En route to Strong Sustainability∗

Abstract
Development implies different meaning to different walks of life. The contemporary notion of development
is like the more you eat or have, you will be better off; which is forcing the people to accumulate more
physical stuffs. This trend is against the theme of sustainable development, which can be meet even at
minimum input or supply. The theoretical development of sustainable development is over-powered by
paper works and endless debates rather than operationlization in real terms. It is evidenced that weak
sustainability will not sustain the country, hence strong sustainability is an unavoidable path. How to
achieve the strong sustainability is being arguable issue. An example of forest management by local
communities in Nepal would be an example of strong sustainability, where people are following the
reverse of tragedy of commons, bargaining for more power, and using subsidiary principle.

Preamble
Measuring the national income in terms of gross national product or net national product is one of the
most customary developmental indicators practiced in today’s economy. Under the jurisdiction of neo-
classical economic theories, the conventional systems of the national accounting (SNA) such as GDP, and
allied tools reveal the so-called wealth of a nation. National economic accounts record the monetary flows
and transactions within the economy. In fact, the primary purpose of the account is to record economic
activity, but such accounts are also used to indicate human well being or development (1). Further, SNA
has evolved from two logically inconsistent theories: neoclassical microeconomics and Keynesian
macroeconomics (2). Economists recognize that today’s national income accounting is production-based
(Hicksian income), which has only consumption and accumulation, and disregards both welfare
significance and non-market activities (3). Thus, traditional SNA simply ignores the contribution of nature
to the production, while overlooking the non-market components such as natural capital, though it is a
complementary to man made capital (4). It is well evidenced that economic progress at the expense of
ecological degradation will not sustain (5). Moreover, human produced capital is based on natural capital,
but relegation of natural assets in a so-called national accounting system reveals an incomplete picture of
the economy, which is well documented in many works (6). The main concerns on the contemporary SNA
are lacking of its ability to account for: changes in the capital stock of natural resources and its services,
cost of environmental damages due to economic activity, and changes in the stock of human capital.

∗
Surendra R. Devkota, Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180.
Email: [email protected].
1
With the advancement of human knowledge, it is realized that these factors of production will not give a
complete picture of the any economy, unless environmental resources and services are considered. As of
now, it is theoretically agreed that development will be incomplete if all three: social, economical and
environmental entities are not integrated. Although integration of ecological services as well as its
degradation in the conventional SNA is a long-desired requirement, fulfilling that need not unanimous. So
far, two different schools of thought are evolving: the first one is the monetary accounting of the natural
resources, and another is the non-monetary system of accounting. The monetary system of accounting is
also disputed along the following lines: index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) (7), system of
integrated environmental and economic accounts (SEEA) (8), and natural resource accounting (9).
Similarly, the non-monetized or physical accounting methods of accounting are divided as national
accounting matrix including environmental accounting (10) and ecological footprint (11).

Integration of environmental damages, their services and natural assets in to the national accounting
system is undergoing several trial and error types of examination. Research scholars throughout the world
are revising the SNA. But the tug-of-war between monetization and non-monetization of the natural
resources is continuing. Placing monetary values on environmental damages or services is an important
and a contestable issue. The cruelty of human beings to nature must be reduced, if can not eliminated.
Nature’s role to sustain human beings should duly be respected. To this regard, ecological services of
natural entities must be taken into account for human welfare and sustainability. Hence the conventional
SNA needs to be revised and it should have three separate components: economic, ecological and social
measures on equal footing.

On the other hand, a new definition of human well being is propagating by the United Nations
Development Program as human development index (HDI). In addition to the GDP, HDI has two more
parameters; longevity/ health and educational attainment (12). Here again, environmental resources or
services are excluded from national account of wealth. The notion of human development will be
incomplete until we continue to ignore the contribution of nature to the survival of human. Hence the
present consumption based economy, which believes the more you consume the more you will be better
off, ignores the less consuming folks. Had it been integrated with material wealth, it would give a
different but true picture of the human well being. Hence, estimates of HDI raised a serious question
about its usefulness, both in terms of conceptual and in terms of measurement (13).

2
Postscript

A standard goal of development is to raise the living conditions of people, which obviously will not be a
straight line. Rather, it is a co-evolutionary process because economic system co-evolves with ecosystem
(14). If developmental process integrates of environmental, economical and societal entities, it is said to be
proceeding to a sustainable path aiming to meet the basic needs of human such as at least a good quality
of environment, health, education, food and fiber. The imbalance of triangular forces will tilt the route of
development at any level because, sustainable development comprises the simultaneous quest of
economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. There are many ongoing discussions about
the SD, but the key problem is the knowledge on the dynamics of entities of SD. A conclusion based on a
snapshot of exercises may not be sustainable. So many core questions are being asked (15). A key question
of the questions is how to achieve SD? The operational rules of SD may not be universal and will differ
according to bio-geographical and geo-political conditions of the country. A set of SD rules developed for
the First World might not immediately be applicable to the Second or Third World countries. For
example, the former could be more interested in the stringent criteria for preservation, while the later
would be much concerned on conservation issues given the immediate socio-economic status.

