THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROJECT
ONLINE CONSULTATION
| E-Conference Homepage | Contents |
| Next comment | Previous comment | Previous comment in thread | Next comment in thread |
From: Thomasina Oldfield
Affiliation: IUCN SSC Wildlife Trade Programme
Remote Name: outbound-166.trafficint.org
Time: 16:30:43 +0100
Thanks for this interesting document. I would like to make the following points, partly directly in response to the document and partly in response to some other comments posted here. 1. One respondent suggests that an effective way of reducing risks to species would be to prohibit all use of wild species. This is highly implausible and likely to be extremely ineffective. First, it is highly implausible as it would end, for instance, all capture fisheries, a major protein source for a high proportion of the world's people. Second, it would lead to expansion of agriculture. As conversion of wild lands to agriculture is one of the greatest threats to species today, this appears a ineffective strategy for reducing risks to biodiversity. 2. Another respondent suggests that what is considered a risk in a country should be considered a risk in all others. However, considerable empirical work demonstrates that risks of overutilisation stems from not only the biological characteristics of a species, but also from the socio-economic conditions surrounding use. One species can be harvested unsustainably under one set of conditions but sustainably under another. Its certainly true that if a species is at risk in one context, it would be precautionary to pay more attention to it in other countries or contexts. But risks of over-utilisation are not only due to biology, and specific situations of use must be examined in context before concluding utilisation is likely to lead to overutilisation.
[_borders/disc6_aftr.htm]