sustainable use: concepts, ambiguities, challenges

REVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE USEConcepts, Ambiguities, Challenges
Paper prepared as background for meeting of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s
Sustainable Use Specialist Group Strategic Planning Meeting
10-13 July 2007 White Oak Plantation, Florida
June 2007
Rosie Cooney Consultant, Biodiversity Policy
Research Fellow, FATE Program, University of New South Wales Visiting Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian
National University [email protected]
1 INTRODUCTION
A small group of dedicated individuals first put sustainable use on the IUCN map at the 1990 Perth General Assembly (Hutton, pers. comm.). Since that time IUCN members and volunteers have made intense efforts to develop thinking and guidance on sustainable use, increase understanding and support for it within and beyond IUCN, and make it an on-the-ground reality. These efforts have been extraordinarily successful. IUCN is a global leader on sustainable use of wild living resources. Landmark commitments have been made by IUCN and by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Now, however, IUCN is seeking to revisit the thinking underlying this work, and in particular to probe the concept or concepts of sustainable use. One component of this is a Strategic Planning meeting of the Species Survival Commission’s Sustainable Use Specialist Group in July 2007. This paper was commissioned as an input into that meeting. The broad terms of reference of this paper are to review and reconsider the meaning of the term “sustainable use”. These terms of reference have slightly shifted focus through the development of this paper, to include sketching out some key challenges facing sustainable use on a number of fronts. It must be emphasised that this paper seeks to raise questions and stimulate and inform debate, rather than to reach settled conclusions. It is necessarily subjective, and informed by personal observations of and participation in debates around sustainable use. It is necessarily partial, as a fully comprehensive examination of these issues is an extremely far- reaching task well beyond its scope. The paper is broken into six main sections. Section Two sets out a brief history of sustainable use within IUCN and other key constituencies, tracing the evolution of policy and guidance on this topic. Section Three addresses conceptual challenges surrounding sustainable use, seeking to articulate some of the ambiguities surrounding the concept and the various ways it is understood and employed. Section Four addresses operational challenges, highlighting some key hurdles and difficulties in implementing sustainable use. Section Five focuses on research challenges, highlighting several key emerging areas of research and thinking of direct relevance to sustainable use. Section Six raises terminological challenges, briefly examining some overlapping or alternative labels for “sustainable use”. Finally, Section Seven pulls together conclusions and questions arising from this review.
2
2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF SUSTAINABLE USE
This paper begins with an introductory overview of the evolution of sustainable use (SU) within IUCN and across some key broader constituencies. It serves the functions both of sketching out IUCN’s engagement on the issue and introducing some concepts and policy processes that will be referred to later in the document.
2.1 Sustainable use within IUCN Sustainable use has an extensive and convoluted history within IUCN spanning several decades. This history includes the evolution of official IUCN policy on SU, the evolution of institutions within IUCN focussed on SU, and the evolution of guidance and thinking developed by IUCN for implementing and achieving SU. These three aspects are integrated here into a chronological narrative. An appropriate starting point is IUCN’s Mission, which is “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable” (emphasis added). This establishes sustainable use of natural resources as a primary objective for IUCN. Early direction on sustainable use is provided in the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, co-authored by IUCN, UNEP and WWF (IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1980). This document recognised the essential role of use of nature and living natural resources in meeting the needs of all humans, and highlighted the importance of “sustainable use” of living natural resources as part of an overall conservation strategy. This message was reiterated in 1991 in “Caring for the Earth”, the update of this strategy (IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1991). More specific endorsement of the role of SU in conservation strategies was made by the IUCN General Assembly in Perth in 1990. Specifically, IUCN here endorsed the concept that under some circumstances, use of living resources could itself contribute to their conservation. Recommendation 18.24 Conservation of Wildlife through Wise Use as a Renewable Natural Resource recognised that "the ethical, wise and sustainable use of some wildlife can provide an alternative or supplementary means of productive land-use, and can be consistent with and encourage conservation, where such use is in accordance with appropriate safeguards”. Initial efforts to draft guidelines on SU followed the adoption of this Recommendation, but these were found to be “too complex for practical application and deficient in not giving sufficient weight to social and economic aspects of sustainability” (IUCN undated). These efforts led to further attention at the following General Assembly in 1994. Here Rec. 19.54 Sustainability of Nonconsumptive and Consumptive Uses of Wild Species affirmed the 1990 position and called for further action. This led to the launch in 1995 of the Sustainable Use Initiative, based in Washington D.C, aimed at improving understanding about the factors that influence sustainability of use, and to the formation of the Sustainable Use Specialist Group within the Species Survival Commission, comprising regional sub-groups. In 1996, the first World Conservation Congress called for a short policy statement on SU to be adopted at the next Congress (Res 1.39).
3
2 A Brief History of Sustainable Use
Table 1. Milestones on sustainable use. A timeline of important milestones (IUCN and external) for policy and IUCN engagement on sustainable use.
1972 Stockholm Declaration No mention of “sustainable” or “sustainability”. States natural resources including fauna and flora should be safeguarded for the benefit of future generations.
1980 World Conservation Strategy: Natural Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (IUCN/UNEP/WWF)
Recognises the essential role of use of nature and living natural resources in meeting the needs of all humans, and highlighted the importance of “sustainable use” of living natural resources as part of an overall conservation strategy.
1987 Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development)
Articulated and vigorously promotes concept of sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
1990 Rec 18.24 of IUCN GA, Perth Endorses sustainable use to, in some circumstances, be consistent with and encourage conservation.
1991 Caring for the Earth (IUCN/UNEP/WWF)
Key messages of World Conservation Strategy reiterated.
1992 Rio Declaration Sustainable development (including environmental protection as integral part) is key theme. No mention of sustainable use or guidance specifically on renewable natural resources.
post 1990
Draft guidelines on SU developed within IUCN
Developed but not adopted as seen as too complex and narrowly biological.
1992 Convention on Biological Diversity
Objectives are “conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources…” (Art 1)
1994 Rec 19.54 of IUCN GA, Buenos Aires
Affirms 1990 position.
1994 CITES Res Conf 8.3 Recognises commercial trade may be beneficial to the conservation of species and/or ecosystems.
1995 IUCN Launch of SUSG and associated SUI.
1996 Res 1.39 of IUCN WCC1, Montreal
Reaffirms 1990 position and calls for development of policy statement on sustainable use for adoption by Union at next Congress.
1998 CBD Dec V/6 Ecosystem Approach principles and operational guidance adopted by CBD.
1997- 2000
Draft IUCN policy on SU of WLRs
Draft developed by SUSG and finalised after wide cross- IUCN consultation.
2000 Res 2.29 of IUCN WCC2, Amman
IUCN Policy on SU of Wild Living Resources adopted.
2001 Analytic Framework IUCN SUSG TAG develops Analytic Framework for Assessing Factors that Influence Sustainability of Uses of Wild Living Natural Resources.
2001 White Oak Principles of SU IUCN SUI/SUSG process develops Definition, Axioms and Principles for sustainable use.
2001 IUCN SUI disbanded and SUT established.
2004 CBD Dec VII/12 Adopts AAP&G for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity.
4
2004 Res3.074 of IUCN WCC3, Bangkok
Endorses AAP&G and their reflection within IUCN policies and programmes.
