1. The Framework of sustainable development
Most studies regarding the concept of sustainability generally draw upon the discussions from the United Nation Conference on Environment and Development of Rio (or ‘Rio Earth Summit’) in 1992. The interdependencies between human and natural systems were from now internationally assumed. Moreover, the 1987 Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), also called the Brundtland Report, can be considered as a prelude to the Rio Summit by setting out a global programme (Adams, 2001). Hence, it initiated probably the most widely accepted definition of sustainable development as a ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43). Furthermore, sustainable development considers both living and non-living resources (e.g. fossil fuels and minerals) with regards to conservation.
From a conceptual point of view, the Earth Summit proclaimed the first articulation of what can be seen as the key characteristic of contemporary sustainability principles, known as the ‘three E’s’ (O’Riordan, 2000). Any proposed action or initiative should be evaluated with reference to the simultaneous interaction of three fundamental criteria:
The Economy (development, growth and employment)
Equity within society (also social, community equality or social justice).
The Environment constitutes a third element, equally important as the two others.
In other words, sustainable development should be able to provide economic, social, and environmental benefits in the long term, with regards to the need of present and future generations. A fourth E is sometimes introduced to reflect the importance of education to achieve sustainability. As a result, these criteria should be considered in decision-making and management.
Furthermore, natural systems providing environmental services, and natural resources such as animals, fishes or trees are considered as basis (Section 1.2) up on which all development depends (Gilpin, 1996). As a consequence, this is putting forward the important fact that nature conservation cannot be considered independently from issues such as poverty, since essential and immediate needs naturally prevail on long-term development for human societies. It seems historically that sustainable development has partly been presented as a concept to promote and justify nature preservation and conservation (Adams, 2001).
2. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services & Conservation
Conservation is defined by the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) as the ‘management of human use of the Biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1980). Similarly, the notion of ‘sustainable yield’, described as ‘the use of living resources at levels of harvesting and in ways that allow those resources to supply products and services indefinitely’, represents the key concept for nature conservation (Gilpin, 1996, p.194). Consequently, the sustainable use of the planet necessitates the controlled use of ecosystems and the management of human demand on natural systems in balance with natural regenerative capacity. In particular, it requires practices to preserve the self-organizing and self-regulating capacity of natural systems (Cains, 2006). It consists in maintaining essential ecological processes and life-supporting systems (ecosystems), in preserving species and genetic diversity, and in sustaining and enhancing environmental qualities essential for productivity. Hence, it can be applied to very rare primeval ecosystems or to secondary habitats, which are partly or totally resulting from human modifications.
These functions are, however, facing various problems worldwide due to growing pressures from the world population in relation to forestry, agriculture, fisheries, soil exploitation etc. Without fully promoting John Cairns’ (2006) alarmist discourse, it is nevertheless largely accepted that natural resources have been declining faster than natural systems replace them, due to human uses. This is in spite of a growing global concern and environmental awareness especially in developed countries[1], which are more likely to afford long-term policies about sustainable practices.
Again, the 1992 Rio Agreements appeared as a major step forward. In parallel with the Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity (see 3.1.) has permitted the wider recognition that biodiversity (species diversity and genetic diversity) should be maintained as future needs and values are cannot be predicted. In spite of significant progress, especially over the past fifty years, the understanding of ecosystems is still insufficient to be certain of the impact of removing any individual component. There is now a global concern that if degradation of natural resources continues, the capacity of the planet to support wildlife and, as a consequence, to sustain people, will dangerously be reduced.
From an ecocentric point of view, there are strong arguments for maintaining biodiversity through the goods and services provided by ecosystems (see Appendix 1.). The goods, more easily identifiable, are the products obtained from ecosystems such as food or materials for construction or fuel. Biodiversity also plays an essential role in maintaining viable and stable ecosystems, important for the physical, mental and economic well-being of human communities (O’Riordan, 2000). A monetary valuation (see Section 5.2.) may be placed on eco-tourism, on products from the environment and on ecological processes. It includes the regulation of pest through predators, pollination of commercial crops, regulation of soil fertility, nutrient cycling. For instance, wetlands and the species they support act as natural pollution filters, as well as flood and drought buffers. In another way, forests are participating in the carbon cycle and are able to create their own internal microclimate, while influencing the regional atmosphere by reducing wind speed and modifying solar radiations (Simbault, 2005). Whilst the scientific and economic rationale for conserving biodiversity can be quantified, the less obvious value of plants and animals cannot be ignored through the importance of genetic diversity. In addition, they may also have an economical value, not yet measurable, as some species or varieties may have useful particularities for the pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, the natural world can enrich social welfare in different ways such as through recreational and leisure interests (Kirkby et al, 1995). All these arguments are supported by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the National Biodiversity Action Plans of the signatory countries ensued from it. In particular, the EU seems to adopt a more anthropocentric approach by presenting wildlife as essential for well-being. Nature conservation is considered as priority in the name of the sustainable development of the member states (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006; BirdLife International, 2007a).
