sustainable development of natural resources essay

Search the site

Links to social media channels

The Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: The Governance Challenge

Still Only One Earth: Lessons from 50 years of UN sustainable development policy

Over-exploitation of natural resources harms the health of ecosystems and the wellbeing of people. In the face of environmental crises and growing inequality, we need to act, including developing extended producer responsibility and supply chain legislation, guaranteeing green public procurement, supporting technical innovation to enhance resource circularity, and adopting decision-making processes that include and respect women, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. ( Download PDF ) ( See all policy briefs ) ( Subscribe to ENB )

Natural resources are central to human wellbeing. We cannot live without the clean air we breathe, the plants we eat, or the water we drink. We need natural resources to put roofs over our heads and heat our homes. We need them to survive and to thrive.

The concept of natural resources refers to naturally occurring living and non-living elements of the Earth system, including plants, fish, and fungi, but also water, soil, and minerals. A prominent way to think about natural resources is to look at them in terms of depletion risk: do they regenerate, and, if so, at what pace? Some resources, such as trees and plants, are renewable because they regenerate relatively quickly. Others, such as copper and oil, take much longer to form and are considered non-renewable. Together, natural resources make up a dense web of interdependence, forming ecosystems that also include humans. As such, the distribution of resources shapes the face of our planet and the local distinctiveness of our environments. People have formed different types of cultural, spiritual, and subsistence-based relationships with the natural environment, adopting value-systems that go beyond economic framings.

Nature makes human development possible but our relentless demand for the earth’s resources is accelerating extinction rates and devastating the world’s ecosystems. Joyce Msuya , Deputy Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme

The use of natural resources has long been considered an element of both human rights and economic development, leading the United Nations, amid its work on advancing decolonization in the 1960s, to declare that “[t]he right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned” ( UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) ).

Natural resources are often viewed as key assets driving development and wealth creation. Over time and with progressive industrialization, resource use increased. In some cases, exploitation levels came to exceed resources’ natural regeneration rates. Such overexploitation ultimately threatens the livelihoods and wellbeing of people who depend on these resources, and jeopardizes the health of ecosystems. This risk of resource depletion, notably manifesting in the form of fishery collapses, demonstrates the need to regulate natural resource use to better preserve resources and their ecosystems. The very first UN conference on environmental issues, the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, adopted fundamental principles in this regard.

Stockholm Declaration

• Principle 2: “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.”
• Principle 3: “The capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable resources must be maintained and, wherever practicable, restored or improved.”
• Principle 5: “The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all mankind.”

The Stockholm Declaration not only addressed resource depletion, but also benefit sharing: the objective to ensure that natural resource use not only benefits the few, but the many, both within and across countries. It also speaks to the principle of inter-generational equity: ensuring that today’s resource use does not compromise the availability of natural resources for future generations. In fact, natural resource use relates to all three dimensions of sustainability: social justice, environmental health, and economic development. The sustainable use of natural resources strives for balance between these dimensions: maintaining the long-term use of resources while maximizing social benefits and minimizing environmental impacts.

Natural Resource Use Has More than Tripled since 1970

Although the 1972 Stockholm Declaration laid out the fundamental principles for sustainable resource governance, the state of play half a century later is sobering. The International Resource Panel (IRP), launched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), found that the global average of material demand per capita grew from 7.4 tons in 1970 to 12.2 tons in 2017, with significant adverse impacts on the environment, notably increased greenhouse gas emissions.

The IRP also showed that “the use of natural resources and the related benefits and environmental impacts are unevenly distributed across countries and regions” (IRP, 2019, p. 27). For one, the per capita material footprint in high-income countries is thirteen times more than in low-income countries: 27 tons and 2 tons per capita, respectively. As WWF notes , “If everyone lived like an average resident of the USA, a total of four Earths would be required to regenerate humanity’s annual demand on nature.” What’s more, since they generally rely on resource extraction in other countries, high income countries outsource part of the environmental and social impacts of their consumption. At the same time, the IRP has reported that “the value created through these traded materials in the countries of origin is relatively low” (IRP, 2019, p. 65). This imbalance highlights the global discrepancies in the distribution of benefits and negative impacts stemming from resource use, with countries “rich” in valuable resources not always benefitting from their extraction, distribution, and use, yet suffering the most environmental harm.

Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Fostering Sustainable Resource Governance

A vast array of norms, institutions, and actors influence decisions on natural resources, which is why we speak of natural resource governance. A plethora of national legislation, intergovernmental agreements, regional organizations, certification mechanisms, corporate codes of conduct, and multi-stakeholder partnerships create a complex web of rules affecting how natural resources are used and benefits thereof are distributed.

Since Stockholm, numerous multilateral agreements have developed a range of operational guidelines, targets, and standards. Some intergovernmental frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are broad in focus, while others are resource-specific ( Minamata Convention on Mercury ) or relate to a specific geographical area ( Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ). Industry initiatives and multi-stakeholder partnerships often focus on specific resources or sectors. Examples of such initiatives include the Forest Stewardship Council , the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil , the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative , and the Better Cotton Initiative .

Citizens also have agency over natural resource use: through the representatives we elect to government, our activist engagement, and our consumption and transport choices. For instance, carefully considering food production cycles—what we eat, where and how it is grown, and how it arrives on our plate—can go towards addressing the impact that agricultural expansion has on forests, wetlands, and grassland ecosystems (FAO, 2018; IPBES, 2019). However, this needs to be coupled with systemic change across governance structures.

These mechanisms and institutions are not always complementary; in fact, at times they stand in conflict with one another. Consider, for instance, an energy corporation invoking the Energy Charter Treaty to file arbitration claims against a country’s decision to phase-out coal—a decision taken in accordance with its obligations under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change .

Balancing Rights and Interests over Natural Resources

Determining how people can—and should— access, benefit from, participate in decision-making on, and have responsibility over natural resources has been shaped by concepts such as property and rights . 

