Furthermore, should non-renewable resources become depleted, biological ... human existence, biological resources supply other services that add significantly to human well-being ... List of Figures and Tables in Chapter 4. Figure 4.1 An ...
Sustainable Development and Changes in the Genetic Stock and in Ecosystems Chapter 4 in Clement A. Tisdell (2015) Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions: Economic Issues, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 4.1 Introduction Without adequate and suitable biological resources, humankind could no longer exist. Human beings depend inextricably on other living things to supply them with food. In addition, they need water for their existence, and its supply and quality depends on the nature of ecosystems. Although human well-being has become increasingly dependent on the use of nonrenewable, non-living resources (these resources, for example, now provide shelter, energy, means of transport and fibres), they are not as fundamental to human survival as biological resources. Furthermore, should nonrenewable resources become depleted, biological resources could provide substitute commodities for many of those currently supplied by nonrenewable resources. In addition, apart from supplying services essential to human existence, biological resources supply other services that add significantly to human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; 2005). Therefore, it is appropriate to give particular attention to the economics of sustaining the supply of biological resources. There is no doubt that significant loss of biological resources can threaten the sustainability of human welfare and restrict economic development. For the reasons outlined in the previous chapter, market and political failures (which adversely affect the conservation of biological resources and ecosystems) result in economic welfare being lower than it could be. These failures can also result in unsustainable economic development, for example, inability to maintain the future well-being of individuals and the level or growth of GDP. However, these failures are not the only possible source of unsustainable economic development. Actions and strong desires by existing individuals to increase their current incomes (for example, by utilizing and depleting natural resources) can result in the subsequent impoverishment of current and future generations. Time preferences (both stated and revealed) for resource use can affect the sustainability of economic development. In recent times, it has been widely accepted that sustainable development is desirable. While the sustainability attributes of different alternative development paths are relevant to choosing between the available alternatives, it is shown in this chapter that contemporary criteria for choosing between development paths can result in inconsistent choices and, in some cases, in irrational choices. It also becomes clear that sustainable development paths are 1
not necessarily the most desirable ones. Furthermore, in some instances, commonly used criteria for sustainable development are unable to determine which one of the available alternative development paths is optimal. These and related conceptual issues are covered in section 4.2. Requirements for achieving sustainable development, including the necessary conservation of the biological stock, are discussed in section 4.3. The existence of uncertainty poses major challenges for determining an optimal development path and for choosing the most desirable strategies for conserving biological resources. These challenges receive particular attention in Section 4.4 where the implications of the Precautionary Principle for the conservation of natural resources, especially the conservation of biological resources, are explored. It is shown that this principle (which has varied interpretations) does not always favour the conservation of existing biological resources. Section 4.5 provides a preliminary examination of the sustainability of alternative agroecosystems. In doing so, it considers the criteria pro posed by Gordon Conway (1985; 1987) for the evaluation of alternative agroecosystems. His comparisons between the properties of modern and traditional agrosystems, including differences in their sustainability, are discussed critically. Although Conway's early contribution to this analysis provides a useful starting point for comparing alternative agroecosystems, it is argued that it is incomplete. It does not, for example, give enough attention to biodiversity loss and to the increased dependence of modern agroecosystems on the supply of off-farm resources compared to traditional agroecosystems.
Table of Contents of Chapter 4 4
Sustainable Development and Changes in the Genetic Stock and in Ecosystems 59 4.1
Introduction
59
4.2
Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Concepts and Objectives
60
Sustainability as a concept
61
Sustainable development: alternative concepts
61
The maximin gain criterion and sustainable development
63
Choice based on Rawls’ principle compared with the application of criterion 4
63
Choice involving Paretian preference and Rawls’ principle
64
An effort about a requirement for sustainable development and indeterminate decisions
65
A safety-first approach to choosing development strategies
66
Model limitations and an assessment so far of proposed objectives for sustainable development
66
Coefficients of concern for future generations
68
2
Uncertainty and the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development 69 4.3
Requirements for Achieving Sustainable Development, Including the Necessary Conservation of the Biological Stock
70
Alternative views about natural resource conservation and the achievement of sustainable development 71 4.4
Biological conservation and sustainable development
73
Uncertainty, Sustainability and the Precautionary Principle
76
Hypothetical games against nature: precaution does not always favour conservation
76
Further limitations of Ciriacy-Wantrup’s approach to conservation
78
Expected values, the status quo and conservation preferences
79
4.5
Properties of Agroecosystems: Conway’s Analysis
81
4.6
Concluding Comments
83
Notes
85
References
86
List of Figures and Tables in Chapter 4 Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3
An illustration that application of the maximin gain criterion (implied by Rawls’ Principle of Justice) can result in dubious selection of a development strategy
63
An assessment of some alternative development paths based on Rawls’ Principle of Justice
64
Paretian preferred development paths and Rawls’ Principle of Justice: further limitations illustrated
65
Figure 4.4
Illustrations of a safety-first approach to choosing development strategies 67
Figure 4.5
An illustration of the relevance of uncertainty when choosing between alternative development strategies
70
An illustration of the proposition that conservation measures to avoid income reduction are likely to be preferred to conservation measures promising a similar increase in income
80
An illustration of the proposition that the yield of modern varieties of crops and breeds of domesticated animals usually show less tolerance to changed environmental conditions than do traditional varieties of crops and breeds of domesticated animals
82
A hypothetical zero-sum game against nature in which the minimax loss (maximin gain) criterion is used to decide whether or not to conserve an endangered species or an endangered variety of an organism
77
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Table 4.1
3
Table 4.2 Table 4.3
The regret matrix corresponding to that in Table 4.1 and the optimal minimax regret strategy
78
Another zero-sum game against nature: in this case, the minimax loss criterion favours biological conservation, unlike in Table 4.1
78
4
