Sustainable Development

The Brundtland Commission, in its report, defined sustainable

development as 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 “need”, in

particular, is 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 organisation on the environment ability to meet
present and future needs.

Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in

terms of sustainability in all countries – developed/developing, market-
oriented or centrally planned. Interpretation will vary, but must share
certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic
concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework
for achieving it. Development involves a progressive transformation of
economy and society.

A development path that is sustainable in a physical sense could

theoretically be pursued even in a rigid social and political setting. But
physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay
attention to such consideration as changes in access to resources and in
the distribution of costs and benefits.

For centuries, vital natural resources like land, water and forests had been
controlled and used collectively by village communities thus ensuring a
sustainable use of these renewable resources. The first radical change in
resource control and the emergence of major conflicts over natural
resources induced by non-local factors was associated with colonial
domination of this part of the world. Colonial domination systematically
transformed the common vital resources into commodities for generating
profits and growth of revenues.

The first industrial revolution was to a large extent supported by this

transformation of commons into commodities, which permitted European
industries’ access to the resources of South Africa. The transformation of
commons into commodities has two implications — First it deprives the
politically weaker groups of their right to survival, which they had through
access to commons; second, it robs from nature its right to self-renewal
and sustainability by eliminating the social constraints on resource use
that are the basis of common property management.

With the collapse of the international colonial structure and the

establishment of sovereign countries in the region, this international
conflict over natural resources was expected to be reduced and replaced
by resource policies guided by comprehensive national interests.
However, resource use policies continued along the colonial pattern and,
in the recent past, a second drastic change in resource use has been
initiated to meet the international requirements and the demands of the
elites in the developing world, leading to yet another acute conflict among
the diverse interest.

The most seriously threatened interest in this conflict appears to be that

of the politically weak and socially disorganised group whose resource
requirements are minimal and whose survival is primarily dependent
directly on the products of nature outside the market system. Recent
changes in resource utilisation have almost wholly by-passed the survival
needs of these groups. These changes are primarily guided by the
requirements of the countries of the North and of the elites of the South.

Sustainable development contains within it two key concepts:

i. The concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s

poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

ii. The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future
needs”.

In order to understand the meaning of the definition, it is essential to

understand the core issues addressed in the above definition. First is the
issue of economic growth. The economic growth is not only considered
essential for poverty reduction but also for meeting human needs and
aspirations for 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 utilising natural resources, which are
limited. If we continue to exploit existing limited natural resources, future
generations will not be able to meet their own needs.

Thus, environment’s ability to meet present and future generations’ needs

has certain limits. This realisation is clearly 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 in order to maximise economic growth from a
given ecological milieu on the one hand, and to minimise 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. K.R. Nayar 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”, and further adds that “the politics of ‘sustainable development’ is
that at present it is anti-south, anti-poor, and thereby anti- ecological”.

Nayar also comments that, “the need” with reference to 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 conceptualised 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 artificially inflated impact of the poor on an already lower quality
of ‘natural capital’ set in motion by factors other than poverty”.

While uncovering the implicit political motive behind the Western concern
for curtailment of population growth in the developing countries for
sustainable development, Nayar expresses the view that, “sustainable
development is visualised as a solution to make available raw materials
on a continuous basis 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”.

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.

The report, Our Common Future also recommends that in order 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”.

Regarding suitable strategy, the report, Our Common Future, 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 of sustainable development requires:

(i) a political system that secures effective citizen participation in

decision-making,

(ii) an economic system that is able to 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 in the nature of goals that
should underlie national and international action on development.