VicForests just won a landmark Federal court case against the local community, throwing light on an outdated definition of sustainability. Ironically, the judge ruled in favour of over 20 individual indictments of forestry practice, saying they caused the loss of critical habitat for threatened species. Despite this, the law says Vicforests is free to sidestep all international obligations Australia has to protect threatened wildlife. This case demonstrates how impoverished policy systems have become and how little community care for nature matters. Perhaps just as importantly, it demonstrates the risk of whittling things down to the protection of single species, when extinction threat is a far greater problem. The conservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More movement often fails to communicate to the wider public, the gravity of ecosystem loss on livelihoods, basic life support and the tax-payer funded economy. If the general public knew the true extent of what was at risk, they may side more with conservationists and we may have more effective policy. While wildlife protection is viewed in isolation, meaningful conservation will remain out of reach. A change in human values is going to require a significant change in the narrative by conservation groups, before these battles can be won.
What is the definition of sustainability?
The concept of “sustainability” is bandied about like we know what it means but do we? Controversy around the film Seaspiracy has centred on the fishing industry’s claims it is sustainable and what that means for consumers.
It got me thinking about another extractive industry, forestry. In Victoria, where I live, there is an an animal called a Greater Glider. It’s a cute and elegant furry mammal, about the size of a cat, with a long pendulous tail. It feeds on leaves from the upper branches of eucalyptus and nests in the hollows of the oldest trees. It can take about two hundred years for a forest to develop sufficiently-sized trees to support the full range of birds and mammals like gliders, Powerful Owls and others.
But with forestry cycles in the order of decades, mammal and bird populations have collapsed. Some species like Leadbeater’s Possum once widespread, are now virtually extinct. Over 60% of some critical watershed forest that delivers water to the city of Melbourne have been compromised and we’ve had to build a five billion dollar tax-payer-funded desalination plant in recent years to compensate for periods of drought that might have been easier if we’d kept our forests intact.
Victoria’s government has a Sustainability Charter for its forests, Vicforests is responsible for sustainable harvests … they are even accredited as “sustainable” by two major forest certification schemes worldwide – PEFC and FSC®. The word “sustainable” is used prolifically, almost as a given, but what does it actually mean?
Vicforest’s working definition of sustainability is:
“Active forest management that integrates timber production with intrinsic, environmental, social, cultural, and economic benefits to ensure that all these values maintained for current and future generations.”
But there is no mention of ecology, ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More or biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More.
Surely, sustainability can only be defined by functioning ecosystems that deliver biodiversity benefits? If that’s the case, how can it be sustainable if there is ongoing decline in the abundance and distribution of wildlife?
In Victoria there has been an increasing trend in the number of critically endangered and vulnerable flora and fauna. Many of our state’s plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians, along with numerous invertebrates and ecological communities, are threatened with extinction.
This brings me back to a recurrent message in this blog.
Our policy systems, conservation science and industry don’t regard animals as components of ecosystem function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More. There’s a sense that we can rebuild later and the animals will come back but that’s dangerously* incorrect, because we are eroding life support systems that will potentially require hundreds of thousands of years to restore, if we lose that source of animal impactWhat is Animal Impact? Without wildlife, Earth would not be habitable for humans, because it's animals that stabilise ecosystems. It’s a fundamental law of nature that animals (and humans) exist because we are the most likely lifeforms to minimise environmental chaos. Animal impact, therefore, is a measure of how much all wildlife is collectively responsible for creating a habitable Earth. The More. We cannot just replant forest and expect it to function without its animal drivers.
*I don’t use the word ‘dangerous’ lightly – we’re talking about irreversibly jeopardising drinking water and food security for millions of people.
Forestry and most conservation focuses on making sure animals don’t go extinct – tantamount to an in situ zoo where the animals are artificially maintained in small patches, rather than providing the ecosystem services essential for clean water and climate control.
The value of the water resources that come off those mountains has been shown to be worth more than the timber that’s extracted and most of the forest is now so over-harvested, it is no longer economically viable and the industry verges on collapse due to consistently declining yield (above). These are trends iterated across the continent with much forestry dependent on huge government subsidy to remain intact.
Is this the definition of sustainability? How can it be?
Which brings us to fisheries, which have the same approach to sustainability and also ignore the impact of loss of animals on biodiversity and human life support.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 2019 says “despite significant successes the proportion of marine fish stocks fished within biologically sustainable levels continues to decline”. WWF (via Reuters) say “the amount of fish in the oceans has halved since 1970, in a plunge to the “brink of collapse” caused by over-fishing and other threats”. Watson et al (2013) said that “for the equivalent fishing power expended, landings from global fisheries are now half what they were a half-century ago, indicating profound changes to supporting marine environments.”
This image (below) presents the decline in stocks since the 1950s. A continual shift towards higher mortality and lower sustainability levels in all sectors means it’s not getting better.