2003 IUCN SUSG structure revised to include “Global Concepts” group.
2004 CITES Res. Conf. 13. AAP&G endorsed by CITES.
2004 CBD Dec VII/11 Further guidance on Ecosystem Approach adopted.
Over subsequent years much attention was paid to developing thinking and guidance on the factors that influence sustainability of use. As summarised in (Zaccagnini et al. 2001), these efforts include the 1996 document An Initial Procedure for Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species (IUCN SUSG 1996), followed by the SUI’s Factors that Influence Sustainability (cited in Zaccagnini et al., (2001), developed a framework that described a set of 14 variables, analyzed the effects of their direct or indirect interactions, and outlined a model that attempted to estimate the probability of a use being sustainable or not. At a meeting in June 1998 in Antigua, Guatemala, the SUSG Steering Committee proposed the establishment of a committee to organize input from other discussions and develop an analytic framework for understanding the factors that influence sustainability of uses of wild living natural resources. This Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included members with a wide range of expertise, including sociology, economics, ecology, agro-ecology, wildlife management and statistics, and produced an analytic framework discussed in more detail below. Leading up to the second World Conservation Congress (WCC2) in 2000, the SUSG prepared a first draft of the guidance on SU called for by Res 1.39 in 1996. This was amended after consultation with SSC and sent out for comment to all members, Commissions and heads of thematic and regional programmes. After subsequent amendments, it was endorsed by IUCN Council who moved a motion to WCC 2 in favour of its adoption. At WCC2, IUCN adopted the Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources without further modification in Resolution 2.29, and commended it to IUCN's members, Commissions, and Secretariat for implementation in the context of its Overall Programme and in accordance with the objectives of IUCN (Appendix I). Also at WCC2, IUCN also adopted Rec 2.92 Indigenous peoples, sustainable use of natural resources, and international trade. This Recommendation focussed on international trade in wildlife and urged governments to put their sustainable use principles into action and remove their barriers to sustainable use of natural products, in order to improve the viability of indigenous and local communities. In years leading up to 2001, a process led by the SUSG TAC built on previous work to develop the Analytic Framework for Assessing Factors that Influence Sustainability of Uses of Wild Living Natural Resources. This was designed “as a tool for project and public policy designers, implementation agencies and evaluators of projects to determine if a use is or has a probability of being sustainable” (Zaccagnini et al. 2001). This effort went beyond ecological factors and the local (socio- economic) phenomena surrounding use, to encompass the broader social and economic environment including socio-political institutional factors at national and international level, such as foreign debt, conflict, structural poverty and political instability. A meeting convened by SUI/SUSG at the Gilman Foundation White Oak
5
Plantation in 2001 sought to provide a clear definition and guiding principles to provide a common context within which the Analytical Framework might be used. This meeting produced the White Oak Principles of Sustainable Use, a short document establishing a definition, seven axioms and eight principles for SU (Appendix 2). In 2001 the SUI was disbanded, and the Sustainable Use Team (SUT) was formed to carry on this work. SUT acts as the Secretariat for SUSG, and its objectives are to disseminate information and knowledge about sustainable use, facilitate analytic and policy contributions from across IUCN’s diverse programmes and members, and develop tools and build capacity for understanding sustainability. The SUSG remains a key actor in this effort. In 2003 the SUSG structure was reviewed, and to the regional SUSGs a “Global Concepts” group was added. The rationale for its formation was to draw in individuals whose use/trade expertise was not focussed in a specific region, but on issues or policy covering many or all. Since this time there have been some important policy developments within IUCN relevant to SU. IUCN has endorsed the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (AAP&G; see Appendix 3) developed (with strong IUCN involvement) within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; Dec VII/12, and discussed further below). These were endorsed in Res 3.074 Implementing the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, which called on the IUCN Director-General to ensure they were reflected in all IUCN policies and programmes and promote tools for implementation, and called on IUCN and IUCN members to report positive and negative experiences with sustainable-use programmes. More recently, IUCN Council in May 2007 adopted Guidelines for Applying the Precautionary Principle to Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management, an amended version of guidelines developed through a collaborative project led by IUCN (Precautionary Principle Project undated). These have direct relevance for sustainable use initiatives.
2.2 Sustainable use in the broader policy context This section briefly describes some key developments in international policy relevant to sustainable use. While far from comprehensive, it highlights major developments of importance to IUCN. It should be noted that IUCN members have played a key role in many of these. To establish some back ground, it is useful to look at some key founding documents of international policy on the environment. The Stockholm Declaration from the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 contains no mention of the term sustainable, sustainability, or sustainable use. It states that natural resources, including fauna, flora and natural ecosystems, should be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations (Principle 2) and that the capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable resources must be maintained (Principle 3). In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (the “Brundtland Commission”) established the concept of sustainable development as a central vision and objective in international environmental policy, in the landmark publication Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The Rio Declaration adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 developed the concept of sustainable development, and
6
includes reference to “sustainable production and consumption”, but does not make specific reference to sustainable use of wild living resources. Another product of UNCED in 1992 was the Convention on Biological Diversity, the international agreement of primary importance with respect to sustainable use. The objectives of the CBD are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources (Article 1). At least two major processes of policy and guidance development with direct general relevance to sustainable use have taken place within the CBD. In 1995 the CBD adopted the Ecosystem Approach as the ‘primary framework’ of action to be taken under the Convention (Decision II/8). The ecosystem approach can be defined as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way” (Dec V/6). Through a process of workshops, case studies and discussion over subsequent years, the CBD has developed and adopted detailed principles and operational guidance for understanding and implementing the Ecosystem Approach (Dec V/6 and VII/11). The approach directs attention to the structure, processes, functions and interactions within an ecosystem, rather than on specific elements such as single species or populations. It emphasises a holistic, integrative approach, recognising that humans are an integral part of many ecosystems, and integrating socio-economic considerations into decision-making, rather than focussing on biophysical systems detached from their human context. It can apply at any scale, from a grain of soil to the entire biosphere (Dec V/6). Of even more direct relevance to sustainable use are the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity developed within the CBD (Appendix 3). These were developed through a consultative process involving a series of regional workshops focussing on different biomes, and adopted at the seventh Conference of the Parties to in 2004 (CBD Dec VII/12). They comprise a set of 14 “Practical Principles”, each with associated Operational Guideline, and include consideration of topics such as supportive legislative and policy arrangements, empowerment of local resource users, removal of perverse incentives, adaptive management, and avoidance of impacts on ecosystem services. Dec VII/12 further encouraged Parties to initiate a process of “Integrating and mainstreaming the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines into a range of measures including policies, programmes, national legislation and other regulations, sectoral and cross-sectoral plans and programmes addressing consumptive and non consumptive use of components of biological diversity”. CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (came into force 1975), is also directly concerned with sustainable use of wildlife in international trade. In 1994 CITES adopted Resolution 8.3 Recognition of the Benefits of Trade in Wildlife (Res. Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13)). This constituted an important early recognition at international policy level of some of the basic tenets of sustainable use, recognising the potential benefits of commercial trade to the conservation of species and/or ecosystems, and the importance of incentives for sustainable use of wild fauna and flora to avoid conversion of wild landscapes to alternative land uses.
7
The Ramsar Convention on wetlands (came into force 1975) enshrines the principles of conservation and “wise use” of wetlands (Article 3.1). In 1987 wise use of wetlands was defined in terms of sustainable use, as “their sustainable utilization for the benefit of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem “(Ramsar Rec 3.3). Guidance on wise use of wetlands definition has been extensively developed through guidance in 1990 (Annex, Rec 4.10) and 1993 (Annex, Res 5.6) and a series of Wise Use Handbooks. The recently updated definition of wise use of wetlands is “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development” (Ramsar IX.1 Annex A para. 22).
