“Sustainability” is an inherently dynamic, indefinite and contested concept. “Sustainable development” must, therefore, be seen as an unending process—defined not by fixed goals or the specific means of achieving them, but by an approach to creating change through continuous learning and adaptation. How, then, do we evaluate a development program’s contribution to such a process? This paper constructs a framework for evaluating sustainable rural development programs using both process- and outcome-oriented criteria, and demonstrates its application. The SANREM CRSP/SEA research and development program in The Philippines—including ICRAFs efforts to organize communities around agroforestry and environmental conservation—is assessed.
As pervasive as the term may be in our discourse, “sustainability” is far from having a clear, distinct, or wholly accepted meaning in contemporary development circles (Preto, 1996). “Sustainability” is increasingly cited as an explicit goal of development efforts and remains a widely-touted global concern in spite of the fact that it is an inherently “complex and contested concept… [for which] precise and absolute definitions… are impossible” (Pretty, 1995, p. 1248).1 This situation raises many questions which remain unanswered despite the popularity of the concept. One pressing question is how to evaluate programs that claim “sustainable development” as an explicit goal. In response, this paper reviews the commonly accepted core characteristics of sustainable development and uses them as the foundation for constructing a framework for the comparative evaluation of sustainable rural development programs. Finally, to demonstrate its application, the framework is used to evaluate a research and development program in the southern Philippines known as the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program/Southeast Asia (SANREM CRSP/SEA). This US Agency for International Development-funded program was selected because its broad, comprehensive goals made it an ideal candidate for an evaluation of this kind.
As others have noted, the concept of sustainability is inherently difficult to pin down because its specific meaning and practical applications are: (a) highly dynamic—as a result of constantly seeking balance in the face of shifting background conditions ( Angelsen, Fjeldstad, & Sumaila, 1994; Uphoff, Esman, & Krishna, 1998; World Bank, 2003); (b) largely indefinite—as a result of being based on necessarily abstract, context-specific, and very long-term goals ( Flora, 2001; Harrington, 1995; van Pelt, 1993); and (c) highly contested—as a result of the many human values, perceptions and competing political interests evoked by the concept ( Bell & Morse, 2003; Pretty, 1995). Of course, “development” is another normative idea open to considerable interpretation and debate on its own ( Kaplan, 2000). Thus, the notion of “sustainable development” has become something of an intellectual quagmire of contested uncertainty. The intention of this article is to help move the debate forward by accepting the concept’s inherent uncertainties and establishing some common ground nonetheless.
