A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Development Contexts

Home , Sociocultural system

Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa, Part III

Urs Wiesmann, 2008 (revised edition [19981])

Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Part III

A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Development Contexts

Urs Wiesmann

CDE and NCCR North-South

2008

Revised edition [19981]

Citation

Wiesmann U. 2008. Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa, Part III: A Con- cept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Development Contexts. Revised edition [19981]. Bern, Switzerland: Centre for Development and Environment and NCCR North-South.

Note

The present publication is a revised edition of Part III of: Wiesmann U. 1998. Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa: Conceptual Framework and Case Studies from Kenya. African Studies 14. Bern, Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia.

Cover design

Extract of the heuristic structural model of sustainable resource use. (© Urs Wiesmann)

Distribution

The PDF version of this paper can be downloaded from: http://www.north-south.unibe.ch under “Publications”

Table of contents

Summary 5

1. Introduction 7

2. Sustainable use of natural resources as a component of sustainable devel- 11 opment 2.1. The dimensions of sustainable development 11 2.2. The ecological dimension of sustainable development 13 2.3. Sustainable use of resources and regional development 15

3. Defining sustainable resource use and establishing scales of values 16 3.1. The problem of establishing scales of values 16 3.2. Using general and specific natural potential to establish scales of values 20 3.3. Sustainable use of natural resources in a regional context 22

4. Sustainable resource use and regional development 25 4.1. Focusing on values and impacts 25 4.2. The relevance of a regional concept to contemporary debate about sus- 28 tainability 4.3. Evaluation of sustainability and sustainable resource management: ne- 30 cessities and possibilities

5. Evaluating sustainable use of natural resources in a regional development 35 context 5.1. Basic principles of an analytical approach to evaluation 35 5.2. Selection criteria for initial evaluation of specific and globalised natural 37 potential 5.3. Selection criteria and approaches for analysing the impacts of resource 41 use 5.4. Integral indicators of sustainable resource use 43 5.5. Evaluation of sustainable resource use as an iterative process 45 5.6. The role of different actors in evaluating sustainable use of natural re- 46 sources

List of figures

Figure 1: Target values and impacts in the ‘magic triangle’ of sustainable devel- 12 opment Table 1: Classification of concepts showing relevant subsets of ‘nature’ and ‘re- 17 sources.’ Figure 2: A heuristic structural model of sustainable resource use in the context 26 of regional development Table 2: Steps and selection criteria used in evaluation of sustainable resource 45 use in a regional context.

Summary

In Part III the focus shifts from the attempt to understand dynamics (see Parts I and II) to a discussion of development aims, as development policy and practice have to be concerned with both, the processes and the aims of development. At least since UNCED 1992, this discussion has been dominated by the concept of ‘sustainable development’, about which there is broad consensus but which remains vague and therefore hardly applicable to concrete situations. The main reasons for the low degree of operationalisation of sustainable development are that the norms necessarily linked with the aims of sustainability are not exposed to explicit socio-political debate, and neglect of the fact that the three main dimensions of sustainability - economic, socio-cultural, and ecological - basically conflict due to their underlying dynamic interrelations. In this situation of implicit conflict the socio-cultural and particularly the ecological dimension of sustainable development tend to be marginalised as concrete development aims, mainly because of lack of sensitive and debatable scales of values. Against this background, and based on environmental concerns in rural Africa, the considerations of Part III concentrate on an attempt to operationalise the ecological dimension of sustainability through developing a concept of sustainable use of natural resources in regional development contexts. The starting point for these considerations is David Hume’s position that ‘what should be’ cannot be derived from ‘what is’ or ‘what will be’, or in other words, the norms and values of ecological sustainability can in principle not be derived from ‘nature’ as such but require socio-political valuation of ecological components. Therefore the key questions to address are: What are meaningful scales of values for ecological sustainability? Who establishes values in which societal context? And how can the values of future generations be anticipated? Starting with the first of these questions it is argued that ‘natural potentials’ - as opposed to terms like ‘ecological systems’ or ‘natural resources’ - refer to components of nature that a certain society considers useful or valuable at a certain point in time, and thus represent meaningful, operational and debatable scales of values for ecological sustainability. Natural potentials can generally be structured into four broad categories of scales of values: production-oriented, physiological, and socio-cultural potentials, as well as intrinsic ethical values of nature. However, different societies will differ in terms of the concrete values and the weight assigned to these categories. This is mainly true in development contexts, where the natural potentials as assessed by external expertise rooted in Western industrial societies, differ considerably from those of local societies, which contain e.g. indigenous knowledge and experience related to the complex land use systems. This difference is highlighted by naming the first societal valuation type ‘globalised natural poten-

tial’ and the latter ‘specific natural potential’. As both these types include aspects which are not present in the other, their sum constitutes a better and more meaningful anticipa- tion of future valuations than each of them separately. These considerations lead to the following definition of ecological sustainability of human activities: Resource use can be considered sustainable if it does not lead to depreciation in values associated with specific and globalised natural potentials, either within or outside a particular regional context. Through combining this focus on valuation, which is related to natural potentials, with a focus on dynamic interactions, particularly on the impacts of land use in ecological systems, a dynamic concept of ecological sustainability is developed which includes an open feedback loop. This open feedback loop implies that regional self-regulation is in any case limited and that evaluation and possible intervention with regard to the degree of ecological sustainability becomes necessary. The evaluation primarily follows three steps: Initial valuation of specific and globalised natural potentials, prospective analyses of the ecological impacts of land use, and assessment of changes in the values assigned to natural potential. This process must include at least three actor categories: Local actors for the valuation of specific natural potentials and for participatory steering approaches, scientific experts for the valuation of globalised natural potential, for impact analyses, and for assessment of steering approaches, and deciding actors and agencies for mediation between local and supra-regional claims, valuations and approaches. It is shown that the related negotiation process involving these three actor categories must be understood by itself as a substantial contribution to more sustainable resource use.

Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 7

1 Introduction

With Part III1 of this study we leave the example of Laikipia District and return to conceptual considerations: In the first two parts we have dealt with the dynamics of regional development in rural Africa to obtain an increased problem-oriented understanding. This was justified by the current crisis of development policy and practice - especially as related to the environmental dimension of development (see Part I, 2.3). We have argued, however, that this crisis is not only rooted in problems of understanding dynamics but also in widespread uncertainties related to development goals. With Part III we therefore shift from the attempt to understand dynamics to a discussion of these goals by focusing on ‘sustainable development’ as a key concept of current policy debate. Based on our concern regarding the environmental dimension of development (see Parts I and II), we will thereby concentrate on conceptual considerations related to the ecological aspects of sustainability and develop a concept of the goal of sustainable resource use in regional development contexts. In combination with the focus on dynamics, this concept will provide the basis for drafting practical approaches to key problems in the study area of Laikipia (see Part IV). The idea of ‘sustainable development’ has been at the core of conceptual thinking in the realms of development co-operation and environmental policy at least since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. ‘Sustainability’ currently has such positive connotations that it is used in virtually all publications, public debates and concrete project proposals concerned with development. Because this imprecisely defined term and the ideology it implies currently enjoy a high degree of favour world-wide, there is now a significant op- portunity to renew the conceptual and policy-related debate between representatives of different points of view in the development community. At the same time, the positive way in which this concept is perceived poses a considerable danger that ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ will become meaningless catchwords exploited by a wide range of political and economic interest groups in an effort to achieve public recognition and acceptance. These terms will continue to lose meaning if they are carelessly invoked and applied with general abandon. Moreover, their creative force and their power to stimu-

1 Part III of the present study is a slightly revised version of a paper originally published in German (Wiesmann, U., 1995: Nachhaltige Ressourcennutzung im regionalen Entwicklungskontext: Konzeptionelle Grundlagen zu deren Definition und Erfassung. Berichte zu Entwicklung und Umwelt, Nr. 13. Bern). The original paper was translated by T. Wachs, CDE. 8 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

late debate will be undermined, with the consequent risk that they will soon be replaced by other similarly vague catch phrases that function primarily as political slogans.2 To avoid this danger, ‘sustainability’, and ‘sustainable development’ in particular, must be redefined to give them precise meaning, so that the concept of sustainable development can be applied in specific problem contexts.3 This in turn calls for the establishment of identifiable criteria and indicators to assess or estimate degrees of sustainability in a particular context of development. Only when sustainability has an operational dimension of this sort can it be meaningfully debated, both in general terms and by actors who partici- pate in and are affected by development. And only then will the concept of sustainability be of use in guiding development activities.4 The aim of this part of the present study will be to give specific meaning to the concept of sustainability and show how it can be made operational in terms of assessment. The main emphasis will be devoted to defining and elaborating the concept of sustainable use of natural resources - one of the central components of sustainable development. At first glance it may seem surprising that a study concerned with sustainability at the practical level proposes to focus on theoretical and conceptual considerations rather than on specific problems related to development. This theoretical approach was chosen because current debates about sustainability do not sufficiently incorporate certain theoretical aspects and their practical consequences. One such aspect is the normative character of sustainability. Current debates are characterised by broad agreement that sustainability is a normative concept, i.e. that it is concerned with values, and particularly with target values.5 Target values, however, always reflect a standard established by society; i.e. the ‘ought’ (target values) cannot be derived from the ‘is’ (existing situation and its dynamics).6 We must therefore confront the question of which individuals or which society

2 ‘Sustainability’ would thus take its place in the ranks of catchwords such as ‘carrying capacity’, ‘institu- tion building’, ‘participation’, ‘good governance’, etc., whose ephemerality reveals the widespread uncer- tainty that characterises development debate. 3 Concrete criteria and indicators for sustainable use have been established for the field of forestry, where the concept of sustainability has been firmly established as a virtual paradigm for at least a century (see, for example, Speidel, 1972). ‘Sustainable development’ as an idea relevant to development policy origi- nated with the concept of sustainability in forestry, but the term has now come to be used very broadly. The present attempt to define it more precisely will thus have only a very limited relation to sustainability as originally understood in relation to forestry (see Bätzing, 1993). 4 In order to refine the concept of sustainability and make it operational, it will be necessary to dissolve the existing general consensus on sustainable development and engage in an explicit and focused examination of the demands and the aims of different groups of actors. 5 See, among others, Hammer, 1995. 6 This means that target values cannot be determined from ecological conditions or processes (existing situation) without a society establishing certain priorities. This fundamental difference between the ‘is’ (existing situation) and the ‘ought’ (target values) was discussed by Hume as early as the 18th century Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 9

will establish target values for sustainability in a specific context of development.7 This issue is rarely raised explicitly in debates over sustainability, although it must be resolved if there is to be any hope of developing a precise concept of sustainability and strategies for achieving it.8 The failure to explicitly confront the question of target values for sustainable development is especially pronounced with regard to ecological sustainability, where discussions focus primarily on existing conditions and processes, although these conditions are frequently implicitly linked with the establishment of target values.9 This raises problems in imple- menting principles of ecological sustainability, for when target values are described in terms of existing situations or facts, they are no longer open to social and political debate. Moreover, mixing existing situations and target values makes it much more difficult to develop practical approaches to evaluating sustainability, as any evaluation process will depend on explicit operational links between perceptions of the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’. Because it is a normative concept, sustainability can only be precisely defined to the extent that certain impacts - such as the effects of resource use on ecological components - can be determined (existing dynamics) and measured in terms of social norms that are open to debate (target values). Failure to engage in adequate discussion of values and the ways they are linked with impacts poses a major conceptual obstacle to making sustainability operational, particularly in the case of ecological sustainability.10 This study seeks to enhance current discussions of sustainability by confronting the above deficits - the problem of the social context of valuation, and the issue of links between levels of impacts (‘is’) and values (‘ought’), particularly with regard to the ecological dimension of sustainability. The following issues will be dealt with in conceptual terms: • ‘Sustainable development’ will be discussed in relation to general scales of values, which will make it clear why there is a particular need to define the ecological dimension of sustainability more precisely and make it operational. This in turn will make it

