INTERVIEW:
Professor Marshall Murphree

August 1998

with Simon Ward, editor, Man In Nature

In the last two decades, sustainable use has evolved from being a marginal philosophy to a mainstream tool, both for human development and for conservation, and in the process has brought these related fields closer together than ever. No one has done more to bring about this transformation than Professor Marshall Murphree.

After graduating from the London School of Economics with a doctorate in social anthropology, Murphree returned to his home country, Zimbabwe, to work as a missionary. He then joined the University of Zimbabwe, and in 1970 became the inaugural professor of the Chair of Race Relations. In 1983, he took the chair of the university's newly established Centre for Applied Social Sciences. In 1989 he joined the board of Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks and Wild Life Management, and from 1991-95 chaired the Parks and Wild Life Board. In 1994, he became the inaugural chair of the Sustainable Use Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), a position which he holds to this day.

Objectives of the IUCN Sustainable Use Initiative

• To support and augment conditions that optimize benefits to both ecosystems and people when renewable natural resources are used.
  

• To distinguish uses of renewable natural resources that are ecologically and socially beneficial.
  

• To increase knowledge and enhance understanding of factors affecting the sustainability of uses of renewable natural resources.

Prof. Marshall Murphree: The SUI is only a revival of a concept that has been around for a very long time. People such as Aldo Leopold were crystallising the concept of sustainable use back in the 1930s, and you can find it in policies propounded in North America at the turn of the century. But you can actually trace it back to the Old Testament, where we are told that if we come across a nesting partridge, we can take two eggs for our use, but we shall not kill the bird and we shall leave two eggs.

The IUCN was concerned at the unsustainability of many of the ways in which we are using our natural resources, particularly in the developing world where habitats and species are being sacrificed for economic growth. Clearly, the consequences of continuing such practices will be disastrous, both for human development and conservation.

There is thus more than one argument to be made in favour of sustainable use. But the IUCN, as a conservation body, launched the SUI in response to traditional conservation concerns, and specifically the fact that traditional approaches to conservation were not working.

MiN: IUCN's membership comprises governments, government agencies and NGOs in 133 countries. How broad is their support for sustainable use?

Murphree: Until recently, the IUCN's dominant paradigm for conservation had been to segregate and protect wildlife in areas under state management, with no consumptive use. But in 1990, our General Assembly passed a landmark resolution recognising that sustainable use of species could, under the right circumstances, be a tool for conservation.

Since this policy shift occurred, our members' acceptance of sustainable use has grown, and it was endorsed again at our World Conservation Congress in 1996. Most of our members now see it as the way forward, with particularly strong support coming from developing countries, because sustainable use is consonant with their own attitudes towards conservation.

The sustainable use paradigm has also been accepted by major bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, and has been embedded in the Convention on Biological Diversity. So acceptance is growing everywhere.

MiN: In promoting conservation through sustainable use, what successes do you point to?

Murphree: It's easy to claim success on the basis of inadequate evidence. But in southern Africa certainly, there is a great deal of evidence, with time depth, to indicate that giving species economic value, and planning for their sustainable exploitation, can achieve more in conservation terms than proscribing use.

As I said, people have been advocating the principles of sustainable use throughout this century, but it was in southern Africa - and in particular South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe - that they were first tested on a large scale.

In the 1960s, the steady loss of wild lands to marginal agriculture, and consequent decline of wildlife populations, forced the region's conservationists to review what were clearly failing policies. This resulted in legislation in the early 1970s that gave private landowners the status of "custodians", or effectively owners, of the wildlife on their land. The idea was that by giving them the right to use the wildlife resources, by recognising long-term tenureship, and by giving the wildlife economic value, landowners would invest in its future economic value by conserving it.

And it worked. A wildlife industry was born, and this resulted not only in the expansion of wildlife populations but also in improvements in the general ecological health of the land. Now, having regained their independence, these three countries are testing ways to apply this formula to wildlife management on all lands not under direct state control.

