Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability

Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

Anil K Gupta1

Introduction

Human interactions with complex ecosystems are influenced by the socio-cultural, technological and institutional context of natural resource systems. The variability in the socio-cultural systems does not mean that all interactions are unique and only relevant for a given location. The etic and emic meanings of nature and their role in our life have been studied by the scholars for long time. What is becoming quite apparent now is the fact that coping strategies of communities and individuals with stresses in the ecosystems have somehow become narrower over time. The result is that many choices, which are not necessarily sustainable, get made on the grounds of expediency. Once the sub-optimality sets in, the downward spiral of the ecological degradation leading to more intensification and in turn further degradation follows. On the other hand, when communities are able to cope creatively through their own institutional mechanisms and periodic innovations in methods of resource use or ways of resource augmentation or conservation, the human choices start expanding. Once in a while, the inability of societies or communities to constraint their choices beyond a limit and in a voluntary manner trigger breakdown of institutions and the conservation ethic.

As resource managers and policy planners, we are interested in finding out when would a system be heading towards a downward spiral or moving on to a sustainable conservation path. But if we come to know too late, we can only regret. If we come to know early, but with very low certainty, we may develop inertia. The indicators, which help us keep track of our expectations such that we are neither immobilised by inertia nor trapped by inevitable doom are the ones that will help us, make sense of the complexity in a parsimonious manner.

'Development' has been defined as a process of extending the time frame and widening the decision-making horizon (Gupta, 1981a, Gupta et.al.,1995). If my choices become wider and the time frame in which I approach the choices becomes longer, I would be obviously concerned about sustainability of the system and also implicitly, about the rights of other non-human sentient beings. How do we choose the criteria that will help us in deciding the considerations to be taken into account for making a decision? We would need indicators to ensure that the relevant criteria and considerations are being followed with desirable results. The criteria thus are like thumb rules to decide whether to go or not to go in a direction. The decision also depends upon the underlying principles such as ethical considerations. In other words, we may like to go in a particular direction but not at any cost. We may have to consider the choice of technologies we use, resources we transform or use and the rate at which we generate negative externalities (reversible or irreversible). Further, whom do we affect, how much and at what cost are some of the other issues that have to be influenced by the choice of indicators.

Therefore, one of the criteria for sustainability may be that any resource use strategy must leave some margin for unforeseen contingencies as well as provides sufficiently for the survival of non- human sentient beings. The principles could be that technology or institutional arrangement should not impair the balance in the ecological systems and in fact should restore the already broken links in the chain. While doing so, another principle may be that one should try to

1 I am grateful to my colleague Dr. Shrabani B.Ghosh in reviewing the papers summarised in last part of the paper. The usual disclaimers apply.

i Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

have shorter feedback cycles so that it does not take too long to realise what has gone wrong and how much. The indicators of ecosystem health can be technological, institutional, socio-cultural and process related. For instance, if the criteria of having some redundancy is followed, then while building a watershed project, one would not think of only one kind of approach for water harvesting (such as check dams). The principle of in situ conservation would be followed in such a manner that share of downstream people as well as wildlife is not affected adversely. Where it is indeed affected, we try to take the interest of the affected parties into account while expanding our own choices. The indicators which ensure that this process actually happens could be (a) the extent of run off, (b) the rate of siltation of canals or channels, (c) the existence of such water storage structures which can also be used by wildlife (d) the increase in the water table or arresting the decline, (e) the coordination among different farmers for managing run off of one field as input for another field, and (f) institutional mechanisms which make periodic review of conservation strategy mandatory if the goals of conservation are not being adequately met.

Which indicator should be given what weightage is very crucial for strategic decision making. Obviously, we cannot use the same indicators at micro and macro level, in near or long term, and for individual or group purposes. The strategic choices may require more robust indicators than day-to-day management decisions.

A. Properties of a good indicator: a. Is it parsimonious or "optimally inaccurate"?

Amartya Sen in a seminal contribution on "Description as Choice" (1981) asked a question, is an accurate description always good one? He took an example of population proportions. When we say one in five people on the earth is Chinese, it gives some sense of Chinese population. It is not a very accurate description. Likewise, when we look at an indicator species to suggest degree of degradation, it only gives an approximate information. For instance, a grazing land dominated by Tephrosia sps in arid region indicates a degraded pasture. Obviously, such an indicator would not be very accurate but would give reasonable idea about the nature of problem. In terms of institutional health of a common property institution, if sanctions against violation of rules involve both monetary and non-monetary punishments, it is likely to be more sustainable than if there are only monetary sanctions. Further, the non-monetary sanctions in general are better than monetary ones. The reason is that unless a sanction generates internal reflection, an attitudinal change is unlikely to come about. The non-monetary sanctions may have such an impact more likely than otherwise.

The òptimal inaccuracy', in my view, is a way of making a trade-off between exactness and goodness. After all, an indicator is as good as the usable information it provides to the decision-makers. b. Is it ìnternally' and èxternally' valid?

Internal validity means that an indicator measures what it is supposed to. The external validity implies that it measures the same thing everywhere, i.e., it is generalisable. The internal validity would depend upon the logical consistency between the indicator and the phenomena being indicated. Taking the case of Tephrosia, it is a non-edible wood shrub. Its dominance suggests that excessive grazing pressure has led to elimination of other edible

ii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

herbs and grasses leaving low competition for Tephrosia. Thus, it is internally valid. Now if this indicator holds good not just in or two villages but in larger parts of arid grazing lands in a given region, it could be considered as externally valid also. c. Is it easily understandable by various groups of users?

Same indicator may not be useful for different kinds of users. A macro planner using satellite images would look for different indicators than a micro level planner, be it a community or a formal institution. d. Does it enable inter-connections among different sub-systems?

To what extent does an indicator show inter-connections among different components of an institutional or ecological system? The ratio between the different life forms in a given natural vegetation may be indicating certain properties of an ecosystem viz., in some semi-arid regions, silvipastoral systems may exhibit a particular ratio of herbs shrubs and trees. The connections between the species compositions, the organic matter content, biodiversity and soil erosion can be understood better through this ratio. If the same ratio is applied to assess the soil quality, slope, temperature, etc., one can generate even more information. e. Is it easy to compare different situations over space, season and sector?