On the one hand, property rights divide lands and territories into: private property, where rights are held by individuals or companies; common property, where rights are shared by a community; public property, where rights are held by government; and open access areas, where no specific rights are assigned (Aggrawal & Elbow, 2006). Property rights are closely tied to rights over natural resources, which include the right to use a resource, such as hunting in a forest; or management rights that grant authority to decide on use, for example imposing seasonal hunting restrictions. In terms of governance, different types of ownership and access rights can be held simultaneously by several actors: a wetland can be owned by the state, managed by a local council, and used as fishing grounds by communities. 

The notion of tenure security indicates that an individual’s rights over natural resources and specific lands are recognized and enforceable. These rights are key to avoiding conflict and fostering social security as well as long-term sustainable resource use.

On the other hand, there are individual and collective rights regarding quality of life. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas ( UNDROP ), for example, stipulates that “[p]easants and other people working in rural areas have the right to have access to and to use in a sustainable manner the natural resources present in their communities that are required to enjoy adequate living conditions” and that they “have the right to participate in the management of these resources” (Article 5). UNDROP highlights the importance of small-scale sustainable practices, and the need to strengthen the protection and recognition of groups who have experienced historical marginalization and violent conflict over resource use. 

Similarly, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( UNDRIP ) and International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 ( ILO 169 ) protect the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP Article 8(2b) stipulates that states shall prevent and provide redress for “any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.” Both texts also speak to the importance of ensuring the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples in relation to the use of their lands, with UNDRIP Articles 11(2) and 28 underscoring Indigenous Peoples’ right to redress for past FPIC infringements.

There is also the right to a healthy environment, enshrined in regional treaties, including procedural rights on access to information and decision-making processes, as well as the right to clean air, a safe climate, healthy food, safe water, a safe environment for work and play, and healthy ecosystems (UN Human Rights Council, 2019). Ultimately, the effectiveness of these advances in international law depends upon national governments’ readiness to implement them. To date, only 23 countries have ratified ILO 169, and many countries around the world have yet to adopt appropriate legislation to protect the rights enshrined in UNDRIP. To do so, and to protect associated rights under UNDROP and the right to a healthy environment, governments must adopt robust reforms across national policies, laws, programmes, and institutions that prompt shifts in country priorities and ensure the mainstreaming of environmental and social concerns across sectors, focusing especially on empowering marginalized groups. To ensure that decisions across society better address ecological and social wellbeing, prominent actors, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, are calling for human rights-based approaches to natural resource governance.

Overall, this constitutes a complex architecture, one that is dynamic in nature, often builds on customary practices, and requires balancing “competing” rights and interests through law and policy. Structures are seldom straightforward: there are often overlapping or even conflicting systems in place, and this influences the sustainability of resource governance.

States play a central role in balancing rights and interests. Regulations addressing the extractive sector determine how a corporation’s exclusive user rights may impact the general population’s right to a safe and healthy environment. Approaches to this balancing act, and the distribution, recognition, and safeguarding of rights, and the implementation of associated responsibilities, vary across states and change over time.

At times, this balance of interests favors more powerful actors. Stemming from historical legacies and trajectories in decision-making, structural inequalities exist across resource access, ownership, and tenure security (Oxfam, 2014). These issues disproportionately impact women , rural communities, and Indigenous Peoples, who are often cast as passive recipients to policy change, as opposed to rights holders and key actors in the sustainable management of natural resources. 

Women have faced historical exclusion from decision-making processes related to land and resources (UN Women, 2020). Due to enduring patriarchal gender norms across the world, they hold less control than men over the lands and resources they traditionally use and rely on for their livelihoods and wellbeing. Based on an analysis of 180 countries, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that out of the 164 countries that explicitly recognize women’s rights to own, use, and make decisions regarding land on par with men, only 52 countries guarantee these rights in both law and practice (OECD, 2019). As such, it is important that states ensure that women’s rights over natural resources are realized and protected through appropriate mechanisms. 

Indigenous Peoples also struggle to have their rights recognized. For instance, in Finland, Sweden, and Canada, legal disputes have arisen over the challenge of balancing between states’ sovereign right to govern and exploit natural resources, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination over traditional territories and customary resource use. Globally, conflicts have also emerged over specific policy approaches, such as conservation methods relying on models of strictly protected areas, or the expansion of large infrastructure, such as the installation of hydraulic dams, which contribute to the displacement of Indigenous and rural peoples. 

The expansion of international investment treaties further aggravates existing power differentials. In fostering the commercialization and privatization of land and resources, and by often prioritizing investors’ rights and interests over those held by local peoples, they risk restricting public-interest policies and undermine the public’s access to remedial action (Cotula, 2015, 2016).

The Need for Inclusive Governance 

Activists and practitioners working to safeguard rights linked to natural resources and secure tenure have been lobbying for strengthened empowerment and participation of local groups, arguing that this fosters more sustainable and equitable resource governance. Alliances between women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, and local community groups have emerged, connecting local-to-global efforts, and bringing international attention to injustices. This includes grassroots alliances such as La Vía Campesina , which has lobbied to protect farmers’ and peasants’ rights since the 1990s and was instrumental in the creation and adoption of UNDROP. 

Inclusive decision making is key for sustainable resource governance. Just as gender norms have influenced structures for access and use, they have also shaped our behaviors and the knowledge we acquire, with women holding unique agroecological expertise linked to crop resilience and nutrition (UN Women, 2018). So, unless decision-making processes are gender-responsive and inclusive, they risk overlooking women’s specific needs and roles, and will fail to ensure the inclusion of ecological knowledge important for enabling sustainable practices. 

The same can be said for including Indigenous Peoples and local communities in resource governance. The second edition of the CBD’s Local Biodiversity Outlooks illustrates their significant contributions to the safeguarding and sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity. Important benefits come with inclusive and community-led governance structures and decision-making processes, which, in addition to protecting and enabling sustainable use of resources, can strengthen community support systems and local economies, as well as revitalize Indigenous and local knowledges and languages.