In the same period, we’ve lost about 70% of seabirds, marine mammals and sharks. At every scale, every species group – including fish themselves – there are material declines in the structure and function of ecosystems and collapses in wildlife populations.
Is this the definition of sustainability? How can it be?
At the moment, these industries are maintaining stock levels so low and using such damaging extractive strategies, they are compromising their own surrounding ecosystem support structures leading to rapid collapse in their own financial sustainability
Yet groups like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) who help regulate the seafood industry claim 90% of fish stocks are “biologically sustainable”, their definition of sustainability being:
Sustainable fishing means leaving enough fish in the ocean, respecting habitatsWhat is habitat for animals and people? Habitat, hence the word "habitable" describes the natural surroundings in which any animal (or human) lives, that houses basic needs, such as food and shelter. Vegetation, for example, is habitat for animals. On its own, habitat is not necessarily stable or sustainable, which is why it differs from an ecosystem. Habitat in disrepair More and ensuring people who depend on fishing can maintain their livelihoods.
Again, no mention of ecology, ecosystems or biodiversity.
It’s clear to me that fishery and forestry industries are not taking a broad-enough view of what “sustainability” means and should be very worried about collapse in wildlife populations. For fisheries, the link between resource and wildlife is obvious. For forestry it is less so and will take more to convince authorities that wildlife is an essential exit strategy for sustainable ecosystems and future-proofing the economy.
At the moment, these industries are maintaining stock levels so low and using such damaging extractive strategies, they are compromising their own surrounding ecosystem support structures leading to rapid collapse in their own financial sustainability (see graphs, above). I cannot see any way to interpret this differently. Can you? I cannot work out how industries can claim to be sustainable when there is a continual decline in their own ability to survive.
If I was a business-owner depending on these companies to independently advise me on what is sustainable, I would be extremely concerned to learn that in fewer than 50 years, my industry was verging on collapse.
The only organisations it seems, who are providing robust and direct advice on the impending risk to our economy, are the conservation charities and they are being painted as enemies of industry. Clearly they are the only groups who have the integrity of ecosystems as their main concern, so they should be heralded for their wisdom and the courage of their conviction.
Fisheries and forestry scientists often like to make out that things are too complex for the average person to understand but perhaps that also means businesses and politicians have not had the reality explained to them either. The picture of what’s occurring seems simple and the solution is … well, to rebuild wildlife populations. Because along with that comes all the benefits of renewed ecosystem function and resilienceReferring to an ecosystem’s ability to maintain a steady stable-state. The need to build resilience is entirely anthropocentric and symptomatic of ecosystems that are damaged or declining, leading to loss of ecosystem services on which humans depend. More.
With this problem getting worse and the evidence being unequivocal, it is only a matter of time before consumers start to become even more agitated and begin to rigorously question the validity and credibility of those who are giving the advice. When that happens, politicians will respond and we enter a new period of stringent accountability placed on scientists and advocates – we know this, because it’s already happening across a broad range of industries within an outside the environmental sector. It’s how we reconfigured entire banking sectors to avoid future stock market collapses.
Institutional failures on the scale of what we are seeing in fisheries and forestry now, risk the very fabric of our economy and threaten all our livelihoods. Inevitably, these will result in protracted court cases and some convictions for criminal negligence. At best, insurance companies and banks will not continue to support investment. Consumer reaction is the canary in the coal mine and woe betide any industry group who ignores that, because the worst consequences have yet to come.
Failing to admit to these failures now, when the evidence is already damning, is a risk I would certainly be very uncomfortable in taking. A pause for thought is needed. A change in values and the way we respect and regard wildlife and nature as part and parcel of our future economy.
Spotlight
A reader on the /r/sustainability Reddit sent me this paper from 1987 on Global Sustainability. In the summary it says:
Although societies differ in their conceptualizations of sustainability, indefinite human survival on a global scale requires certain basic support systems, which can be maintained only with a healthy environment and a stable human population.
It identifies the importance of context in any definition of sustainability and this concluding statement stands out:
Human survival requires sufficient food, potable water, uncontaminated air, adequate shelter and clothing, energy, and minerals. These needs are closely tied to the continued functioning of the supporting ecological systems which maintain nutrientEnergy and nutrients are the same thing. Plants capture energy from the Sun and store it in chemicals, via the process of photosynthesis. The excess greenery and waste that plants create, contain chemicals that animals can eat, in order to build their own bodies and reproduce. When a chemical is used this way, we call it a nutrient. As we More, air, and water cycles, and to the maintenance of renewable biological resources such as forests and fisheries stocks. Beyond the basic, biological survival needs, however, there are variations in social and cultural perspectives on what is needed for a quality existence and in ecological perspectives on what is needed for a sustainable biosphere.
‘Biological sustainability’, which is the context that forestry and fisheries defines sustainability, does not necessarily encompass the full range of considerations for sustainability, when it comes to quality of life and the biosphere.