Not all indicators help in predicting future trend of changes in different components over space, season and sector. For instance, if the annual accounts are shared with all the constituents in an institution in a transparent manner every year, with a possibility of stakeholders asking questions and getting information, it may contribute towards sustainability. However, whether these accounts are designed to reveal the truth or mask it would depend upon ethical values of the institutions. In case sufficient information is given, it is possible that inter-relationships among different components over time and space may be inferred provided other institutions are also following similar trends. In the context of natural resources, a good example is the criteria for evaluation for rainfed crop varieties. Generally, the scientists use the 'grain yield' as an indicator of superiority of a variety over the existing ones. They may also look at stability of this yield. However, they very seldom evaluate the germplasm as well as the advanced lines on the basis of fodder content and quality. This is so despite the fact that majority of small farmers depend upon livestock as a major means of livelihood in dry region. The indicator of 'harvest index' together with quality of fodder would provide information about the possible suitability of a given variety for livelihood support systems of small farmers. In a watershed project, a provision for drinking water for the animals, birds and others would certainly contribute more to the ecosystems' sustainability than otherwise. f. How specific an indicator is to a given context whether moral, spiritual, cultural or socio- cultural?

Some indicators are highly context specific (Emic indicators) whereas others are not cultural specific (Etic indicators). It is useful to identify the context of an indicator so that one knows the constraints under which it should be used. The proportion of young to old cows in a given region gives an indication on the dominant mode of land use as well as livestock breeding goals. In many dry regions one notices much higher young to old cows ratio. The calves from this region are taken for rearing to other regions where demand for

iii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

drought power or milch cows is higher. However, this may not be the case in extreme arid region or in a region where cows are reared for meat purposes. The culture-specific indicators help in improving the fit between indicators and its environment.

The spiritual understanding of different communities of natural resources is also different. Some communities consider certain specific animals, plants, or rocks as sacred and therefore, conserve these with greater devotion. These sacred species or stones may indicate the keystone species or critical landmasses. But it need not be so always. The myths and legends need not have a direct correspondence with the ecological functions. g. Does the indicator have high or low entropy?

Various indicators maintain their consistency to varying extent over time and space. The decrease in the meaningfulness of an indicator over time implies high entropy. There are several ways in which communities ensure that indicators may have low entropy. The fables or other kinds of folklore and folk art help in maintaining low entropy. h. To what extent an indicator is gender sensitive?

Some indicators reveal the differential stress on men and women in a given community while others don’t. For instance, if we look at the degree of change in technologies used by women in everyday life, we can very precisely understand the attention the R&D institution play to the needs of women. Whether it is water pulley, cooking stove or hand sickles, the changes are far less significant or consequential than in bullock cart, other farm tools or those farm operations performed by men. An example to the contrary is available from Gondal region of Gujarat (see figure one). The King of Gondal more than hundred years ago noticed that women carrying heavy head loads faced a typical problem on the roads. When they got tired, and kept their head load on the ground, they had to wait for someone to help them lift it up again. If they tried to do on their own, they faced physiological problems. Thus, women carrying loads alone tried to stress themselves more and more and got fatigued in the process. He got raised platforms built along the way at an interval of mile so that even a single women could keep her load on the platform, take rest and then put it back on the head and move on. This is a very good indicator of the sensitivity of policy planners to the gender specific stresses in livelihood support systems. An indicator of this kind helps in targeting and focussing the development programmes much more sharply than otherwise. Another example is the research on relative efficiency of different combinations of fuels used in various arrangements by women in rural areas. There is hardly any research on the subject. In Bangladesh, it is found that poor women often made the barbecue of cow dung on jute sticks for managing heat and energy use efficiently. Innovations in different sub systems are good indicators of the ability of a community to overcome various constraints through their own genius. The gender specific innovations are generally less in the case of women because in many Asian societies they are culturally coerced to adapt rather than transcend various constraints. In addition, they also do not have access to various artisans' tools.

The typology of indicators can be developed by looking at the characteristics described above in conjunction with the contextual variables. Not all indicators will provide early warning signal with the same lead time. The indicators whether of rain or other environmental features have their utility because they provide us time to prepare for the contingency or avoid a calamity or even an usual stress.

iv Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

Whenever we choose indicators for understanding a phenomenon, we invariably make selection under which lies our values. The values can guide the weight we attach to the relative accuracy, lead time and the possible informational value about different components or their inter-relationships in a system. These weights don’t have to be equal. For instance, while appraising sustainability of a common property institution, I need not give equal weight to the indicators of ecosystem health vis-à-vis institutional health. If institutions are sick, resources will degrade sooner or later. But if institutions are strong, either resource will not get degraded or if degraded for any reason, it would get restored. Hence, one needs to include among indicators of institutional health the periodicity of consultation, the space for marginal people to articulate their voices, the role of conservation ethics in day-to-day working of the institutions, ability of women to influence the agenda of collective institution, concern for the non-human sentient beings while allocating resources, and combination of monetary and non-monetary sanctions, etc.

It is not possible to achieve the goals of equality, excellence, environmental conservation, efficiency and ethical consistency to the same extent or in the same time or sequence in any one programme. Different institutions will give varying importance to these goals and yet avoid making trade-off amongst them.

The problem in feasibility of meeting above goals need not constrain the domain of desirability. After all, the efforts a community or an institution makes to achieve some goals will depend upon the importance it attaches to those goals and the confidence it has in achieving them. The desirability of achieving various goals of sustainability can be determined by four kinds of considerations:

I. The interest of those who are present or who may be in future (inter-generational equity).

II. Stakes of those who have or have not (intra-generational equity).

III. Decisions are made as close to the place of action as possible (subsidiarity principle).

IV. Serving the interest of non-human sentient beings such as the perfect stranger (the unknown and unknowable).

I. The interest of those who are present now or who may live in future (inter- generational equity).

The indicators that help us in achieving inter-generational equity would require that we have some way of finding out the preferences of unborn. It is obvious that we cannot do that. But what we can do is to make it possible for the future generation to exercise choices which are as many as we have, if not more. The sustainability of groundwater use or land use or forest or biodiversity use would determine the extent to which future generation can emphasize those choices. Sometimes, the concept of precautionary principle is also invoked to achieve the same result. The precautionary principle implies that whenever we are in doubt, we should err on the side of caution and thus use resources in a conservative manner. However, given all the other constraints, not taking any action may itself affect the interest of the unborn the most. In a situation where most resources are

v Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

under stress due to population growth as well as other biotic and abiotic pressures, not doing anything amounts to legitimizing these pressures and their consequent adverse effects on environment. The risk involved in introducing new technologies whether biotechnological or otherwise has to be taken cautiously, prudently but positively. By not exploring technological options, one cannot widen the choices of either the present or the future generation. To ensure that these choices are exercised in a most responsible manner, we will require appropriate institutional arrangements.