MiN: Why do some conservationists still not embrace the sustainable use paradigm?

Murphree: Some conservationists still cling to that traditional paradigm of segregation and protection, and to understand why, we need to consider the angle from which they approach conservation.

People's approaches to conservation are fundamentally determined by their social and cultural context. We talk in terms of the developed and developing worlds, or North and South, but these are misleading. More accurately, the dichotomy is between societies which are urbanised and industrialised, and those which derive their livelihoods primarily from the land.

Our uses of nature derive from the values that we place upon it. In urban societies, these uses are greatly determined by two sets of values: intrinsic and recreational. People want elephants, or whatever, to continue surviving because intrinsically they are "good". And nature has obvious recreational value as an escape from the intrusions of society. These sets of values are totally legitimate, and being something of an urbanite myself, I share them.

But I must recognise that these values may not be shared by villagers in the Zambesi Valley or on the shore of the Bering Sea. Their values of nature are direct and instrumental, rather than intrinsic or recreational. Nature is directly relevant to their survival, and their use of nature is thus more instrumental.

Now, both of these groups have conservation concerns, but you will notice that their means/ends sequences are complete opposites. For the first group, economic resources are allocated as a means to an end, which is conservation. For the second group, the end is to ensure continuation of an economic activity, and conservation is merely an investment in that activity.

Traditional conservationists, by placing nature's intrinsic and recreational values above all others, see conservation as the sole end. So the incorporation of sustainable use in conservation models challenges the paramountcy of their values, by giving equal weight to the values of people who live directly from the land.

MiN: Since rural communities have such an important role to play in achieving sustainable use, should we be striving to keep them in place, while arresting the spread of cities?

Murphree: At some point in the future, most people will probably be living in cities, and there will thus be more importance, relatively speaking, attached to nature's intrinsic and recreational values. This seems inevitable to me, so I'm not sure the effort would be well spent trying to control it.

But this is a very long-term trend, and we cannot simply plan for a future scenario and impose it upon current conditions. For now, we must recognise that well over half the world's population are still rural, and for the sake of conservation - not to mention social justice - we must take their needs very seriously.

Rural communities live from the land, and if society at large imposes conditions such that they can no longer do so, while providing no alternative livelihoods, they will despoil the land. So it is vital that we ensure these people can continue to live under the conditions that their contemporary rural contexts impose upon them. If we do not, from the conservation viewpoint we will be closing off options for the future in terms of wild places and species.

But beyond that, we will never have a completely urbanised planet because we depend upon agricultural production wherever we live. So given that rural people are the primary custodians of nature, boy, city dwellers had better give them due attention! Because if they don't, they will be hurting the very nature they claim to hold so dear.

MiN: In urban cultures, consumption of wildlife protein remains small, but in niche markets it is now competing well with livestock products. Some people, however, oppose the development of commercial markets for wildlife protein. They accept local consumption, but argue that the rest of us should be satisfied with staples such as beef, pork and chicken. Should limits be placed on the development of markets for wildlife protein?

Murphree: Urban cultures tend to lump crops and livestock together as "agriculture", and to view "natural resources" as something separate. If we go into detail, distinctions can certainly be made, but from the standpoint of ensuring sustainability, it is misleading to do so and therefore not helpful. It makes us forget that agriculture is all about using natural resources, just as much as hunting or gathering are.

Our conceptual perspective is much clearer, and our policies can be far more rational, if we view the entire scope of man's husbandry of natural resources as broadly speaking agriculture.

And anyway, such distinctions as do exist are often blurred. The cow was once wild and is now domesticated, and there are other species generally thought of as wild which now form the basis of important livestock industries, such as the ostrich, and some species of antelope and crocodile.

MiN: Viewing wildlife husbandry as an extension of the livestock industry may help achieve sustainability, but by belittling the intrinsic value derived from "wildness" does it not debase the meaning of conservation? If black rhinos, for example, were to be bred only on ranches, with no thought of returning them to the wild, could this be called conservation?