8
3 CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
The first indication that revisiting basic thinking and action on sustainable use is advisable is that there are a range of inherent conceptual and terminological ambiguities surrounding “sustainable use”, and these appear to be growing rather than reaching resolution. To some, sustainable use has become as vague and nebulous a term as “sustainable development”, and providing as little concrete guidance. However, being clear about what one means when discussing “sustainable use” requires being clear about a surprising number of different aspects. These include the objectives of sustainable use, what it means to “support” sustainable use, how “sustainability” is conceived, what is envisaged as being used, what sort of uses are encompassed, and so forth. These ambiguities are highly interlinked, making their systematic exploration challenging. First, however, it is necessary to briefly clarify how I am using the term sustainable use in this paper. Many of the following elements of this definition will be explored in more detail as this analysis progresses. Where not otherwise indicated, the term sustainable use refers to sustainable use of wild living resources (adopting the terminology used in the IUCN Policy on SU). “Sustainable” here refers to use that does not lead to long-term decline of biodiversity (adopting modified terminology from the CBD). At various points I will refer to conservation/NRM approaches or strategies based on sustainable use. These are that subset of conservation strategies that support, allow, and rely for their effectiveness on some form of use (at sustainable levels) of wild living resources. Note that this does not necessarily involve any specific forms of use, and does not necessarily imply devolution, community involvement, benefit-sharing, or any other specific conservation strategies. This terminology is used to make a contrast with conservation approaches that rely primarily on establishment of strict protected areas, and tight prohibitions and bans on wildlife use and trade outside of these areas. These are referred to here as “strict protection” approaches.
3.1 “Sustainable use” is used across widely divergent sectors An initial problem is that the term “sustainable use” is used in many contexts, and not only in the area of conservation and living resource management. This was recognised in the Resolution adopting the IUCN Policy Statement on SU, which recognised that “sustainability and sustainable use are concepts that are now being applied to sectors beyond the scope of this policy statement per se, e.g. water, agriculture, soils” (Preamble). A brief examination of the variety of uses of the term “sustainable use” reveals that it now has very wide usage, and is applied to an enormous variety of living and non-living resources as well as outside of the environmental arena completely, including soils, the oceans, the climate and atmosphere, non-renewable resources, ecosystem services, the planet itself, pesticides, contaminated sediments, cultural heritage and educational resources (see Table 2).
9
3 Conceptual Challenges
Table 2: The variety of uses of the term “sustainable use”.
SU of what? what are uses? meaning of “unsustainable”?
reference
overuse/other negative impacts (impacts on other species, disturbance etc)
Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines
wild living resources
IUCN SU Policy
Klug (Klug 2005)
overuse (including of assimilative capacity)/other negative impacts (flow disruption, pollution etc)
Redford and Richter (Redford and Richter 1999)
soils agriculture overuse/other negative impacts (erosion, pollution etc)
IUCN WCC Res 3.072 Legal aspects of the sustainable use of soils
natural resources generally (including raw materials, air, water, soil, biodiversity and habitats)
economic activities overuse: “exceeding environment’s carrying capacity”
EU Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (European Commission 2007a)
non-renewable resources
inefficient use, other negative impacts (pollution during extraction etc)
EU Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (European Commission 2007a)
inefficient use, other negative impacts (pollution during extraction etc)
Scottish Environment Protection Agency Waste Plan 2003 (SEPA undated)
inefficient use, other negative impacts (waste generation, pollution)
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU 2006)
assimilative capacity of ecosystems
Cairns Jnr (Cairns Jnr. 1999)
ecosystems all human uses of ecosystems
overuse of all ecosystem goods and services
Cairns Jnr (Cairns Jnr. 1999)
ecosystem services
overuse of ecosystem goods and services
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
planet all human uses overuse/other negative impacts associated with use
Cairns (Cairns 1999)
reference
EU Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides (European Commission 2007b)
phosphates agriculture environmental impacts associated with use (e.g. pollution)
Fisher (Fisher undated)
environmental risks associated with other treatments for disposal
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2006)
ancient buildings meetings, teaching etc use inconsistent with their conservation
Galan (Galan 2004)
e-learning learning process of learning not sustained
Kerres and Engert (Kerres and Engert 2006)
*This column includes uses discussed using the language of “sustainable use”, not just those found by authors to be sustainable.
When the term “sustainable use” is used across these very different contexts, the word sustainable (or unsustainable) can have very different connotations. First, when used with respect to living resources, sustainable use always incorporates the idea of depleting the target resource only within its capacity to renew itself. This idea is also part of the concept of sustainable use of non-living renewable resources, such as groundwater, or use of renewable systems comprised of living and non-living elements (either of which may be depleted), such as soil. It is further part of the concept of sustainable use of the waste assimilative capacity of ecosystems – using systems that assimilate pollution only within their assimilative rate. Second, for non-renewable “resources” such as minerals or petroleum, but also cultural heritage and old buildings, sustainable use includes the idea of minimising unnecessary use or minimising impacts. “Sustainable use” clearly does not mean using the resource within its capacity to renew itself (unless highly uncharacteristic planning timeframes are being used), but using resources or artefacts efficiently and carefully so that they are depleted or degraded as slowly as possible. Third, sustainable use of living and non-living renewable resources, and of non- renewable resources also generally includes minimising or avoiding broader negative environmental impacts (called “other negative impacts associated with use” in Table 2). For instance, the concept of sustainable use of fisheries generally includes not only using target stocks only within their capacity to renew themselves, but also minimising negative impacts on bycatch species and marine and aquatic habitats. The EU Strategy for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources aims “to reduce the environmental impacts associated with resource use (and to do so in a growing economy)” (European Commission 2007a). Sustainable use of soils includes minimising impacts on vegetation and wild animals. Fourth, sustainable use of harmful or toxic substances refers only to this latter idea - minimising the environmental impacts associated with use, without including the first
11
or second concepts. Sustainable use of pesticides, for instance, does not aim to ensure these substances are maintained for the long term, or are carefully husbanded in order to deplete as slowly as possible, but refers to using them in a way which minimises run-off, pollution, and other impacts on broader environment/society. “Sustainable” here is a rather imprecise term meaning something akin to “environmentally-friendly”, or “moving in the direction of sustainability”, or simply “better than it was before”. Sustainable use in this sense can be applied to any activity or substance with possible environmental impacts and involving some concept of “use” – it could be applied to cars, gill nets, or concrete. There need be no link with resources - natural, living, renewable or otherwise. Fifth, sustainable use of e-learning (see Table 2) involves the idea that the use (of educational resources by students) can be maintained over the long term without requiring external inputs. Here the sustainability refers to the use, rather than the target resource, broader ecosystem, or environment and society generally (the question of what is being sustained in sustainable use is returned to in section 3.6.1 below). This is a similar meaning to that when people speak of sustainable financing or sustainable growth – the finance or the growth can be maintained over the long term without requiring major external interventions. The upshot is that the term sustainable use is used across a wide range of contexts and can mean quite different things in these different contexts. There is some indication, particularly in EU policy, that use of the term sustainable use is expanding, perhaps driven by its inclusion in the CBD and subsequent gradual uptake in national legislation. This means that those interested in sustainable use of wild living resources cannot assume that their frame of reference is shared by others using the language of sustainable use, and that confusions about the concept of sustainable use across sectors are highly likely.
3.2 There are many divergent definitions of sustainable use We have seen above that the language of sustainable use is used in many different contexts. Here I return to sustainable use in the context of wild living resources, biodiversity and ecosystems. Even here, however, there are many different definitions of sustainable use (see Table 3), and many more could be plucked from more specific resource-use contexts. This is not necessarily a problem. Some of the variation between them can be seen as reflecting the different specific contexts for which they were formulated. For instance, some were developed within international conventions focussed on sustainable use of a subset of wild resources, such as wetlands or species in international trade. However, while they have many overlaps and commonalities, they convey a wide range of concepts with many different emphases. This range of definitions will not be further discussed directly, but will provide context for, and will be referred to, within the following discussion.
12
Table 3. Sample definitions and explanatory text of sustainable use and related terms.