II. Stakes of those who have or have not (intra-generational equity).

The intra-generational equity essentially requires aligning access, assurance, ability, and attitudes of various stakeholders around ecological resources, institutions, technologies and socio-cultural dimensions (Gupta, 1987, 1995). It is very difficult to achieve equity in each resource market. It is perhaps not even required. One should try to achieve equity at the level of portfolio of the households such that different people having comparative advantage in using different kinds of resources will have unequal entitlements for each of those resources (Gupta, 1988,1989, 1998, Gupta et.al. 1995). Indicators of equity will be reflected in the access differential whether to resources, technologies, skills or other mechanisms to convert resources into investments. The historically disadvantaged communities may not have had the opportunity to develop skills for using certain kinds of resources. One can argue that being unable to use the resources efficiently, say land, one should not try to allocate land to the inefficient users. Such an argument in defense of status quo implicitly suggests that the present users of a given resource are essentially the most efficient users. Nothing could be farther from truth. The efficiency sometimes may go down because of inadequate information of improper tools.

Therefore, indicators which promote experimentation and entrepreneurship are always preferred over indicators which justify status quo. Another aspect of intra- generational equity is the ability of `have nots' to acquire new skills and perspectives to add value to what they know and/or good at. The indicator of this process in a research system will be the number of experiments started, stopped or modified on the basis of the knowledge, innovation and practices being fed into research planning. If innovations by the `have nots' have not been taken note of, then it is very obvious that systems is not responsive to the expectations of the 'have nots'. Likewise, if those bits of knowledge, in which poor people are rich, are not built upon in developmental programme, then the possibility of intra- generational equity is remote.

III. Decisions are made as close to the place of action as possible (Subsidiarity principle)

The subsidiarity principle suggests that delegation of powers must be made as close to the point of action as possible so that decisions are taken in close proximity of the real situation. Very many times, the control systems are so designed in formal organisations that most of the power is concentrated in the hands of those who are far away from the real site of action. Sustainability requires mid-course correction and in real time. This is not possible through long

vi Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

feedback cycles. The feedback cycles have to be short particularly if the responsiveness of the system has to be high.

IV. Serving the interest of non-human sentient beings such as the perfect stranger (the unknown and unknowable)

The feelings of birds, the insects, other wildlife are not easy to understand and reciprocate. The fact that hardly four per cent area in India is under national parks and sanctuaries available for wildlife to live indicates the pressure on wildlife. Most of the traditional institutions for taking care of the animals and birds are coming under strain. There were many institutions, which encouraged people to pool resources to feed the birds even in the period of stress. One of the viable indicators of sustainability of any natural resource project is the space it provides for the support system for non-human sentient beings. Very often the natural resource planners do not realize that ecosystems can be managed in a sustainable manner in the long run only if the food chains of various species are well integrated in a food web. The indicators of sustainability in such cases will be those critical links which if not taken care of can start a cascading effect.

B. Different kinds of indicators:

Variety of indicators has been developed to monitor the health of an ecosystem as well as the health of institutions governing that ecosystem. However, I would like to mention here those kinds of indicators, which are less appreciated or highlighted while looking at the sustainability of a system.

1. Plimsoll indicators or measures of homeostasis.

The Plimsoll line in a ship determines the range within which a ship can swing from left to right without sinking. It is a kind of buffering capacity of an ecosystem. How much flood or drought can a system bear such that it recuperates its health after a temporary period of stress? Such indicators are extremely important in rainfed regions where the capacity of an ecosystem to bear stresses becomes a crucial determinant of sustainability. That is why diversified cropping systems, agroforestry systems and interaction among terrestrial and aquatic diversity are looked at from the point of view of buffering capacity. When a farmer grows a crop mixture, he knows that some crops may do well if rain is too early or too much or too late. In either case, the farmer would get at least some return which in mono-crop system would not have been possible. In a forest, or watershed, similar Plimsoll indicators have to be developed which provide a resource manager, the understanding of the range within which the component of a system can vary. The effect of variance in each component and the interaction among these components can be measured through longitudinal studies. Unfortunately, there are very few twenty to thirty years long experiments on natural resource management in most developing countries. The result is absence of well-established or validated indicators of homeostasis.

2. Analogic or digital indicators

The former refers to metaphorical indicators whereas the latter signify the precise measurable indicators. Many times, in our search for measurability in quantitative or even qualitative terms we tend to ignore the metaphorical indicators which reveal underlying tensions in a given system. For instance, if people distort the meaning of a programme by

vii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

coining new expansions for the acronym, it indicates that covert and overt meanings of development are quite contradictory in a given situation. For instance, in a drought prone area programme, the popular interpretation of the motivation of implemnting officials was captured through a metaphorical expansions of DPAP as `daru pio aur pilawo' (drink yourself and make others drink). This indicator clearly demonstrates the popular perception of the programme, which they see as a means for the concerned bureaucracy to misuse the resources and waste them in drinking, or other luxury consumption. Likewise, IRDP i.e., Integrated Rural Development Programme was given a new interpretation by bankers in a given region. They expressed their constraints by expanding IRDP as follows, 'Inhe rin dena padega' i.e., one will have to give loans to these people. The unwillingness of bankers and the feeling of compulsion under which they gave loans to poor people comes out in the metaphorical indicator. One can certainly look at such acronyms as powerful pointers to the underlying dynamics of a programme.

3. Proximal or distant indicator

Certain kind of changes in a natural resource system can be observed only by a monitoring by a close quarter whereas some other kind can be monitored through either remote sensing images or monitoring such changes which can be observed by a distance. Forest fires can be looked at from a long distance but changes in the insect population or even the bird movements cannot be studied from a long distance.

4. Indicators of sequential synergism

It has been argued earlier (Gupta, 1981b) that the synergy of sequence is a much less appreciated feature of developmental monitoring. Same things or actions in varying sequences can have totally different outcomes. One of the ways in which one can understand the same point through transaction cost economics is to look at the proportion and process of ex ante transaction cost and ex poste transaction cost. The former refers to the cost of searching the information, negotiation and drawing up the contracts. The ex poste deals with the cost of enforcement, monitoring compliance, side payments and redrawing the contract if necessary. It has been argued (Gupta and Prakash, 1994) that there is an inverse correlation between ex ante and ex poste transaction cost. If we spend time in explaining the objectives of the project, discussing various implications of changing the content and composition of the project with the potential participants in detail, it is possible that people internalize the need for complying with the rules that they may have themselves contributed or helped in evolving. On the other hand, if the project concept and design is top down, it is understandable that people will not feel involved and responsible for the outcomes. The sequence in which consultations are done, and information is shared, influences the need for subsequent steps.

5. Causal or symptotic indicators

The indicators do not always reveal causality. One should be careful in interpreting the signals revealed by an indicator. There are also cases where causality may hold good at macro level but not at micro level. This is called ecological fallacy, for e.g. an indicator holds good macro level, but the same indicator may not hold good at micro level. For instance, the population pressure leads to ecological degradation is a valid assumption at a macro level. However at micro level, one may notice that there are villages which have higher population growth and still are better in terms of conservation of natural resources. There may be institutions at micro level, which may mask or compensate the effect of

viii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

population in above case. The causal indicators require availability of valid theory, which is quite contextualised in a given region.

