I think that this is an excellent posting and points out the kinds of problems that many kinds of sustainability definitions encounter. I am involved with a project on sustainable aquaculture, and we face the same issues. On one hand, there is the interpretation that sustainable aquaculture means producing a reasonable quantity of fish so that the effluents do not cause environmental harm. However there are criticisms that even if the water and seabed arund a fish farm remain healthy, the use of wild fish to make feed is an unsustainable drain on the natural resource. While I do not agree with this argument, it does point out another area where sustainability from one point of view may not appear sustainable from another.
Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Sustainability Definition > "Sustainable" forest management is a good example of this. It usually > means sustainable production of timber products and may or may not include > other environmental values (water, soil, wildlife, biodiversity) > associated with forests. This is expecially true of "sustainable" > management of tropical forests where most of the nutrients are held in the > vegetation, not the soils, and where much of the biodiversity lives in the > forest canopy. > > "Sustainable agriculture" in the tropics is another example. Most so > called sustainable agricultural practices promoted for oxisols and > ultisols in the tropics are probably more sustainable than traditional > slash and burn practices (not the indigenous shifting agricultural > practices) of spontaneous and government sponsored colonizers but are not > "sustainable". They of course do not sustain biodiversity, watershed > protection, and other environmental values - probably not even soil > fertility and soil physical properties upon which the "sustainability" of > agriculture depends. > > Robert Mowbray