The Need for Transformative Change

Despite efforts since the 1970s, current trends in natural resource use are unsustainable, with potentially devastating results. The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment Report underscored that transformative change is necessary to protect the resources upon which human life and wellbeing depends. The Report also acknowledges that, by its very nature, transformative change is often opposed by those with interests vested in the status quo. Civil society actors therefore underscore the importance for governments to address vested interests and foster inclusive decision making, along with a re-balancing of priorities with regards to rights and interests in order to ensure ecological integrity and social justice (Allan, et.al., 2019). The Local Biodiversity Outlooks mentioned earlier offer important examples of bottom-up approaches to resource governance that can foster sustainability while also addressing historical inequalities.

Bearing in mind global and local inequalities in the distribution of resource use and benefits, achieving transformative change requires bold governmental action, both domestically and in international fora. We need fundamental shifts in production and consumptions patterns, careful attention to value and supply chains, and the fostering of circular resource use and circular economies. Resource circularity breaks with the linear model of “extract-use-discard” towards a “waste-as-a-resource” model that fosters a reduced need for resource extraction, as well as encourages increased reuse, repair and recycling. These objectives are already enshrined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , with governments aiming to achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources by 2030 . While implementation has been too slow (IPBES, 2019), there is increased attention to fostering resource circularity, hand in hand with efforts to promote secure labor standards and reduce environmental impacts of resource exploitation. Most notable in this regard are legislative initiatives that increase producers’ responsibility for the impacts of their products throughout their lifecycle. Placing responsibility for post-use disposal on manufacturers significantly increases the material recovery rate and incentivizes less wasteful product design (OECD, 2016).

To better balance the three dimensions of sustainable resources governance—social justice, environmental health, and economic development—we must rethink our economic, social, political, and technological systems that currently enable damaging production practices and wasteful resource consumption. Other ways of living are possible, from the ways we structure our societies and economies, the relationships we form with each other and with our ecosystems, to ensuring that the priorities of our leaders align with the interests of the many rather than the few. To realize these shifts, governments should develop extended producer responsibilities and supply chain legislation to enhance fairer distribution of benefits and harms stemming from resource use and promote the protection of human rights in ways that ensure ecological wellbeing and social justice. 

Decision making must be inclusive and account for the needs, rights, and knowledges of historically marginalized communities and groups. Governance structures must recognize and support pre-existing sustainable practices at local and regional levels, as well as nourish the emergence of more sustainable patterns of resource use and management. This will require strengthening tenure rights and re-distributing power across all stages of decision-making. 

Works Consulted

Aggarwal, S. & Elbow, K. (2016). The role of property rights in natural resource management, good governance and empowerment of the rural poor. USAID. https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Property_Rights_and_NRM_Report.pdf

Allan, J.I., Antonich, B., Bansard, J.S., Luomi, M., & Soubry, B. (2019). Summary of the Chile/Madrid Climate Change Conference: 2-15 December 2019. Earth Negotiations Bulletin , 12(775). https://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb12775e.pdf

Cotula, L. (2015). Land rights and investment treaties. IIED. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/12578IIED.pdf

Cotula, L. (2016). Rethinking investment treaties to advance human rights. IIED Briefing. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/17376IIED.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework. http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf

Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Local biodiversity outlooks 2 . https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/lbo-2-en.pdf

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment

International Resource Panel. (2019). Global resources outlook 2019: Natural resources for the future we want. UN Environment Programme. https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Extended producer responsibility: Updated guidance for efficient waste management. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385-en

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Social institutions and gender index 2019 global report: Transforming challenges into opportunities. https://doi.org/10.1787/bc56d212-en

Oxfam. (2014). Even it up: Time to end extreme inequality. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/cr-even-it-up-extreme-inequality-291014-en.pdf

UN Human Rights Council. (2019). Report by the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. A/HRC/43/53. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/43/53

UN Women (2018). Towards a gender-responsive implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2018/11/towards-a-gender-responsive-implementation-of-the-convention-on-biological-diversity

UN Women (2020). Realizing women’s rights to land and other productive resources. 2nd ed. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/10/realizing-womens-rights-to-land-and-other-productive-resources-2nd-edition  

Additional downloads

Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada

Government of Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Government of Sweden, Ministry of Environment

Deep dive details, you might also be interested in, igf case study: leveraging technologies for gender equality in mining communities.

How can sharing technological infrastructure support gender equality and serve the broad betterment of mining communities?

February 2, 2024

How to Regulate Our Waste-Full World

Going forward, the legitimacy of global governance of hazardous wastes may rest on its ability to enable governments protect the most vulnerable.

July 26, 2021

Financial Benefit-Sharing Issues for Critical Minerals: Challenges and opportunities for producing countries

Exploring nuances in the key features of critical minerals and the new challenges and opportunities they present to fiscal regulation.

March 22, 2024

Urgent Action Is Needed to Better Reward Tea Farmers for Using Sustainable Practices

There are 13 million people propping up the global tea industry. Two thirds of those people are smallholder farmers in developing countries, many of whom live in poverty. New research from the International Institute for Sustainable Development unearths the latest consumption and production trends in the sector and explores why so many tea farmers are struggling to make a living.

IISD in the news

Farmers Review Africa

January 18, 2024

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

✍️Essay on Natural Resources: Samples in 100, 150 and 200 Words 

• Updated on  
• Nov 2, 2023

Wondering about how the resources provided by our planet Earth are depleting? Well, that’s true. We have come to the stage where we should start working towards saving our planet. We humans have used our resources in a humongous quantity. Therefore, it’s time we start working towards saving our planet for our future generations. Today we will provide you with a few samples of essay on natural resources which will help you write on this topic easily. 

This Blog Includes:

What are natural resources, types of natural resources, essay on natural resources in 100 words, essay on natural resources in 150 words, essay on natural resources in 200 words.

Natural Resources are resources which are present in nature independent of human actions. 

These are the resources that are created naturally by the environment, without any help from humans. Soil, stone, sunlight, air, plants, animals, fossil fuels, etc. are all natural resources.

In simple language, natural resources are naturally occurring materials which are useful to humankind. They can also be useful in a variety of ways such as in technological, economic or social contexts. These resources include building, clothing materials, food, water, fertilisers and geothermal energy. Natural resources were traditionally within the purview of the natural sciences.