6. Multi functional or single purpose indicators

Some indicators reveal multiple dimension of a natural resource health while others only one or two dimensions. For instance, if we look at the fallow period in a cropping sequence, as an indicator of sustainability we get information about turnaround time, the land utilisation index, the ability of farmers to afford seasonal fallowing as a way of soil enrichment and rest, etc. On the other hand, if we look at just the area under any single crop, we may get limited information. Similarly, if we look at the ratio of open wells to tube wells for irrigation, we can draw inference about the nature of ground water table, recuperation rate, and the ability of farmers to invest in water lifting technologies. Generally, the ratio is higher in rain-fed hard rock regions and lower in the regions where ample ground water resources exist.

Likewise, there can be many other kinds of indicators such as assimilative and integrative vis-a- vis analytical and reductionist, context based or content based, indicators of social networks versus individual propensities, existence of bequest value vis-a-vis exchange or use value and indicators of average performance vis-a-vis the best performance. The purpose of the foregoing discussions is to generate sensitivities about the theoretical context in which search for criteria and indicators should be pursued.

In this volume, the papers presented at the UNESCO sponsored Regional Training Workshop on Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability are included along with summaries of reports based on group discussion about different dimensions of sustainability. Subsequent to the conference, a small meeting of core group took place to look at the outcome of the conference and bring out a simple synthesis of the framework which practising managers can use.

Organisation of the book

The book is divided into six parts. Part one deals with natural resources management. Part two pertains to the rural development: concept, theories and policies. Part three confines to the various aspects of institutions. Part four comprises the case studies from South and central Asian countries. Part five contains the selected papers under competition category, contributed by young scholars who were actively involved in the field of rural development. The respective country representatives have reviewed the C & I of sustainability in rural development in context of their national policies. Part six is the consummation of the core group meeting which was held to discuss the outcome of the workshop and draw an operational framework to develop indicators that can be used by decision makers/ practicing managers.

Review of Papers

Rangnekar, Soni, and Kakade describe the indicators of sustainable rural development developed in their NGO viz., BAIF to strike a balance between the interests and perceptions of individuals and communities about economic, ecological and social dimensions of sustainability. They have listed various indicators such as protection and development of village commons, sale of productive animals, and percentage of underprivileged people involved in the development programme to monitor ecological, economic and social dimensions respectively. They have also tried to quantify the indicators by ranking performance of different projects on different criteria within an indicator. Five basic dimensions of rural development have been enumerated: land

ix Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development development, soil erosion, water-run-off, crop-livestock production and nutritional status.The status of each dimension is assessed by a scoring system ranging over a scale of 0-100. The performance of the indicators is translated over a common scale so as to get a comparative value. Finally to assess overall sustainability more than one dimension have been combined to construct a barometer of sustainability

Katar Singh looks at the process and the outcome dimensions of sustainability. He focuses on indicators such as factor productivity, crop yields, level of land degradation, deforestation, etc., Choice of indicators depends upon the purpose of measurement and the availability of information. The paper briefly describes some commonly used indicators of sustainability and loss of sustainability in the context of Indian rural development scenario. The indicators of land degradation, depletion of ground water, deforestation and loss of biodiversity (indices of loss of sustainability) present a bleak situation in terms of their sustainability in the near future, unless stringent policies are formulated to conserve all the resources. Even the human development index, which has improved to a great extent since the 1950's, is far below the mark attained by China.

Wickramsinghe notes that literacy levels and life expectancy have increased while there has been decline in the level of infant and maternal mortality rates in Sri Lanka. One might conclude thus that the process of development has reached the level of the medium-developed countries, and in fact is comparable to the countries in the Southeast Asia. But there is no consensus among various stakeholders that these indicators alone capture the elements of sustainability in Sri Lanka. She describes various other indicators that may give some idea of the sustainability of rural development such as the process of decentralisation, devolution of resources, using local resources as the starting point, self reliance potential of local initiatives, incorporation for external knowledge and resources without impairing the concern for local priorities etc. She regrets that there has not been any systematic study of the C and I of sustainability in Sri Lanka. She does not deal with the implications of ethnicity and associated identities, in generating sustainability of outcomes in rural areas. The role of ethnic identity is becoming a crucial factor in the study of development processes because when benefits are shared unequally, the nationalistic identity is replaced with some other identities which might have origin in language, culture, religious beliefs or even ethnicity or regional perceptions.

This is a problem not unique to any one country in South Asia. Every country has minorities whose perceptions of (C & I) some how do not get incorporated in the macro level C & I chosen by national and international monitors of development process. This is an issue that will need further study to ensure that the concerns of bypassed identities and cultures in every society are not ignored in the study of sustainability. Tensions and conflicts otherwise not captured in usual academic discourse may rupture the entire fabric of social development. It has also to be noted that once the economic forces of society based as these are on play of market forces, start gathering momentum, emergence of sub-national identities among bypassed section of society is bound to become stronger. Thus one of the indicators of sustainability should be the degree of inclusiveness that minorities feel in any development process. To measure such incorporation, one should then look at affirmative actions put in place by various institutions and program authorities.

Gupta provides a broad overview of what he calls, “the crucible of creativity” that is the regions and cultures which have positive correlation between high poverty and high biodiversity. In part one, the relationship between diversity and deprivation is analysed. In part two, the cultural and institutional aspects are studied. In part three, examples form indigenous ecological knowledge system including nature related folk songs generating eco-ethics are reviewed. Cultural diversity and the traditions of indigenous enquiry are pursued in part four. In part five, he discusses the

x Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development reasons for protests emerging from these regions and the nation state's response. In part six, he discusses the mechanism for compensating farmers for preserving diversity. Honey Bee network (Gupta, 1993. 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999) and its mission for protecting the rights of knowledge rich and economically poor people in biodiversity rich regions are discussed next. In part seven, the legal, fiscal and organisational routes for paying compensation are described. Part eight lists the ethical dilemma in conducting discourse on biodiversity. In the last part, areas for follow up action by academics, planners and NGOs are illustrated. It is argued that a discourse on C & I can not be pursued properly unless ethical foundations of the dialogue between local communities and external extractors of local knowledge and resources are analysed systematically.

