2.5 Environmental Sustainability
While a consensus on the operational definition of sustainable development still eludes the development thinkers some progress has actually been made towards implementation of sustainable development principles. Goodland (1994) emphasised that 'sustainability must not become a landfill dump for everyone's environmental and social wish lists'. Sustainable development, as of today, means different things to different persons and everything (such as freedom, democracy, gender balance, equality, equity, etc.) to some persons. Development thinkers often feel that it is the detractors of sustainability who refuse to come to a consensus on the definition and it is they who keep it fuzzy and interpretative.
Figure 2.1 Spatial Systems framework for evaluating Sustainable Development
| * Income redistribution * Employment *Targeted Assistance |
* Environmental assessment *Valuation *Internalisation |
| SOCIAL OBJECTIVE (poverty / equity) |
· Popular Participation · Consultation · Pluralism |
ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE (natural resources) |
|
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES
|
|
GROWTH
EQUITY EFFICIENCY |
| SOCIAL OBJECTIVES | ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES |
| EMPOWERMENT PARTICIPATION SOCIAL MOBILITY CULTURAL IDENTITY INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT |
ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY CARRYING CAPACITY BIO DIVERSITY GLOBAL ISSUES |
Figure 2.3: The Three Goals of Economic
development (after Goodland 1994)
In an attempt to breakthrough the impasse
Goodland (1994) distinguished environmental sustainability from social
sustainability and economic sustainability. While economic sustainability
is maintenance of capital or keeping capital intact, poverty reduction
is the main goal of social sustainability.
Broadly defined environmental sustainability seeks to enhance the quality of human life through protection of natural resources (both sources and sinks). Protection of natural resources ensures that the supply of raw materials could be maintained over long term. Environmental sustainability requires that the wastes generated do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the natural waste sinks. The basic message is loud and clear, - humanity must learn to live within the limitations of the physical environment, both as a providers of inputs (sources) and as a sink for wastes (Serageldin 1993). Keeping environmental goals in mind sustainable development can now be defined as 'Development without growth beyond environmental carrying capacity' or as 'development without growth in throughput of matter and energy beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities' (Daily and Ehrlich 1992). As emphasised before, the principal means of achieving environmental sustainability is through maintenance of natural capital.
Daly (1994) defined natural capital as the stock that yields the flow of natural resources. Almost in a similar manner Goodland (1994) defined natural capital as the stock of environmentally provided assets (such as minerals, soil, atmosphere, forests, fauna, water, wetlands, etc.) that provide a flow of useful goods or services. Other forms of capital include human capital (people, institutions, education, cultural cohesion, information, knowledge, etc.) and man-made capital (houses, roads, factories, ships, etc.). Human capital may also be termed as social capital (Goodland 1994).
Two important functions of natural capital are to supply resource and to assimilate waste. Environmental sustainability calls for continuity of these functions over the long-term for which certain constraints on resource utilisation and waste generation must be imposed.
In order to be able to lay down a set of rules to ensure maintenance of natural capital over long term it is important to recognise that depending on their regenerative capacity natural resources can be categorised as renewable resources and non-renewable resources. The stock of a renewable resource over time does not remain fixed and can be increased as well as decreased. The stock of fish in a pond comes as a handy example. Theoretically speaking, a perpetual supply of a renewable resource can be maintained if harvesting rate is less than (or at the most equal to) the growth rate of that resource.
In order to operationalise the concept of environmental sustainability the following input output rules may be suggested (Pearce and Turner 1990, El Serafy 1991 1993).
1. Total amount of waste to be generated by any project over a period should be such that the waste can be assimilated (made harmless or put back to productive uses) by the receiving environment without any loss of capability to assimilate that quantity and quality of waste in future. This is the output rule.
2. The maximum rate of a renewable resource intake for a project should not be greater than the natural regeneration rate of that resource. This is the input rule.
Environmental sustainability, thus, imply that neither the stock of renewable resources nor the waste assimilative capacity should be allowed to decline.
In aggregate the resource supportive capacity and the waste assimilative capacity together define an environment's carrying capacity. The task is to prevent renewable resources from becoming exhaustible.
2.6 Sustainable Development and Mineral Resources
As has already been mentioned a new wave of environmental concern swept past the western world in the early 1970s. The wave was stimulated by principally three factors.
1. The so-called 'oil shock' inflicted upon the world by the petroleoum cartel, - OPEC, through sharp rise in petroleum prices.