Also Read: Essay on Save Environment: Samples in 100, 200, 300 Words

Speaking of the type of natural resources, there are mainly two types of natural resources. These include Renewable and Non-renewable resources. 

Renewable Resources: These are those resources which are endlessly available to humans for several uses. These resources are trees, wind, and water.

Non-Renewable Resources: These resources are available to humans in infinite quantities as they are not renewable and their supply may eventually run out. Minerals and fossil fuels are a few examples.

Also Read: Essay on the Importance of the English Language for Students

Natural resources are parts of the natural world that are useful to humans. Renewable resources are those that can be swiftly replenished, these include soil, water, and air., Non-renewable resources are those that need time to recover, such as minerals, oil, natural gas, etc. 

One should note that the survival of all life on Earth depends on natural resources. However, the usage of natural resources in excess use can cause ecosystem disruption. Many nations are taking action these days to protect their natural resources. Natural resources shouldn’t be used for purposes outside our needs. In order to preserve non-renewable resources, we should utilise renewable resources more frequently than non-renewable ones.

The organic aspects of nature that contribute to our way of life are known as natural resources. For survival, we rely on natural resources. Natural resources include things like air, water, soil, minerals, crops, etc. Resources like minerals, oil, and other resources are found in non-living organisms and take eons to regenerate. 

The distribution of natural resources is not even. Resources like these are also the primary driver of international trade relations for many nations. However, with time, these natural resources have now been overused by the human mankind beyond their limits. 

However, the unrestricted exploitation of natural resources is a challenge for all nations these days. To control this, a lot of nations are emphasising garbage recycling and employing more renewable resources than non-renewable ones. 

Sustainable development is the use of natural resources for current requirements without wasting them while keeping an eye on the future. It refers to the wise use of natural resources without sacrificing what coming generations will need.

Also Read: Essay on Unity in Diversity in 100 to 200 Words

Natural resources are materials found in the environment that humans use to survive.  From the very start, humans have been dependent on these resources. While some of these resources can be restored more rapidly than others, some require more time. Resources like sunlight, water, air, and other renewable resources are readily available and have higher recovery rates than consumption rates.

On the other hand, the formation and processing of non-renewable resources, such as minerals, oil, and natural gas, take a long time. Even the usage rate of these non-renewable resources is higher as compared to the renewable resources. While some natural resources are used immediately, others must first undergo processing.

Even while renewable resources are available in huge quantities, they should also be used responsibly. Both renewable and non-renewable resources require time to be created and processed. Therefore, it is very important for humans to use these resources in a limited quantity and leave some for future generations.

With time, humans are using these resources excessively. With the ever-increasing population, humans have already created a huge impact on the environment. To begin, humans are continuously polluting the air, water and noise. Buildings are being constructed on more land. The land is becoming less valuable in this way. Humans are soon becoming the biggest reason behind depleting natural resources, such as land, water, and air. 

Therefore, we mustn’t undervalue these resources. The moment has come for us to recognise the importance of using these resources sustainably.

Related Articles

Natural Resources are substances which are naturally obtained from nature. Here are the 5 natural resources: Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Sand, Gems, and Metals.

Renewable resources are natural resources that can be replenished or regenerated at a rate comparable to the rate at which they are consumed or harvested. For example: Solar energy, Wind energy, Biomass, Geothermal energy, etc.

Conserving and saving natural resources is essential for sustainable development and the preservation of the environment. Here are some easy tips to save natural resources: Implementing the 3Rs in daily life; Adopting energy-efficient practices such as using energy-saving appliances; Reducing water wastage by fixing leaks, using water-efficient appliances, and practising mindful water usage in daily activities, etc.

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay-writing page and follow Leverage Edu ! 

Malvika Chawla

Malvika is a content writer cum news freak who comes with a strong background in Journalism and has worked with renowned news websites such as News 9 and The Financial Express to name a few. When not writing, she can be found bringing life to the canvasses by painting on them.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Show search

Perspectives

The Science of Sustainability

Can a unified path for development and conservation lead to a better future?

October 13, 2018

• A False Choice
• Two Paths to 2050
• What's Possible
• The Way Forward
• Engage With Us

The Cerrado may not have the same name recognition as the Amazon , but this vast tropical savannah in Brazil has much in common with that perhaps better-known destination. The Cerrado is also a global biodiversity hotspot, home to thousands of species only found there, and it is also a critical area in the fight against climate change, acting as a large carbon pool.

But Brazil is one of the two largest soy producers in the world—the crop is one of the country’s most important commodities and a staple in global food supplies—and that success is placing the Cerrado in precarious decline. To date, around 46% of the Cerrado has been deforested or converted for agriculture.

Producing more soy doesn’t have to mean converting more native habitat, however. A new spatial data tool is helping identify the best places to expand soy without further encroachment on the native landscapes of the Cerrado. And with traders and bankers working together to offer preferable financing to farmers who expand onto already-converted land, Brazil can continue to produce this important crop, while protecting native habitat and providing more financial stability for farmers.

The Cerrado is just one region of a vast planet, of course, but these recent efforts to protect it are representative of a new way of thinking about the relationship between conservation and our growing human demands. It is part of an emerging model for cross-sector collaboration that aims to create a world prepared for the sustainability challenges ahead.

Is this world possible? Here, we present a new science-based view that says “Yes”—but it will require new forms of collaboration across traditionally disconnected sectors, and on a near unprecedented scale.

Download a PDF version of this feature. Click to see translated versions of this page.

I.  A False Choice

Many assume that economic interests and environmental interests are in conflict. But new research makes the case that this perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary but actively counterproductive to both ends. Achieving a sustainable future will be dependent on our ability to secure both thriving human communities and abundant and healthy natural ecosystems.

The Nature Conservancy partnered with the University of Minnesota and 11 other organizations to ask whether it is possible to achieve a future where the needs of both people and nature are advanced. Can we actually meet people’s needs for food, water and energy while doing more to protect nature? 

The perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary, but actively counterproductive to both ends.