As a consequence, the science of conservation or ‘biology of conservation’ (Michel, 1999) is now employing multidisciplinary approaches from the field of ecology, biogeography, population genetics, anthropology, economy, sociology and political sciences in order to sustainably preserve global biodiversity from social and natural sciences as recommended by the World Conservation Strategy (see 3.1.). As a result, cooperation and partnerships between the different managers and between policy makers are essential for the coordination and planning of global nature conservation.
3. Debates of Sustainable Conservation
It appears today that to be sustainable, nature conservation should ideally integrate the different principles presented above. It emerges that there is a significant evolution in nature conservation to incorporate social perspectives and to recognise human/nature relationships. In opposition with overly ecocentric perceptions of environmental protection, sustainable conservation should in this sense support ecological sustainability for the maintenance of the planet, but also encourage livelihood sustainability through economic enterprise and social equity for ethical reasons (O’Riordan, 2000).
The matter of equity and justice is important with regards to conflict between human communities, as peace is necessary for sustainable conservation. In fact, war may be a major obstacle, as it can directly or indirectly participate in the destruction of the environment by encouraging the massive use of natural resources. Furthermore, political instability may divert resources from nature conservation, considered then of relatively minor importance. In connection, the debates to challenge poverty or the negative effects of globalisation seem essential. Conservation should not prevail on human welfare and can be used as an instrument of development through eco-tourism for instance (Mapendembe, 2007). The theories, further discussed in Section 3.2, about community participation and ‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ conservation policies are actively working in the sense of more anthropocentric approaches (Adams, 2001; Buckingham-Hatfield & Percy, 1999; Princen & Finger, 1994). Similarly the question of strict preservation, excluding human activities for ecological purposes, is confronted to more integrated conservation approaches to maintain activity within communities. As argued in the brochure published by the RSPB and BirdLife International[2], livelihood improvement is a necessity to equally satisfy conservation and community well-being. Both approaches have, of course, their advantages and weaknesses but need to be equally satisfied to reach the goal of sustainable conservation.
The attitude to adopt towards nature conservation is acutely delicate, especially when it is combined with the issue of agriculture, for instance. Intensification and modernisation can address problems of poverty, overpopulation and food shortage in developing countries but could have major environmental consequences by affecting natural resources and endanger ecosystem services, thereby jeopardising the potential for sustainable development (Kirkby et al., 1995). In contrast, in rural areas of Northern Countries, agriculture and employment could be preserved by converting farmers into environmental managers and encouraging them to restore particular habitats necessitating human intervention, such as fens or some moorlands[3]. This is a particular sensitive issue, especially in the EU where the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) subsidy scheme may be considered as unsustainable on longer term. As argued by Cairn (2004), the allocation of subsidies can possibly divert resources from other activities and therefore jeopardize sustainability. It is also an obstacle for long-term conservation, because the distribution of grants generally relies on policies limited in time and sensitive to political changes. In the UK, farmers are, however, important actors of nature conservation as protected areas are mainly privately owned. Their collaboration is therefore essential, in particular through the implementation of specific agro-environmental schemes.
Issues such as climate change are complicating the ability of conservation policies to be sustainable. This is firstly because direct or indirect consequences are difficult to predict and secondly, because uncertainty still affects decision-making. For more than 10 years, climate change appears as the most widely used example of international environmental politics, mainly because of its global scale. In this context, the sustainable use of the planet and the conservation of natural resources requires a general agreement on an International level.
[1] This study will mainly be directed from the point of view of European Societies, and as explained in the introduction, will have a particular focus on the UK. The problems of poverty alleviation will therefore not be fully assessed.
[2] Mapendembe, A. (2007). The BirdLife International Partnership: improving livelihoods. Cambridge. BirdLife International, RSPB
[3] These types of habitat, potentially support rare wildlife, usually have an anthropic origin, commonly from traditional agricultural techniques now abandoned. These are today particularly threatened in Europe by the reduction of agricultural activities also resulting in the extension of woodlands.
List of References:
Adams, W. M. (2001). Green development: environment and sustainability in the Third World. 2nd edition. London, New-York. Routledge.
O’Riordan, T. (2000). Environmental Science for Environmental Management : 2nd Ed. Harlow. Prentice Hall.
Gilpin, A. (1996). Dictionary of Environment and Sustainable Development. Wiley. Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Cairn, J., JR. (2006). ‘Designing for nature and sustainability’; International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13 p. 77-81
Simbault, N. (2005). Gestion et protection des espaces forestiers : Analyse comparative de la forêt d’Orléans et de la forêt de Białowieża. (Dissertation). Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot.
Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P. & Timberlake, L. (1995). The Earthscan reader in sustainable development. London. Earthscan Publications.
CBD. (2006). ‘Global Biodiversity Outlook 2’. Montreal. [online] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available from http://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf [Accessed 11 June 2007].
BirdLife International. (2007a). ‘Wellbeing through wildlife in the EU’. [online] www.birdlife.org/eu/eco_office.html [Accessed: 13 February 2007]
Mapendembe, A. (2007). The BirdLife International Partnership: improving livelihoods. Cambridge. BirdLife International, RSPB
Buckingham-Hatfield, S. & Percy, S. (1999). Constructing local environmental agendas: people, places and participation. London. Routledge.
Princen T. & Finger M. (1994). Environmental NGOs in the World Politics: linking the local and the global. London. Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment