If I were to put this in simple terms (without resorting to the mumbo-jumbo of technical definitions) I would express sustainable development as the improvement in the socio-economic wellbeing of people without negatively impacting on the natural environment to provide the resources, goods and services necessary for maintaining or improving the livelihoods of people, communities and nations in the present as well as in the future whereas sustainable use may entail the consumptive and often destructive extraction of natural resources for use by humans without compromising the capacity of the landscape or ecosystems to produce and  regenerate those very resources for use by future generations. This may then beg the question as to whether exhaustible non-renewable natural resources can be used sustainably. Remember that sustainability can be perceived from a social, an economic and an ecological perspective. If it incorporates these three aspects of social sustainability (socially acceptable), economic sustainability (passing on constant or surplus capital from one generation to the other) and ecological sustainability (mainaining the natural stock and its capacity to regenerate itself) then we are getting closer to true sustainability. 

In simple words: the development which makes sure the survival of our off-springs on the planet as a whole.  There are two types of sustainability: absolute and relative. 

I think the definition for sustainable development is the formal definition that was agreed in 1987(please see the link below). By sustainable use, I think it refers to the concept of non-linear use. To make sure we have a sustainable cycle which is not using resources to produce products and waste, but also it can reuse the the products when their life time ended or produce new material from wastes to break a linear cycle below.

Linear cycle:  resources----> products+ wastes 

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html

If I were to put this in simple terms (without resorting to the mumbo-jumbo of technical definitions) I would express sustainable development as the improvement in the socio-economic wellbeing of people without negatively impacting on the natural environment to provide the resources, goods and services necessary for maintaining or improving the livelihoods of people, communities and nations in the present as well as in the future whereas sustainable use may entail the consumptive and often destructive extraction of natural resources for use by humans without compromising the capacity of the landscape or ecosystems to produce and  regenerate those very resources for use by future generations. This may then beg the question as to whether exhaustible non-renewable natural resources can be used sustainably. Remember that sustainability can be perceived from a social, an economic and an ecological perspective. If it incorporates these three aspects of social sustainability (socially acceptable), economic sustainability (passing on constant or surplus capital from one generation to the other) and ecological sustainability (mainaining the natural stock and its capacity to regenerate itself) then we are getting closer to true sustainability. 

I think R Kambatuku has described the terms properly. Development is the phase of producing something and use is its applicability. Both the terms are equally considerable in making things longer lasting and beneficial to a nation, society, locality, family etc. A system can not be sustainable if the use of the result of the system is not considerate (if we can say optimum use). On the other hand only considerate use will not guarantee the availability of the resources if the development (supply/ production) is not sustainable. 

I think Gro Harlem Brundtland's defintion 1987 is central to the sustainability discourse: http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/2004-2005/focus_sustainable_development.html And it is a discourse: it has its roots in German forestry, from where it diffused into other fields, mailny the integration of economy, ecology and development, and it is under discussion since. So there are landmarks like 1987, but there is not a one-fits-all and not a context-free defintion.

Dear Mohamed,

Perhaps, you should consider defining both terms using indicators. Thus, the book written by Simon Bell and Stephen Morse (2008) "Sustainability Indicators : Measuring the Immeasurable?" provides some interesting insights.

Regards,

Juste

Sustainable Development (SD) is a very comple systemic concept involving a lot of dimensions in different fields of knowledge(for instance, nature and state of ecosystems, change of ecosystems by exploitation; effects of explotation on human cultures; technologies and markets for providing human needs; ethics; etc., etc., etc.), so a simple definition (like "meeting human needs in a socially just manner without impacting negatively  the health of ecosystems" ) is almost impossible and always imprecise. The definition depends strongly on the context, scales (time and space), aim, etc. Therefore, first define your problem/situation and purpose, then try to find a suitable definition of the many in use.

On the other hand, SD is "forbidden" by the Second Law of Thermodynamics - it is an ideal limit that can never be attained, therefore durability, not  unlimited sustainability, should be aimed as objective.

I think the word sustainability is most typically abused.  Here in Hawaii is often used in a manner that is synonymous with "self-sufficiency", which is obviously niave.