CBD sustainable use “use of the components of biodiversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”
IUCN White Oak principles
sustainable use “a dynamic process toward which one strives in order to maintain biodiversity and enhance ecological and socio-economic services, recognizing that the greater the equity and degree of participation in governance, the greater the likelihood of achieving these objectives for present and future generations”
IUCN Analytic Framework
“to use these [natural] resources while conserving them”
IUCN Analytic Framework
sustainability (in the context of use)
“sustainability… refers to uses of wild living natural resources by societies in which equity is a fundamental value”
IUCN Rec 18.24 function of monitoring system
to ensure that ”use is maintained at levels which can be sustained by the wild populations without adversely affecting the species' role in the ecosystem or the ecosystem itself”
Webb (2002) “sustainable use is a use of something associated with a process aimed at ensuring that the use can continue and that its impacts are maintained within acceptable or defined limits”
EU Common Fisheries Policy (European Commission 2004)
objective of CFP “exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions”
Martin (Martin 2006) (summarising Parker 1993)
sustainable use of biological diversity
“..using resources wisely…making conservation a means for man (sic) to use the land rather than act as a barrier to usage”
Ramsar Rec 3.3 wise use (of wetlands) “their sustainable utilization for the benefit of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem”
Ramsar Resolution IX.1 Annex A, 22
wise use (of wetlands) “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystems approaches, within the context of sustainable development”
Ramsar Rec 3.3 sustainable utilisation (of wetlands)
"human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations."
CITES Art IV(2)(a) and IV(3) and CITES draft Strategic Vision (CITES CoP14 Doc 11)
“sustainable trade” (using language of CITES Strategic Vision) of App II listed species
at levels “not detrimental to the survival of that species” and ensuring species is maintained “throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs”
Stolton and Dudley (Stolton and Dudley 2005)
sustainable use area “an area of land and/or sea outside a protected area, which is managed to have substantial long-term benefits to biodiversity, through specific planning processes that also address human well-being.”
13
3.3 The pursuit of “sustainable use” can be motivated by varying objectives One underlying question that influences definitions of sustainable use is “what is the objective of sustainable use”? For what purpose is sustainable use promoted or employed? This could be seen to be unproblematic: (Dickson and Edwards 2004) write that “The main goal of sustainable use…..is sustainable use of the components of biodiversity” (at 3). Or the question could be seen as misguided: Martin (Martin 2006) states that SU is not a tool but a result, implying that it is an end in itself. Yet different motivations can drive a preoccupation with sustainable use, and sustainable use can be pursued to reach different objectives. This is reflected in the CBD Decision adopting the AAP&G, which states “… it is recognized that the objectives of use are matters of societal and cultural choice…”. Further, within the CBD the AAP&G are to be understood firmly within the context of the ecosystem approach (Dec V/6), and the Ecosystem Approach makes clear that objectives of management are a matter of societal choice (Principle 1). At least as developed within the CBD, therefore, it seems clear that we should view the objectives of SU as a matter of societal choice, and that a variety of such objectives are possible. One such motivation is concern for the integrity, diversity and health of biodiverse ecosystems for their own sake. Here this is labelled a “biocentric” standpoint, motivated by the human perception of the intrinsic value of non-human nature. The other major driver is concern for human well-being, including alleviation of poverty, maintenance of livelihoods, generation of income, and development generally. Here this is labelled an “anthropocentric” standpoint, concerned with maintaining or increasing the goods and services provided by wildlife and ecosystems to humans, in order that humans (or a sub-set of them, such as the poor) may better realise and further their needs and aspirations. These drivers or objectives are not exclusive, and even an exclusive concern with one is (from a pragmatic standpoint) likely to require consideration of the other. However, they are far from interchangeable, and in the SU context may lead to very different priorities or conclusions. For instance, which standpoint is adopted is likely to inform what is used, the evaluation of sustainability, how much risk is tolerated, and to who or what, and where and how use is undertaken. Both these major drivers or objectives are well-reflected in authoritative guidance on SU, although their emphasis varies. The major CBD Resolution on SU (VII/12) reflects both concerns, stating that SU is both a tool for conservation of biodiversity, and a tool for poverty alleviation and therefore the achievement of sustainable development. The definition of SU in the CBD (Table 3) also reflects both, but arguably subordinates biocentric concerns to anthropocentric: ensuring biodiversity does not decline serves the purpose of maintaining its potential to meet human needs and aspirations. Within CITES, recent debates over the Convention’s strategic direction highlights an ongoing contest over incorporation of the anthropocentric set of values into a historically biocentric Convention. While current draft text of the Convention’s new Strategic Vision “confirms the recognition by the Parties that sustainable trade in wild fauna and flora can make a major contribution to securing the broader and not incompatible objectives of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation” (CoP14 Doc.11), critics argue for a return to the
14
Convention’s core business of “preventing international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants from threatening their survival” (IISD 2006). Within IUCN it appears to be well-settled, from a policy perspective, that sustainable use is pursued for its contribution both to meeting human needs and to biodiversity conservation in its own right. The IUCN Policy Statement on SU links and supports both aims, stating “Use, if sustainable, can serve human needs on an ongoing basis while contributing to the conservation of biological diversity” (para 3). The IUCN White Oak definition of SU (Table 3) recognizes both drivers, indicating SU is strived for “to maintain biodiversity and enhance ecological and socio-economic services”.
3.4 “Supporting sustainable use” can mean supporting several quite different positions
While sustainable use efforts can be motivated by different values, it is also true that sustainable use can be posed as an objective or goal in itself, to be promoted or supported. For instance, sustainable use of biodiversity is an objective of the CBD. People or policies are frequently said to be “pro” sustainable use. IUCN policy is described as (conditionally) supportive of sustainable use. However, supporting sustainable use can mean supporting several quite different positions. In discussing these it is helpful to start by thinking about what is not being supported. Supporting sustainable use implies that it is preferred over some other outcome or activity. If one is pro-sustainable use, what is one anti? One can support sustainable use against unsustainable use. Or one can support sustainable use approaches to conservation approaches against strict protection approaches. Or one can support sustainable use against no use. Supporting sustainable use can therefore mean supporting one or more of at least three different positions (see related distinctions in Hutton and Leader-Williams (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003). It is important to note in reading these that these positions should not be read as “either-or”. They could represent different elements of a position on sustainable use supported by a single person. An argument in favour of a particular sustainable use activity may be (and often is) constructed from several. Further, positions held by individuals are likely to be context-specific rather than absolute – they may “support sustainable use” in one sense for one species, resource, region, or form of exploitation, but not extend it to all. Four meanings of “supporting sustainable use” can be distinguished as follows: Position 1. Make use sustainable First, supporting SU can mean seeking to ensure that use, where it happens, is sustainable. It could be reworded as “Make use sustainable”. Here being pro- sustainable use means being anti-unsustainable use. This position does not comment on the desirability of use, argue in favour of its expansion, or assume that positive incentives are needed for use to be sustainable. It further does not assume that a particular use of a species or resource at sustainable levels is possible – it is entirely consistent to support sustainable use in this sense but oppose a particular form of use. The motivation for this position can be either anthropocentric or biocentric - avoiding unsustainable use could be a strategy to ensure humans are provided with goods and services over the long-term, or to ensure the intrinsic values
15
of biodiversity are safeguarded. Note, though, that these two motivations will have different ideal states with respect to use. A biocentric person supporting sustainable use in this sense might see no use as even better, while an anthropocentric person will see ongoing use in a sustainable form as the ideal. The next possibility is that supporting sustainable use means being in support of maintaining use, or bringing about more use, under certain conditions. Position 2. Support use if it’s sustainable, where this will benefit conservation Second, then, supporting sustainable use can mean seeking to maintain use, or bring about more use (as long as that use is at sustainable levels), because to do so will be advantageous for conservation (compared to conservation strategies which do not maintain or encourage more use). Like Position 1 above, supporting sustainable use in this sense will often involve seeking to transform unsustainable use into sustainable use. Unlike Position 1, this position could also involve defending existing uses against efforts to prohibit them, or involve promoting use where no use currently exists. This position is based on biocentric considerations only – it concerns a choice of strategies to achieve conservation outcomes. Where anthropocentric motivations are motivating the support for SU, the position becomes Position 3 (which may be held simultaneously). Use (compared to strategies based on non-use) can be supported from a conservation perspective for two quite different reasons. In practice both may be relevant.