Lele draws attention to an important distinction between C & I and the thumb rules. He observes,” (another important distinction is that between criteria/indicators and recipes/thumb-rules). C&I (in our definition) can be used to quickly assess and qualify/disqualify a person on grounds of health, but they would not be of much use in telling an unhealthy person how to become healthy. In other words, C&I, not being based upon cause-and-effect relationship between social structure- individual actions-and-ecological outcomes, would tell us little about "why" a system is behaving or not behaving in a sustainable manner. They might, however, be somewhat general, although the experience from health research cautions against generalising too quickly. Recipes, on the other hand, would be based upon understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between social arrangements, individual behaviour, and ecological outcomes”. The author concludes, "in a world of plural values incompatible world views, uncertain knowledge and significant differences in political power, "objective" criteria are logically impossible and even consensual criteria are unlikely unless the "consensus" is an imposed one, or so vague as to be practically useless. If, on the other hand, the main reason for discussing C&I was to use them to help individuals and communities monitor their own progress towards sustainability as they define it, then the canvas becomes much wider. It will become apparent that, in addition to (and probably much more than) C&I which capture the symptoms, we have an understanding of the disease, i.e., of causes-and- effects in the complex relationship between our social institutions, individual values, technology, patterns of ecosystem use, ecological outcomes and social impacts of those outcomes. Only such an understanding can help us move in the long run towards a healthy, sustainable and just society”. Lele’s cautions are justified in view of the ease with which we generalise our research findings without even caring to validate the same by those whose perceptions and interest we are supposed to espouse.

Ramakrishnan suggests use of three different currencies to monitor and evaluate the sustainability including, ecological (land use changes, biomass quality and quantity, water quality and quantity, soil fertility, and energy efficiency), economic (monetary output/input analysis, capital savings or asset accumulation, and dependency ratio), and social (quality of life with more easily measurable indicators such as health and hygiene, nutrition, food security, morbidity symptoms; the difficult to quantify measures such as societal empowerment, and the less tangible ones in the area of social and cultural values). He concludes that ultimately the pursuit

xi Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development of sustainable development requires a series of compromises, made “both in space and time, and depend(s) upon the ecological, social, economic and cultural dimensions of the problem in hand”.

Gupta, in his paper entitled -"Indicators as Indigenous Ecological Knowledge…." proposes a tentative theory of indigenous ecological knowledge systems with an extensive review of ecological indicators. He argues that the indigenous indicators are an useful starting point in understanding the ecosystem complexities and determining the stress points of a system. The clues to the complexities which are provided by the indicators helps the local communities to deal effectively with the variability of nature. The perception of nature by such informal institutions has been illustrated well through several case studies. Evidences have been presented to show how the interactions may take place among the different subsystems of a local knowledge system. He concludes by summarising some possible roles the indicators would play towards monitoring ecosystem changes, evoking appropriate social response and providing thumb rules for action .

Ganguly, Gokhale and Gadgil have attempted to evaluate the performance of the Indian Biosphere Reserves based on World Bank's logical matrix framework. The authors note that these Biosphere Reserves on one hand are quite successful in areas like generating supplementary income but on the other hand have failed to resolve man-nature conflicts. Lack of inter-agency collaboration and overlapping of biosphere reserve areas with the protected areas have been instrumental for the same. While ample scientific research is going on in these reserves, lack of inter-disciplinary studies has led to unavailability of an integrated information system about these. They suggest a modified framework with an improved evaluation of the performance indicator which can happen if the indicators are :( i.) formulated with a special attention to the ecologically disadvantaged people and ( ii.) are able to assess impact of development intervention on the issues of local conflict resolution.

Prakash presents a comparative study report of two eco-institutions existing in South India dedicated to sustainable forest management. Sopina Betta (upland for green manure) is a legal institution having a private property right regime , while Devarakadu (temple forest) is a religious institution and regarded as a common property. Attributes of the two institutions may or may not be similar but the underlying criteria and indicators of sustainability of both the institutions reveals complimentarity and mutual exclusiveness. Author notes that decline of community owned institutions are resulting in fast encroachment and deforestation of the Devarakadus, as against the moderate decline of Sopina betta which are owned privately. What is the factor behind the decline of community owned institutions need to be worked out and negating factors to its sustainability need to be eradicated. The Sopina Betta lands are maintaining a 300 percent higher tree population than that of state forest department recommendations, which is an encouraging situation indeed. Strengthening and developing similar institutions in other regions of the world by incorporating the spirit of these traditional eco-institutions would result in successful regeneration of the forest resources.

Vivekanandan suggests that bottom-up grassroots level approach is essential to meet the needs of the poor. The various methods he elucidates leads to one basic fact that involvement and participation of the local and indigenous community is the sole factor for success in rural development programmes. Of the various tools discussed, the author describes exhibitions and biodiversity contests to be effective participatory tools, which generate literature pertaining to nature conservation. The author foresees that Participatory Action Learning will give way to new

xii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development methods which are more suited to local situations. He concludes emphatically that radical changes should take place in the bureaucracy by empowering the local groups and having transparency in decision making processes .

Ghosh reviews the ecological indicators from a functionality viewpoint. The utility of ecological indicators becomes obvious when accumulating information about the status of a particular ecosystem, which is a must for policy-makers or development practitioners. A large number of biological and environmental indicators have been compiled from different sources and discussed from an ecosystem context. The author particularly describes several bioindicators. The major advantage of the bioindicators is that they often reflect the changes visually and sophisticated measurements are not required. In conclusion, the author makes reference to the indigenous ecological indicators which are time tested and have provided accurate information about ecological changes and natural phenomenon (e.g.rain) to the indigenous communities throughout the ages. She suggests thereby to blend the formal scientific knowledge with the indigenous one for interpretations of ecosystem alterations.

Pastakia analyses the factors affecting the health of an institution and outlines the early warning signals of institutional sustainability. The author contends that both i.e. internal and external threats which may be linked to structural, procedural and cultural problems, lead to liquidation of the resources and can be suitably combated by investing in human resource development and enlightened leadership. The two tables enlisting the types of threat, illustrate that cultural problems are more pronounced as internal threats, and the structural problems are pronounced as external threats. The analytical framework of the institutional sustainability divides it into two components (i.e. health and strength) for conceptual clarity .The author concludes with an exhaustive checklist of indicators which can be of immense help for the development practitioner and institution builders in order to judge the health and durability of the institutes for a sustained period of time.

Prof. Mathur makes us aware of the indispensability of the institutions to attain sustainable development. But he feels that the state-supplied institutions are less effective in this respect than the community based institutions because the latter demand more space for the people's participation in decision making. The author refers to the bitter experiences of the state-sponsored institutions, which have impoverished the community and resources by enforcing their developmental strategies in a top-down manner, and regrets that in many instances the strong states have been responsible for demise of community institutions. Two major challenges that the community institutions face are: (a) the manner in which government plays a role as a powerful force to curb the collective community action and (b) the rules and laws of the government which many a times deprive the local community e.g. the forest dwellers itself from using the forest resources by declaring it as an illegal action.