7 This question is difficult to address because sustainability involves a dimension of time which makes it concerned with target values in the future. The Brundtland Report (1987) expressed this in terms of the target values of ‘future generations’. 8 The reasons for this situation include broad consensus about the basic dimensions of target values (economic, socio-cultural and ecological sustainability; see Chap. 1); the fact that discussions of sustainability are dominated by Western, post-industrial points of view; and the fact that current discussions are less concerned with sustainability than with possible strategies for sustainable development (see Bätzing 1993, Victor 1991, and IUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991). 9 ‘Ecological stability’, a term mentioned frequently in connection with sustainability, is a typical example. This term, which refers to existing conditions and processes, is often implicitly linked with a target value. This combination of the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ prevents ‘ecological stability’ from being seen as an existing condition necessary for the preservation of certain functions of nature (e.g. productivity). A function such as this is an explicit, socially debatable target value. If this value is to be preserved, ‘ecological stability’ must be maintained as an existing (‘is’) condition. 10 Vosskühler (1994) impressively demonstrates the key importance of examining explicit social values attributed to nature in the context of sustainability. 10 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

necessary to adopt a regional focus and to concentrate on sustainable use of natural resources (see Chapter 2). • The question raised above about the social context of target values will be confronted by discussing scales of values that apply to sustainable resource use. This will provide a basis for defining what constitutes sustainable use of natural resources in the context of regional development (see Chapter 3). • A heuristic structural model of sustainable resource use in a regional context will be developed through a combined focus on values and impacts. This model will then be used to discuss the necessity and the potential for evaluation of sustainable resource use, and for practising sustainable resource management (see Chapter 4). • On the demonstrable assumption that it is necessary but not completely possible to evaluate the degree to which resource use is sustainable, an evaluation process will be presented, based on a careful selection of aspects associated with values and impacts that are relevant to sustainable resource use. The procedures proposed here will be used to demonstrate that evaluating sustainable resource use must be a participatory and interdisciplinary process. Part III therefore concludes by discussing the role of different actors in the evaluation process in the light of this requirement (see Chapter 5). The present attempt to formulate sustainable use of natural resources as a specific operational concept is intended to stimulate critical discussion of sustainability, with reference to its theoretical foundations, its practical applicability, and its socio-political significance. Discussion of this nature seems necessary in order to expose conflicts and points of view which are obscured by the positive connotations associated with ‘sustainable development’. Such discussion will also facilitate meaningful debate as well as concrete, problem- oriented approaches to development. If discussion of this sort fails to materialise, we may lose the chance to take advantage of the socio-political and scientific potential represented by the notion of sustainable development. In view of the pressing nature of existing environmental and development problems (see Part I), we can ill afford not to develop and exploit the potential inherent in the concept of sustainability. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 11

2 Sustainable use of natural resources as a component of sustainable development

In the following sections the question of sustainable use of natural resources, which is central to this study, will be treated within the framework of the larger concept of sustainable development. This perspective will illustrate why there is a particular need to formulate the ecological dimension of sustainable development in concrete terms and make it operational (see 2.2), and why this in turn requires a regional focus as well as concentration on sustainable resource use (see 2.3). First, however, it will be necessary to deal with certain fundamental considerations relating to both ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ (see 2.1).

2.1. The dimensions of sustainable development

The term ‘sustainable’ is meaningless unless it is associated with a specific reference quantity; it becomes meaningful only when it is related to a scale of values. Sustainability will therefore involve establishing a target value on a particular scale of values. The target value must be maintained (i.e. not allowed to drop below a certain level) for an extended period of time.11 In other words, sustainability will only make sense in a context of social and political evaluation of a specific set of circumstances,12 and will accordingly be concerned with maintaining values over the long term.13 In principle, the degree of sustainability in a specific context can be measured by comparing assumed or verifiable long- term changes on a particular scale of values with a reference value or target value that has been established on this scale through a process of socio-political negotiation and debate.

11 For a more thorough discussion of this point in a historical context, see Stuber (1993), Bätzing (1993) and Arts (1994). 12 This statement, which is of key importance with regard to all subsequent observations presented here, underlines once again the normative character of sustainability mentioned in the introduction. This in turn underlines the fact that any attempt to define sustainability in ‘objective’ terms - based only on a perception of existing conditions - is bound to fail. 13 For example: (1) In the forestry sector, sustainability refers, among other things, to maintaining timber stocks at a certain level on a particular area of forest land over the long term, so that total timber con- sumption does not exceed new growth. (2) A project will be sustainable if its beneficial effects (measured on scales of values) can be maintained over the long term. (3) An economic activity can be considered ecologically sustainable if it does not cause direct or indirect damage to what society perceives as ‘nature’ (e.g. by polluting the atmosphere). 12 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Socio-economic System Socio-cultural System

Economic Socio-cultural Sustainability Sustainability

Land Use System

Ecological Sustainability

Ecological System

Legend: Focus on "ought": perceptions, valuations and needs (convergence, conflict )

Focus on "is": relations, systemic interactions and dynamics U. Wiesmann, 1995/97

Figure 1: Target values and impacts in the ‘magic triangle’ of sustainable development

From these general observations it follows that the concept of sustainability can be made meaningful, explicit and operational only as the result of a process of clear and comprehensible socio-political debate that focuses on specific goals expressed in terms of values. In the case of sustainable development there is little clarity with regard to values, which explains why the concept itself has become vague. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that scales of values for sustainable development can be established with reference to three different areas, namely socio-economic systems, sociocultural systems, and ecological systems. This has given rise to the notion of what has been called the ‘magic triangle’14 of sustainable development, composed of socio-economic, sociocultural and ecological sustainability (see Figure 1).15

14 The idea of the ‘magic triangle’ of sustainable development has been borrowed from E. Brugger (UNCED conference at the University of Bern, 1992). 15 These three components of sustainable development, which were mentioned in the Brundtland Report (1987), can also be found in Agenda 21 of the UNCED Conference (see Robinson 1992), and in most publications dealing with sustainability (see Bätzing, 1993, Messerli 1994, and Hammer 1995). Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 13

In contrast to the general consensus about the ‘magic triangle’ itself, there is little general agreement about the different scales of values associated with its three main components. The types of sustainability referred to below, each of which is associated with various scales of values, are among those which can be found in the wide range of existing publications on sustainability, where they are mentioned either explicitly or implicitly: • Economic sustainability16 is measured primarily as a function of the values that determine basic material security for all members of a particular society. But aside from basic security, such factors as economic growth, the potential for economic development, diversity of economic activity, etc. are also associated with economic sustainability. • Sociocultural sustainability is usually associated with individual spiritual, cultural and political potential for development, although it is also concerned with preservation of the diversity of sociocultural values. • The values mentioned most frequently in connection with ecological sustainability are ecological stability and conservation of natural resources. On the basis of these observations, we could say that development at the local, regional, national or global level is sustainable if, as a minimum condition, there is no long-term depreciation in any of the values used to evaluate socio-economic, sociocultural or ecological sustainability.

2.2. The ecological dimension of sustainable development

Scales of values that apply to socio-economic, sociocultural and ecological sustainability can be evaluated and debated independently of one another in a socio-political context (where the focus is on values), but they are not independent of one another in terms of systemic interactions (where the focus is on impacts). Figure 1 illustrates that the values associated with sustainability are linked by means of complex and dynamic interactions in a man-environment system.17 Changes in one of the components of this system - i.e. socio- economic, sociocultural, land use or ecological change - will have impacts on other components through a complex series of relationships. Any attempt to influence a particular scale of values in order to promote sustainable development will accordingly cause a change in values on other scales. Problems frequently arise because different types of

16 In the ‘magic triangle’ economic sustainability refers to overall economic goals, i.e. long-term economic survival. In terms of target values, economic sustainability can thus be distinguished from an ‘ecologically sustainable economy’, which is concerned with the ecological sustainability of economic activities. 17 The term ‘man-environment system’, which has great heuristic potential, was proposed in the framework of the Swiss national research program, ‘Socio-economic Development and Ecological Stress in Moun- tain Ecosystems’, a part of the global UNESCO ‘Man and the Biosphere’ (MAB) program (Messerli and Messerli 1979; Wiesmann 1978). Figure 1 is based on the concept of a man-environment system: socio- economic systems (economy and society) and natural systems are linked together through land use, which is understood to include all human activities in a particular region. 14 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

change occur simultaneously; i.e. positive changes on one scale may be linked with negative changes on another scale. In particular, it is possible to demonstrate - and to verify historically - that positive changes in values associated with economic sustainability are often linked with negative changes in values associated with sociocultural sustainability, and even more frequently with negative changes in values associated with ecological sustainability.18 Hence sustainable development will inevitably involve conflict,19 because positive changes in some values must be weighed against negative changes in others. It follows that sustainable development is always a gradual process. It cannot be absolute; various options for gradual progress must continually be weighed against each other. This implies a socio-political process of consensus-building, during which different interest groups must argue their points of view vis à vis desirable forms of economic, social and ecological development. The choice of options for gradual sustainable development will be a function of (1) power structures and vested interests; (2) the measurability and sensitivity of different scales of values; and (3) the potential for sustainable resource management represented by scales of values. The values associated with ecological sustainability have serious disadvantages in all three of the above areas (see Figure 1). For one thing, ecological values are not sufficiently ad- vocated in the public arena. Even more important, reference values and indicators associated with economic and sociocultural sustainability are more firmly anchored in society than ecological values, and they can provide evidence of positive and negative change much more quickly than corresponding ecological criteria. This suggests that socio-economic values, as well as sociocultural values to some extent, will tend to prevail over ecological values in the political process by which options for sustainable development are chosen - even though the concept of sustainable development was originally rooted in concern for the environment. The tendency to marginalise the ecological dimension of sustainable development is further reinforced by the fact that the instruments available for maintaining and improving the quality of the environment are not as firmly established as those used to promote the goals of economic and social policy. Moreover, environmental measures usually have indirect effects in a socio-economic context and often have a noticeable impact only after considerable time has elapsed. Consequently, environmental policy tends to be subordinated to socio-economic and sociocultural policy, with the result that sociocultural sustainability - and especially economic sustainability - take precedence.

18 This is especially true when desirable economic development in a specific area or within a particular society is tied to technological innovations whose impacts cannot yet be estimated or absorbed by society. 19 The great political popularity currently enjoyed by the concept of sustainable development is rooted partly in the implication that economic, social and ecological sustainability can be easily synchronised, thereby helping to conceal existing conflicts. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 15

The tendency to marginalise ecological sustainability in the context of social and political debate about sustainable development poses a major challenge to scientific research, policy-making, and development practice. The scientific community in particular is faced with the challenge of devising criteria and indicators that can be used to define and evaluate ecological sustainability, and that can also compete on an equal footing with the criteria used to evaluate economic and sociocultural sustainability. Accordingly, we shall concentrate here on the ecological dimension of sustainable development.

2.3 Sustainable use of resources and regional development

Like the concept of sustainable development, ecological sustainability is primarily concerned with human-induced change. Hence we shall not be concerned here with natural ecological change and variation, but with human-induced change (impacts), and evaluation of this change by focusing on scales of values established to evaluate ecological sustainability. Human-induced ecological change is rooted in direct or indirect use of natural resources, whether such resource use is intentional or not. Resource use thus has a decisive influence on ecological sustainability. If resource use is to be sustainable, natural resources must be used in such a way that long-term ecological target values are maintained. The ecological dimension of sustainable development is thus directly related to sustainable resource use. Resources are used within a definable area, but the nature and degree of the ecological impacts of resource use will depend on the particular features of the ecosystems affected. Ecological impacts can thus be correlated with specific regions, even though the area of resource use and the area of ecological impact may not coincide, given the complexity of ecological processes and interactions.20 Since the ecological impacts of land use can be perceived and understood only in a specific spatial-ecological context, measures designed to promote sustainable resource use must also be applied in a specific regional context.21 These considerations make it clear that resource use can be specifically refined and made operational only in a local or regional context. Therefore, the most meaningful way for the scientific community to strengthen the ecological dimension of sustainable development is to formulate criteria, indicators and measures for promoting sustainable use of resources in a context of local or regional development. The concept of sustainable resource use in a regional context discussed below has been developed on this premise.

