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
2 A Brief History of Sustainable Use
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
2 A Brief History of Sustainable Use
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
2 A Brief History of Sustainable Use
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)
non-renewable resources
inefficient use, other negative impacts (pollution during
extraction etc)
Scottish Environment Protection Agency Waste Plan 2003 (SEPA
undated)
non-renewable resources
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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 Conceptual Challenges
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 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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
3 Conceptual Challenges
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