Although, some folks dislike16 the concept of sustainable development, SD will continue to evolve over
time with respect to the outcomes of the ongoing debates such as strong vs. weak sustainability,
optimality vs. sustainability, green vs. brown, state vs. market, first vs. third world, north vs. south, global
vs. local, present vs. future, close vs. open, long term vs. short term, nature vs. people, conservation vs.
preservation, durability vs. optimality, efficiency vs. equity, and dynamic vs. static17. It is expected that
these discussions will lead to narrow down the uncertainties and cover the issues comprehensively, rather
than further fragmentation of the discipline. Fragmented academic or professional boundaries could not
be able to address the SD in toto, because sustainability is not limited to economics or a piece of resource
only. Rather, it should be to integrate and maintain knowledge, people, culture, resources, flora, fauna and
entire planet. Therefore, it also demands a developmental professional or scholar working in environment
and development field with three triangular eyes: environment, economy, and society rather than green or
brown eyes.

The debate on physical versus monetary values placed on environmental resources and services will
undoubtedly continue until amicable solution is obtained, which may be some time off. Only about 10
percent of all countries worldwide include both physical and monetary information tabulated, to date. The

3
message is yet to be delivered in a vast majority of nations. Hence, it is necessary to extend both types of
knowledge to a maximum number of countries. In this regard, the role of UN may have been effective had
it been allowed to play an effective role. For instance, the UN spends more resources on updating HDI
than developing or adjusting the SEEA. It is not known why HDI, SEEA and SNA cannot be streamlined
to one measure?

Of lately, a sustainability index18 of 24 countries, which comprises ecological, economical and social
indexes, indicates that nations like Sweden, Canada, USA, Japan, and Australia have the highest level of
index, whereas African and many Asian countries have lower sustainability indexes due to low scores for
socio-economic indices. The stakeholders of sustainable development range from politicians to the
business, non-profit organizations to academics. All of have a multitude of visions and interests regarding
exactly what to sustain. Yet, there is a commonality in the bottom line: betterment of human life and
habitat of non-human species. In this sense SD also embraces the notion of coevolution of man and
nature. Hence, the human race has a strong tie with nature, weak relation in the form of weak
sustainability will not sustain. For instance, how an island country, Nauru has been destroyed by pursuing
the path of WS19. Strong sustainability is the only acceptable path for the future. But does SS work? There
are ample of examples where SS has been successfully operationalized (Box 1). The only problem may
stem from the lack of the First World’s appreciation of Third World example(s).

4
An example of strong sustainability from Nepal Box 1
The basic principle of SS, “natural capital should not decline in due course of time” is being applied in Nepal
for the forest management at the local community level. Nepal has vast ecological resources ranging from
subtropical to alpine climatic ranges. The Department of Forest Research and Survey, a government agency
estimated, in 1999, that forest area is limited to only 29 percent (4.2 million hectares) of total country area
(147,181sq. km.), compared to the 37 percent figure stated in the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of 1988.
In recent years, deforestation rates averaged 1.7 percent per year. However, about 50 years ago, during the
autocratic regime, forests were the private property of the then rulers. During this time total natural stocks of
trees covered over 50 percent of the country. After a civilian revolution in 1950, forests in Nepal have
undergone several ownership or successor transfers. In 1960, forests in Nepal were nationalized by the first
elected government, and saved from continuing to be the private property of plenipotentiaries. However, that
government, which began nationalization of the forest were unable to complete its plan due to a royal coup in
1961 by the then King, who later set an absolute monarchy that lasted until 1990. Under the new political
system introduced by the King of Nepal in 1961, states' monopoly over forest resources occurred at several
time intervals with different names. For example, the then rulers cleared an undeclared amount of forested
areas and diverted the money to political gain in a 1979 political referendum of 1977. Likewise, the
government was involved in clearing forest areas and settling people from different parts of the country.
Furthermore, additional causes of forest depletion in Nepal are due to the use of woods for fuel collected
from the forest, grazing, illegal logging, and marginal expansion of agriculture areas vis-a-vis slash and
burning, and migration. The government was failing to manage forest areas through the existing political
bureaucratic management, local people who wanted to protect the forest, but who have no rights, were
compelled to watch as nakedness of surroundings hills and plains was revealed. Meanwhile, forest
management project outputs of some bilateral and donor agencies like Australia, United Kingdom, and other
European countries were encouraging. Few donors also predicted the absolute deforestation in the hills by
1993, and in plains by 2000. This alone should have awakened policy makers. Eventually, His Majesty’s
Government of Nepal was forced to realize that people's involvement at local level is necessary in order to
save and manage local forest resources. In 1988 the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector was introduced.
Consequently, the Forest Act and Rules formulated after 1990 are seeking participation from local people in
forestry management.