20 Transregional ecological impacts can result from resource use that affects the hydrological cycle or the atmosphere, that causes soil erosion and processes of soil accumulation, or that affects the natural landscape and animal habitats. The importance of transregional impacts is taken into consideration in the present concept for assessing the degree to which resource use is sustainable. 21 This also applies to indirect measures, such as approaches used in environmental economics, which must be conceived in a way that will affect relevant actors in an appropriate, specific setting (see Perich 1993). 16 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

3 Defining sustainable resource use and establishing scales of values

In Chapter 2 it was argued that any attempt to enhance the ecological dimension of sustainable development will depend greatly on the prospect of defining meaningful and comprehensible reference quantities - or scales of values - that can be applied to sustainable resource use. The following sections will examine scales of values (3.1) and the social context in which such values are determined (3.2). This discussion will then be used to develop a definition of sustainable use of natural resources as it relates to regional development.

3.1. The problem of establishing scales of values

It is usually implicitly assumed that ‘the environment,’ ‘the natural system,’ and/or ‘natural resources’ constitute reference quantities, or scales of values, which can be applied to sustainable resource use.22 This raises the question whether these concepts can be sufficiently clarified and defined so that they can be subsequently described and understood in a way that will facilitate their use as scales of values in a specific regional context. The first step toward answering this question is to clarify what we mean by ‘environment,’ ‘natural system’ and ‘natural resources.’ Generally speaking, we can say that these concepts are usually used in rather imprecise and undifferentiated ways.23 Table 1 arranges them at four different levels, in descending order of magnitude, showing overlaps in each category, e.g. ‘utilised potential’ is a subset of ‘natural potential.’ This table also shows that terminology will vary, reflecting the influence of common usage and the viewpoints of different authors.24 The terms that appear in the first column of Table 1 will be used in the present discussion.

22 Building on the discussion in Chapter 2, this would mean that resource use is sustainable if it has no long- term negative impacts on ‘the environment’, on ‘natural systems’, or on ‘natural resources’. 23 This is particularly true of the English-language literature, which dominates discussions of sustainability. However, authors from Eastern Germany (particularly Haase 1978, and Graf 1980) have taken important steps toward clarifying these terms. The present study builds to some extent on their work. 24 One problem is that the term ‘resources’ appears on at least three of these levels (it is sometimes used at all four levels). This confusion partially explains why ‘sustainable use of resources’ is still a vague concept for all practical purposes. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 17

We shall now examine whether these four different levels constitute reference quantities - or scales of values - which can be use to evaluate sustainable resource use. In light of the considerations presented in Chapter 2, one of the most important criteria for sustainability is whether these concepts include an adequate number of socially negotiable target values applicable to the ecological dimension of sustainability.

Terms used in this study General description Colloquial usage and terms used by various authors Ecological system All forms, attributes and Nature, environment, ecosystem relationships found in (colloquial); nature Basic capital (Hagett 1983); Natural capital (Haase 1978) Natural resources All components of nature Natural resources (colloquial); that are considered valu- Resource base able or can be used by (Haase 1978; Schurr 1960) man (past, present and future) Natural potential All components of nature Natural resources (colloquial; considered valuable or Hagett 1983); useful by a society at a Natural potential (Haase 1978); particular time Resources (Schurr,Netschert 1960) Utilised potential Natural potential used or Natural resources (colloquial); developed at a specific Natural resources (Haase 1978); time Reserves (Schurr, Netschert 1960)

Table 1: Classification of concepts showing relevant subsets of ‘nature’ and ‘resources.’ 1. The term ecological system refers to the totality of forms, attributes and relationships found in nature.25 But this totality exhibits two features which probably make it unsuit- able for application to evaluation of sustainable resource use: (1) An ecological system is an unlimited quantity; i.e. its dimensions are in principle infinite. This makes it un- suitable for social and political debate about values that apply to sustainable use of natural resources.26 (2) The components of an ecological system (forms, attributes and relationships) are a priori value free, i.e. they are not variables with either positive or negative values; they reflect existing natural conditions. Accordingly, they are not appropriate as scales of values for evaluating sustainable resource use. In recent decades, semi-objective attempts have frequently been made to establish ecological variables as values, based on knowledge of biological systems and analogies drawn from such sys-

25 Use of the word ‘system’ does not imply the totality of nature as we usually understand it. Rather, it suggests that conceptual models are being projected onto a ‘nature’ that is assumed to function systematically (an assumption that cannot be verified in principle, but that has proven useful for understanding and dealing with the concept of ‘nature’). 26 The totality of nature is a scientifically and culturally debatable dimension that can be enlarged at will to include such minute details as a particular spot of colour on the wing of a butterfly, etc. 18 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

tems.27 The best-known efforts in this regard have been associated with the concept of ‘ecological stability.’ But ecological stability is poorly suited in operational terms as a scale of values which can be debated in social and political terms. Moreover, many ecological systems are characterised primarily by instability. 2. Natural resources are a subset of the virtually unlimited components that make up an ecological system. In principle, natural resources should comprise a suitable scale of values useful for evaluating sustainable resource use, as they consist of variables which represent values, to the extent that they include all components of nature in an ecological system that have some use or value. This implies that positive and negative values are assigned to selected components of an ecological system. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to define natural resources in a way that will give us a scale of values appropriate for evaluating sustainable resource use. The problem is that assessments of the usefulness or value of natural resources do not apply specifically to a particular society with identifiable economic, social, technical and ethical characteristics, but implicitly refer to all human experience - past, present and future.28 Natural resources are therefore quite arbitrary as a reference value, and can theoretically include, or even be identical with, the virtually infinite number of components in an ecological system. This all-inclusive idea of natural resources is not very widespread at the level of development policy-making, however, where there is a belief that the modern scientific view of natural resources is a semi-objective one that applies to all past, present, and, by implication, future civilisations.29 As this view is usually expressed implicitly, it must be pointed out here that the scientific outlook, and the ways in which modern science approaches problems and produces findings, are influenced by the status of science in Western industrial societies and the esteem accorded to the scientific method.30 The scientific point of view accordingly reflects Western economic, social, technological and ethical standards. Therefore, if it is assumed that natural resources can be objec- tively defined in general terms, there is a risk that specifically Western perceptions and valuations of nature will be universally applied to non-Western societies, or particular sectors of these societies, without closer examination. This could have potentially dis- astrous consequences for development.

27 Because these attempts are based on so-called ‘naturalistic fallacies’ (see Hume's ‘Treatise on Human Nature’), they are destined to fail. 28 This implication is present in the widespread assumption, found in the traditional natural sciences, that natural resources exist independently of a concrete social and historical context. 29 This view is found less frequently among researchers in the natural sciences than among development experts and politicians with scientific and technical training, who generally do not much concern themselves with its paradigmatic qualities. 30 The great esteem that science continues to enjoy is based mainly on the fact that scientific findings have been successfully implemented in technological and economic terms. It does not necessarily follow by analogy that scientific views and approaches relating to ecological sustainability and sustainable use of resources hold equal promise of success. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 19

Consequently, because the concept of natural resources is essentially an arbitrary one which is implicitly linked with the values of Western industrial society, it is not well suited as a basis for evaluating sustainable resource use. 3. Natural potential refers to all components of nature considered useful or valuable by a certain society at a certain point in time. ‘Natural potential’ is thus distinguished from ‘natural resources’ by its relation to a particular social and historical context. Even though there may be some overlap in the natural potentials of different societies with different economic, social, cultural, technical and ethical systems, individual components of the ecological system will usually be distinguished from one another by their particular value and significance.31 Hence the concept of ‘natural potential’ in a specific context does not have arbitrary and unlimited dimensions, like ‘ecosystem’ and ‘natural resources’. Moreover, natural potential can be discussed and debated in social and political terms. For these reasons it could serve as a reference quantity for deriving scales of values applicable in evaluation of sustainable resource use. 4. The above conclusions also hold true for utilised potential, the final item in the first column in Table 1, which designates natural potential that is used or developed at a specific point in time by a certain society. Utilised potential is a subset of natural potential, and it is the most readily comprehensible of the concepts under consideration here. It is also the one most likely to provide indicators, such as those mentioned in Chapter 1, which measure positive or negative ecological change over time.32 The utilised potential being exploited at a particular time could thus serve as a relevant reference quantity for evaluating sustainable resource use. But focusing only on utilised potential will result in a perspective that is too narrow. The danger is that components of the globalised natural potential which are not being used, or are being used only mini- mally, will be underestimated in terms of their future potential, particularly in the light of a long-term perspective on sustainability. Analysis of the concepts classified at these four different levels makes it clear that we must focus on natural potential, which has clear sociocultural relevance in terms of scales of values that can be used to evaluate sustainable resource use. Ecological systems and natural resources are too arbitrary and too little suited to social and political discussion and debate, while utilised potential is not broad enough to allow consideration of future de- mand that is likely to affect sustainable use of resources. Accordingly, we shall henceforth concentrate on natural potential.

31 For example, soil is considered a component of natural potential in most societies, although there is great variation in the value and importance attached to it. 32 Indicators sensitive to short-term change are reflected in the prices of some types of utilised potential (see Perich 1993). 20 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

3.2. Using general and specific natural potential to establish scales of values

Natural potential comprises components of nature that a particular society considers useful and/or valuable. Two types of natural potential are usually involved in specific development policy and practice. One is natural potential at the local level, and the other is natural potential as defined in scientific terms by Western industrial societies. The latter type has been embraced by influential development organisations and similar bodies, and frequently by national elites as well. In order to differentiate between these two types of natural potential, we shall henceforth refer to local natural potential as specific natural potential, while externally defined potential will be referred to as globalised natural potential. The term ‘specific’ will be used in reference to a particular local sociocultural situation, while the term ‘general’ will be used to emphasise that most decision makers and elites throughout the world have come to perceive and value components of nature at least partially in accordance with the criteria used by industrialised countries in the West. Although this means that globalised natural potential is often more prominently represented at the practical level, it does not imply that specific natural potential is any less significant. Since both types are embedded in a sociocultural context, they are of equal significance in principle. General and specific natural potential may overlap, but each also contains attributes and elements not found in the other. For instance, local rural societies do not often consider groundwater deep beneath the surface of the earth to be a usable resource. Simi- larly, medicinal plants that have value at the local level are not considered to be part of the globalised natural potential. But even in areas where general and specific natural potential overlap, they can usually be easily distinguished in terms of their specific value and significance. For example, as a component of globalised natural potential, soil is valued primarily for its productive function, with soil fertility being the most important aspect. Alt- hough the productive function of soil may be an important part of specific natural potential as well, soil can also have cultural and religious significance (e.g. in the case of ancestral lands) at the local level. But this feature of specific natural potential would not be relevant to globalised natural potential as it is normally perceived and evaluated. If natural potential is used as a reference quantity to establish scales of values for evaluating sustainable development (see section 3.1), then any component of either general or specific natural potential can be used on such scales. The specific value of such components should either appreciate with the passage of time or at least not show any depreciation. General and specific natural potential together can be used to establish many such scales of values. It will be helpful to group the many components of both general and specific natural potential into four general types, each of which can be used to establish scales of values for evaluating sustainable use of natural resources. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 21