To answer this question, we compared what the world will look like in 2050 if economic and human development progress in a “business-as-usual” fashion and what it would look like if instead we join forces to implement a “sustainable” path with a series of fair-minded and technologically viable solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.

In both options, we used leading projections of population growth and gross domestic product to estimate how demand for food, energy and water will evolve between 2010 and 2050. Under business-as-usual, we played out existing expectations and trends in how those changes will impact land use, water use, air quality, climate, protected habitat areas and ocean fisheries. In the more sustainable scenario, we proposed changes to how and where food and energy are produced, asking if these adjustments could result in better outcomes for the same elements of human well-being and nature. Our full findings are described in a peer-reviewed paper— “An Attainable Global Vision for Conservation and Human Well-Being” —published in  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment .

These scenarios let us ask, can we do better? Can we design a future that meets people’s needs without further degrading nature in the process?

Our answer is “yes,” but it comes with several big “ifs.” There is a path to get there, but matters are urgent—if we want to accomplish these goals by mid-century, we’ll have to dramatically ramp up our efforts now. The next decade is critical.

Furthermore, changing course in the next ten years will require global collaboration on a scale not seen perhaps since World War II. The widely held impression that economic and environmental goals are mutually exclusive has contributed to a lack of connection among key societal constituencies best equipped to solve interconnected problems—namely, the public health, development, financial and conservation communities. This has to change.

The good news is that protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to a growing world do not have to be either-or propositions. Our view, instead, calls for smart energy, water, air, health and ecosystem initiatives that balance the needs of economic growth and resource conservation equally. Rather than a zero-sum game, these elements are balanced sides of an equation, revealing the path to a future where people and nature thrive together.

II. Two Paths to 2050

This vision is not a wholesale departure from what others have offered. A number of prominent scientists and organizations have put forward important and thoughtful views for a sustainable future; but often such plans consider the needs of people and nature in isolation from one another, use analyses confined to limited sectors or geographies, or assume that some hard tradeoffs must be made, such as slowing global population growth, taking a reduction in GDP growth or shifting diets off of meat. Our new research considers global economic development and conservation needs together, more holistically, in order to find a sustainable path forward.

What could a different future look like? We’ve used as our standard the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 measures for “a world where all people are fed, healthy, employed, educated, empowered and thriving, but not at the expense of other life on Earth.” Our analysis directly aligns with ten of those goals. Using the SDGs as our guideposts, we imagine a world in 2050 that looks very different than the one today—and drastically different from the one we will face if we continue in business-as-usual fashion.

A sustainable future is possible.

To create our assessment of business-as-usual versus a more sustainable path, we looked at 14 measurements including temperature change, carbon dioxide levels, air pollution, water consumption, food and energy footprints, and protected areas.

Over the next 30 years, we know we’ll face rapid population growth and greater pressures on our natural resources. The statistics are sobering—with 9.7 billion people on the planet by 2050, we can expect a 54 percent increase in global food demand and 56 percent increase in energy demand. While meetings these growing demands and achieving sustainability is possible, it is helpful to scrutinize where the status quo will get us.

The World Health Organization, World Economic Forum and other leading global development organizations now say that air pollution and water scarcity—environmental challenges—are among the biggest dangers to human health and prosperity. And our business-as-usual analysis makes clear what many already fear: that human development based on the same practices we use today will not prepare us for a world with nearly 10 billion people.

To put it simply, if we stay on today’s current path, we risk being trapped in an intensifying cycle of scarcity—our growth opportunities severely capped and our natural landscapes severely degraded. Under this business-as-usual scenario, we can expect global temperature to increase 3.2°C; worsened air pollution affecting 4.9 billion more people; overfishing of 84 percent of fish stocks; and greater water stress affecting 2.75 billion people. Habitat loss continues, leaving less than 50 percent of native grasslands and several types of forests intact.

However, if we make changes in where and how we meet food, water and energy demands for the same growing global population and wealth, the picture can look markedly different by mid-century. This “sustainability” path includes global temperature increase limited to 1.6°C—meeting Paris Climate Accord goals—zero overfishing with greater fisheries yields, a 90 percent drop in exposure to dangerous air pollution, and fewer water-stressed people, rivers and agricultural fields. These goals can be met while natural habitats extend both inside and outside protected areas. All signatory countries to the Aichi Targets meet habitat protection goals, and more than 50 percent of all ecoregions’ extents remain unconverted, except temperate grasslands (of which over 50 percent are already converted today).

Behind the Science

Discover how TNC and its partners developed the models for 2050.

III. What's Possible

Achieving this sustainable future for people and nature is possible with existing and expected technology and consumption, but only with major shifts in production patterns. Making these shifts will require overcoming substantial economic, social and political challenges. In short, it is not likely that the biophysical limits of the planet will determine our future, but rather our willingness to think and act differently by putting economic development and the environment on equal footing as central parts of the same equation.

Climate, Energy and Air Quality

Perhaps the most pressing need for change is in energy use. In order to both meet increased energy demand and keep the climate within safe boundaries, we’ll need to alter the way we produce energy, curtailing emissions of carbon and other harmful chemicals.

Under a business-as-usual scenario, fossil fuels will still claim a 76 percent share of total energy in 2050. A more sustainable approach would reduce that share to 13 percent by 2050. While this is a sharp change, it is necessary to stanch the flow of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The reduction in carbon-based energy could be offset by increasing the share of energy from renewable sources to 54 percent and increasing nuclear energy to one third of total energy output—delivering a total of almost 85 percent of the world’s energy demand from non-fossil-fuel sources.

Additionally, we will only achieve the full extent of reduced climate impacts if we draw down existing carbon from the atmosphere. This can be done through greater investment in carbon capture and storage efforts, including natural climate solutions—land management strategies such as avoiding forest loss, reforestation, investments in soil health and coastal ecosystem restoration.

The net benefit of these energy redistribution efforts is twofold. First, they lower the rate at which greenhouse gases are flowing into the air—taking atmospheric carbon projections down to 442 parts per million, compared to business-as-usual estimates that put the level closer to 520 ppm.

