Is anybody there who has come across the studies in analysing tradeoff between resources use efficiency (technical efficiency like) and sustainability aspects in agriculture or fisheries?
Dear D.W. L.U. De Silva,
The trade-off between sustainability and resource efficiency is currently being realised by many commercially active economic actors, who present themselves in the advertising of their products or services as companies pursuing certain selected sustainability goals, that they offer green products and services, that they operate according to social environmental responsibility, that they use pro-environmental technologies and eco-innovations. However, this is not always fully in line with the facts. On the other hand, the very concept of sustainability is, at its core, built on a trade-off, because sustainability stems from pro-environmentalism, from functioning in harmony with the surrounding nature, biosphere and climate. In contrast, economic development does not correlate with a green circular economy. The correlation in this respect can only be found in its pure form within the framework of so-called zero development, i.e. the absence of an increase in production potential and the replacement of this process by the replacement of worn-out goods of civilisation with their new, green equivalents. In this way, it is possible to build a green circular economy, which can be based on sustainability with the surrounding nature, biosphere and climate. In addition, a key issue is to carry out a pro-environmental transformation of the economy as quickly and efficiently as possible, including, above all, a pro-environmental transformation of the energy sector by replacing energy based on the combustion of fossil fuels with energy based on renewable and emission-free energy sources. In this way, a pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear economy of excess to a sustainable, green, zero-carbon zero-growth and closed loop economy is possible. In view of the above, what is implicit in the concept of so-called sustainability is, if we consider the possibility of building a green circular economy in its pure form, precisely what is meant by a sustainable civilisation developing in harmony with the surrounding nature, biosphere and climate and thus operating in sustainability. Any incomplete form of circular green economy is a compromise. The faster and more efficiently man man manages the aforementioned pro-environmental transformation of the economy on a global scale, the more the biodiversity of natural ecosystems can be saved and climate change on the planet reduced. The extent to which we are able to save the biosphere and climate of the planet and thus reduce the scale of progressive global warming and global climate catastrophe, which, according to long-term forecasts by climatologists, may already occur at the end of this 21st century or perhaps much earlier if humanity continues to ignore this growing problem, depends on this. I have described this issue more extensively in articles I have posted on my profile of this Research Gate portal at the end of 2021. I invite you to collaborate scientifically on this important issue for the future of our planet.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Tradeoff between sustainability and resources use efficiency?
Sustainability and resource use efficiency overlap greatly but not entirely and the differences can be critical. In some cases discounting models may actually recommend fishing a stock to extinction rather than fishing sustainably. A similar problem exists in forestry. If it costs $7.00 to plant the three trees needed to replace an old-growth tree that has been harvested and the minimum time to harvest is 80 years -- the future vale of that $7.00 if the interest rate is 8% is $7(1.08)^80 = $3,304 -- the planting cost takes all or more than the value of the harvested log -- if the discount rate goes up and/or if the growth time goes up, replanting becomes problematic. For example a 700 year-old Blue-spot spruce tree is worth $50,000+ when harvested (it is perfect for piano sound boards and violins) -- if we apply our model with a discount rate of 8% and 700 years the resulting future cost of re-planting is $7(1.08)^700 = $1,745,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The Canadian government resolves this problem by allowing logging firms to expense planting costs as a current cost and, thus, avoids the time value of money issue.
I suspect that the most economically efficient solution for (Patagonian) toothfish is to fish them to extinction in a few decades but fortunately most governments manage fish, trees, and other renewable resources for sustainability rather than economic efficiency. If you look hard and long you will find economics articles looking at this issue (particularly for whales in mid-to-late 20th Century).
You have an interesting topic -- good luck.
Yes, there have been numerous studies that have examined the tradeoff between resource use efficiency (RUE) and sustainability in agriculture and fisheries. RUE refers to the extent to which resources such as land, water, and inputs like fertilizers and pesticides are used efficiently to produce a given output, while sustainability refers to the ability of a system to maintain its productivity over time.
In agriculture, studies have often focused on the tradeoff between increasing RUE through the use of high-yielding crop varieties, intensification, and other practices, and the potential negative impacts on sustainability, such as soil degradation, water pollution, and the loss of biodiversity.
In fisheries, studies have examined the tradeoff between increasing RUE through the use of more efficient fishing gear and techniques, and the potential negative impacts on sustainability, such as overfishing and the destruction of marine ecosystems.
There is ongoing debate about the optimal balance between RUE and sustainability in both agriculture and fisheries, and it is generally recognized that finding this balance is complex and context-specific. Some researchers have argued that increasing RUE can lead to more sustainable systems, while others have pointed out that certain practices that increase RUE in the short-term may have negative impacts on sustainability in the long-term.
To better understand the tradeoff between RUE and sustainability in agriculture and fisheries, it is important to consider a range of factors, including the environmental, economic, and social impacts of different practices, as well as the long-term sustainability of the system.