Position 2(a): Support use where it generates incentives for conservation The first and most familiar reason to support the position that use can be advantageous for conservation is that use can (in some circumstances) generate positive economic, social, cultural or other incentives for conservation, which (again, under some circumstances) can lead to positive conservation outcomes. Its reworded slogan could be “Support use where it generates incentives for conservation”. The rationale underlying this position begins with the commonsense recognition that people conserve what they value (Webb 2002). One way to ensure people value something is for them to derive benefits from it through use of various forms. Where people such as local people, landholders, the private sector and government agencies benefit from a wild living resource, they may be motivated to conserve and sustainably manage it, including investing in protection (from illegal use), research, monitoring, and education. Use may also provide the revenue streams to make such efforts possible or feasible. The positive conservation outcomes sought may be for the species that are the target of use, and/or for the species and ecosystems with which it is associated.
Its important to note from the outset that the gaining of benefits from use by people does not necessarily lead to good conservation outcomes. This point is sometimes elided by supporters of this position. There are number of reasons why people could gain benefits from using a resource, but these benefits either do not provide incentives to conserve, or such incentives are not effective in achieving positive conservation outcomes. For instance, the resource could be currently unexploited and face no relevant threats, in which case benefits from
16
use will not improve the conservation situation. Use of an open-access resource will bring benefits to users, but provides no incentive to conserve. Use of wild resources could provide economic/social benefits, but other land uses could provide higher benefits, meaning use will just be a profitable prelude to conversion. People may gain benefits from use, but they may not be the people who have any control over land/resource management1. People may gain benefits from using wild resources, and have incentives to use them at a sustainable level, but be too poor not to overuse the resource in the short term to meet immediate needs. The property rights regimes in place over resources may be inadequate to promote sustainability: e.g. state enforcement of local property rights might be inadequate to exclude outsiders from the resource, undermining any local incentives to restrain use to sustainable levels. It may prove impossible to secure agreement and cooperation among all the user community on rules and measures to be implemented to ensure use is sustainable. Technical capacity to develop such measures may be lacking. Enforcement against rule-breaking may be impossible due to the terrain, the nature of the resource, or corruption. Monitoring use of the resource, or the resource itself, may be difficult or impossible. With this important caveat, however, there are very powerful arguments for the importance of the social and economic benefits that use can provide, and the positive incentives for conservation these can generate. Where biodiversity and wild ecosystems yield no benefits to humans, they will be perceived as valueless, and conservation may be impossible, difficult, less effective, less efficient, or otherwise negatively affected. One dynamic is that in the face of economic pressures, “wild” areas that do not yield a return are likely to be converted to more “productive” land uses. A second dynamic is that where no one has legitimate and enforceable rights to access, harvest and manage resources, and exclude others from them (as is the case with strict protected areas where state management capacity is weak), resources may effectively become open access, leading to a “tragedy of the commons”. A third is that restrictive conservation approaches that exclude people from local resources and do not provide for their needs are likely to be very difficult to enforce, as poor people will be strongly motivated to meet their needs in some way from local resources. A fourth dynamic is that government agencies and the private sector may be more likely to invest resources in monitoring and management of a used and traded resource of economic and social importance, than of one where use is prohibited. This list could be much further elaborated. Supporting sustainable use in this sense is referred to by some writers as supporting “incentive-driven conservation” (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003), (although there are problems with this terminology discussed in section 6, below). This is also the thrust of “conservation through sustainable use” (CSU), terminology introduced in (Webb 2002) with currency in Australia (e.g. (Ampt and Baumber 2006); Grigg, Hale and Lunney (Grigg, Hale and Lunney 1995).
1 As this is not a familiar situation it warrants brief explanation. As an example, in Australia those who benefit from the commercial harvest of kangaroos are kangaroo shooters and processors, who have no control over land management. The farmers who have such control typically gain no revenue from kangaroo use, and have therefore no incentives for habitat conservation, revegetation, etc. See .
17
It is important to note that when the conservation “advantages” or “benefits” generated through sustainable use in this sense are discussed, these must be assessed relative to outcomes that would have been generated by alternative (strict protection) conservation/management strategies, not by reference to pristine or untouched ecosystems. That is to say, use can be said to generate conservation benefits if it yields better outcomes than would have been gained by strict protection approaches, not better outcomes than would have been gained by non-use. This reflects the insight that conservation strategies based on non-use in many cases do not result in non-use, but in illegal, unmonitored and/or unmanaged use or habitat conversion (see e.g. Rosser, Leader-Williams and Tareen (Rosser, Leader-Williams and Tareen 2005). In consequence, valid criticism of this “Generate incentives for conservation through use” position will need to argue that a more restrictive approach would have yielded better conservation outcomes, not that the outcomes of this approach are not perfect.
Position 2(b) Support use if it’s sustainable, where control of target populations furthers broader conservation goals The second reason to support the position that use can be advantageous for conservation is that habitat or ecosystem-level conservation can require that populations of some species are reduced. This will generally only be the case when human actions have inflated populations of some species, through actions such as reduction of predator numbers or restriction of movements. Examples of this position include the argument that sustainable (consumptive) use of elephants in South Africa’s Kruger Park should be undertaken, to reduce their populations in order to safeguard other biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the park (SANParks 2005). Likewise, the Australian Government supports commercial kangaroo harvest on the basis that European farming practices and provision of water in rangelands has greatly increased many kangaroo populations, and controlling their numbers provides broader conservation benefits (DFAT 2007).
Position 3. Support use if it’s sustainable, where this will benefit people Third, supporting sustainable use can mean seeking to maintain or bring about more use, at sustainable levels, when such use will contribute to meeting human needs and aspirations. This can be summed up as Support use if it’s sustainable, where this will benefit people. In contrast to Position 2, this position is motivated by anthropocentric considerations - the socio-economic and/or equity benefits that the use will provide. In practice it is difficult to conceive of a use that is undertaken that does not contribute to some human need or aspiration (as that is why it is undertaken). Therefore this position will generally support any specific use so long as it is sustainable. In contrast to Position 2, this meaning does not only support those uses that offer benefits for conservation (compared to strict protection approaches). So some uses which are justified under this position may indeed increase human pressure on ecosystems. For instance, expanding harvesting of a lightly exploited open-access resource (such as a high-seas fish stock) to meet human needs will not generate any positive incentives for conservation, but simply increase exploitation pressure on an ecosystem. Such exploitation may, however, be at a low enough level to be considered entirely sustainable under most definitions. Unless the resource or
18
ecosystem is for some reason dependent on human use (such as some Australian grasslands or UK upland birds), sustainable use in this case will therefore be mildly negative from a conservation perspective. Here use may still be consistent with, complement, and be a component of conservation strategies, but if approached from a purely biocentric value set it would be firmly second-best. The question of who benefits from use of wild resources may strongly affect where and when people support this position. Many people would distinguish use that contributes benefits to people that reduce inequity (e.g. by alleviating poverty), from use that contributes benefits that do not (e.g. by flowing to multinational corporations), and be much more supportive of the former. These are not distinguished here as separate meanings of “supporting sustainable use”, but should be borne in mind as potential variants of this Position 3. Position 4. Support all use A fourth position could be added here. This is different in kind to the three above, because it represents deliberate misuse of the terminology of sustainable use. Terminology of “supporting sustainable use” can be used in order to justify any specific use, regardless of its sustainability. This will usually be used as a political or rhetorical strategy to defeat opposition to use. Unlike Position 2, it has no biocentric rationale, and unlike Position 3, it is not consistent with a conservation strategy. It will be motivated by anthropocentric reasons, to justify gaining the benefits of use to humans. While this position may indeed by taken by some who claim to “support sustainable use”, it is probably more often as a “straw man” by those who oppose any (consumptive) use of wildlife, such as those arguing from a strong animal rights perspective. When opposing use, these critics may inaccurately characterise holders of Positions 2 or 3 as holding Position 4, in order to undermine the legitimacy of their position.