(Box 1 contd..)

5
SS principle
Since a sustainable society needs only the minimum supply of natural capital, SS working strategy is to
reverse of the ‘tragedy of commons’ in the forested areas. The forests in the hills have been managed at
local people by forming the forest users’ group (FUG). People living in and around the forest areas make
a forest user’s group, its constitution and management plan by mutual consultative process. All these:
user’s group, its constitution and management plan, have to be approved by the District Forest Office, a
government body. Each FUG has to develop its own forest annual management plan, which is also
developed and approved by people and government agency. After approval by the governmental body,
FUG will be a legal entity with a social obligation and definitive objective. The objectives are to protect,
and to manage forest, and to use the forest products, so that people will meet the basic needs of forest like
fuel wood, fodder and timber. The government does not take any share from it, not even tax, but FUG has
to spend at least 25 percent of revenue generated for natural capital, i.e., forest stocks, enhancement
activities like seedling preparation, forest cultivation and allied silviculture practices. FUG also retains
some provisions to punish the free riders. The government aims to hand over about 3.5 million hectares
(about 61 percent of total forest area) of forest areas to FUGs. The Community Forestry Division at
Department of Forest reported that by the mid of August 2001, total number of community forestry user
groups in Nepal were 10,543 and forest area handed over totals to 810,611 hectares. Total people
benefited by the users managed forests are about 1.153 million people, of which, 417 FUGs are
exclusively managed by women user groups and they are managing 10,700 ha and people benefited
33,980 families.
Pedagogy
The FUG of Nepal, being a successful model of forest management provides a conclusive example of
strong sustainability. It also elucidates many pertinent environmental philosophies from deep ecology to
modern environmental policies such as Ronald Coase’s bargaining power and property rights. FUG has
user rights, whereas State reserves the land ownership right. Since, both government and FUG have
rights, and power bargaining is an ongoing process. Real faith on forest preservation emerged only after
local people got some legitimacy on the forest. As of now, people are getting not only the direct forest
products like fuel wood, and fodder, but also benefited by the other indirect uses and non-use values of
forest like improved local micro-climate, good greenery etc. People at different regions are experiencing
the resilience of local ecosystem over a period of one decade. Local people not only are taking the
interests from forest, i.e., fuel wood, food and timber, depending upon the harvest rate, but also are
committed to increase forest stock – capital enhancement.
Source:(20 )

6
Epilogue

Different tools of measuring sustainable development such ISEW, genuine saving, EFP, green net
primary productivity, environmental space, net primary productivity, and life cycle assessment; each
method provides different insights for policy or decision making bodies. Operationalization of SD is
much harder than to conceptualize. The complex model will have low chances of implementation at local
level. On top of that social acceptability is very crucial. The societies usually have a high inertia for
anything new, in spite of eagerness to arrest the problems of economy, and environment. The reasons
could be diverse from cultural to prices. The path of development of pursue the SD is zigzagged not only
by political hegemony and biased policy, but also arrays of development agents such as state, bi and
multilateral agencies, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and local bodies. All of these may
not have same kind of interests, and hence, have diverse directions, which may lead to a state of
confusion about the means and ends of development. However, in the prevailing context of country’s geo-
political and socio-economical conditions, the United Nations is targeting to introduce National Strategies
for Sustainable Development, an action plan for Agenda 21 which is also a global action plan agreed at
the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, in 2002. In the span of ten years, global communities have witnessed and
participated in lots of talks on SD, and now, it is being late to act in proper place. Believe that we do not
need to wait another decade to streamline the anomalies in development of SD in the name of discussion.
It should be an action-oriented discipline where learning by doing action research in real terms would
herald a better result than much talk.

The gravity of discussion rests on complementary or substitutability between man-made and natural

capital. Since it has been proven that weak version of sustainable development has failed; the only

optimistic path is strong sustainability. SD is not an oxymoron. Example of forest management by local

communities in Nepal reveals that strong sustainability is achievable, where people are following the

reverse of tragedy of commons, bargaining for more power, and using subsidiary principle.

