Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Damania
et al
. argue that the focus of much conservation effort is on reducing tiger
poaching rather than the potentially more effective strategy of reducing poaching
of the tiger's prey. This contrasts sharply with the view of the Wildlife Protection
Society of India that tiger poaching is driving the species rapidly to extinction
(EIA-WPSI 2006). Despite the need to assess rigorously all the factors threatening
a population, in many cases the issue that needs tackling is clear. For example,
O'Brien
et al
. (2003) showed that despite other factors, particularly habitat
loss, the Madagascan radiated tortoise is declining in range and population size
principally because of high levels of exploitation to supply urban demand for
tortoise meat.
Having decided why we are interested in a particular population, and what
threats are acting on it, we next have to decide what outcomes we would like to see.
The concrete objectives of a conservation intervention may include reversing a
population decline, safeguarding a particular area for conservation or changing
local attitudes towards a species. But the most usual objective cited for interven-
tions to conserve exploited species is to ensure 'sustainable use'.
The meaning of sustainable use is often not clearly defined by conservationists,
because it is a difficult concept (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003). It is useful to
think about it as having three main components—biological, social and financial
sustainability (Sample and Sedjo 1996).
Biological sustainability
implies that the
activity does not compromise the integrity of biological systems—in the case
of hunting a single species, this might translate into the population staying at a
density high enough to ensure that it and the components of the ecosystem that it
influences can persist into the long term.
Social sustainability
requires cultural
appropriateness, social support and institutions that can function into the long
term, and
financial sustainability
that the activity outcompetes unsustainable
alternative activities in profit-generation. A simple and widely accepted definition,
which is broad enough to encompass these aspects is the one used in Article 2 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity:
Sustainable use means the use of the components of biological diversity 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. (CBD 1993)
The first part of this definition refers to biological sustainability, while social and
financial sustainability are required in order to fulfil the second part. Hence
biological sustainability is necessary but not sufficient for long-term sustainability
of a conservation activity. An alternative broad-brush definition is that of the
Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), which defined sustainable development as
development that 'meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs
'
. Sustainable use of natural
resources is one aspect of sustainable development, and the definition works as well
for use as for development more broadly.