Table 4: Typology of meanings of “supporting sustainable use”.
position for against underlying values
which use promoted/expanded?
conservation benefits?
silent silent
2 (a&b) support use if it’s sustainable, where this will benefit conservation
strict protection conservation approaches
no
3 support use if it’s sustainable, where this will benefit humans
no/less use anthropocentric use that is sustainable and benefits humans
yes
19
These categories (summarised for reference in Table 4) are only one possible typology. There are no doubt other more refined distinctions that could be made, and further categories added. Further, it should be noted that these categories can collapse if certain assumptions are made. For instance, if one’s definition of “sustainable” includes the generation of effective incentives for conservation, category 3 disappears. Or if the assumption is made that all use provides incentives for conservation (which is problematic, for reasons outlined above), category 3 is subsumed into 2. Finally, writers, advocates or managers may shift between these three meanings in discourse or thinking, and draw no rigorous boundaries around them. Indeed, such a strategy may be actively pursued for strategic effect – for instance, policy references to “sustainable use” possibly intended in the first sense may be taken as endorsement of the second or third concepts.
It is not difficult to see that the different things that can be meant by supporting ‘sustainable use’ obscure clarity. For instance, the sub-title of a 1994 book reads “How ‘sustainable use’ is wiping out the world’s wildlife” (Hoyt 1994). If sustainable use is understood to mean Position 1, the title is nonsensical and self-contradictory. However, if it is understood to refer to Position 2, it makes at least logical sense (if empirically dubious) if, say, efforts to generate incentives through use have failed. And the author might also be using Position 4 in the “straw man” sense described above. As another example, on the face of it, it seems that statements such as “any use of a biological community will ultimately involve a loss of biological diversity” (Robinson 1993)) contradict statements that use can “drive habitat and species conservation” (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003). These can be reconciled if the first author is understood as referring to forms of use that would be supported by adherents of Position 3 or 4, while the second authors are referring to forms of use that would be supported by adherents of Position 2. The implication of the above discussion is that people, policies and organisations can mean very different things when they say they support sustainable use. IUCN clearly “supports sustainable use” in some sense, but which? The IUCN Mission clearly supports Position 1, and the Policy Statement on SU and White Oak principles clearly support in addition Position 2. Position 4 is clearly not supported by any of these statements. Whether IUCN supports Position 3 remains rather ambiguous – it is not clear from these documents whether IUCN policy supports use at sustainable levels that provides benefits to humans, but where these benefits do not generate effective conservation incentives and where use does not otherwise provide conservation benefits (compared to a strict protection approach). This ambiguity may well represent a genuine area of uncertainty or difference among IUCN constituencies, and may only be resolvable on a context-specific basis rather than in overall policy, but it is helpful to clearly recognise its existence.
3.5 The scope of sustainable use is unclear This section examines some ambiguities regarding the scope of sustainable use in the context of wild living resources, biodiversity and ecosystems. 3.5.1 Which uses? There is a very wide array of uses that humans can make of wild nature. This raises the question of which of these uses is included when we speak of sustainable use.
20
One important distinction is between consumptive or extractive use2 (referred to here as consumptive as shorthand), such as hunting, harvesting, fishing and logging, collecting live or dead plants and animals, taking parts of individuals such as seeds or fibre, or any use that otherwise depletes the target resource; and non- consumptive uses such as nature-based tourism, recreation, scientific research, and so forth. Should all these be included in the language of sustainable use? There is clear support for the view that sustainable use includes consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Sustainable use, particularly of landscapes or areas rather than species, frequently includes tourism in particular (e.g. WWF (WWF 2006). Many key policy statements clearly articulate SU to include non-consumptive uses. For instance, the 1990 IUCN Rec 18.24 opens by stating that use of wildlife may be consumptive or non-consumptive, and the IUCN Policy Statement on SU refers to consumptive and non-consumptive uses. The AAP&G do not specify that they refer to both, but as the CBD definition of sustainable use (Article 2) does not specify particular uses, all uses are presumably covered. Further, while most examples provided throughout the AAP&G are of extractive uses, one is of use of a national park by visitors, an (in principle) non-extractive use. However, it is fairly clear that in broader debate sustainable use is often understood as referring specifically to consumptive use. Further, the “polarisation” of opinion on sustainable use in the conservation and animal welfare/rights community (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003) is due to conflict over the role of consumptive use, not non-consumptive. Many who attack sustainable use as a conservation strategy, or attack specific examples of use, are attacking only consumptive use, and in fact advocate in favour of tourism (see e.g. (Hoyt 1994; World Parrot Trust 2005; HSI Asia 2007). Academic publications on sustainable use as a conservation tool (e.g. Webb 2002), Hutton and Leader-Williams(Webb 2002; Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003) have as their dominant focus consumptive use, with occasional references to non-consumptive. This association of sustainable use primarily with consumptive use also appears apparent within IUCN. For instance, text on the IUCN SUSG home page on why sustainable use is important focuses on the concern that “some wild species may risk local extinction through excessive harvesting, fishing and hunting” (IUCN SUSG 2007). Likewise, most strong advocates for sustainable use as a conservation tool within IUCN are involved with or have a background in consumptive use. Further, there is an argument that if the term sustainable use is used to cover too broad an array of uses it becomes rather unhelpful. Sustainable use as a conservation strategy is generally seen as a contrasting strategy to a strict protection approach - indeed, this distinction is arguably what marks SU as a divergence from traditional conservation thinking. For instance, sustainable use and protected areas are seen as “complementary” strategies, in the initial IUCN Rec.18.24 from 1990. However, many non-consumptive uses are complementary with strict protection approaches. If sustainable use includes non-consumptive use, then, this contrast between sustainable use and strict protection approaches becomes a meaningless one.
2 Extractive is used here as a more general term, which does not imply that use is lethal for target species. Sometimes consumptive use is understood as implying this.
21
This becomes more complex still if non-consumptive use is understood to include use of ecosystem services such as water regulation, local climate regulation, soil fertility and pollination. Here “use” may not involve modifying or affecting the target of use in any way, but simply benefiting from it. If sustainable use includes these uses, it is then taking place in even the strictest protected areas, which are “used” for scientific study, aesthetic appreciation, watershed protection, biodiversity conservation etc. The term SU would apply as to management of research or watershed functions in a National Park as management of hunting game species. This point will be returned to at the end of the following sub-section. 3.5.2 What is being used? Even when used in the context of wild living resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, sustainable use can be “of” a number of different things. The original 1990 IUCN Recommendation (Rec. 18.24) refers to use of “wildlife”. The title of the IUCN Policy Statement on SU refers to “wild living resources”, although it moves in its text between this term and “biodiversity”. The CBD AAP&G refer to use of “biodiversity” and “biological resources”, defining biodiversity in the CBD text as the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems. The IUCN White Oak Principles move between “wild living resources”, “natural resources”, and “wild living natural resources”. The SUSG website includes reference to use of “renewable natural resources”, “natural resources”, “living natural resources”, “wild species” and “biodiversity” (IUCN SUSG 2007). Those writing within IUCN use these terms and others, such as “wild plants and animals” and “wild fauna and flora” (see e.g. Jenkins and Edwards (Jenkins and Edwards 2000). These terms are not equivalent. “Natural resources” usually includes land, water, and soils, and often minerals, metals, oil and gas. Under some definitions it expressly does not include wild plants and animals3. “Renewable resources” includes non-living renewable resources such as underground water supplies. “Wildlife” for many connotes only terrestrial species. For many it implies only animals, although most formal legal or policy definitions include plants and animals. “Biodiversity” and “biological resources” include genetic resources, including those within domesticated lineages, and encompass biodiversity at every scale, including the microscopic. “Wild living resources” is not defined in IUCN policy, but is presumably not intended to include genetic diversity, and it is not clear whether it encompasses the micro scale. While soil biodiversity is among the richest and most economically important, it seems doubtful that anyone has contemplated the application of the IUCN Policy on SU to soil microbes. Exactly what sustainable use is contemplated in relation to will impact enormously on the issues raised by use and the factors affecting whether it is sustainable: use of genetic resources for the pharmaceutical industry raises very different issues from, say, recreational hunting of deer or traditional harvest of medicinal plants. However, a trickier question still is whether the scope of SU should include use of ecosystems and landscapes, such as pastoral lands, forests, seas, or deserts, and
3 For instance, the National Heritage Trust of Australia Act (1997) defines natural resources management as management of only soil, water and vegetation, or management of other resources for the purpose of soil, water, or vegetation management (s17).
22
use of ecosystem services, such as water regulation, pollination, recreation, tourism, wood supply, and so forth. The terminology here starts to become distinctly ambiguous. Most early thinking about sustainable use was focussed on use at the species and population level. For instance, (as set out above), the 1990 IUCN Recommendation focuses on “wildlife”, and stipulates use should be maintained at levels “which can be sustained by the wild populations without adversely affecting the species' role in the ecosystem or the ecosystem itself”. Clearly use of wild populations was under consideration. However, within IUCN and other influential constituencies “sustainable use” is increasingly being used to refer also to use of ecosystems and ecosystem services. For instance, the 2001 IUCN Analytic Framework explicitly includes these in discussion of sustainable use: “Ecosystem use may be associated with several activities that range from recreational activities to the use of the ecosystem’s functions or services. Some examples include carbon sequestration by forests, water regulation by wetlands and the role of tropical forests as gene reservoirs” (p15). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment uses the language of SU for ecosystem services, analysing whether an array of ecosystem services are being used sustainably or unsustainably (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The AAP&G include operational guidance on valuing “environmental services provided by ecosystems” (Practical principle 10). The IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources refers to “biological products and ecological services available for use”. However, there are some problems with extending the concept of SU from wild plants and animals to use of landscapes, ecosystems and ecosystem services. First, perhaps a minor point, ecosystems and their services sit uncomfortably within the IUCN SU language of “wild living resources”. Ecosystems comprise the interaction of both living and non-living elements. Ecosystem services arise not only from “wild living” resources but entire systems incorporating nutrient flows, water cycles, chemical conditions, and so forth. So this extension requires at least a shift in terminology or a shift from a straightforward interpretation of these words. Second, as highlighted in the previous section, extending the terminology of sustainable use to include use of ecosystem services blurs some well-established distinctions. Sustainable use is viewed as an alternative approach to strict protection among many or most conservation constituencies. However, use of ecosystem services is involved in most strict protection strategies - humans “use” the ecosystem services provided by the most untouched wildernesses. So if SU encompasses use of ecosystem services, this conceptual distinction collapses. Third, including use of ecosystems and ecosystem services arguably makes sustainable use an extremely broad concept - it is hard to see that it remains distinguishable from ecosystem management, sustainable management or indeed conservation (for a discussion on the relationship of these terms with SU see section 3.7, below).
3.6 “Sustainable” remains an unclear concept This section turns from examining the “use” part of sustainable use to focussing on the “sustainable”. It highlights three of possibly many more ambiguities surrounding the meaning of this term and its practical interpretation.
23
3.6.1 What is being “sustained”? To begin with, what exactly is it that is being “sustained” in sustainable use? “Sustainability” can be understood as applying to several different aspects of the human-ecological interaction around use. To some extent, this discussion is related to that in section 3.1, where the connotations of the word sustainable were contrasted across different sectors where the terminology of sustainable use is used. Here, however, the focus is on the biodiversity and wild living resources sector. First, it could be the use that is being sustained, along with its flow of benefits for humans. “Sustainable use” would then refer to circumstances where the use itself is ongoing indefinitely. This can refer even to use of non-depletable resources – this was the meaning of sustainable use of “e-learning” (Table 2). In the context of biodiversity and ecosystems, however, we are not generally interested in keeping the use per se going – we are interested in maintaining the used resource, either to continue to provide the use to humans, or for its own sake. Second, then, it could be the used resource (along with its benefits for humans) that is being sustained. However, this alone will not necessarily be consistent with broader biodiversity conservation goals, as maintaining or increasing the used resource could have negative impacts on other species. For instance, it could involve reducing numbers of predators or competitors. The process of extraction, harvesting, or conducting tourism could disturb other species or degrade components of their habitat. Likewise, where the used resource is an ecosystem, augmenting or expanding it could be at the expense of other ecosystems. Third, therefore, it could be the broader ecosystem and its functioning, including both used and non-used elements, that is being sustained in sustainable use. This third element, along with the other two, is well-reflected in authoritative policy on sustainable use. For instance, IUCN Rec 18.24 indicates use should be maintained at levels which can be sustained by the wild populations without adversely affecting the species' role in the ecosystem or the ecosystem itself (see Table 3). The IUCN SU Policy states that when using wild living resources, people should seek to minimize losses of biological diversity. Likewise the AAP&G state “[s]ustainable use management goals and practices should avoid or minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services, structure and functions as well as other components of ecosystems” (Practical principle 5). It therefore seems quite clear that for use to be considered sustainable, it is not enough for the use or the used resource to be sustained, but use must not involve unsustainable impacts on the broader ecosystem. Fourth, it could be the broader social-ecological system, encompassing both human and natural components, including use along with many other interactions, which is being sustained. This shifts the focus to the resilience and adaptability of the system - its ability to absorb and respond to change and disturbance over time. This view derives from complex systems thinking and will be discussed further in section 5.2. Arguably, the focus on adaptive management in documents such as the IUCN SU Policy Statement, the IUCN White Oak Principles, and the AAP&G (see section 4.3) reflect this thinking.