1. The first type can be called production-oriented natural potential. This category includes all the components and attributes of nature that are considered to be a part of either specific or globalised natural potential and that are connected with the production of goods. Typical examples include soil fertility, growing conditions related to the availability of water, the genetic potential of cultivated plants and domestic animals, and raw materials used in energy production and industrial production. Many of these components are simultaneously counted as parts of both general and specific natural potential, although they will frequently vary greatly in importance. There is a also a tendency to see components of globalised natural potential in this category as separate entities, i.e. soil, water and vegetation, whereas specific natural potential in rural societies is composed predominantly of integral components of local value. 2. The second type is physiological natural potential. Included here are components of nature that have some effect on the physical well-being of humankind and are valued accordingly. Typical examples include the quality of air and drinking water, natural hazards such as floods and landslides, diseases, medicinal plants, etc.33 As in the case of production-oriented natural potential, specific and globalised natural potential in this category are also differentiated primarily on the basis of the significance accorded to the specific components involved. 3. Sociocultural natural potential is a third type, and includes components of nature that have some sociocultural value. Typical examples are the religious and cultural significance of objects such as trees, historically and culturally significant sites, natural monuments, and the aesthetic value of the natural landscape. Sociocultural natural potential is characterised by particularly sharp differences between specific and globalised natural potential. Production-oriented and physiological values are often incorporated into sociocultural values as part of the specific natural potential, particularly in rural societies, while sociocultural values are scarcely noticeable in the globalised natural potential, or are concealed as a part of production-oriented and physiological values. 4. The three types of natural potential described so far have clear relations to human life and society. However, there is one additional type which is primarily a part of the globalised natural potential, and which has no direct relation to humankind, although it has natural components valued by humankind. This fourth type can be called the intrinsic ethical value of nature. The right of plants and animals to exist is a central feature of this type of natural potential.34 The ethical value of nature is usually more prominently reflected in globalised natural potential than in specific natural potential. This is be-

33 The example of medicinal plants, which have the characteristics of both production-oriented and physiological natural potential, illustrates the possibility of overlaps in the four types of natural potential being discussed here. 34 The right to exist usually refers to species and not to individual plants and animals. It is often justified in relatively broad terms in connection with the ‘ecological function’ of a species. 22 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

cause integrated, site-specific viewpoints that internalise nature - which are frequently found in particular sociocultural aspects of the specific natural potential - have lost much of their significance as a part of globalised natural potential, having been replaced by objective and analytical modes of perception characteristic of modern science. Added to this is the fact that Western industrial societies have been responsible for causing substantial losses of biodiversity. Thus, exaggerating somewhat in the interest of clarity, we could say that the intrinsic ethical value of nature represents a form of compensation for modern industrial development as well as for loss of the ability to internalise nature. In conclusion, scales of values can be based on both specific and globalised natural potential in all four of these categories. However, these values exhibit a wide range of differences, in terms of their importance as well as their particular features. Consideration of these differences is crucial to the following attempt to define sustainable resource use.

3.3. Sustainable use of natural resources in a regional context

Sustainable resource use will be defined here on the basis of specific and globalised natural potential and scales of values in the four categories described above. Using natural potential as a reference quantity to evaluate sustainable use of natural resources at the regional level raises some problems, however. Three problems are of particular significance here, namely the temporal as well as the spatial dimensions of sustainability, and the additional problem of balancing positive and negative fluctuations in value. 1. The dimension of time: General and specific natural potential both have a clear relation to human society and culture. Accordingly, they change in ways that reflect economic, social, cultural, technical and ethical changes in a particular society. Therefore, both general and specific natural potential will be valued differently in the future than in the present. If this were not the case, the specific natural potential of a particular region could be used alone to establish scales of values for evaluating the degree to which resource use is sustainable in that region. But values in both types of natural potential will change in ways that cannot be predicted. Therefore, because our measure of sustainability is linked to the lack of any long-term depreciation in target values on scales of values which are constantly fluctuating, we must attempt to estimate how both specific and globalised natural potential are likely to be valued in the future. The present study proposes to deal with this problem by using both specific AND globalised natural potential to establish scales of values for evaluating sustainable use of natural resources. Resource use will thus be defined as sustainable if it does not cause long-term depreciation in value in either the specific or the globalised natural potential. Using both forms of natural potential gives us a broad range of scales. A range of scales derived from both specific and globalised natural potential is more likely to be of use in taking account of the future values of natural potential than a range which Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 23

is based only on specific natural potential or, as more frequently happens in practice, only on the globalised natural potential. A further reason for considering both types of natural potential is that this will allow open discussion and debate, involving local societies as well as external actors who intervene in these societies. 2. The dimension of space: Sustainable use of natural resources will be defined in the present context in regional terms, i.e. in relation to a specifically delineated region, such as the habitat of a particular human society or a particular group of actors or land users. However, this raises the problem of the transregional impacts of resource use. Owing to ecological interactions, resource use in a particular region can be responsible for changes in the natural potential outside the region. These transregional impacts are undoubtedly most extreme in the case of climate change. Other examples include water problems in highland-lowland systems, soil erosion and soil accumulation, visual impacts that affect the aesthetic sense, and imports of fossil fuels whose emissions have impacts outside the region under consideration. Hence we must take both regional and transregional changes in the general and specific natural potential into account when trying to determine whether resource use is sustainable. At the same time, it must be remembered that one feature of specific natural potential outside a particular region is its association with a different local society; thus it will have different characteristics. 3. The problem of balance: We can now define a standard of sustainable resource use using scales of values established on the basis of specific and globalised natural potential in a particular region and also outside the region. However, this raises a problem in that these scales of values do not all respond to human resource use in the same way. For example, a certain type of use may enhance production-oriented globalised natural potential, while at the same time causing the value of sociocultural specific natural potential to depreciate. We are thereby confronted with the question of balancing positive and negative fluctuations in value. Does every negative change on one scale mean that resource use is not sustainable? Or is it possible to maintain that depreciation on one scale can be compensated by enhanced value on another? The first of these two variations has been characterised as ‘strong sustainability’ and the second as ‘weak sustainability’ (Foy/Daly 1989). In light of the fact that every form of resource use results in positive and negative fluctuations on different scales of values, the present study will focus on ‘weak sustainability’, since it allows a certain degree of balance to be achieved. It is very important that positive and negative fluctuations in value are ob- servable, and that the question of how to balance them be addressed by society. For example, it may no longer be feasible to balance positive and negative change when depreciation in value involving either general or specific natural potential is irreversible. Accepting the principle of balance implies that we shall be concerned with a certain degree of sustainable resource use rather than with sustainable or non-sustainable resource use in absolute terms. 24 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Based on the above considerations, we can define sustainable use of natural resources as follows (see also Figure 2): Resource use may be considered sustainable in a regional context if it does not lead to long-term depreciation on scales of values derived from specific and globalised natural potential, either within or outside of the region in question. Since it is virtually impossible to put this strict definition of sustainability into practice, we shall focus on degrees of sustainable resource use, incorporating the principle of balance: The degree to which resource use is sustainable in a regional context is a function of the extent to which a society is willing to strike a balance between negative and positive fluctuations in the values of specific and globalised natural potential. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 25

4 Sustainable resource use and regional development

Sustainable resource use was defined in the previous chapter on the basis of scales of values and the social context in which these values are rooted. By combining the focus on values incorporated in the definition with a systemic focus on impacts, we can develop a concept of sustainable resource use in a regional context. The present chapter will present this concept in the form of a structural model (4.1), in the context of the current debate about sustainability (4.2), and examine both the need to make it operational and the feasi- bility of doing so(4.3).

4.1. Focusing on values and impacts

The abstract definition of sustainable resource use presented in Chapter 3 is based on spec- ifying values that can be used as target values for evaluating ecological sustainability (see Figure 1). Combining this focus on values with a focus on dynamic impacts in a regional man-environment system allows us to formulate a concept of sustainable resource use in a regional context. This concept is illustrated in Figure 2 in the form of a structural model which incorporates the following aspects: • The land use system in a particular region includes all human activities which involve use of natural resources or which have some impact on components of the ecological system, regardless of whether this land use and its impacts are intentional or un- intentional. The land use system thus becomes the starting point for focusing on impacts when evaluating sustainability, as it includes all human activities which must be analysed to determine their ecological sustainability in relation to target values derived from specific and globalised natural potential. • Because land use systems are an integral part of dynamic socio-economic and sociocultural systems, resource use is subject to both spatial and temporal dynamics.35 The dynamics of resource use can be understood as the result of an active and ongoing process in which land users use the specific natural potential at their disposal in an attempt to achieve optimal harmony between external economic, cultural and political

35 In order to simplify the graphic presentation, socio-economic and sociocultural systems have not been portrayed in Figure 2. These components are included indirectly in the structural model, in discussion of the differentiation between time and space. 26 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Region

Land Use System Human activities that involve use of natural resources. Its embedment in socioeconomic and sociocultural systems. Degree of spatial and temporal differentiation of activities. Relation between productive and reproductive activities.

Specific Globalised Natural Potential Natural Potential Specific perception and Scientific and technical assessment of potentials and valuation and significance Generalised limits of components of the assigned to four types of and specific ecological system by local natural potential: natural societies and actors. potentials (1) production-oriented and outside the Four types of natural poten- (2) physiological natural region tial usually valued in more potential integral fashion than in (3) sociocultural values & case of the globalised (4) intrinsic values of natural potential nature

Ecological System Ecological patterns and processes. Natural variability in space and time. Buffer capacity against human impacts.

Legend: Focus on relations, systemic interactions and dynamics: ecological processes and impacts from land use activities Focus on perceptions and valuations: society-specific valuation and significance of natural components Criteria for assessing the degree of sustainable resource use in the context of regional development. Indication: positive and negative changes in criteria over time

U. Wiesmann, 1995/97

Figure 2: A heuristic structural model of sustainable resource use in the context of regional development

influences and their own economic and cultural structures, needs and visions. Because land use systems are subject to such dynamics, the degree to which they are sustainable according to the definition we have formulated here will change over time. One of the most important features of a land use system which has an influence on such change is Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 27

the relation between productive and reproductive work concerned with natural resource use.36 • As a result of both current and future forms of resource use, land use systems have an impact on ecological processes and patterns, thereby causing changes in the components of the ecological system. As a result of trans-boundary processes, these ecological changes are not usually limited to the area in which resources are actually being used. The nature, the magnitude, and the spatial extent of ecological change are influenced by the type of resource use involved, as well as by the specific features of the ecological system affected, including spatio-temporal variability and especially buffer capacity. • Some of the changes in components and features of the ecological system will be perceived and assessed by the local population affected, particularly in the specific natural potential, and/or by external experts in the globalised natural potential. Whether ecological change is reflected in terms of positive or negative changes in values associated with specific and/or globalised natural potential will depend on whether appropriate scales of values are contained in the natural potential, and whether the magnitude and the speed of ecological change lie outside the usual range of fluctuation in the value of certain components of nature. Accordingly, the transition from focusing on impacts (impacts of the land use system within the ecological system) to focusing on values (assessing ecological changes in the value of natural potential) involves selectivity and determination of significance. • By the terms of the definition of sustainable resource use given above (see 3.3), the degree of sustainability will be determined by changes in value in the specific and the globalised natural potential, both within and outside of a particular region. If the impacts of the land use system in the ecological system are reflected in negative changes in the value of natural potential, resource use is not completely sustainable. If both positive and negative changes in value occur, the degree of sustainability can be adjusted through a process of negotiation to strike a balance between positive and negative change. • Changes in the value of specific natural potential (valuation of components of nature by a local population) can cause resource users to react in ways that will be reflected in modifications of the land use system (see 4.3). But this direct feedback effect on the land use system does not occur with regard to globalised natural potential (external, scientifically influenced valuation of nature) or specific natural potential outside the region in question. Modifications of the land use system that are associated with changes in

36 Reproductive work is concerned with activities that help to regenerate or expand natural potential. Ac- cording to Bätzing (1993), a high degree of sustainability in resource use is most likely to be achieved if reproductive work accounts for a major portion of all work done - even in land use systems undergoing change. 28 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

these forms of natural potential may come about indirectly as the result of socio- economic and sociocultural processes. Ideally, such modifications will take place as a result of contacts and discussions which lead to certain aspects of these external forms of natural potential being incorporated into the specific natural potential, thereby potentially allowing for the type of feedback described above. In conclusion, we can see that the structural model of sustainable resource use in Figure 2 represents a partial, open and dynamic feedback loop consisting of impacts and values.37 The effects of land use systems within an ecological system (impacts) are selectively reflected in the natural potential (valuation of components of nature). In the case of specific natural potential, these impacts may produce modifications in the land use system. The fact that this feedback loop is not closed requires us to explore ways of making sustainability operational, in terms of both evaluation and resource management. The structural model presented here represents a heuristic potential for operationalisation in a specific regional context of development.