Economists I know typically favor Robert Solow's definition, beautifully laid out in this classic (non-technical) paper:

http://www.isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic203569.files/Solow.Sustainability_An_Economists_Perspective._1993.pdf

When adding the word "development" to sustainability, the most logical extension to Solow would seem to be economic growth without sacrificing long-run ability to produce.

As to my understanding, sustainable development in short implies environmental, economic and social well-being  both for today and tomorrow. Sustainable use is responsible utilization (either production or consumption)-activities of production and consumption should ensure environmental, economic and social well-being both for today and tomorrow.

I like also Amartya Sen's Noble Prized work of 'DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM' where he reminded us that democracy, as well as being an end in itself, plays an instrumental role in giving people a voice and a constructive role in shaping values and norms.

"Political rights, including freedom of expression and discussion, are not only pivotal in inducing social responses to economic needs, they are also central to the conceptualization of economic needs themselves."

Sen surveyed relationships between justice, freedom, and responsibility. And he reiterated the advantages of capabilities over narrower measures of human development. The concept of "human capital" his a step forwards work, though is still too narrow in its restriction to effects on production where it fails to capture the direct contribution of human capabilities to well-being and freedom and social changes.

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF9200/h12/readings/papers/Sen.pdf

http://www.isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic203569.files/Solow.Sustainability_An_Economists_Perspective._1993.pdf

"Sustainable development" is defined by Gro Harlem Brundtland 1987. Here the idea of sustainable yield, coming from German forestry 300 years earlier, has been adapted to human triggered development at all. So the three pillars economy, ecology and societal aspects are to balance. 

As I said "sustainable yield" focuses on harvesting of renewable ressources, like wood. Here we have hard criteria that demand, the the harvesting will never run out of natural growth. As this is the basis of sustainable forestry, sustainability under this definition is a very central criterion that does not allow exceptions. It is the basic moral of sustainable forestry - this is why foresters suffer extremely when they hear people gab about sustainability without understanding the basic idea...  

What is "Sustainable use"? In the sense of sustainable yield it can be a way of use that does not decrease the chances for the next turn. 

Good morning,

As far as the definition of Sustainable development and Sustainable use are concerned, I would highlight the definitions suggested by IUCN, UNEP, WWF in 1991 in the book “Caring for the Earth. A strategy for sustainable living” (pag. 10). According to them:

“Sustainable development is used in this Strategy to mean: improving the quality of Human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems”. Compared to the definition of 1987, it may underline the three pillars of sustainability in a clearer manner.

“Sustainable use is application only to renewable resources: it means using them at rates within their capacity for renewal”.

Stefano

The challenge in using the terms 'sustainable development' and 'sustainable use' is that the necessities of political compromise that have accompanied the processes of developing definitions for these terms that will be acceptable to governments signing various agreements such as Kyoto, etc., is that the definitions have been reduced to lowest possible 'common denominators', such that the term 'sustainable' has come to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.

The history of this is exceptionally well articulated by Farley and Smith in their book "Sustainability: If It's Everything, Is It Nothing?"  -- < Farley, Heather and Smith, Zachary, Sustainability: If It's Everything, Is It Nothing?, Routledge, Oxon and New York, 2014 > Farley and Smith discuss the traditional three pillars model of sustainability, which essentially holds that environment, economy and society are of equal importance to sustainable activity. However, they go on to propose a nested model of neo-sustainability, which holds that economy and society exist within environment, because both are subject to the limits of the environment.

I would also note the book contains a very comprehensive bibliography of references pertinent to the sustainability discussion / debate.

According to the world commission on environment and development , the suistanable development is the hability to satisfy her own development without comprimize the development of the futur generation.

sustainable use of resources by the present generation assures the quality and quantity of resources to the future generation, which leads to sustainable development. 

Socio-economic development of society that is progressive and one in which utilization of the resources, which permit the development, are enabled to regenerate to provide for the ecosystem functions and services that produce the resources.  

Sustainability Models vs. a Theory of Sustainability?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sustainability_Models_vs_a_Theory_of_Sustainability

My practical definition is that we can use our resources in a long term basis, that we could also provide or even improve conditions of our resources and environmental services for the generations to come.

I subscribe to Mike's definition. I would like to emphasize the inclusive growth of the poorest of the poor sector(s) in the social aspect, which is one of the critical challenges in sustainable development.