The criticisms of sustainable development.

b) Discuss the criticisms of sustainable development.

Criticism of Sustainable Development Although the concept of sustainable development has wide appeal because it succeeds in incorporating the environmental concerns of the developed ‘North’ and the developmental concerns of the developing ‘South’, the concept has also been criticized by many scholars. Some say it is vague and imprecise while others think it is not useful. Still others see it as a political instrument used by the developed countries. We will discuss them in this section. Contradiction and Ambivalence The term

‘sustainable development’ is said to be an oxymoron, that is, a combination of two contradictory terms. Sustainability of environment implies doing away with tampering with nature, while sustainability of development means continuing with exploitation of nature. These are, therefore, two mutually exclusive concepts put together in a contradiction.

Environmentalists say that the term has created a terrain of semantic ambivalence (Sachs, 1997) which has shifted the locus of sustainability from nature to development. Sustainable development talks about the sustainability of development, not of ecology or environment. The focus has shifted towards development, away from nature. So in a way it has taken the shape of conservation of development, not of environment. The idea of sustainability was initially used by foresters in 18th and 19th century Europe in connection with forest use. Enough trees would be planted in the forests to replace the annual harvest of timber for household and industrial use so that the forest resources are sustainable. A similar use of the term by environmentalists was in connection with fishery resources. But in the modern context, the word has no meaning when used in context of finite resources because they cannot ever be replenished and that is why their use can never be sustainable.

Critics say the idea of sustainability fails to convey a clear meaning to all. Sustainability has different connotations in different fields. For an economist, sustainability means achieving a critical take off into long-term continuous growth, investment and profits in a market economy. This means industrial societies are already sustainable, while backward agrarian societies are not (Tisdell, 1988 cf Worster).

This state of confusion is summed up by Anil Aggarwal (1992) as follows: “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 means 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. This lack of precise meaning is brought out in the application of sustainable development with regard to developed and developing nations. Eduardo and Woodgate (1997) say that the difference in meaning is evident from allowing the developing nations to realize their potential for economic growth and generalized increase in their consumption. For the developed nations, it means continued realization of the growth potential as long as it is not at the cost of others. Figure 2.1 shows the diverse interpretations of the concept.

According to Sachs (1997), the concept recognizes ‘needs’ but it does not specify what needs are to be taken care of. The Brundtland Report does not specify if the needs are those of the global consumer class or of the enormous number of have nots. Also, survival needs like water, land and economic security have not been distinguished from the luxury needs of the rich.

Incomplete characterization of poverty Our Common Future has raised the issue of poverty many times in the report. Lele says that sustainable development gives an incomplete characterization of poverty and environmental degradation by making it a two-way link (see fig.2). However, the link is a very complex one. Both poverty and environmental degradation have deep and complex causes which the Report has avoided in its discussion.

According to Nayar (1994), the cyclical relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is perceived in simplistic terms. Sustainable development has kept the basic factors which generate poverty outside this framework, and also does not consider the role of lopsided development which degrades human natural capital.

No clear operationalisation The concept of sustainable development has been criticized for not articulating a well-defined strategy by fixing targets, responsibility, monitoring and evaluation. Anil Agarwal (1992) critiques the concept because it does not clearly say who is going to ensure the rights of future generations and what kinds of needs it may have. He asks “are we talking only of the future generation of the rich or also of the poor” given that a large proportion of even the present generation cannot meet all its needs. In the absence of specific goals or even a consensus on the means to achieve them, sustainable development remains an attractive but unhelpful concept.

If You Want Full PDF

Whatsapp : 8130208920

Per Subject PDF 49/- Only