4.2. The relevance of a regional concept to contemporary debate about sustainability

Before confronting the questions of evaluation and sustainable resource management, we must assess the relevance of our concept to current debates about sustainability. The key aspects discussed below, and illustrated in Figure 2, are important in relation to the operational consequences of the concept, which will be discussed in subsequent chapters. 1. Valuation of nature in a context of dynamic impacts Sustainable use of natural resources is a component of the politically and socially defined concept of sustainable development, and is related to environmental target conditions rather than to existing conditions. Thus it is primarily concerned not with ‘nature’ per se - as nature is usually defined - but with valuations of nature. These valuations are not derived directly from nature, but are linked to economic, social, cultural, technical and ethical characteristics in a specific social context. The position taken in the present study therefore differs markedly from concepts of sustainability based on scientific perceptions of nature, which seek criteria for evaluating sustainability that are more or less independent of the local social context. As Figure 2 illustrates, this does not mean that scientific, systemic views of nature are of no significance to the present concept. A scientific focus on impacts is important in prospective assessments of how resource use changes an ecological system. Regardless of the quality and the detail of such assessments, however, an explicit social assessment of identifiable ecological

37 ‘Dynamic’ in this context refers primarily to impact analysis. The dynamics of the evaluation process was treated earlier, with reference to combining specific and globalised natural potential (see 3.3). Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 29

change is necessary first in order to draw conclusions about the degree to which resource use is sustainable. Scientists are not likely to implicitly anticipate such assessments when focusing on impacts.38 2. The social frame of reference for valuation If we assume that sustainable use of resources is related to valuations of nature, we must then address the question of the social frame of reference in which such valuation takes place. Because sustainable use of resources is linked to future conditions, and therefore involves anticipating what value societies will assign to nature in the future, the frames of reference offered both by Western societies and by local communities are insufficient by themselves as a basis for making projections. Only a balanced combination of these two social frames of reference will increase the likelihood that we can make an approximate determination of how a society is likely to value nature in the future. By making use of both these social frames of reference, the present concept contrasts with evaluations made by developed societies - whose perspectives reflect the influence of their technological and urban-oriented service economies - as well as with evaluations which have a fixed perspective that idealises rural societies rooted in nature.39 Giving equal consideration to valuation of nature in both the Western, scientific frame of reference and the frame of reference of local communities40 strengthens the position of local societies by making it unlikely that they will be overwhelmed by a technological and scientific approach to sustainable resource use or judged only by the standards of local tradition.41 3. The concrete spatial frame of reference for valuation Given these two social contexts of valuation, it follows that sustainable use of resources must be related to a concrete spatial frame of reference. This spatial frame of reference can be characterised as the habitat in which particular societies or specific actors live and engage in specific activities. Since sustainable use of resources in a particular region is defined by the perceptions, the demands, the needs and the visions of local societies and actors, this spatial frame of reference will be determined by social and political units.42 The regional frame of reference postulated in our concept (see

38 This position follows arguments made by Hume and his successors. It does not imply that the work of scientists must be ‘value-free,’ but that scientific analysis must indeed take account of values. Accord- ingly, descriptive and normative aspects must be clearly differentiated and declared, and normative aspects must be treated responsibly and with an awareness of their socio-political role. 39 It is assumed here that both of these views, which implicitly dominate discussions of sustainability, stem from the same sociocultural context - that of Western, urban intellectuals. 40 Both contexts of valuation thus become equal in status, based on the overall total of scales of values included in the definition of sustainable resource use. 41 In this connection, see the very illuminating work done by Gnägi (1994) on the problem of misunder- standing when using participatory approaches. 42 Including specific natural potential in the definition of sustainable use of resources means that sustainable resource use will be understood differently by two different societies in the same geographical region. 30 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Figure 2) can thus be usefully related to the sub-national level, although the concept itself could be made more general for a larger and more heavily populated area, or even applied at the micro level of the individual land user. It thus differs in its spatial and social dimensions from global concepts of sustainability which tend to be dominated by a Western, technological approach to valuation. 4. Transregional and global dimensions of regional sustainability Although we have postulated a concrete spatial frame of reference for sustainable resource use, this does not exclude consideration of transregional and global dimensions. Figure 2 illustrates that scales of values for evaluating sustainable resource use are primarily associated with a specific regional context. But interactions between the land use system and the ecological system indicates the need to consider two types of transregional impacts. One concerns the use of natural potential outside the region, as in the case of imported energy and raw materials. The other is evident in transregional ecological impacts such as air pollution, changes in the water regime, or the breaking up of large-scale habitats. Evaluation of such transregional impacts is important in clarifying the degree to which resource use in a particular region is sustainable. This distinguishes the present concept from concepts of sustainability which are concerned with a purely local context in ecological and social terms. In other words, we are attempting to establish a connection between a specific regional orientation and transregional - or even global - perspectives on sustainable resource use. In this regard it will be important to illuminate and examine conflicts over resource use which involve different standards of measurement and different levels of society when debating sustainable resource use. In conclusion, it can be seen that three main aspects of the present concept are relevant to the current debate on sustainability: (1) It clearly differentiates between valuation and impact, and combines them in conceptual terms; (2) It takes account of two social frames of reference in anticipating future valuations of nature; (3) It has a specific regional focus which also allows for consideration of transregional impacts.

4.3. Evaluation of sustainability and sustainable resource management: necessities and possibilities

It was argued in Chapter 2 that there is an urgent need to make the ecological dimension of sustainable development concrete and operational in the form of sustainable use of natural resources. This means it will be necessary to find ways of measuring and evaluating the degree to which resource use is sustainable in a specific context. Reliable evaluation must precede any debate over strategies and measures to promote sustainability. Accordingly,

Explicit inclusion of two contexts of valuation will allow us to expose conflicts in resource use and deal with them in the context of political and social debate on sustainable development. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 31

this section will examine what we can conclude about the consequences of making sustainability operational, by considering the concept we have been developing here and the features associated with it. This examination will be guided by two questions: (1) In which regional contexts is there a need for evaluation of sustainability and for sustainable resource management, and (2) How can we use the concept we have been developing to assess the possibilities and the limitations of concrete evaluations of sustainability? The heuristic structural model (see Figure 2) illustrates that there is a need to evaluate sustainability in every regional context, and that there may also be a need for sustainable resource management. This need can be explained in the following terms: • The structural model presented in Figure 2 illustrates that even great local efforts43 are often not enough to make resource use sustainable because criteria for sustainability are only partially built into local feedback loops. Impacts triggered by land use activities in an ecological system alter both the specific and the globalised natural potential of a region, as well as natural potential outside the region. But only the changes that occur in the specific natural potential within the region itself have a feedback effect on land use. In the case of negative change, there is pressure to make the land use system more ecologically acceptable44 and thus to make resource use more sustainable in terms of specific natural potential.45 On the other hand, feedback based on specific natural potential offers no guarantee that globalised natural potential will not depreciate, or that transregional impacts will not impair natural potential outside the region.46 This underlines the necessity of evaluation and the possible need for sustainable resource management, even in traditional, stable land use systems where specific natural potential is being used in an ecologically sound way. The need for evaluation is even greater in regional systems in transition which are in- creasingly being subjected to external economic, political and social influences and conditions. These growing external influences undermine and destroy self-regulatory mechanisms which foster sustainable use of specific natural potential in traditional land use systems.

43 Local efforts to maintain sustainability are usually found in cultures which have traditionally engaged in small-scale farming, where a diversified land use system characterised by a balance between productive and reproductive activities, and a complex sociocultural system, among other things, help to minimise ecological risks (see Bätzing 1993, Amborn 1987, and Wiesmann 1992. 44 Whether or not this pressure is reflected in adjustments in land use practice depends greatly on the social, legal, political and economic conditions of each local society, whereas the feedback loop mentioned here is concerned with ‘knowledge’ as a basis for action. 45 This link with specific natural potential is the basis for traditional cultural landscapes, in the sense that local societies develop small-scale forms of resource use adapted to specific sites through long and con- tinual processes. For this reason traditional cultural landscapes are proposed here as an indirect reference value for assessing sustainable use of resources (see Bätzing 1993). This proposal will be discussed in section 4 of Chapter 5. 46 Typical examples are transregional impacts involving the hydrological cycle, long-term soil degradation over many generations, displacement of animals through constriction of their native habitats, and the impacts of pollution, none of which are accounted for in specific natural potential. 32 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Even the partial feedback on ecological change and corresponding adjustments in the land use system indicated by Figure 2 shows that evaluation, and possibly sustainable resource management, are needed in every regional context. This need becomes greater in proportion to the degree to which regional man-environment systems are subjected to external influences which weaken feedback loops. • The structural model suggests a further reason for the need to evaluate sustainable resource use in every regional context, which is concerned with determining the possibilities of sustainable resource management and relates to the feedback loops referred to above. The soundness of the feedback loop consisting of land use, the ecological system, and specific natural potential is crucial to the local potential for sustainable resource management. Because our concept of sustainability takes explicit account of specific natural potential as an expression of local perception and local needs47 when trying to evaluate the degree to which resource use is sustainable, it thereby draws attention to local potentials and processes which promote ecologically appropriate resource use and the role they play in strategies concerned with sustainable resource use. Giving greater attention to specific natural potential, and the feedback loop associated with it, will help to prevent unnecessary or counterproductive external interventions concerned with resource management. External approaches to sustainable resource management will thereby play a supplementary role in that they will be used to complement or support the local capacity for resource management. If the search for ways to enhance sustainability is based on the premise that the local potential for resource management should be enhanced first and external approaches should be used only to complement local efforts, then it will be necessary to make a concrete evaluation of sustainable resource use in which the differences between specific and globalised natural potential are analysed. This conclusion is valid for every regional context, since the potential for local resource management cannot fully guarantee sustainable resource use in any context (see the reasons discussed above), nor is local potential completely lacking in any region. A specific analytical and differential evaluation of the degree to which resource use is sustainable is thus necessary in any regional context where efforts are being made to enhance sustainable development. Careful evaluation, possibly accompanied by sustainable resource management, is needed most in the context of regional development where external forces have the power to transform conditions. But the same need also exists in regions which are largely free of external influences. Having established the need for precise and analytical evaluation, we must now try to determine the consequences of our concept of sustainability with regard to possibilities and