Kothari et al has discussed about the various dimensions of sustainable development. The authors argue, to understand sustainability in true sense, development must be linked to larger social processes, especially culture and religion. A crucial indicator of sustainable process at the village level could be the extent of self-reliance and greater control over natural resources. Leadership is another important indicator of the process of sustainable development, which provide a vision and direction in context of the rapid changes taking the place in various spheres of society. According to the authors, a synergy has to be maintained between social leadership and managerial skill. Lastly, a judicious interplay between generalisation and specialisation has been emphasised as a necessary indicator for sustainable societies and institutions. A specialised approach may lead to develop skill in a specific context but, would lead to segmented development; whereas a generalised approach will help in integrating this segmented progress.

xiii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

Nanavathy defines the concept and importance of the term 'sustainability', emphasising the fact that it is not a new term for women because they sustain the entire human race. Hence SEWA (Self employed women's association), considers sustainability to be synonymous with self reliance. SEWA is an outstanding example exhibiting institutional sustainability. The author elaborates on the causalities of their institutional sustainability. Each of their development projects are rigorously judged on the scale of a ten point impact measurement. Only if the projects attain a certain agreeable score, are further adapted to the actual criteria for the purpose of execution. This process of self-assessment and self- judgement holds the clue to the long-term viability of this institution.

Rajendra Singh's experiences of conserving water and biodiversity conservation emphasise the necessity of people oriented resource management policies. Success of rejuvenating a dry river, the attempts for which was initiated by the author himself changed the livelihoods of about six hundred villages in Rajasthan. The ephemeral river Arvari was transformed into a perennial one. The major criteria of attaining sustainability in this case were: voluntary community participation, revitalisation of the common property institution, reviving the traditional knowledge of water harvesting, local leadership and group action. Awareness has been inculcated about conservation among the local communities and the forest dwellers, making them active participants in the entire conservation movement. A lifetime achievement came for the villagers, when the President of India felicitated them for their commendable achievement. The author, who heads Tarun Bharat Sangh has proved beyond doubt that the conservation and management of natural resources should be bottom-up approach from the people who are directly concerned with the resource, because they would be better caretakers of it in the long run.

Prof. Athavale feels that scientific measurement of natural recharges to the aquifers is essential for assessing annual safe yield of groundwater of a particular area. The groundwater - a resource which was tapped to combat the insufficiency of surface water is an important natural resource under the threat of overexploitation in India, due to the increasing demands of the population. The results of such measurements carried out by tritium injection method at different locations in the country reveal that overexploitation is maximum in Punjab, Haryana followed by Tamil Nadu , Gujarat, Rajasthan and Western Uttar Pradesh. The author refers to the techniques of 'artificial recharge' of aquifers through surface spreading and well injection as probable means to sustain groundwater utilisation and opines that 'artificial recharge' is of special importance in the Indian context because of its seasonal precipitation pattern. He gives a note of caution about the practice of direct recharge of wells with run-off water without filtering and chlorinating, which may lead to clogging and pollution of groundwater. The concluding section of the paper illustrates two case studies of successful watershed development, where the criteria for sustainability was mass movement and people's participation with a recommendation from the author to generate interactions among scientists, technologists and NGO's and villagers towards efficient water harvest and conservation.

Jain's paper is a reflection of the experiences of AFPRO (Action for Food Production)which extends technical support for rural development to the NGOs. The criteria of sustainability mentioned are quite similar to those of Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan i.e. importance of community organisations and people's involvement, respecting farmer's wisdom and planned, need based technological interventions. Integration of peoples' organisation was the major goal so that community is involved at each stage of development of the project. Four distinct objectives were set along with identification of indicators to monitor the objectives. Decentralisation of decision making and an organised effort of community empowerment was the major outcome of the project. As a result village development committees were formed, women and landless were well represented in the decision making process. However, issues like parallelism of Panchayat

xiv Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development institution and Community Based Organisations, and resource distribution have emerged due to changes in approaches for natural resource management. The author concludes that strategies should be evolved to solve such problematic issues in a meaningful way.

Malhotra clarifies the definition of 'social sustainability' and elaborates the concept of this term. The concept is still at an infancy and needs academic discourses to further its evolution. The author has tried to dissect the concept into three definitions: (i) Maintenance or improvement of people's well-being,(ii) actions of all stakeholder that affect the health of a natural resource, and (iii)maintenance of an equitable distribution of benefits across generations. All of which if taken together present a picture of social sustainability, which according to the author is a relative concept bound by space, time and people.

Harish Kumar has discussed sustainability of drinking water as a natural resource. His critical review of the performance of different government programmes to supply drinking water to the rural sector has identified several problems: low quality (excess amount of fluorine, arsenic, high salinity, lack of demand based supply resulting in illegal tapping of resource and unwillingness of Panchayats to operate and maintain the water connections. The author suggests a participatory demand driven approach and a cost sharing arrangement for sustainability in which 10 per cent capital and 100 per cent operation and maintenance costs would be borne by users. He cautions about the overuse of groundwater, in order to protect it from overexploitation and degradation of quality, he suggests a central legislation against subsidy of electricity tariffs for irrigation, adoption of the 1996 bill, and user monitoring of the resource for judicious use and conservation of this precious resource.

Mandavkar enumerates three criteria: (i) Economic viability, (ii) Management of technology and knowledge and (iii) Equity- for the sustainability and long-term productivity of a natural resource management programme. Each criterion has a defined set of indicators to monitor and evaluate the changes. System productivity, capital formation, crop diversity and diversification into allied activities for instance mark economic viability. This is ensured when there is minimal external input for resource use and the surplus is utilised for asset building investments. Impact indicators of the second criteria i.e. Management of technology and knowledge, are the improvement of water use system with a significant recharging of the shallow aquifers, adoption of integrated and green methods of pest management and an enhancement in farmer- scientist interaction. It was found that marginal farmers buying land from the large farmers out of their saving was an important indicator of equity and interdependence . Other indicators described by the author are employment opportunities, new skills and tools, in-migration and changes in service industry. The author cautions that criteria and indicators mentioned here should not be generalised as they are based on the experiences of a few watershed programs from a semi-arid region and therefore the impact indicators may vary altogether in a different situation.

The theme of the workshop was well focussed in the papers under the competition category. The young scholars have either attempted to develop C&I in a general context or from that of a particular case study. Young scholars have attempted to develop matrices and indices of sustainable rural development.