24
3.6.2 Is sustainability a state or a process? Many current writers and policy guidance documents emphasise that sustainability of use must be viewed as an ongoing process, not as a static state to be definitively achieved. This is because knowledge about the system of use (incorporating biological/ecological knowledge of the used species/populations on one hand, and socio-economic knowledge on human users on the other) is necessarily always uncertain, and because both ecological and human aspects of sustainable use interactions change over time. For use to be sustainable over time, management of use must be able to respond and adapt to new information and changes. As Webb (2002) says “whether a particular use is sustained or not can only be measured in hindsight: was the use kept going?” From this perspective, sustainability can only be understood as a process maintained over time, and whether sustainability is likely requires looking not only at biological/ecological information, but the ability of the management system to respond and adapt to change. This suggests that these characteristics of a system of use may be much more important in sustainability than detailed knowledge of individual components and interactions in the system. This view of sustainability as a process means that it is not possible to state at a given time that use is sustainable. It is only possible to state that use has been sustainable, and that use appears more or less likely to be sustainable in the future. This is important for, among other things, legislation or policy that requires evidence that a use is sustainable before allowing it. This perspective is strongly supported by most key policy documents on sustainable use. The White Oak principles of SU firmly state that the condition of “sustainable use” is a dynamic process, not a state, and this is also emphasised in the 2001 Analytic Framework. Annex II of the AAP&G place strong emphasis on it being a dynamic process: “Sustainable use is not a fixed state, but rather the consequence of balancing an array of factors, which vary according to the context of the use. In addition, sustainability of uses cannot be expressed with certainty, but rather as a probability that may have to change if the conditions in which management is taking place change”(Dec VII/12 Annex 1 para 11). The IUCN SU Policy Statement states that “enhancing the sustainability of uses of wild living resources involves an ongoing process of improved management of those resources”. The meaning of this is not entirely clear, but it could certainly be interpreted as supporting the concept of sustainability as being a process rather than a state. However, it is not clear that this understanding of sustainability is widely shared outside of specialists in the area, or even by many of those approaching the issue from a biological perspective. 3.6.3 What do socio-economic factors have to do with sustainability? The first approach is to assess and define sustainability purely with reference to an examination of biological/ecological parameters and factors. For extractive use involving removal of individuals from the population (rather than say, shearing or collecting seeds), examination of sustainability might seek to determine factors such as harvesting rates for various age/sex classes, population parameters such as rates of birth, recruitment, growth and mortality, age/sex structure, density-dependence or Allee effects, metapopulation structure, interactions between target species and other components of ecosystems, natural stochasticity and/or disturbances and so forth, in order to determine whether current harvesting levels were likely to drive the population toward extinction. If such a probability was extremely low, harvesting
25
would be judged sustainable. Such an approach, however, can be robustly criticised for being of limited heuristic or predictive value, given that patterns of use are necessarily driven by human desires and priorities, and will change according to them. This has led many to take it as axiomatic that addressing sustainability of use requires taking into account social and economic (as well as biological/ecological) factors. However, there are a number of ways to conceive of the how the human- related, socio-economic factors surrounding use can be “taken into account”, and these have implications for whether a specific use should be considered sustainable. A second approach, then, assumes that in order to determine whether a use will be “biologically” or “ecologically” sustainable, it is necessary to analyse and understand social and economic variables. This is based on the well-substantiated recognition that these will necessarily be primary determinants of current and future human use behaviours, which will in turn determine ecological sustainability. However, this approach does not assume that any specific characteristics in the socio-economic realm (such as equitable benefit-sharing) are necessary in order for use to be sustainable. For example, a system of use with grossly inequitable decision-making structures and distribution of benefits, but with strong laws, punitive sanctions and very high enforcement capacity, could be assessed as sustainable under this approach. The third approach assumes that taking socio-economic factors into account means emphasising a particular socio-economic result or condition. Specifically, equity (or similar) is required, on the basis that at a practical level, it will enhance ecological sustainability. A typical rationale for this view is that if use of wild resources is not equitable, key stakeholders such as local people will not be motivated to support or contribute to management, conservation, monitoring or enforcement, and ecological sustainability is therefore unlikely to be achieved, furthered or maintained over the long term. Equity can reduce a potential source of tension and grievance and thereby increase the resilience of the entire system. This approach takes the long view – even if a system is ecologically sustainable at present, if inequity surrounds use the system is unlikely to remain ecologically sustainable as power, technology, and societal relations shift. This view appears to be reflected in the IUCN White Oak definition of sustainable use, which emphasises that sustainable use is more likely when equity and participation is higher. A fourth approach emphasises that use should be equitable as well as (ecologically) sustainable. That is, equity is not viewed as a necessary precondition for sustainability, but as a important independent imperative. This is in line with the CBD’s biologically-focussed definition of sustainable use, alongside its independent emphasis on the objective of equitable benefit-sharing. It is also in line with the IUCN Mission “to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable”. A fifth, more far-reaching approach is that equity is an integral component of the concept of “sustainability”, and that for a use to be considered sustainable, it must be be equitable as well as ecologically sustainable. This reflects a conception of “socio- economic sustainability” being part of sustainability alongside ecological
26
sustainability. This is supported by documents such as the Earth Charter (Earth Charter International 2006), in which equity (“economic justice”) is itself an independent, integral component of a “sustainable” society alongside ecological integrity and other values. Under this approach, uses which for some compelling reason pose no threat to biodiversity, but involve highly inequitable benefit-sharing, would not be considered sustainable. This view may be reflected in the 2001 IUCN Analytic Framework, which states that “[e]quity is considered an indispensable requirement for sustainability,” on ethical as well as practical grounds. Within IUCN, it is clear from the IUCN Mission that equity in use of natural resources is of fundamental importance. Equity in the sharing of benefits from use of biodiversity is also a fundamental objective of the CBD. Further, it is clear from the IUCN Policy on SU that enhancing sustainable use will require taking socio- economic elements into account. This is also emphasised in the White Oak definition of sustainable use. That is, the third and fourth approaches set out above are strongly supported in relevant SU policy – equity is both important for achieving ecological sustainability and an important priority in itself. However, it is much less clear that equity should be considered a necessary element for use to be considered sustainable.
3.7 The relationship between sustainable use and other concepts is unclear How does or should sustainable use fit in to the plethora of other strategies, concepts, and tools related to environmental conservation and management? This is often quite unclear, and there is considerable confusion about the relationship of sustainable use to a range of related terms. While the ambiguities outlined above make it difficult to provide definitive answers, in this section I attempt to sketch out some related concepts, highlight how they are used, and where possible provide insights into the relationship of these terms. 3.7.1 Sustainable use and sustainable development Sustainable development is probably the dominant concept or paradigm shaping international policy action on the environment, and therefore amongst the most important to understand in relation to sustainable. It is useful to start by exploring the origins and concept of sustainable development. This concept and terminology emerged in the 1980s, growing from earlier ideas and debates on the linkages between environment and development that took place in connection with the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This first intergovernmental conference on the global environment was marked by deep divisions between developed and developing countries. It became clear in the runup to Stockholm that it was politically unfeasible and ethically dubious to seek to address environmental problems without simultaneous attention to the poverty and injustice faced in and by developing countries. This was for two reasons: because poverty degrades the environment – when people are struggling to meet basic needs, there is little scope to address environmental sustainability; and because the prosperity of the developed world had been achieved by degrading the environment of all (see e.g. Speth and Haas (Speth and Haas 2006). In consequence the doctrine of “environment and development” emerged. This had two elements: first, environment and development were intertwined and inextricable – one could not be addressed without the other; second, in view of their greater responsibility and greater means, the developed
27
world should bear the major costs of efforts to conserve and protect the environment. These elements have fundamentally shaped much subsequent international environmental policy, including the concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development first came to prominence in the 1980 IUCN/UNEP/WWF publication World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (IUCN et al. 1980), which highlighted the importance of the conservation and sustainable use of the environment and living resources in meeting human needs. It was firmly entrenched by the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the “Brundtland Commission”, established by UNEP). This seminal report Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) articulated and vigorously promoted the concept of sustainable development, defined as “development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. This has become a highly influential and lasting definition. In terms of international policy, its operational meaning has been extensively elaborated through the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 emerging from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and still further in the Plan of Implementation emerging from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The concept and meaning of sustainable development has been extensively discussed, critiqued, attacked, and elaborated since its introduction, giving rise to an enormous literature that can not be done justice here. Some fundamentals, as expressed in the WSSD Plan of Implementation echoing other authoritative interpretations include recognition of “the three components of sustainable development — economic development, social development and environmental protection — as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” (Art 2). The Plan of Implementation goes on to state that “Poverty eradication, changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for, sustainable development”. As this concept of sustainable development inherently involves an amalgamation and balancing of three interdependent priorities, it is not surprising that different groups with different agenda tend to emphasise the aspect that supports their own priorities. Sustainable development is clearly not a term that can be used interchangeably with sustainable use. First, sustainable development incorporates the concept of development. The term development is itself a highly contested one, with very different connotations for different people. For some, development involves a focus on meeting basic human needs and alleviating poverty, as elaborated in the Millennium Development Goals. For others it connotes the Western development model of intensified land uses, industrialisation, economic growth, market liberalisation and growing corporate power. Prugh and Assadourian (Prugh and Assadourian 2003) say simply “All people and cultures try to improve their lives and conditions; this process is often called development” (p 11). However understood, the concept of development intrinsically involves change in human co

sustainable use: concepts, ambiguities, challenges

Documents