47 Because specific natural potential is seen not only as an expression of local perception but also as an expression of local needs, the position being taken here differs from the widespread approach that considers ‘local knowledge’ merely as an alternative method of understanding and expanding globalised natural potential (e.g. searching for industrially useful medicinal plants by drawing on ‘local knowledge’). Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 33

limitations in evaluating sustainable resource use. The structural model (Figure 2) clearly demonstrates that comprehensive and conclusive evaluation of resource use is impossible, primarily for the following reasons: • Focusing on values in evaluating sustainability requires prior evaluation of specific and globalised natural potential, both within and outside of a given region. But specific and globalised natural potential together theoretically comprise so many aspects that an enormous effort would be needed to take full account of them. Moreover, dealing with globalised natural potential means coming to terms with a wide range of highly differentiated ecological information which is never satisfactory in quality. As a result, it is impossible to develop final, all-inclusive criteria for evaluating the degree of sustainable resource use in a context of regional development. • Focusing on impacts in evaluating sustainable resource use means identifying the prob- able impacts that different land use practices have within an ecological system, and in- terpreting them as changes in variables that indicate ecological conditions, both within and outside the region. This cannot be done in practice, however, even if a great deal of ecological information were available, because it would theoretically require an impos- sibly vast knowledge of ecological systems and their behaviour. Any prospective evaluation of ecological change linked to land use can therefore only be approximate. • Even if it were possible to fully evaluate the degree to which resource use is sustainable, resource management aimed at promoting sustainability would present additional problems. A comprehensive estimate of the ecological consequences of alternative land uses would have to be made, while the impacts of changed economic, social and political conditions within an existing land use system would have to be simultaneously pre- dictable. Neither of these conditions can be completely met, either on a theoretical or a practical level. Hence we are confronted with a paradox: our concept of sustainability (see Figure 2) demonstrates the need for the most precise and analytical evaluation of sustainable resource use possible in a regional context of development, while making clear at the same time that any such evaluation can be neither thorough nor conclusive.48 In other words, despite the need for comprehensive evaluation of sustainable resource use, such evaluation is impossible, both in theory and in practice. We are therefore faced with the question of whether our concept offers us effective ways of making the approximate evaluations of sustainability we need as a prerequisite for any

48 In this context it must be borne in mind that the concept of sustainability presented here is limited, since it is confined to a specific regional context. This is particularly true with regard to its emphasis on natural potential; it thus contrasts with other concepts of sustainability which take a more global view. The conclusion that sustainable resource use cannot theoretically be evaluated or controlled in any complete or final sense is even more relevant in other approaches to sustainability. 34 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

meaningful approach to resource management. This question will be taken up in the chapters that follow. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 35

5 Evaluating sustainable use of natural resources in a regional development context

Based on the heuristic model presented in Figure 2, it was shown in the previous chapter that the degree to which resource use is sustainable must be evaluated as precisely and comprehensively as possible if sustainable development is to be promoted. It was also shown that evaluation cannot be complete or conclusive. This chapter will examine whether our concept of sustainable resource use can be used to develop an approach which will not only come close to meeting the need for comprehensive evaluation, but which can also be applied to regional development at a practical level. Three fundamental steps in the evaluation process, derived from our concept, will be discussed first (5.1). Building on this, a procedure will be outlined for selecting what values and impacts to focus on in the evaluation process, in order to facilitate a meaningful, analytical approach to comprehensive evaluation (5.2 and 5.3). The next section (5.4) will compare the proposed analytical approach with alternative approaches that depend more heavily on integral indicators of sustainability. A final summary will present the reasons why evaluation of sustainable resource use must be conceived as an iterative process (5.5).

5.1. Basic principles of an analytical approach to evaluation

Our structural model of sustainable resource use (see Figure 2) implies three basic steps in evaluating the degree of sustainable resource use in a regional context.

1. Initial evaluation (to) of specific and globalised natural potential: Evaluation of specific49 and globalised natural potential in a particular region establishes a reference value for sustainable resource use against which future ecological changes must be measured. Changes which produce positive or negative shifts in the value of specific and/or globalised natural potential indicate that resource use has become either more sustainable or less sustainable. Therefore the first step in determining

49 Figure 2 oversimplifies by focusing on the specific natural potential of a region. If different population groups play an important role in resource use in a region, then distinctions must be made between different types of specific natural potential. 36 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

the degree of sustainability is to make an initial evaluation of natural potential at a par- 50 ticular point in time, to.

2. Prospective analysis (t+) of the ecological impacts of land use: Sustainable use of resources is concerned with long-term maintenance of the value of specific and globalised natural potential in a dynamic context of impacts (see Figure 2). Land use practices change components of the ecosystem on which they have some direct effect, and trigger ecological processes which produce additional ecological change, inside as well as outside a region. Furthermore, many land use systems make use of components of nature outside the area of actual land use, as in the case of imported raw materials and sources of energy, thereby altering both components of nature and ecological systems outside the region in question. This dynamic context of impacts involving land use systems and ecological systems makes it necessary to carry out a

prospective analysis of the impacts of land use (t+).

3. Changes in the value of natural potential (t+/to) A prospective impact analysis of ecological change as a function of land use practices, both within and outside of a region, is the prerequisite for the third step in evaluating regional sustainability. Recorded or expected ecological changes must be interpreted both with reference to initial evaluation of natural potential and as changes in the value

(t+/to) of specific and globalised natural potential, inside and outside a given region. If no depreciation in value is found to occur, resource use can be considered sustainable. These three steps describe the basic principles involved in an analytical approach51 to evaluation of sustainable resource use. This approach establishes a circular link between a focus on evaluation, with reference to natural potential, and a focus on impacts, which is concerned with assessing the impacts of land use in an ecological system. Initial evaluation of natural potential, which establishes the reference value against which sustainability is measured, is the first step in this process. It was argued in the previous chapter that no analytical approach to sustainability can be complete. Accordingly, a procedure was proposed which would allow the best possible approximation of comprehensive evaluation. The guiding principle behind this practical approach to evaluation is careful selection of certain aspects of natural potential in the initial evaluation. Further steps in impact analysis and prospective evaluation of ecological changes will be taken with reference to this selection.

50 Evaluation of specific and globalised natural potential is based on contemporary perceptions and valuations of nature. This means that conditions as they are at to become the reference value. Perceptions and evaluations from the past (t-) may be included as a dimension that is helpful in retrospective estimations of change in specific ranges of values. But past conditions are rarely suitable as reference values, because they developed as the result of different demands on nature. 51 This approach is analytical to the extent that it takes account of the components in the structural model (Figure 2) through these three steps in the evaluation process. It thereby distinguishes itself from approaches which try to assess sustainability through integral indicators (see 5.4). Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 37

5.2. Selection criteria for initial evaluation of specific and globalised natural potential The guiding principle behind our approach to evaluation of sustainable resource use is that initial evaluation of specific and globalised natural potential will establish the reference value against which sustainability is measured. Evaluation of natural potential, which is necessarily a selective process52, will therefore have a decisive influence on the quality of subsequent evaluations of sustainability. However, there is a problem in using selective initial evaluation of natural potential as the basis for a subsequent evaluation of sustainability which should be as comprehensive as possible: it is necessary to strike an optimal balance between comprehensive and differentiated evaluation. The more comprehensive and differentiated the initial evaluation of natural potential, the better the basis for determining the degree to which resource use is sustainable. • Making initial evaluation as comprehensive as possible means considering as many aspects of production-oriented and physiological natural potential as possible, as well as sociocultural values and the ethical value of nature, in light of both local perspectives and local valuations of resources (specific natural potential) and the scientific, technological point of view (globalised natural potential). It is important to include as many aspects of natural potential as possible in the process of initial evaluation in order to explicitly pinpoint different perceptions, needs and claims, and to incorporate these in the socio-political process of debate on sustainability.53 • In addition to being comprehensive, initial evaluation of natural potential must also be as highly differentiated as possible. This will ensure that the reference values for evaluating sustainable resource use are very clearly established, thereby making it possible to identify deviations as soon as possible and determine whether they are positive or negative. Differentiated evaluation has two features: (1) The individual components of natural potential must be differentiated very carefully, so that local needs and local claims linked with evaluation will be given the fullest possible consideration.54 (2) Spa- tial differentiation must also be made very carefully, so that local needs and local claims can be expressed in spatial terms.55 This is all the more important as the impacts of resource use on components of nature - and hence on natural potential - are usually defined in spatial terms.

52 It must be pointed out once again that a comprehensive evaluation on an analytical basis is impossible (see 4.3). 53 If certain aspects, such as sociocultural values which local populations attach to nature are not accounted for in initial evaluation, related needs may be overridden by more powerful demands on resource use. 54 Examples might include the following distinctions: general soil fertility versus fertility that benefits various types of plants; the overall aesthetic value of nature versus the quality of nature as seen by various groups; general water quality versus the risk posed by water use for different types of production. 55 Conflicts over resources are often expressed as conflicts over space. 38 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

In order to solve the problem of striking an optimal balance between comprehensive and differentiated evaluation, it is proposed that first a reasonable selection be made of certain aspects of natural potential, and that initial evaluation then concentrate on these selected aspects, differentiating among them as much as possible in terms of attributes and spatial distribution. This approach corresponds with the guiding principle mentioned above, and establishes that selecting certain aspects of natural potential is the main starting point in the evaluation process. The criteria used to make this selection will therefore be crucial in determining the quality and the meaningfulness of evaluation of sustainable resource use in a specific region. Three principles for selecting aspects of natural potential can be derived from our concept of sustainability (see Figure 2): 1. Selection should include a cross-section of the components represented in specific and globalised natural potential. 2. The needs and claims of the local population - as reflected in aspects of specific natural potential - should be given priority, since they are the key to the local potential for resource management (see 4.3). 3. Aspects of the globalised natural potential should be included in the selection process as a complement to specific natural potential. This will ensure that the range of aspects considered is broad enough, and will also make it possible to clarify the need for external approaches to resource management (see 4.3). Applying these three principles of selection gives us selection criteria for initial evaluation of specific and globalised natural potential in a specific context of regional development. These selection criteria will be presented and briefly examined below, expressed in the form of requirements for beginning the evaluation process.

1. Establishing a relationship between specific and globalised natural potential Requirement 1: The less information that is available about components of nature in a particular region, the greater the need to base initial evaluation of natural potential on components of the specific natural potential. Although this requirement seems self-evident, since it arises from the very close linkage between initial evaluations of natural potential and local needs and local land use systems, it conflicts with common practice. Normally, when information is scarce, there is an effort to make a more thorough, basic scientific inventory of natural components. But the present requirement demands just the opposite. It is not primarily more sophisticated scientific approaches that are needed in situations where information is scarce,56 but greater application of social scientific and/or participatory approaches to identify specific natural potential.