Depinder Singh Kapur who bagged the best paper award under the competition category, considers 'degree of livelihood support of the rural people and the poor farmers' as the single criteria of sustainable development .The author elucidates the experiences of development interventions in a watershed and a pastureland project. He regrets that it is difficult to determine the final beneficiary of the project and the significance of the development projects in the lives of

xv Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development the rural people. The lack of gainful employment in the rural non-farm sector, population pressures and inequity in landholdings are identified as major hindrances to the achievement of sustainability. In the second part of the paper, a framework is developed to identify sustainability indicators. Kapur opines that an indicator of social and economic sustainability should be the expenditures incurred on food intake and medical care rather than acquiring some electronic or consumer items. He discusses sustainability indicators of economic impacts which include increased opportunity for wage employment, wages higher than market rates, access to gains of common land for the poorest households, and enhancement in food grain availability. The author concludes that local institutions (indicators of social impact) should be empowered and conserved and should not be destroyed by project interventions.

Rajiv Kumar has developed a set of criteria of sustainability and its corresponding indicators by analysing various interventions in natural resource management. For instance, number of initial meetings is an indicator of the criterion of investment made in community organisation; appropriate management is an indicator for the criterion of empowerment of rural stakeholders. Though the attempt here has been to develop indicators for each criteria separately, some indicators satisfy two or more criteria. The author suggests use of a combination of these indicators to evaluate sustainability in a more efficient way. Other C & I discussed are gender and equality issues, encroachment of common property resources, flexible legal environment, role of external agencies and livelihood issues.

The paper contributed by Ali Rasa Moosvi is an attempt towards framing of a development index for forest fringe villages of India. The development index has been framed gauging the relationship of the forests and the villages. A total of three criteria (economic, ecological and social) have been developed, based on the fieldwork in several villages of Andhra Pradesh where JFM has been launched.

Dabrase and Ramachandra examine two contrasting village ecosystems in Kolar district of Karanataka, India, with respect to their energy management and sustainable development. A total of six criteria for the energy use have been discussed in detail by the authors with respect to sustainability of the regions. These are: (i) the type of energy sources should satisfy basic human needs. Here the authors stress on a shift from traditional energy deficient technologies to energy efficient ones so that the opportunity cost in the form of time saved can be utilised for economically productive activities, (ii) the accessibility and affordability of the resource, where the firewood and dung cakes have been contrasted with the use of bio-gas. Likewise, other considerations that have been taken into account are: decentralised planning, importance of education in the adoption of environmentally sound energy sources, adoption of alternate energy sources like solar and wind energy and implementation of energy plantations in the available wasteland (to serve a dual purpose of reclaiming them and also supply energy).

M V Ramachandrudu's article dwells upon the concepts of participation and sustainability. In an ideal condition both these concepts are interdependent. He presents a matrix for analysing the rural development programmes by using the parameters of each of these concepts placed in columns and rows, following the method of relative ranking(RR). This RR method would ensure the exchange of ideas among the stakeholders and promote a greater understanding of the project interventions. Within the matrix there is a provision to develop indicators, which the author suggests should be done in a participatory manner. Relative ranking helps to develop strategies for implementing developmental programme, while the indicators would help to monitor them. The matrix, if used efficiently, can serve as an important tool for the development practitioners provided the limitations/hurdles are tackled efficiently.

xvi Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

Bala Raju presents a study report on recently formed village forest committee(VFC), acting as a resource management institution for managing the forest resources in and around the Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve. The author in his primary survey has documented the fourteen communities present in the study area along with their resource use patterns. This is to ensure efficient participation in the VFC from all communities. The formation of these committees is an attempt to craft an institution for sustainable resource management. Among the several criteria for assessing sustainability of VFC, the quality and stability of leadership are of importance. The author has designed alternative models of VFC that would serve in an autonomous model and developed an extensive list of indicators for studying the VFCs. He concludes that the success of any resource management project depends on framing the right kind of institution.

Pema discusses the C & I of community forestry in Bhutan, which is a very recent (two decades) approach initiated by the government. The author feels that the most important criteria for enhancing rural development is people's participation and suggests transformation of government reserved forests into community forests. The important criteria include the interests of the community(user groups), accessibility and visibility of the forest from the pilot villages, strong tradition of community action , and indigenous institutions of the community. The author has also enumerated a list of indicators which have emerged due to community forestry. Examples are: community institutionalisation enhanced level of participation, cash income generation and accruing of benefits to the community. Author concludes his paper by mentioning the National Acts and Policies related to forestry and conservation.

Ibrahim Rasheed presents a case study of their country, where agriculture is the most important livelihood option. The performance of the agriculture sector has declined due to several constraints which include lack of proper technology and extension service. The land use system mainly consists of equal distribution of cultivable land, community timber plots and leasing of the uninhabited islands for carrying out alternative activities like preparation of salted shark fish etc., apart from agriculture. Since women constitute a major work force in agriculture and allied activities, the author suggests formulation of a national policy to upkeep their welfare.

Janajadoorj presents a case study of rural development in Mongolia. The author elaborates on the kind of progress that may be achieved through the formulation of MAP 21 (Mongolian Action Programme). He emphasises the need for concentrating on the agriculture sector, which is the backbone of rural Mongolian economy. A list of indicators is provided by the author to monitor the extent of rural development.

The country representative of Myanmar, Zan U Thein Win, outlines the major principles of rural development, which revolves around the strengthening of the human resources and social development. Criteria and Indicators have been discussed for the development of the dry zone which is an extremely poor area. The two main components are (i) infrastructure and (ii) socio- economic development. The criteria for the former are transportation, energy and communication while that for socio-economic development are health, education, poverty eradication, agriculture etc. The author suggests the private sector to be actively involved and invest in the agro-based rural enterprises, which will ultimately improve the nation's economy primarily based on agriculture

Ms. Monfarad highlights the role of rural and pastoral women of the Iranian Republic in the perspective of rural development. Life of rural Iranian women, before the 1962 land reform, was determined by the social position and possessions of her husband. It was restricted to child bearing, with all major decisions being dictated by the senior male members of the household. In the post 'land reform' period the greatest hardships fell on the landless women farmers and they

xvii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development generated extra money through handicrafts like carpet (gelim) weaving. The rural women are also engaged in dairy activities, fowl and bee-keeping and silk-worm breeding apart from agriculture and livestock rearing. The rural women are thus considered as the pillars of household economy. The author has highlighted the instinctive environmental awareness of the pastoral women by mentioning some interesting practices. For instance, the women collect pasture plant seeds and hang it on the neck of the sheep so that while grazing the seeds are dispersed to rejuvenate the rangeland in the next season. Both rural and pastoral women also play an important role in the waste reduction and recycling. Despite a proven record of the women's involvement in all spheres of rural life and having more than 50% share in the agricultural manpower, the author contends that the women farmers are not suitably considered by the policy makers. She suggests the need to: (a) adapt policies to train the rural and pastoral women in agricultural and environmental issues,(b) develop policies to eliminate health hazards and (c) create congenial conditions at their workplaces.

