ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article provides information about the criticisms of the idea 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. Scholars like Ramesh Deewan, take an extreme stand and express the view that the concept of sustainable development represents contradiction in the term itself.
Image Courtesy : upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/SrisailamDam01-India.jpg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He remarks that, development and sustainability are not only incompatible with each other, they are contradictory as well. In other words, sustainable is not development. Such a view clearly implies that, the term development used in any sense — say economic growth or growth with equity or improvement in quality of life or modernisation – 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 sustainable 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”.
In the opinion of Sukhamoy Chakravorty, the phrase sustainable development …says nothing precise and, therefore, means anything to anybody. 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”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
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 use 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, criticise those with differing goals, strategies, and opinions. 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.