is not to be alarmist; however, a scientific and objective view suggests the need for rather urgent attention to mitigate the potentially adverse consequences.

If inertia and inaction tended to be inconsistent with biological survival, a somewhat similar reasoning suggests that, now, lack of intervention might pose prob­lems for sustained human prosperity and human survival.

The industrial developments, which started around the middle of the nineteenth century, en­tailed resource depletion and environmental prob­lems. Industrial activities created pollution prob­lems of local, regional and interregional magnitudes.

The extent and intensity of exploitation of the Earth’s resources during the twentieth century re­sulted in significant effects on major components of the biosphere, namely the atmosphere, land cover and biodiversity. This was largely due to rapid industrialisation, deforestation, and urbanisation.

The race for resource exploitation and economic growth heated up, especially after World War II. No doubt, at that time, there were dire needs to rebuild societies and economic systems. However, some in­discriminate and desperate methods of tampering with the ecosystem led to current concerns about the potential dangers to the survival of the human race and that of other species.

By the turn of the 20^th century, SD had be­come the battle cry of almost everyone concerned with improving the human condition. The una­nimity of this popularity suggests that SD does resonate with the human spirit, and of course is to be welcomed, and how to achieve it does allow for a host of responses and perspectives.

While scientists have continuously sought to create an underlying essence of SD expressed in more ob­jective ecological terms—a sustainability science— this tends to avoid rather than address the value judgments that are at the very heart of SD. Whether we like it or not, SD is of all people, by all people and for all people.

The selective indicators goals of definite sus­tainable development are given in Table 25.1.

Sustainable Development Policies:

The primary consideration of sustainable devel­opment policy is to maintain and enhance the eco­logical and environmental systems of the planet so that other objectives such as the maintenance of biodiversity, the eradication of poverty and the improvement to the quality of all life can be ac­complished early in the twenty first century.

Poli­cies which are directed towards energy, water, ag­riculture and biodiversity could achieve some of these goals.

For many decades governments of different political parties/colours have promoted the idea of implementing policies, plans and projects to achieve some political goal. A move towards mar­ket based economic development was promoted without consideration of environmental damages.

But since 1970s, Strategic Environmental Impact Analysis (SEA) was introduced in each develop­mental project, to develop strategies for sustain­able development. The legislative changes have been accompanied by the development of meth­ods to put into operation actual SEA. In order to try and promote more sustainable paths of devel­opment for different regions a portfolio of poli­cies have been suggested in diverse field of appli­cation (Table 25.2).

The role of the private sector continues to grow in every aspect of life, and so does its re­sponsibility toward the environment and its sustainability. Private industry has the most sig­nificant potential to contribute its might to the processes, principles, and practices relevant for SD.

This is feasible even without cumbersome com­pliance procedures and bureaucratic controls, pro­vided the vision of a typical industry firm includes attention to the needs of environmental sustainability, in addition to profitability.

If the world is to be governed only by regulations en­forced by the government bureaucracies, it will be a sad state of affairs for a wide variety of reasons. Private industry needs to go beyond compliance requirements, and when more than a critical size of industries and businesses participate in envi­ronmental and ecological resource-augmenting activities, the competitive advantage principle in business does not imposte an additional burden nor does it hinder business efficiency principles (as the 3M case, for example amplifiers).

The voluntary adoption of the ISO 14000 code and investor consciousness in using some of the environmental ratings will pave the way for greater motivation and adherence to ecological principles in addition to conventional business methods.

Financial institutions can do much in this regard by requiring the credit borrowers of large size businesses to produce their ISO 14000 certi­fication and, in subsequent stages, the appropri­ate environmental ratings.

The complementary of the government sec­tor and private sector is a phenomenon which leads to cost-effective policies and programs for the larger social benefit. Due attention to these fea­tures lowers the transaction costs and adaptation costs of desirable changes for SD processes.

New ­markets and incentives, and market-based instru­ments for improving environmental implications of economic activities, are examples of direct in­tervention by government which can effectively facilitate socially-beneficial outcomes.

Another important area with implications for the basic re­quirement of SD is technical innovations and the role of the government. The government sector in many industrial countries has shown over the past two decades a trend of declining investments in the R&D efforts for environmental develop­ment.

This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, considering that certain basic research is unlikely to take place at the private industry level and the social returns to such research activities are usu­ally higher than private returns to research—and the latter may not be attractive enough for invest­ments among the alternatives by the private sec­tor.

Following the publication of Our Common Future, considerable effort has been made to de­veloping guidelines or principles for sustainable development. The rational has been that without such guidelines or principles it is not possible to determine if a policy or practice is sustainable, or if initiatives are consistent with sustainable devel­opment.

Creation of such principles has been a major challenge because, as the Brundtland Com­mission recognised, economic and social systems and ecological conditions vary greatly among coun­tries. The result was that no generic model or blue­print could be established, and each nation would have to work out what was appropriate for its con­text, needs, conditions and opportunities (Table 25.3).

Values Underlying the Millennium Declaration:

The Millennium Declaration—which outlines 60 goals for peace; development; the environment; human rights; the vulnerable, hungry, and poor; Africa; and the United Nations—is founded on a core set of values described as follows:

“We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the twenty-first century.

These include:

1. Freedom:

Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dig­nity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.

2. Equality:

No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportu­nities of women and men must be assured.

3. Solidarity:

Global challenges must be man­aged in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic prin­ciples of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.

4. Tolerance:

Human being must respect one another, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. Differences within and between societies should be neither feared nor re­pressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity. A culture of peace and dialogue among all civilizations should be actively pro­moted.

5. Respect for nature:

Prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the pre­cepts of sustainable development. Only in this way can the immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed in the interest of our future wel­fare and that of our descendants.

6. Shared responsibility:

Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social de­velopment, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multi-laterally. As the most universal and most representative organisation in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.”