Second, these energy source shifts would create a marked decline in particulate air pollution. Our models show that the higher fossil fuel use in the business-as-usual scenario is likely to expose half the people on the planet to poorer air quality by 2050. Under the sustainable scenario, that figure drops to just 7 percent of the world’s inhabitants, thanks to lower particulate emissions from renewable and nuclear energy sources.

Case Studies: 

• Forests That Fight Climate Change: Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region demonstrates how reforestation can tackle climate change, improve water supplies, and increase incomes in rural communities.  Learn More
• Can Trees Be a Prescription for Urban Health?:  Conservationists, community organizations and public health researchers joined forces to plant trees in Louisville, Kentucky and monitor their impact on air quality and residents’ health.  Learn More

Food, Habitat and City Growth

Meeting the sustainable targets we propose requires a second front on land to shift how we use available real estate and where we choose to conduct necessary activities. Overall, the changes we include in our more sustainable view allow the world to meet global food, water and energy demands with no additional conversion of natural habitat for those needs—an outcome that is not possible under business as usual.

While transitioning away from fossil fuels is essential to meet climate goals, new renewable energy infrastructure siting will present land-use challenges. Renewable energy production takes up space, and if not sited well it can cause its own negative impacts on nature and its services to people. In our more sustainable path, we address this challenge by preferencing the use of already converted land for renewables development, lessening the impact of new wind and solar on natural habitat. We also exclude expansion of biofuels, as they are known to require extensive land area to produce, causing conflicts with natural habitat and food security.

Perhaps most encouraging, we show that it is possible to meet future food demands on less agricultural land than is used today. Notably, our scenario keeps the mix of crops in each growing region the same, so as not to disrupt farmers’ cultures, technologies, capacity or existing crop knowledge. Instead, we propose moving which crops are grown where within growing regions, putting more “thirsty” crops in areas with more water, and matching the nutrient needs of various crops to the soils available.

Unlike some projections used by others, for this scenario we left diet expectations alone, matching meat consumption with business-as-usual expectations. If we were able to reduce meat consumption, especially by middle- and high-income countries where nutritional needs are met, reducing future agricultural land, water and pollution footprints would be even easier.

Meanwhile, on the land protection front, our analysis is guided by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the leading global platform most countries have signed. Each signatory country has agreed to protect up to 17 percent of each habitat type within its borders. While many countries will fall short of this goal under business as usual, it can be achieved in our more sustainable option.

By making changes in food, water and energy use, we can better protect nearly all habitat types.

We acknowledge 17 percent is an imperfect number, and many believe more natural habitat is needed to allow the world’s biodiversity to thrive. Looking beyond protected areas, we see additional differences in the possible futures we face. Our more sustainable option retains 577 million hectares more natural habitat than business as usual, much of it outside of protected areas. Conservation has long focused on representation—it is not only important to conserve large areas, but to represent different kinds of habitat. Under business as usual, we will lose more than half of several major habitat types by mid-century, including temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, Mediterranean forest, and temperate grassland. Flooded and tropical grasslands approach this level of loss as well.

But with the proposed shifts in food, water and energy use, we can do better for nearly all habitats in our more sustainable scenario. The one exception is temperate grasslands, a biome that has already lost more than 50 percent of its global extent today. In all, the more sustainable scenario shows a future that would be largely compatible with emerging views that suggest protecting half of the world’s land system.

 Case Study:

• Managing Sprawling Soy:  A partnership between businesses and nonprofit groups in Brazil will help farmers plant soy in the areas where it is has the smallest impact on natural habitats.  Learn More

Drinking Water, River Basins and Fisheries

Water presents a complex set of challenges. Like land, it is both a resource and a habitat. Fresh water resources are dwindling while ocean ecosystems are overburdened by unregulated fishing and pollution. Business-as-usual projections estimate that 2.75 billion people will experience water scarcity by 2050 and 770 water basins will experience water stress. Africa and Central Asia in particular would see fewer water stressed basins in the sustainable scenario.

Changes in energy sources and food production (see above sections) would lead to significant water savings by reducing use of water as a coolant in energy production and by moving crops to areas where they need less irrigation. Thanks to these changes, our more sustainable option for the future would relieve 104 million people and biodiversity in 25 major river basins from likely water stress.

Meanwhile, in the seas, we find an inspiring possibility for fisheries. Continuing business-as-usual fisheries management adds further stress to the oceans and the global food system as more stocks decline, further diminishing the food we rely on from the seas. But more sustainable fisheries management is possible, and our projections using a leading fisheries model shows that adopting sustainable management in all fisheries by mid-century would actually increase yield by over a quarter more than we saw in 2010.

And, while we know that aquaculture is a certain element of the future of fish and food, many questions remain about precisely how this industry will grow, and how it can be shaped to be a low-impact part of the global food system. Given these unknowns, we kept aquaculture growth the same in both our views of the future.

 Case Studies:

• Cities and Farmers Find Common Ground on Water: Smarter agricultural practices in the Kenya’s Upper Tana River Watershed are resulting in better yields for farmers and more reliable water supplies for the city of Nairobi.  Learn More
• Technology Offers a Lifeline for Fish:  A new mobile application being piloted in Indonesia is helping fill a crucial gap in fisheries management—providing accurate data about what species are being caught where.  Learn More

IV.  The Way Forward

This analysis does not represent a panacea for the growing need for economic development across the planet or for the environmental challenges that are ahead. But it does provide an optimistic viewpoint and an integrated picture that can serve as a starting point for discussion.

Our goal is to apply new questions—and ultimately new solutions—to our known problems. We present one of many possible paths to a different future, and we welcome like-minded partners and productive critics to share their perspectives with us. We encourage people from across society to join the conversation, to fill gaps where they exist, and to bring other important considerations to our attention. Most of all, we call on the development (e.g. energy, agriculture, infrastructure), health, and financial communities—among others—to work with us to find new ways of taking action together.

