popular TED talk by the founder and promoter of the Social Progress
Index, describes the potential for achieving the very ambitious and
complex set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals laid out in the 2030
Global Sustainable Development Agenda within the desired 15 years. And
that, without increasing “GDP growth”. The Social Progress Index is just
one of many “development indices” that have been designed in response to
a growing disenchantment with “economic growth” as the one and only
indicator and measure of “development” of a society or country.
Communities, think-tanks and even governments (some of them) across the
world are questioning whether economic growth can indeed be the aim and
hall mark of a developed society in the same manner as human well-being
and environmental quality are.
Unlike the
measurement of social, cultural, human capacity development and
eco-system health; economic development (as an outcome of economic
growth) has been reduced to be measured in simplistic quantitative terms
resulting from production and service transactions – the GDP (the more
the better). This has made it easy and therefore a popular indicator of
‘overall development’. In fact, attempts to value other development
parameters have often been in economic value terms as well. Yet we know,
that when economic growth becomes the primary aim of development, with
GDP as its measure, both human well-being, (especially in an equitable
manner) and eco-system health suffer.
The emerging
view is that economic activity reflects the interaction of people with
each other and with their natural environment, resulting in positive or
negative social and environmental outcomes. It is therefore, necessary
to guide, regulate and govern this activity such that the key objective
– that of just, equitable and sustainable development for all, now and
in the future, is achieved. The ‘growth’ paradigm that continues to
dominate the design of our economies believes that there is adequate
ecological capacity to fulfil the demands of the 7 billion tending
towards 10 billion people in this world and that technology will be the
panacea required for a comfortable existence. This paradigm is now
passé. A variety of different approaches now exist.
The green
growth approach looks at dynamic economic development as the fuel for
societies to thrive, but demands that this development be within
ecological limits. It believes that a country can increase its GDP by
exploiting natural capital, but overuse of those resources will reduce
national wealth. Natural capital accounting enables smarter planning and
decision-making, with in many cases countries choosing to conserve
natural capital instead of its further exploitation. According to this
approach, all countries, rich and poor, have opportunities to make their
growth greener and more inclusive, through strategies that reflect local
contexts and preferences. A critique of this approach is its focus on
continued economic growth (GDP) and smarter technological or market
methods to ‘green’ this growth. Critics also point out that ascribing
monetary value to natural capital make it a tradable commodity that can
be ‘exploited or conserved if paid for’. Payment for eco-system
conservation would lead to limiting the access of natural resources and
therefore to growth opportunities to some (mostly the less powerful). It
has also been criticised for not addressing current consumptive
lifestyles of the richer nations.
The green
economy (as opposed to green growth) approach has been defined as “one
that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while
significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. It
is low carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive" (UNEP, 2011).
The basic premise of green economy is that there can be a way to
eradicate poverty and foster sustainable development without harming the
environment. The strategies for transforming economic processes into
green and inclusive require understanding the social and ecological
outcomes that must be measured and tracked; greening the current brown
production and service sectors through technology and institutional
measures; investing in natural systems and human capacity development
(especially with a focus of equity of opportunity) and devising
financial flows and market structures that facilitate this shift.
The blue
economy (not to be confused with marine economy) is yet another
approach. It argues that it is possible to move from scarcity to
abundance through systemic design based on the laws of nature, linking
different productive processes, in fact creating new productive
processes, using local resources and labour. There are no wastes in a
blue economy conceptualisation and multiple benefit streams add value to
local economies resulting in greater human prosperity. Although this
view does not directly address inequities and distributional injustice
within capitalist market systems, it relies on localisation of
interventions for system correction and robustness.
Another
perspective is that of circular economy that promotes a systemic view of
the resource use within production processes. It looks at “closing
resource loops” to maximise service value generated per unit of resource
used, with subsequent recovery and regeneration of products and
materials at the end of service life. This is an alternative to the
linear (make - use – dispose) economic growth perspective. This too
relies on the technological and business model re-engineering and bases
the shifts in consumptive patterns to be driven by shifts in production
systems. A circular economy model need not be very localised or
decentralised and breaks sectoral silos to focus on efficiency of
resource use and reduce wastes but does not address social equities.
While there
are some subtle and some significant differences in the approaches
outlined above, what is common is that each looks at economic processes
as the means to achieve human prosperity and environmental health and
not an end in itself.
What does
this mean for India? A country where 1% population controls over 50% of
total its wealth; where over 300 million still live in absolute poverty
without access to opportunities that would pull (at least) their next
generation out of the abyss; where 65 percent of population is below 35
years of age - a majority of whom are neither skilled nor employable in
the current industrial - market economy; where on the one hand is an
exodus to non-farm jobs and desperate urban living, and on the other,
exist a significant majority that continue to directly depend on natural
biotic resources for their livelihoods, threatened by social, political
and market forces besides climate change. We are a country of contrasts
– not all desirable; our economic growth trajectory seen concurrently
with our human development track record and state of environment leaves
much to be desired. Some say, that we are in many ways headed for the
precipice and the elephant may already be too heavy to turn around.
We now have
a historic opportunity to address this concern. With the framework for
the 2030 Global Agenda for Sustainable Development to guide it, the
country is set to design a 15 year National Development Plan - that
could turn the juggernaut from a path of sure shot disaster to that of
sustainable development. Needless to say that the vehicle – our economy
will need serious re-design. Whatever be the kind of approach new or a
combination of, or the varieties of economic approaches that India
adopts, one aspect is clear. The Indian approach rooted in realities of
this complex country will need to be based on key fundamentals that put
both people and environment at the centre of its formulation. It will
need to be based on the five principles of: system integrity across
sectors and resource flows that impact communities and their
environment; efficiency and maximisation of service from resources with
a zero waste credo, harmony and balance of natural systems with human
needs; sufficiency determinants of resource consumption per capita and
most importantly universality that ensures equity of opportunity and
social justice. These principles and resultant tangible metrics will
need to guide the evolution of new business models, technology
applications, fiscal systems and market regulations. Such a blue print
will help us track progress of and achieve genuine sustainable
development for all.
q
Zeenat Niazi
zniazi@devalt.org