56 Possible demands for sophisticated scientific efforts are the result of a different line of argument; see Chapter 5, section 3. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 39

2. Establishing criteria for selecting aspects of specific natural potential The main aim in selecting aspects of specific natural potential is to pinpoint the needs, claims, and land use preferences of a local society, thereby ensuring that they will receive more attention in social and political debate about sustainable resource use. This will also help strengthen the local potential for sustainable resource management. The following aspects of specific natural potential should therefore be the focus of attention during initial evaluation of natural potential: Requirement 2.1: Particular attention should be given to those aspects that tend to be overlooked as a consequence of external forces of modernisation, or that go unnoticed, and which are therefore rarely found in globalised natural potential. In particular, this category includes sociocultural and religious values associated with components of nature and/or natural sites. Particular locations, as well as plants and animals that clearly have multiple functions in a local land use system, should also be considered as belonging to this category.57 Requirement 2.2: Particular attention should be given to components of nature in the specific natural potential which are regarded as especially important and which are also seen as particularly limiting factors in local land use systems. Examples here would include high rainfall variability, extreme natural events, wildlife, plant and animal diseases, and even unfavourable ratios between cultivable land and grazing areas. Compo- nents in the specific natural potential which are seen as limiting factors are worthy of special attention for two reasons. In the first place, they, or components which are substituted for them,58 may come under heavy pressure from land users, which could lead to degradation. Secondly, local strategies frequently focus on components of nature which are considered limiting, thereby mobi- lising the innovative potential of local societies59 and allowing the development of land use systems oriented towards reproductive forms of production.60 Limiting aspects of specific natural potential are thus of key importance in relation to potential degradation and to the local potential for sustainable resource management. Requirement 2.3: Particular attention should be given to aspects of specific natural potential which play a central role in the land use system and which are rarely or never considered as limiting factors by the local population. Depending on the specific regional context, many different aspects could be included in this category, e.g. diversity among local varieties of cultivated plants, soil fertility,61 useful species of wildlife, or extensive surface water. These aspects of specific natural potential deserve special attention because their degradation either produces no changes in land use practices or triggers

57 The multifunctionality of plants and animals and of natural sites plays a particularly important role, especially in traditional, rural land use systems that are geared to minimising risk. If these components of nature are endangered, many functions of the land use system - or even entire traditional land use systems - are also endangered. Consequently, these aspects of specific natural potential are of particular significance. 58 An example of substitution involving a limiting component of nature can be found in Laikipia, Kenya, where low rainfall results in heavy pressure on other components of the hydrological cycle (Wiesmann, 1992). 59 Impressive examples are offered by Amborn (1987), among others. 60 For an explanation of the term ‘reproductive forms of production’, which denotes a balance between productive and reproductive activities, see Bätzing (1993). 61 While the areal limitations of cultivated plots and rainfall variability are frequently seen as posing considerable constraints, soil fertility - despite processes of degradation, among other problems - does not appear to be a limiting factor. 40 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

reactions only after a considerable period of time. In other words, local potential to manage these aspects of specific natural potential is very limited. Requirement 2.4: The components of specific natural potential selected in accordance with the above requirements must be supplemented by an integral spatial classification and spatial evaluation, which is carried out using a participatory approach and taking specific natural potential into account.62 This type of spatial categorisation and evaluation has three objectives. (1) Establishing spatial units and carrying out virtually simultaneous evaluations within these units will shed light on local, integral knowledge at a specific location. (2) Justifying the establishment of spatial units and carrying out evaluation can serve to further differentiate specific natural potential. (3) Concentrat- ing on overlaps involving different spatial units and evaluations will clarify conflicts over resource use among different groups and open such conflicts to discussion.

3. Establishing criteria for selecting aspects of globalised natural potential When regional information is scarce, the possibilities for evaluating globalised natural potential are very limited. Accordingly, the aspects to be evaluated must be selected carefully. As previously mentioned, this selection should complement the selection process for specific natural potential, in order to guarantee that a sufficiently broad range of aspects is evaluated, and to clarify the need for external management approaches. The following aspects should be the focus of attention during initial evaluation of globalised natural potential: Requirement 3.1: Particular attention should be given to aspects of the globalised natural potential that are either not included as part of specific natural potential or are given only minor consideration (see 2.1-2.3). Two particular categories of globalised natural potential are involved here: (a) Production- oriented natural potential that is not counted as part of specific natural potential, but that could be exploited in the future, e.g. the alternative potential represented by groundwater, etc. (b) Aspects of physiological natural potential, in particular, which are either imperceptible or barely percepti- ble to the senses, such as contaminated water, soil, etc. Requirement 3.2: Particular attention should be given to aspects of the globalised natural potential that are also part of specific natural potential and that are considered as especially limiting factors in that context. Evaluation of these natural components as part of globalised natural potential is necessary not only because they are heavily used and at high risk of degradation, but also because scientific evaluation may reveal alternative potentials and additional possible uses for them. Requirement 3.3: Particular attention should be given to aspects of the globalised natural potential that are rarely or never considered limiting in the specific natural potential, and that are suspected of undergoing degradation or being susceptible to degradation. As previously mentioned in relation to selection of specific natural potential, these aspects may include a wide variety of natural components, depending on the region. Soil fertility, extensive surface water, and the diversity of cultivated plants are examples. It is especially important to take account of these components as part of globalised natural potential, because when they are subjected to degradation, effective countermeasures are rarely if ever taken in the local land use systems where degradation occurs.

62 Chambers (1989) has demonstrated that participatory approaches can reveal the highly differentiated nature of regional knowledge found in local populations. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 41

Evaluations of specific and globalised natural potential which are highly differentiated in spatial terms and are carried out in accordance with the above criteria63 constitute an adequate basis for establishing reference values. These reference values can then be used to evaluate the degree to which resource use is sustainable. In addition, initial evaluations of natural potential as described here suggest answers to the following questions about sustainable resource management: (1) Where, and for which components of nature, can local regulatory mechanisms and the potential for local resource management play a role? (2) In what areas would it be necessary to intervene if changes in natural potential are identified as a result of impact analysis (see 5.3)? (3) Where is there a potential for conflict owing to different claims and expectations involving natural resources?

5.3. Selection criteria and approaches for analysing the impacts of resource use

The analytical approach to evaluating sustainable resource use presented here aims to achieve a prospective assessment of changes in value which result from resource use and which can be measured against reference values established during initial evaluation. In order to assess these changes in value, the dynamic context of impacts involving land use and the ecological system must be considered in the second step of the evaluation process (see 5.1). It has already been pointed out (see 4.3) that there are major conceptual and methodological problems associated with analysing the impacts of land use in an ecological system.64 This raises the question of how an impact analysis can be reduced to manageable proportions in the framework of evaluation of sustainable resource use in a particular regional context. In order to make the process of impact analysis manageable, let us once again turn to the principle of selection - in this case selection of certain impacts which will allow the analysis to be as detailed and as differentiated as possible. According to the basic principles of our approach (see 5.1), this selection will be closely related to the process used in initial valuation of natural potential. However, the ecological impacts to be evaluated will be further defined by a selection process within the framework of the land use system. These

63 No further attention will be given to methods for concrete evaluation of individual, selected aspects of specific and globalised natural potential here, as the choice of such methods is strongly influenced by the specific regional context, available information, and the particular disciplines involved with specific components of natural potential. The reader is referred once again to Chambers (1989), who provides important methodological guidelines for evaluation of specific natural potentials. 64 Without going into these problems in detail, we can mention the following main points: (1) The complex problem of attributing ecological change to specific land use activities and intensity; (2) the difficulties of estimating the transregional impacts of resource use; (3) the problem of estimating the ecological impacts of changing or spatially shifting land use activities and intensity. 42 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

considerations lead to the following requirements for an impact analysis that concentrates on specific impacts related to land use and ecology.

Requirements for concentrating impact analysis on specific impacts: Requirement 1: Concentrating impact analysis on impacts of land use which involve selected components of nature important in specific and globalised natural potential (see 5.2). The selection made during initial evaluation of natural potential will determine what combinations of impacts are selected for analysis. Because specific natural potential takes priority in the process of initial evaluation, it follows that the claims and the needs of local populations will also heavily influence the selection process used for impact analysis. In other words, existing social conditions and social issues will guide ecological research concerned with evaluating the sustainability of resource use. The process of selection in initial evaluation gives indications of both the possibilities and the limitations of local resource management (see 5.2). These indications can be used to further limit the set of impacts by focusing primarily on components of nature, selected in accordance with requirement 1, which are least likely to be subject to control by local populations, and the impacts associated with them. Requirement 2: Using the selection made in Requirement 1 to concentrate on the impacts of land use practices that are undergoing change The set of impacts to be examined can be further restricted to a considerable degree if impact analysis focuses on spatial units and on impacts that are characterised by changes in land use. Analysis would then concentrate primarily on the ecological impacts of land use practices which are undergoing major change in one location, or which are moving from specific locations into other locations with different ecological conditions. In association with requirement 1, this means that the impacts of these dynamic forms of land use should be evaluated primarily with reference to those components of nature which were important in the selection process for initial evaluation.65

These selection criteria for impact analysis can be used to reduce the set of impacts that are to be analysed in association with land use and the ecological system to manageable proportions, while still fulfilling the requirements of our concept of sustainable resource use. However, as previously pointed out, we are still left with certain conceptual and methodological problems in analysing a specific set of impacts. These problems could be ap- proached through time-consuming processes of scientific experimentation. But two questions would still remain: would an effort of this sort be sufficient and justifiable with regard to evaluating the sustainability of resource use in a specific developmental context? And are there any methodological alternatives to experimental procedures which could be used to carry out impact analyses? In light of these questions, several further considerations pertaining to methodological procedures in impact analysis are relevant here.

65 An alternative to this selection process, which could fulfil the same purpose, would be to analyse mainly those impacts which were subsequently found to cause depreciation on a scale of values established during initial valuation. Care must be taken, however, that this choice is made in relation to selected aspects of specific natural potential, based on assessments made by the local population, in the event that no long-term basic data on globalised natural potential are available. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 43

• Where impact analysis is concerned, the natural sciences and technical disciplines traditionally favour experimental procedures, using modelling that is appropriately limited to particular aspects, and especially limited in terms of spatial units. As an approach to evaluating sustainability, such a labour-intensive methodological approach must be clearly restricted to core processes. Core processes can be determined through choices made during initial evaluation and through the selection process related to impact analysis. • In addition to a detailed examination of core processes, regionally inclusive predictive models should be more frequently developed and applied to selected sets of impacts, in order to assess positive or negative trends in cases where knowledge and information are inadequate. It is especially important that assessments cover a region thoroughly, because the concept of sustainability will be more open to debate if there is a comprehensive regional picture of the ecological balance and ecological trends. Greater use of long-term, systematic monitoring of selected components of nature would also help to continually refine such predictive models.66 • There is a crucial need to expand the process of impact analysis by employing participatory approaches in order to make use of indigenous knowledge and memory of changes in the past, and to interpret this knowledge and memory with the help of predictive models. The use of participatory approaches means, among other things, that the social sciences and the humanities will have a greater role to play in what are primarily scientific questions of impact analysis.67 If these requirements for selection and concentration in the process of impact analysis are fulfilled, and a range of useful methodological approaches is employed, it will be possible to make conclusions about changes in the value of selected specific and globalised natural potential. Such conclusions will be meaningful and adequate in terms of our concept of sustainable resource use, and will also lend themselves well to social and political debate.