Ultimately, by illustrating a viable pathway to sustainability that serves both the needs of economic and environmental interests—goals that many have long assumed were mutually exclusive—we hope to inspire the global community to engage in the difficult but necessary social, economic and political dialogue that can make a sustainable future a reality.

Protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to the world can no longer be either-or propositions. Nature and human development are both central factors in the same equation. We have at our disposal the cross-sector expertise necessary to make informed decisions for the good of life on our planet, so let’s use it wisely. Our science affirms there is a way.

Join us as we chart a new path to 2050 by helping people and nature thrive—together.

Testimonials

Opportunities to Engage

Designing strategies to address global challenges for people and nature requires integration of diverse bodies of evidence that are now largely segregated. As actors across the health, development and environment sectors pivot to act collectively, they face challenges in finding and interpreting evidence on sector interrelationships, and thus in developing effective evidence-based responses.

Learn more about these emerging coalitions that offer opportunities to engage and connect with shared resources.

Bridge Collaborative

The Bridge Collaborative unites people and organizations in health, development and the environment with the evidence and tools to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. Learn More

Science for Nature and People Partnership

SNAPP envisions a world where protecting and promoting nature works in concert with sustainable development and improving human well-being. Learn More

Wicked Econ Fest

Wicked Econ Fests are workshops between leading economics, finance, conservation and policy experts to tackle specific, decision-driven challenges. Learn More

Global Insights

Check out our latest thinking and real-world solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing people and the planet today. Explore our Insights

We personalize nature.org for you

This website uses cookies to enhance your experience and analyze performance and traffic on our website.

To manage or opt-out of receiving cookies, please visit our

Essay On Sustainable Development

500 words essay on  sustainable development.

Sustainable development is basically an action plan which helps us to achieve sustainability in any activity which makes use of the resource. Moreover, it also demands immediate and intergenerational replication. Through essay on sustainable development, we will help you understand the concept and its advantages.

Through sustainable development, we formulate organising principles which help to sustain the limited resources essential to provide for the needs of our future generations. As a result, they will be able to lead a content life on the planet .

What is Sustainable Development?

The World Commission on Environment and Development popularized this concept in 1987. Their report defines the idea as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

In other words, they aimed to prevent the stripping the natural world of resources which the future generations will require. As we all know that usually, one particular need drives development. Consequently, the wider future impacts are not considered.

As a result, a lot of damage happens due to this type of approach. Thus, the longer we continue to pursue unsustainable development, the more severe will the consequences be. One of the most common is climate change which is being debated widely worldwide.

In fact, climate change is already wreaking havoc on our surroundings. So, the need of the hour is sustainable development. We must ask ourselves, must we leave a scorched planet with an ailing environment for our future generations?

In order to undo the mess created by us, we must follow sustainable development. This will help us promote a more social, environmental and economical thinking. Most importantly, it is not that difficult to attain this.

We must see that world as a system which connects space, and time. Basically, it helps you understand that water pollution in South Africa will ultimately impact water quality in India. Similarly, it is the case for other things as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Measures to Practice Sustainable Development

There are many measures to take up for practising sustainable development. To begin with, it is important to ensure clean and hygienic living and working conditions for the people.

Next, sponsoring research on environmental issues which pertains to regions. Further, ensuring safety against known and proven industrial hazards. It is also important to find economical methods to salvage dangerous industrial wastes.

Most importantly, we must encourage afforestation . Including environmental education as part of the school and college curriculum will also help. Similarly, it is essential to socialize and humanize all environmental issues.

Further, we must encourage uses of non-conventional sources of energy, especially solar energy. Looking for substitutes for proven dangerous materials on the basis of local resources and needs will help. Likewise, we must produce environment-friendly products.

It is also essential to popularize the use of organic fertilizers and other biotechniques. Finally, the key is environmental management which must be monitored and ensure accountability.

Conclusion of Essay on Sustainable Development

To sum it up, sustainable development continuously seeks to achieve social and economic progress in ways which will not exhaust the Earth’s finite natural resources. Thus, we must all develop ways to meet these needs so that our future generations can inherit a healthier and greener planet.

FAQ on Essay on Sustainable Development

Question 1: State two measures we can take for sustainable development.

Answer 1: The first measure we can take is by finding economical methods for salvaging hazardous industrial wastes. Next, we must encourage afforestation.

Question 2: What is the aim of sustainable development?

Answer 2 : The aim of sustainable development is to maximise human well-being or quality of life without having to risk the life support system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 13 May 2019

Trust in sustainable natural resource development

• Masami Nakagawa 1 , 2  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  3 ,  page 542 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

846 Accesses

6 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Carbon and energy
• Communication
• Developing world
• Earth and environmental sciences
• Energy and behaviour
• Energy and society
• Water resources

There has been a divide between scientists making recommendations for sustainable natural resource development and the community living around those resources. Masami Nakagawa argues that the community should be considered first, as the successful development of sustainable natural resources requires their cooperation and trust.

Scientists have long recognized the need for using scientific data to inform developments in sustainable natural resources. However, communication about these facts with the community living around the natural resource is often suboptimal. Researchers need to be encouraged to transparently communicate the benefits of sustainable natural resource development in order for people to unite in building a more sustainable future.

Communities have a large influence on whether or not natural resource development projects come to fruition. For example, many natural resource development projects in South American countries have had to be stopped due to strong opposition by the community. In the last 8 years in Peru alone, over 50 people have been killed and 1,500 injured in social conflicts related to extractive industry. Bolivia has seen numerous conflicts between the police and “guerreros del agua” (water warriors) over privatization of water, and in early 2000, these hostilities escalated to the point that they were declared a national state of siege. On the other side of the world, Japan has been facing similar situations: Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), one of the most powerful economic organizations in Japan, has not been able to reopen nuclear power plants that were shut down after the infamous Fukushima nuclear accident due to strong community concerns. A geothermal project in Soultz, France, was shut down due to strong community opposition sparked by a minor earthquake caused by water injection during the drilling.

Traditionally, cost mitigation has been considered a top priority for natural resource development projects. Recently, however, social acceptance by the community has become a very important factor. This change in the landscape of community acceptance needs to be reflected in the way classes are taught at universities, teaching researchers to communicate effectively with the community when they embark on a project.