Murphree: It could be called conservation, because ensuring the continuation of a species is one definition of conservation. And for some people, it could have intrinsic value too.

Our attribution of intrinsic values to wild places and species is a very subjective thing, based on a perception that the hand of man is not there. But of course, the hand of man is there, it's just less obtrusive. In any national park the hand of man is there; simply by drawing a circle and calling it a park, we create a management system. And while we may call it "wild", what we actually mean is that we don't fiddle with it to such a great extent.

Bear in mind also that the derivation of intrinsic values from nature is by no means restricted to "wild" areas and species. Indeed, these values are just as commonly derived from aspects of nature which are totally managed by man. The instrumental values of horses, for example, are in most cultures insignificant, and yet there are a lot of subjective interests that are willing to pay costs just to have them there. They are the basis of a huge industry, and there are farmers who keep them simply because they like to see them on their land.

So this is why I'm saying our conceptualisation sometimes misleads us. We're talking about degrees. Just as there is no absolute distinction between agriculture and the harvesting of "natural resources", there is no absolute distinction between places obviously managed by man, and so-called "wild" places and species.

MiN: Animal welfarists express concern over certain uses of wildlife, such as placing them in zoos or circuses, or hunting methods which cannot guarantee quick kills. How can the SUI, which promotes conservation through use, cater to these concerns?

Murphree: It is not for the SUI to cater to any one culture's demands by asking others to accept its standards of animal treatment. Rather, we are concerned with promoting understanding and acceptance of a diversity of standards.

In broad terms, I would argue that concern for animal welfare is universal. But there are nonetheless vast differences from one culture to the next in terms of what is considered appropriate treatment. Some cultures elevate animal welfare to a level which others consider absurd. Conversely, some cultures tend to suppress animal welfare more, and even promote practices that most others consider cruel.

These differences, which are determined to a large degree by philosophy, religion and socio-economic factors, are sometimes seen as presenting dichotomies. But they are false dichotomies, and it is important for us to arrive at an understanding that overcomes them.

So the first thing that any global sustainable use programme needs is a sensibility and a respect for culturally derived specifics concerning the ways humans treat animals. Each society has its own formula for dealing with nature, and it is important that we let them live out that formula.

MiN: The most vociferous criticism of sustainable use of wildlife has come from the animal rights movement. What kind of understanding, if any, can proponents of consumptive use of wildlife hope to reach with those who oppose it on ethical grounds?

Murphree: I have a great deal of understanding for people who are committed to a Schweitzerian philosophy of reverence for life. Although in most societies their numbers have never been great, they have strongholds in certain cultures or segments of cultures, such as among vegetarians or Hindus.

If such a culture decrees that all animals, or perhaps just particular species, have a right to life, and if that culture is willing to pay the cost of fulfilling that philosophy, everyone must respect that. Equally, however, if another culture sees the same species as a source of protein, that is also valid. And so understanding must be based on mutual respect for other people's philosophies.

By and large, I believe that mutual respect is prevalent in the world, and serves us well. There is no history of conflict, for example, between Hindus, who revere cows, and cattle ranchers.

The animal rights "movement", however, is quite another thing, because it seeks to impose a minority philosophy on the vast majority of mankind who do not subscribe to it. That in itself is problematic, but to make matters worse, it draws much of its support from two sources which are not predisposed to rational argument.

The first is an undiscriminating public, primarily in industrialised countries, who support animal rights because it costs them nothing in terms of their personal lifestyle, and because they have little idea of what they are supporting. For them, animal rights are argued in emotional and superficial terms which are neither philosophically nor ethically robust. Stop eating seals, we are told; eat a beef steak instead.

The second is those entrepreneurs who exploit animal rights for its commercial potential. They have done this from a platform that intentionally confuses animal rights issues with conservation issues. They appeal to the sympathy of an undiscriminating public for some foggy notion of animal rights, while defending themselves to their critics in conservation terms. But they are not conservationists, they are anti-conservationists with a short-term economic interest in exploiting a particular field of conservation.