References

1
D. Pearce, Economic Values and the Natural World, Cambridge:The MIT Press, (1993).
2
R. B. Norgaard, Ecol. Econ. 1, 303-314 (1989).
7
3
W. D. Nordhaus, The Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 259-263 (2000).
4
R. Costanza, H.E. Daly, J. A. Bartholomew, In Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and
Management of Sustainability, New York: Columbia University Press, ( 1991).
5
J.M. Gowdy, C. McDaniel, Land Economics, 75, 333-338 (1999); H.E. Daly, In Jansson A. M., Hammer, M.,
Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.) Investing in Natural Capital, Washington DC :Island Press, ( 1994).
6
H.E. Daly, C. Cobb., For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community , the Environment and
a Sustainable Future (Beacon Press, Boston, 1989); T. Aronsson, P.O. Johansson, K.G., Lofgren, Sustainability and
Green National Accounting, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, (1997); G.B. Asheim, Env. and Dev. Econ. 5, 25-48
(2000); R.D. Cairns, Env. and Dev. Econ. 5, 49-54 (2000); P. DasGupta, K.G. Maler, In Johansson, Kristrom and
Maler (Eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Economics, Manchester:Manchester University Press, ( 1995); S. El
Serafy, Ecol. Econ., 21, 217- 229 (1997); K. Hamilton, E. Lutz, Green National Accounts: Policy Uses And
Empirical Experiences, (Environment Department Papers No. 039, The World Bank, Washington DC,1996); R.B.
Norgaard, Ecol. Econ., 1, 303-314 (1989); E. Neumayer, Env. and Res. Econ. 15, 257-278 (2000); W. Nordhaus, E.
C. Kokkelenderg, Nature’s Numbers: Expanding national Income Accounts to Include the Environment, Washington
DC: National Academy Press, (1999).
7
C.W. Cobb, J.B. Cobb, The Green National Product: A Proposed Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
(University of America, Maryland. 1994); C. Cobb, T. Halstead, J. Rowe, The Genuine Progress Indicator,
(Redefining Progress, San Francisco, 1995).
8
UN, System of National Accounts: Prepared Under the Auspices of the Inter Secretariat Working Group on
National Accounts, (Com. of the European Comm./IMF/OECD/ UN/ WB, Washington D.C 1993).; P. Bartelmus, In
Uno and Bartelmus (Eds.) Environmental Accounting in Theory and Practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, (1998); P. Bartelmus, Ecol. Econ. 29, 155-170 (1999); P. Bartelmus, E. Lutz, S. Schweinfest, Integrated
Environmental and Economic Accounting: A Case Study for Papua New Guinea, (Environment working paper no.
54, The World Bank, Washington DC 1992).
9
R. Repetto, W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, F. Rossini, Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income
Accounts, Washington D.C: World Resource Institute.(1989); R. Repetto, W.Cruz, Accounts Overdue: Natural
Resource Depreciation in Costa Rica Washington D.C: World Resource Institute, (1991).
10
S. J. Keuning, A.E. Steenge, Struct. Change and Econ. Dynamics, 10, 1-13 (1999); S.J. Keuning, J.V. Dalen,
M.D. Haan, Struct. Change and Econ. Dynamics, 10, 15-38 (1999).
11
W.E. Rees, Ecol. Econ. 32, 371-374 (2000); W. E. Rees, M. Wackernagel, Ecol. Econ., 29, 47-52 (1999); W.
E.Rees, Ecol. Econ. 25, 49-52 (1998); M.Wackernagel, Ecol. Econ. 29, 13-15 (1999).
12
S. Anand, and A. Sen,, World Dev., 28, 2029-2049 (2000).
13
R. Diwan, J. of Socio-Economics, 29, 305-340, (2000); & Gandhi Marg, 20, 421-443, (1999).
14
R. Norgaard, Futures 606-620, (1988).
15 R.W. Kates et al. Science 292, 641-642 (2001).
16 Beckerman, W., Pasek, J., 2001, Justice, Posterity and the Environment, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
8
17
R.U Ayres, J.C.J.M van den Bergh, J.M Gowdy, Env. Ethics, 23, 155-168 (2001);M. Munasinghe, Int. J. Global
Env. Issues, 1, 13-55 (2001); N. E. Harrison, Constructing Sustainable Development, Albany:SUNY, (2000); K.
Lee, A. Holland, D. McNeill, Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.
Press, (2000).
18
Zoeteman, K., Ecosystem Health, 6, (4), 237 –245, (2000).
19
Gowdy, J. M., McDaniel C., Land Economics, 75(2) 333-338, (1999).
20
Devkota, S.R., Strong sustainability: Example from Nepal, in publication process (2001).