2. A synchronised economic boom throughout the developed world leading to sharp rise in commodity prices.
3. The publication of the results of a systems dynamics modelling study by the Club of Rome, titled - 'The Limits to Growth' (Meadows et al. 1972), which predicted the collapse of per capita food and industrial output as a result of the exhaustion of non-renewable resources.
'The Limits to Growth' study was both severely criticised and widely read. A scare dominated the development thinking process for the next few years. And even today a threat, right or wrong, persists that extraction of minerals from the ground is incompatible with sustainable development. However, over the years efforts have been made to chalk out strategies for optimal depletion of natural resources to ensure that the intergenerational equity perspective is properly considered. While some environmentalists feel that mining is incompatible with sustainable development some others desire to manage non-renewable resources in such a way as to eliminate their use. Miller (1991) identified two causes for such feelings or desire. First, some believe that all mines and processing plants unavoidably and irreversibly damage the environment, leaving a degraded legacy for future generations. Thus the output rule of sustainable development is violated. The second perceived problem is that all non-renewable resources, if used now, will unavoidably become scarce, thereby depriving future generations of the benefits of using them. As observed by Daly (1994) non-renewable natural capital can not be increased either actively or passively. When put to use it can only be diminished. Current thinking on mineral production no longer focuses upon possible resource exhaustion in near future. In 1992 Meadows and others published 'Beyond the Limits', - a sequel to 'Limits to Growth', which reflected the shift in focus from resource exhaustion to the capacity of the earth to absorb the pollution arising from resource production and use. However, the debate still continues (Kesler 1994, Simon 1995).
Miller (1991) argued that the resource in the ground is a kind of fixed capital. When produced and used it can be converted into other kinds of durable capital goods, including roads, hospitals, etc., which will be of benefit to future generations. Conservation will not necessarily increase the futures inheritance, but merely change its composition from 'capital goods' to natural products.
Echoing the same argument Aitken (1991) pointed out that a non-renewable resource in the ground is a kind of unrealised wealth. When it is produced and used economic surpluses are generated. These surpluses if invested in human resources and man-made resources can accrue benefit to the future generations.
'Our Common Future' (WCED 1987) stresses the need to ensure economic growth without impairing the capacity of future generations to grow. But the report tells more about what is to be achieved than how to achieve it. As emphasised by Pearce (1991), - if sustainable development is achievable, the challenge is to figure out what we must do, in an operational sense to harmonise the economy and the environment.
The Club of Rome's forecast on shortages of natural resources has gone wrong. Rather the opposite has happened. On one side the agricultural and industrial output recorded phenomenal increase during the intervening period, while on the other side the prices of almost all natural resource commodities showed a downward trend in real terms reflecting no resource scarcity!
It is indeed very surprising that even after twenty-five years of active deliberations and debates on all possible fora, the intelligent and informed individuals remain so divided on such an issue involving the future well being of humanity. The divergence of views, at least in part, is because of adoption of different paradigms, coupled with quite contrasting views on the benefits of technology, public policy and the market place (Tilton 1996).
Broadly defined environmental sustainability seeks to enhance the quality of human life through protection of natural resources (both sources and sinks). Protection of natural resources ensures that the supply of raw materials could be maintained over long term. Environmental sustainability requires that the wastes generated do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the natural waste sinks. The basic message is loud and clear, - humanity must learn to live within the limitations of the physical environment, both as a providers of inputs (sources) and as a sink for wastes (Serageldin 1993). Keeping environmental goals in mind sustainable development can now be defined as 'Development without growth beyond environmental carrying capacity' or as 'development without growth in throughput of matter and energy beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities' (Daily and Ehrlich 1992). As emphasised before, the principal means of achieving environmental sustainability is through maintenance of natural capital.
Daly (1994) defined natural capital as the stock that yields the flow of natural resources. Almost in a similar manner Goodland (1994) defined natural capital as the stock of environmentally provided assets (such as minerals, soil, atmosphere, forests, fauna, water, wetlands, etc.) that provide a flow of useful goods or services. Other forms of capital include human capital (people, institutions, education, cultural cohesion, information, knowledge, etc.) and man-made capital (houses, roads, factories, ships, etc.). Human capital may also be termed as social capital (Goodland 1994).
Two important functions of natural capital are to supply resource and to assimilate waste. Environmental sustainability calls for continuity of these functions over the long-term for which certain constraints on resource utilisation and waste generation must be imposed.