Moti Shova Shreshtha, has focussed on the resource management issues of Nepal. The fragile mountain ecosystem of this country faces threats of degradation due to population and livestock pressure and over-exploitation of forest resources. The latest forest policy although recognises five types of forests (national, community, religious, leasehold and private), has stressed mainly on the concept of community forests and legalised the local forestry user groups having an indirect registration with the district forest offices. The author mentions the benefits of the community forestry, which led to income generation for development, and regeneration of forest cover. But problems have emerged related to user rights and management options. The author suggests to establish good communication between the forest user group and the forest officials and solve the issues through community based institutions. In conclusion the author mentions five indicators of sustainability in rural development : Diversification index, Quality of life index, Welfare index, Resource Condition index and Sustainability index.

Matthew Servina traces the historical background of the development scenario in the Seychelles Islands. Being extremely rich in natural resources the country was engaged in the export of valuable spices, live turtles, goats fish oil, vanilla coconut oil and cocoa to European countries. Social development hardly existed as the islanders were mere slaves to the British colonisers. The concept of development planning came only after independence during the mid-seventies. The major thrust of rural development has been on social justice, access to basic health facilities, compulsory school education, social security and equality in terms of wealth distribution. The author points to the assets that exist in terms of the natural and population resources which may serve as a basis for rural development e.g. an unpolluted landmass and marine life and a pleasant climate that attracts tourists to earn foreign exchange. The population with a high literacy level and a energetic youth sector can itself act as a major resource to attain an all-round development. The author presents a long list of people-oriented strategic options and action plan stressing on community participation for rural development. He stresses the need to respect the opinions and ideas of the fellow countrymen, rather than commission foreign individuals to formulate recommendations for development.

Wickramsinghe has introduced a measure of sustainability of rural development termed as the 'Index of Habitat security' based on farmer's self analysis in the Kelegama district of Sri Lanka. This region had a development programme in the form of tank-based cascade irrigation system which transformed the entire village ecosystems as well as quality of village life. The composite index is not merely confined to material wealth but is related to a web of socio-cultural, environmental, political and economic security of the community. A set of criteria was developed under each domain which have captured a broad spectrum of improvements made as a result of the development interventions. Each criterion is quantified by giving a score of 1.0 (relieved

xviii Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development condition), and 0.5 (moderate improvements). According to author's calculation, a community should score 31 points to be in a stable situation. Although the index is complex and involves a lengthy process, it is widely accepted by the local people who find the index as the best way to express their achievements. The whole approach has led to a reawakening of the village and community concept among the village dwellers.

The concluding chapter of the volume is the consummation of the discussions of the core group meeting, which was held to draw an operational framework for developing indicators of sustainability. The participants categorised the indicators based on several dimensions and discussed the attributes of these in detail. The operational framework was subsequently developed to enable the decision makers/ practising managers, realise the importance of responding immediately to an early warning signal of impending changes in a system.

Summing up

The regional training workshop provided a unique opportunity to look at the Asian perceptions of the subject. It is inevitable that quality of paper should vary such a great deal if the participation criteria also is so varied. We had young scholars who brought quite some fresh perspective and also public servants who brought official perspective in the meeting.

The framework in which different authors looked at the question of criteria and indicators of sustainable development from rural development perspectives was quite heterogeneous. The advantage was that many ideas that might have been avoided otherwise were brought into the discussion. The disadvantage was that cumulation of ideas posed tremendous challenge.

It may be said safely that the subject is not only quite complex but also requires an intensive analysis on an extended basis, perhaps in an action research framework. The participation of affected people in defining criteria and indicators need not be over emphasised. May be a multi- stakeholder analysis will be needed before one can conclude the current status of our understanding of the subject. There is however, sufficient knowledge base to warrant considerable improvement in the design and performance of the rural development programmes and projects. This can be suggested as a small contribution of this workshop.

References

Gupta Anil K 1981a. Viable Projects for Unviable Farmers - An Action Research Enquiry into the structure and processes of Rural Poverty in Arid Regions, Symposium on Rural Development in South Asia, IUAES International Congress, Amsterdam.

Gupta Anil K.1981b. Social Effects of Rural Projects Monitoring Through People’s Participation, In: International Review of Administrative Sciences, 47 (3): 241-251.

Gupta Anil K. 1987. Managing Access, Assurance and Ability: What would Rural Development Managers Learn and Unlearn? Working Paper No. 710, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, October, 1987, Presented at International Conference on Designing Curriculum for Rural Development Training, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston.

xix Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development

Gupta Anil K 1988. Survival Under Stress : Socio-Ecological Perspective on Farmers’ Innovation and Risk Adjustments, Working Paper No. 738, 1988, International Congress on Plant Physiology, New Delhi ( revised version published in Capitalism, Nature and Socialism, 5, 79-96).

Gupta Anil K 1989 The Design of Resource-delivery Systems: A Socio-ecological Perspective, Int. Studies of Management and Organization 18 (4): 64-82.

Gupta Anil K 1993. Honey Bee: An Accountable Global Network of Grassroots Innovators and Experimenters, Development 1993 : 65.

Gupta Anil K 1995. Sustainable Institutions for natural resource management: How do we participate in People's plans? In: People's Initiative for Sustainable Development. Lessons of Experience ( Abdus Samad et. al. Eds.) Asian and Pacific Development Centre, Kualalumpur.

. Gupta Anil K 1996a. The Honey Bee Network Strengthens: Knowledge for Crops, Creativity and Compensation, Diversity 12 (3): 76-78.

Gupta Anil K 1996b. Managing Environments Sustainably through Understanding and Assimilating Local Knowledge: The Case of Honey Bee, Jan 1996, IIMA Working Paper No.1337, November 1996

Gupta Anil K 1998 Portfolio approach to Recognising, Respecting, and Rewarding Creativity and Innovation in Conservation.------

Gupta Anil K. 1999. Conserving Biodiversity and Rewarding Associated Knowledge and Innovation Systems: Honey Bee Perspective, invited paper for the First Commonwealth Science Forum – Access, Bioprospecting, Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit Sharing and the Commonwealth, Goa, 23-25 September 1999.

Gupta Anil K and Prakash A. 1994. “Institutions and Environmental Sustainability,” In Willem A Hamel (ed.) Proceedings of the Ecol.- Environ. Management Group, pp. 39-49, The Association of Management, 12th Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas, August 10-13,1994.

Gupta Anil K, Patel Kirit K, Pastakia A.R and Vijaya Sherry Chand P G. 1995. Building Upon Local Creativity and Entrepreneurship in Vulnerable Environments, published in Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Towards Operational Strategies (Eds. Vangile Titi and Naresh Singh), Nova Scotia, Canada; Fernwood Publishing Limited; New Jersey, Zed Books Limited, pp.112-137,

Sen Amartya 1981 Description as Choice . Oxford Economic Papers : 353-369