So in the case of our undiscriminating public, we must strive to educate them about the importance of sustainable use. As for those who exploit them, I have nothing but contempt, and all one can hope to do is put them out of business.

MiN: There is an ongoing debate about the level at which man's use of natural resources can be governed most efficiently. International conventions currently play an important role, but they are being challenged by advocates of management at regional or lower levels, and many sustainable use initiatives are being taken at the community level. Where do you stand on this issue?

Murphree: Since the 1950s, the whole conservation effort has become increasingly globalised, resulting in highly inefficient systems of governance. They are inefficient because they are infused with the idea that man's activities must be controlled by negative incentives, that is, sets of laws that stop people from doing things. These laws have, in general, been ineffective because of a lack of ability to enforce them, and this in turn can cause people to have contempt for them.

The highest efficiency in environmental management is achieved when positive incentives are combined with direct involvement at the lowest operable level. In other words, small-scale operations are usually more efficient than larger ones. So one should never globalise a problem if you can handle it regionally, or regionalise it if you can handle it nationally, and so on down. With the sustainable use perspective becoming more important, and in light of the demonstrable ineffectiveness of some global environmental conventions, I am heartened to see regional, national and sub-national management bodies now being given greater recognition.

That said, some problems must be handled at a higher level. The Serengeti ecosystem, with a million wildebeest trekking each year between two countries, calls for international cooperation, or migratory waterfowl moving between Canada and Mexico. And there are some issues, such as global warming, which must be handled at the highest level.

MiN: One agreement that recognises the importance of community-level management is the Convention on Biological Diversity. How does the CBD compare with other environmental conventions, and what is its potential?

Murphree: The CBD is an advance on most of the international treaties and agreements produced in the last 20 years, for two reasons.

Firstly, it recognises ultimate causes rather than focusing solely on proximate causes. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), for example, focuses on one proximate cause: trade in endangered species. The CBD, by contrast, is holistic, embracing the whole spectrum of conservation concerns.

Secondly, it gives much more recognition to human motivations to conserve, including not only those motivations related to intrinsic values, but also to economic values.

Unfortunately the CBD is having difficulty getting its act together because of structural and operational problems. But it is a flexible agreement, and has the promise to deliver real efficiency in environmental management that many of the rest of them don't.

MiN: What are the greatest threats to sustainable use?

Murphree: The over-arching threat is human population growth. Those of us in the conservation arena have been accused, and with some justification, of ignoring this problem, and even though we may have very little influence upon it, we should be giving it more attention. If population growth is not restricted, there will be a very negative impact on any chances of using our resources sustainably. The problem has not been tackled effectively as yet, but we recognise that it exists.

The second, related, threat is the imperative of poverty. In many areas of the world, even in cultures which fully embrace the sustainable use perspective, people can find themselves pushed into situations where they must resort to unsustainable practices simply to survive. Conservation is about investing in the future. But when people are shoved into positions where they have nothing to invest, and must spend what's in their pockets today - in other words, use what is available and use it now - conservation is bound to suffer.

The third threat to sustainability is poor governance. So often a good local initiative demonstrates the economic value of a natural resource, only to see it appropriated by a powerful few. Governments or corporations just seize the resources and rape them, and our systems of governance do little to control that. Most countries are guilty of this to an extent, but some just make me hang my head in despair. Just look at forestry management in [name of country omitted at interviewee's request: ed.] - it's an absolute scandal!

And the fourth threat is the intentional distortion of conservation concerns by certain individuals and organisations. I referred to these people before in the context of the animal rights movement, but they are more pervasive than that. For every organisation that is genuinely committed to saving the rainforests or cleaning up our oceans, we have another organisation that exploits these issues for its own gain, sowing confusion and making real solutions to real problems harder to achieve.