In order to be able to lay down a set of rules to ensure maintenance of natural capital over long term it is important to recognise that depending on their regenerative capacity natural resources can be categorised as renewable resources and non-renewable resources. The stock of a renewable resource over time does not remain fixed and can be increased as well as decreased. The stock of fish in a pond comes as a handy example. Theoretically speaking, a perpetual supply of a renewable resource can be maintained if harvesting rate is less than (or at the most equal to) the growth rate of that resource.
In order to operationalise the concept of environmental sustainability the following input output rules may be suggested (Pearce and Turner 1990, El Serafy 1991 1993).
1. Total amount of waste to be generated by any project over a period should be such that the waste can be assimilated (made harmless or put back to productive uses) by the receiving environment without any loss of capability to assimilate that quantity and quality of waste in future. This is the output rule.
2. The maximum rate of a renewable resource intake for a project should not be greater than the natural regeneration rate of that resource. This is the input rule.
Environmental sustainability, thus, imply that neither the stock of renewable resources nor the waste assimilative capacity should be allowed to decline.
In aggregate the resource supportive capacity and the waste assimilative capacity together define an environment's carrying capacity. The task is to prevent renewable resources from becoming exhaustible.
2.6 Sustainable Development and Mineral Resources
As has already been mentioned a new wave of environmental concern swept past the western world in the early 1970s. The wave was stimulated by principally three factors.
1. The so-called 'oil shock' inflicted upon the world by the petroleoum cartel, - OPEC, through sharp rise in petroleum prices.
2. A synchronised economic boom throughout the developed world leading to sharp rise in commodity prices.
3. The publication of the results of a systems dynamics modelling study by the Club of Rome, titled - 'The Limits to Growth' (Meadows et al. 1972), which predicted the collapse of per capita food and industrial output as a result of the exhaustion of non-renewable resources.
'The Limits to Growth' study was both severely criticised and widely read. A scare dominated the development thinking process for the next few years. And even today a threat, right or wrong, persists that extraction of minerals from the ground is incompatible with sustainable development. However, over the years efforts have been made to chalk out strategies for optimal depletion of natural resources to ensure that the intergenerational equity perspective is properly considered. While some environmentalists feel that mining is incompatible with sustainable development some others desire to manage non-renewable resources in such a way as to eliminate their use. Miller (1991) identified two causes for such feelings or desire. First, some believe that all mines and processing plants unavoidably and irreversibly damage the environment, leaving a degraded legacy for future generations. Thus the output rule of sustainable development is violated. The second perceived problem is that all non-renewable resources, if used now, will unavoidably become scarce, thereby depriving future generations of the benefits of using them. As observed by Daly (1994) non-renewable natural capital can not be increased either actively or passively. When put to use it can only be diminished. Current thinking on mineral production no longer focuses upon possible resource exhaustion in near future. In 1992 Meadows and others published 'Beyond the Limits', - a sequel to 'Limits to Growth', which reflected the shift in focus from resource exhaustion to the capacity of the earth to absorb the pollution arising from resource production and use. However, the debate still continues (Kesler 1994, Simon 1995).
Miller (1991) argued that the resource in the ground is a kind of fixed capital. When produced and used it can be converted into other kinds of durable capital goods, including roads, hospitals, etc., which will be of benefit to future generations. Conservation will not necessarily increase the futures inheritance, but merely change its composition from 'capital goods' to natural products.
Echoing the same argument Aitken (1991) pointed out that a non-renewable resource in the ground is a kind of unrealised wealth. When it is produced and used economic surpluses are generated. These surpluses if invested in human resources and man-made resources can accrue benefit to the future generations.
'Our Common Future' (WCED 1987) stresses the need to ensure economic growth without impairing the capacity of future generations to grow. But the report tells more about what is to be achieved than how to achieve it. As emphasised by Pearce (1991), - if sustainable development is achievable, the challenge is to figure out what we must do, in an operational sense to harmonise the economy and the environment.
The Club of Rome's forecast on shortages of natural resources has gone wrong. Rather the opposite has happened. On one side the agricultural and industrial output recorded phenomenal increase during the intervening period, while on the other side the prices of almost all natural resource commodities showed a downward trend in real terms reflecting no resource scarcity!
It is indeed very surprising that even after twenty-five years of active deliberations and debates on all possible fora, the intelligent and informed individuals remain so divided on such an issue involving the future well being of humanity. The divergence of views, at least in part, is because of adoption of different paradigms, coupled with quite contrasting views on the benefits of technology, public policy and the market place (Tilton 1996).