5.4. Integral indicators of sustainable resource use

The approach to evaluation of sustainable resource use we have been developing here is based on a systematic selection of elements involved in an interplay between values assigned to components of nature and assessment of impacts, derived from our concept as illustrated in Figure 2. In addition to this approach - which is analytical in nature, despite its element of selection and heavy emphasis on the claims and the needs of local populations - other approaches can be found in the literature on the subject. They are more inte-

66 This is the main reason for obtaining additional scientific information rather than expanding the initial evaluation process (see note 56). 67 This will require greater communication between the social and natural sciences and between researchers and people in developing regions (see chapter 6). 44 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

grated, and focus on the use of integral indicators to evaluate sustainable resource use. These approaches are open to the general criticism that their results do not lend themselves well to socio-political debate, as they fail to elucidate the perceptions and the needs of local populations. Nevertheless, we shall briefly consider several of these approaches below, in order to examine whether they offer alternatives to the approach we have been developing. • Ecological stability: The problem of using ecological stability as a key indicator of sustainable resource use has already been discussed in section 2 of Chapter 3. Ecologi- cal stability is not well suited for use as an indicator with regard to valuation of components of nature. On the other hand, it can play an important role in analysing the impacts of land use. • Traditional cultural landscapes: This approach is currently the focus of much intense discussion in Europe. It is based on the assumption that traditional cultural landscapes can be used as reference values in evaluating sustainable resource use because they reflect the results of a long process of adjustment involving man and nature. Any deviations from established practices within this context must therefore be interpreted as a decline in sustainability. This approach cannot be justified in cultural and historical terms, as even historical forms of resource use are subject to constant change. Moreo- ver, it offers no way to take account of the changed perceptions, needs and claims of local populations. • Land use indicators: Approaches which use land use indicators are based partly on the same assumptions as those which make use of traditional cultural landscapes: they assume that, historically, widespread regional autonomy, and land use technologies which remain stable over the long term, have together enhanced symbiosis between man and nature, and that this has produced a situation characterised by sustainable resource use. Two indicators are particularly relevant here: (1) The longer that land use practices remain stable within a defined area, the more likely land use is to be sustainable; (2) If there is little spatial variation in land use, thereby allowing it to be in harmony with ecological conditions, use of natural resources is more likely to be sustainable. It must be pointed out here that these indicators implicitly take account only of specific and not of globalised natural potential. Nevertheless, both indicators can be used to complement the analytical approach developed above (see 5.2 and 5.3), particularly in the selection or non-selection of spatial units used in impact analysis. In sum, we can say that approaches which use integral indicators to assess the degree of sustainable use of natural resources are not suitable as comprehensive, alternative approaches to evaluation of sustainability. However, the land use indicators discussed above lend themselves particularly well to integration into our proposed analytical-selective approach. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 45

5.5. Evaluation of sustainable resource use as an iterative process

This brief discussion of integral indicators illustrates once again why the present study takes an analytical-selective approach to evaluation of sustainable resource use. If the ecological dimension of our political-normative concept of sustainable development is to be strengthened (see 2.2), evaluation of sustainable resource use must be explicit and debatable in socio-political terms, in a way that includes local populations. As no approach can conclusively define the degree to which resource use is sustainable (4.3), the requirement for explicit public debate means that any approach to evaluation must fulfil two conditions: (1) It must pinpoint changes in scales of value associated with specific aspects of resource use; and (2) The aspects under consideration must come as close as possible to reflecting all the scales of value established to evaluate sustainable resource use (see 3.3 and Figure 2).

Steps in evaluation process Selection criteria Initial evaluation Specific natural potential given priority; complemented by globalised natural potential Initial evaluation: specific Significant aspects of specific natural potential not contained in natural potential globalised natural potential Aspects of specific natural potential that are especially significant and limiting in the land use system Aspects especially important in the land use system but not limiting in the view of resource users Integral classification from the perspective of specific natural potential (local resource users) Initial evaluation: globalised Important aspects of globalised natural potential rarely account- natural potential ed for in specific natural potential Aspects of globalised natural potential considered as limiting factors in specific natural potential Aspects of globalised natural potential likely to be undergoing degradation or be susceptible to degradation Impact analysis and changes Focus on sets of impacts that can be associated with selected in value aspects of natural potential Possible further restriction to spatial units with land use changes

Table 2: Steps and selection criteria used in evaluation of sustainable resource use in a regional context. An analytically differentiated approach must be used if these two conditions are to be met. The approach proposed in this study fulfils these conditions by first selecting certain aspects related to valuation of components of nature and to impact analysis. Together, these aspects should reflect the specific situation and the problems of a given region as fully as 46 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

possible. A subsequent prospective assessment of changes in scales of value linked to these selected aspects makes the changes explicit and thus open to public debate. Table 2 illustrates this procedure once again by providing an overview of the fundamental steps in evaluation and the accompanying selection criteria to be used in a specific regional context in accordance with our proposed evaluation approach. This approach to evaluation produces results which can be publicly debated, which are concerned with central aspects of sustainable resource use, and which can be used as a basis for approaches to resource management. Nevertheless, these results give only an approximate picture of the comprehensive problems of sustainable resource use in a specific context of regional development. Accordingly, the evaluation process must be an ongoing one which aims at iterative approximation, characterised by selection criteria that become less narrow in the course of the evaluation. This will allow more thorough coverage of the aspects under consideration, which will in turn shed increasing light on the comprehensive problem of sustainable resource use in a specific context of regional development.

5.6. The role of different actors in evaluating sustainable use of natural resources

The analytical approach to evaluation of sustainable resource use outlined and explained in the previous chapter calls for transdisciplinary and participatory procedures. The combined focus on evaluation and impact analysis requires mutual effort and co-operation between scientists and researchers in the social sciences and humanities, while the emphasis on specific natural potential in the evaluation process requires the participation of local actors. In addition, the requirement for an ongoing approximation of the comprehensive problems of sustainable resource use (see 5.5) implies that the classic sequence of ‘recog- nising the problem’ and ‘taking action’ will be replaced by an iterative process of evaluation and management. These observations raise the question of the role of the actors involved and the structures of collaboration and communication these use in the evaluation process. Given the conditions we have established for this process, three categories of actors will be involved in particular. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 47

1. Local actors and communities The concept of sustainability and the approach to sustainable resource use developed here place a heavy emphasis on specific natural potential, with the result that local actors and communities will play a central role in two ways: • It is indispensable that the local population be actively involved in evaluating sustainable resource use through direct participation in the evaluation process. Local actors should not only be involved in identifying specific natural potential but should also serve as a source of local knowledge about the features and the impacts associated with land use and local ecology. • The perceptions, the needs, and the claims of local actors and communities, as well as their land use preferences - as reflected in specific natural potential - are an integral component of any description of sustainable resource use in a regional context according to the concept of sustainability we have developed here. This implies that local actors will play a significant role in the corresponding process of public negotiation and debate over sustainability. However, their role can be easily overwhelmed by the interests of elites or by the influence of Western, scientific criteria of sustainability. Because local actors play an important role in these two ways, local communities become partners, rather than mere subjects of examination and sources of information, in the process of identifying sustainability problems in a specific regional context. In addition to being a necessary precondition for adequate evaluation in accordance with our concept, this close association with local actors can also have a positive impact on the possible success of measures designed to promote sustainable resource use. 2. Scientists and research Scientific research occupies a central position in our approach to evaluation of sustainable resource use. By contrast with approaches which attempt to evaluate sustainability by using criteria independent of society, however (see 3.1), scientists will play a modified role as actors in the present approach, in association with the following research requirements. • Scientific contributions are important in helping to identify globalised natural potential and in making prospective impact analyses involving land use and the ecological system. But scientific efforts will be channelled by the selection process that takes place during evaluation. In terms of selecting which problems will be considered, this means that scientists must engage in discussion with other actors participating in the evaluation process. • The present approach to evaluation also requires research which will add something to the main scientific contributions. Additional information will be needed primarily with regard to the socio-economic dynamics of the land use system and the problem of evaluating natural potential. In methodological terms this will mean broadening 48 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

the focus of research to include participatory approaches as well as approaches from the social sciences and humanities. Those involved in this expanded research effort must be willing to engage in transdisciplinary communication and collaboration. If greater interdisciplinary communication and improved transdisciplinary collaboration are to take place, researchers will have to rethink their traditional roles within their own disciplines. Seen in this light, the challenge to research and to those engaged in research is a positive one associated with the potential for innovation. 3. Decision-makers and development agencies It has already been established that discussion of sustainability will take the form of socio-political debate (see Chapter 2). Decision-makers and governmental institutions therefore have a central role to play in the process of evaluating sustainability. On the one hand, they must ensure that external and transregional demands which relate to specific and globalised natural potential outside a particular region are integrated into the evaluation process (see Figure 2). At the same time, they must also be prepared to play the role of mediators who weigh local demands against transregional respon- sibility. Because governmental organisations and their representatives often advocate elitist interests of their own or of other actors, they are frequently unable to play the role of mediators. In this situation development agencies and project personnel can play the role of mediators, or even serve as catalysts in the evaluation process. In order for decision-makers and development agencies to play this role, however, their representatives must understand that evaluation is an important step in helping to make resource use more sustainable, and they must also see evaluation as an iterative process involving socio-political perception and sectoral action. Part III: A Concept of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Regional Contexts 49

References

Amborn, H., 1987: Mit der Unsicherheit leben. Strategien bäuerlicher Gesellschaften Südäthio- piens gegen die Auswirkungen von Krisen zu Katastrophen. In: Trickster 15. München. Arts, B., 1994: Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Eine begriffliche Abgrenzung. Peripherie, Nr. 54. Bätzing, W., 1993: Nachhaltige Naturnutzung im Alpenraum. Erfahrungen aus dem Agrarzeital- ter als Grundlage einer nachhaltigen Alpen-Entwicklung in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Humanökologie, Nr. 5., Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien. Chambers, R., et al., 1989: Farmers First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Inter- meditate Technology Publications. London. Foy, G., Daly, H., 1989: Allocation, Distribution and Scale as Determinants of Environmental Degradation: Case Studies of Haiti, El Salvador and Costa Rica. World Bank; Environmental Department Working Paper No. 19, Washington. Gnägi, A., 1995: Interaktion von Bauern und Entwicklungsprojekten im Südwesten Malis. In: Sottas, B., Roost Vischer, L. (Hrsg.): Überleben im afrikanischen Alltag. Peter Lang, Bern & Berlin. Graf, D., 1980: Naturpotentiale und Naturressourcen - Bemerkungen aus ökonomischer Sicht. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 1/80. Haase, G., 1978: Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturpotentialen. Petermanns Geogra- phische Mitteilungen, 2/78. Hammer, T., 1995(a): Die europäische Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit dem Süden. Mit Bei- spielen aus den westafrikanischen Sahelstaaten. Geographica Helvetica. Nr. 1. Hammer, T., 1995(b): Nachhaltige ländliche Entwicklung in Westafrika: Neue Forschungs- perspektiven. In: Sottas, B., Roost Vischer, L. (Hrsg.): Überleben im afrikanischen Alltag. Pe- ter Lang, Bern & Berlin. Hume, D., 1906: Ein Traktat über die menschliche Natur. Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von T. Lipps. Felix Meiner Verlag. Hamburg. IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991: Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland. Messerli, B., Messerli, P., 1979: Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und ökologische Belastbarkeit im Berggebiet. Fachbeitrag zum Schweiz. MAB-Programm, No. 27, Bundesamt für Umwelt- schutz. Bern. Messerli, P., 1994: Nachhaltige Naturnutzung: Diskussionsstand und Versuch einer Bilanz. In: Bätzing, W., Wanner, H. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltige Naturnutzung. Geographica Bernensia, P 30. Bern. Perich, I., 1993: Umweltökonomie in der entwicklungspolitischen Diskussion. Berichte zu Ent- wicklung und Umwelt Nr. 8, Geographisches Institut der Universität Bern. Robinson, N.A. (ed.), 1992: Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings. Vol. I, Oceana Publica- tions, New York, London, Rome. 50 Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Africa

Speidel, G., 1972: Planung im Forstbetrieb. Verlag Pauk Parey. Hamburg & Berlin. Stuber, A., 1993: Ressourcen und Nachhaltigkeit: Begriffsklärungen. Gruppe für Entwicklung und Umwelt, Geographisches Institut der Universität Bern. Victor, P.A., 1991: Indicators of Sustainable Development. Some Lessons from the Capital The- ory. Ecological Economics, Vol. 4. Vosskühler, F., 1994: Naturvorstellung und Nachhaltigkeit. In: Bätzing, W., Wanner, H. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltige Naturnutzung. Geographica Bernensia, P 30. Bern. Wiesmann, U., 1992 (a): Socio-economic Viewpoints on Highland-Lowland Systems: A Case Study from the North-western Footzones of Mt. Kenya. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 12, No. 4. Wiesmann, U., 1995 (b): Nachhaltige Ressourcennutzung im regionalen Entwicklungskontext: Konzeptionelle Grundlagen zu deren Definition und Erfassung. Bericht zu Entwicklung und Umwelt, Nr. 13. Gruppe für Entwicklung und Umwelt, Geographisches Institut, Universität Bern. Lang. Liebefeld, Bern.