The risk profile of the earth is changing. For instance, global warming/climate change is now a recognised as a real risk to human welfare. The world has taken cognisance of this and so the ‘triple bottom line’ approach of yore (people, planet, profit) has given way to new ideas.

Across the world, policy-makers, businesses, scientists, non-government organisations and sundry others continue to debate risk reduction strategies, including ‘Reduce, Recycle, Reuse’ ideas.

Sustainability has become a buzz word especially after the UN adopted Sustainable Development Goals 2030 in September 2015 and set 17 broad goals to be achieved in a 15-year period.

More often than not, the word ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable’ is used in a manner that constricts its real scope. Sustainable practices are generally used in a sense to convey actions intended for environmental protection which may include preserving biodiversity, not polluting the atmosphere, reducing carbon footprint, saving water, just use of finite resources, and so on.

But sustainability has meaning or connotation far greater than mere environmental protection although such protection is a critical component of sustainable practices. Sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept.

Host of activities

At the same time, it is possible to apply the word ‘sustainable’ to a host of activities covering, for example, government policies and programmes, business plans, projects, investments, and indeed life as such. Because resources are committed, from a long-term perspective, it becomes important to ascertain whether a policy or programme, business plan, project or investment is sustainable. How does one ascertain sustainability?

This author has developed a 7-way sustainability test. It is called STEEPLE test, for short. Each one of the seven letters in STEEPLE stands for a particular dimension or aspect of sustainability: Social; Technological; Environmental; Economic; Political; Legal; Ethical.

To ascertain sustainability of a subject matter (policy, programme, project, investment, business etc), one must apply this 7-way test to the subject matter. The question to ask is whether the subject matter is: Socially relevant? Technologically feasible? Environmentally friendly? Economically viable? Politically acceptable? Legally unassailable? and Ethically right?

If the answer to each one of the seven aspects of sustainability is in the positive, then there is a high degree of probability that the subject matter (policy, project, investment, etc) is sustainable from a long-term perspective. If the answer to even one is in the negative, the subject matter risks not being sustainable in the long run.

While the response is binary — Yes or No — it needs to be measured; and what can be measured can be improved. So, metrics are currently under development and it is a complex exercise. Costs and benefits have to be measured. For example, social relevance will have to be examined for social costs and social benefits. Likewise, economic viability will have both benefits and costs.

The controversy over agri-market reform laws provides a good test case for applying the 7-way sustainability test to check whether the laws are sustainable from a long-term perspective. Because agriculture has multiple linkages — social, environmental, economic and political to name a few — it is imperative that government policies and programmes are drawn up in a manner that advances the sustainability principle and sustainable practices.

If we are keen to genuinely advance the idea of Aatmanirbhar Bharat, contribution of the farm sector and farmers is critical. Agriculture must enjoy sustained growth in a sustainable manner. Our policies have to ensure equity and inclusivity. We need a long-term national farm policy with regionally differentiated strategies as natural resource endowments vary from region to region.

The writer is a policy commentator and agribusiness specialist. Views are personal