The participants presented their own views on sustainability, and the means of measuring it in their respective areas. Though most agreed on the issues that constitute sustainability, it was clear that sustainability was like the proverbial elephant that four blind people try to describe. The emerging picture was gaining in size constantly, making it difficult to limit the definition to any of those offered by the participants. This problem was universal, said the organisers. Experts, all over the globe, are still trying to come up with an acceptable definition of sustainability that would allow creditable assessment and measurement.
However, by the end of day one, the organisers presented one definition that, they claimed, had earlier been accepted at similar workshops in other parts of the world. And according to them, sustainibilty is "the maintenance and improvement of the well-being of people and ecosystems together".
The second day started with Kishore Saint of the Ubeswar Vikas Mandal, Udaipur, presenting a brief summary of the beginning and development of the environmental movement in the West, starting with the industrial revolution and coming right down to the Rio Convention of 1992. "We need to understand this in order to be able to see our work in a larger, global context," he said. He stressed on the use of the term well-being in the definition as it enveloped a more comprehensive and all-encompassing view of human existence. The problem, he emphatically added, "is that we have failed to get the entire picture in perspective as we have not been doing our homework properly." Agreement was unanimous.
Egged on by Saint's summary, Jagmohan Kathait of the Society for Integrated Development of Himalaya ( sidh ), a ngo involved in educational activities in district Tehri, said that his organisation faced a problem that was not uncommon. "Earlier, we used to go around villages advocating the use of chemical fertilisers to farmers. Now, we go to the same people and ask them to limit the use of these as they have a lot of undesirable side-effects. They are becoming sceptical of our work," he expressed. Other field workers, too, recounted similar problems.
C Ashok Kumar, representing the Bangalore division of the ngo Development Alternatives, and one of the organisers, reacted to this by saying that the process of assessment is an on-going one, and that it need not be restricted to the end of a project. This, he added, would help in assessing the ground reality better. This brought the gathering to a new set of questions: What is assessment, why should we do it, and how do you go about doing it?
"Assessment is a process of collecting data, analysing information and making judgements to promote reflection, improve decisions and action, and achieve goals," said MacPherson. That brought the workshop to a point raised right at the beginning: how do you go about assessing sustainability in a comprehensive, measurable manner? The answer was indicators, a word that dominated the proceedings thereafter.
"If indicators is what you need to obtain a clearer picture of the people and the environment, then you need to arrive at a method of giving weightage to the indicators, because there are too many of them," said MacPherson, pointing to the wall behind her that was covered with numerous indicators suggested by the participants.
Then came the most exhausting exercise for both the participants and the iucn team. "It took us six months to explain this novel approach to the people of Tumkur in Karnataka. I will try and put it across in one day," said Kumar. The new approach was applied to the prevailing situation in some of the villages in the region, and a hypothetical and simple scale was used to demonstrate the measurability of the indicators.
The findings were placed on a bar chart that weighed "human well-being" against the "well-being of the ecosystem". The iucn team has christened it the "barometer of sustainability". It was demonstrated how the meeting line in the barometer would reveal the level of sustainability in any given area. Having gone through a two-day exercise, the participants were visibly excited about the end product.
However, some had reservations. "This approach is not in a usable state. Things are not clear enough," said Pankaj Kumar of the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development ( spwd ), which is involved in natural resource management and watershed development activities in the Himalayan region. "I get the impression that the process is esoteric and takes a lot of time to master," he added.
Kumar had the answer. "I think we are expecting too much out of an introductory workshop," he said. He firmly believes that the approach can be used on the grassroots level. "It is very difficult to communicate a 'new' approach in all its aspects in so short a time," said Chatterjee. "The hope I have is that it can help enable people of these institutions to make better choices from among so many needs and options, as well as to deal with the larger systems of which we are a part," he added. "Despite the drawbacks and paucity of time, participants were very articulate in putting forward their key issues and excellent ideas for indicators to measure them," said MacPherson.
However, the level of interest generated in the participants was a positive sign, if anything. Everyone agreed that they required more time at the workshop. They seemed convinced that a change in approach was needed to get the "bigger picture". The effort, one can say, has to be sustained.