I have been working on a geothermal project in a small town, Rico, in southern Colorado (USA), which has provided me with a valuable opportunity to learn how to communicate with the community to ensure responsible geophysical exploration. When we began working in Rico, we discovered that the community had never been satisfactorily informed about the technical aspects of such exploration and that they wanted to know more.

Rico has been a mining town since the late 1800s and has experienced both the booms and busts of the mining industry. My relationship with the town of Rico began when a small group of Rico residents joined a geothermal workshop held at the Colorado School of Mines in 2009. After a series of meetings with the Rico residents, I decided first to focus on building trust between the university researchers and students and the residents of Rico, and to talk about the technical processes of geothermal resource development only after this trust had been established. We therefore devoted these meetings to discussing a shared vision of Rico as a sustainable mountain community.

Rico is in the fortunate position of having both mineral deposits and geothermal resources; we provided this information to the residents of Rico so that they could decide how their community would move toward the future they envisioned. A mining option would likely subject the town to another boom, which then would bust; on the other hand, a geothermal option could potentially encourage and stimulate local economic development. As a scientist, I limited my role to acting as a facilitator in these discussions, providing the information necessary for the citizens of the community to make their own choice.

Over the following years, I invited members of the Rico community to engage with the students that were taking classes on sustainable natural resources development at the Colorado School of Mines. Hearing the excitement and concerns about future developments coming directly from the community was extremely stimulating for the students. It was also the first time that the students came to realize that, just because geothermal resources are renewable, it did not mean that everybody would be supportive of their development. For the residents of Rico, this partnership provided an equally beneficial learning and engagement opportunity as they could directly impact how the university taught sustainable development of natural resources in the field during exploration. I took this partnership as an opportunity to invite faculty members from other disciplines related to sustainability to be a part of class projects, so that they too could see the benefits on focusing on building trust and social acceptance within the community by communicating transparently about their options.

My project in Rico evolved from a resource development project to a community building project. I believe that one of its biggest impacts was that it reached numerous communities and faculty members from disciplines concerned with the practice of natural resources development, teaching us all the importance of transparent communication and social acceptance.

Scientists at universities should no longer be satisfied with just teaching exploration methods, but rather should include the importance of community acceptance and trust, as without it, exploration often cannot occur. We must remember, however, that a trust relationship cannot be built overnight. Such discussions must, therefore, include an explanation of potential risks or unintended consequences of the field activities. Similarly, scientists must report their findings back to the community with sincerity, as this is the only way in which the community can become part of development process, thereby working towards a shared goal. A community that trusts scientists is more likely to become a strong supporter of sustainable natural resources development.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mining Engineering Department, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA

Masami Nakagawa

Department of Earth Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masami Nakagawa .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nakagawa, M. Trust in sustainable natural resource development. Nat Hum Behav 3 , 542 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0623-5

Download citation

Published : 13 May 2019

Issue Date : June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0623-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impact of e-waste toxicity on health and nature: trends, biases, and future directions.

• Junilson Augusto Paula Silva
• Gabriela Gomes Lima
• Luciane Madureira Almeida

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution (2023)

Long-term water conservation is fostered by smart meter-based feedback and digital user engagement

• Andrea Cominola
• Matteo Giuliani
• Andrea Emilio Rizzoli

npj Clean Water (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Biology Article
• Sustainability Of Natural Resources

Sustainability of Natural Resources

Natural resources exist naturally without any human intervention. It can be renewed, replenished easily, and some non-renewable ones, which cannot be replenished.

Resources determine the economy of an area. With judicious utilization of these resources, a country can sustain the resources for future generations. However, looking at the current situations, the indiscriminate use of our modern resources are such that the possibilities of succeeding generations and the developing countries to have access to their fair share is very rare. Furthermore, the consequences are dreadful and the result on the environment will induce severe damages which go beyond the carrying capacity of the environment.

We all have heard numerous tales about the world’s natural ecosystems  being under increasing pressure to provide an expanding population with a sustainable supply of food, fibre, fuel, etc. Preservation or management of natural resources is essential for maintaining community sustainability.

Let’s have a closer look at the sustainability of natural resources.

Also Read:  Natural Resource Management

Natural Resources

Air and climate.

The human health and ecosystem can be dramatically affected by the declining air quality and change in the climate. The communities can contribute to controlling the sources of air pollution by limiting the use of harmful chemicals in the air.

Energy happens to be a non-renewable source for power generation which is mainly used for home, workplace, and transportation, causing pollution. The need for energy conservation and the use of renewable fuels providing cost-effective and more sustainable alternatives are the need of the hour.

Water is an important resource which we use for every daily activity like drinking, cooking, cleaning, washing, etc. It is a precious natural resource that is largely getting wasted. To avoid the scarcity of Water both government and people must work together to assure that water is used judiciously and there is adequate water supply to meet future needs.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity plays a vital role in satisfying our need for different types of food, raw materials, fuel, etc. Over 4 billion years ago, the earth was crowded with a variety of species and every single species played a specialized role in maintaining ecological balance. As time passed, more than 80% of the species got extinct. Communities are involved in their preservation by supporting, managing, promoting, protecting and enhancing healthy wildlife by establishing areas like the zoo, sanctuaries, national parks, biosphere reserves, wildlife safaris, and sanctuaries.

Land, Forests, and Ecosystems

An ecosystem consists of both living things and non-living things which interact with each other. Light, air, soil, energy, atmosphere, forests are renewable sources which need to be protected. Communities have to develop judicious land-use practices for both conserving ecosystems and enhance local economies as they maintain the equilibrium in the environment.

Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources

Sustainable utilization of natural resources is the proper management of natural resources for the benefit of the entire human community. The main aim of sustainable development is to provide resources for present generations without compromising the needs of future generations.

The economy cannot be based on the use of non-renewable resources such as coal, petroleum, because these resources cannot be replenished. A truly sustainable resource does not degrade environmental quality.

Over-exploitation of natural resources leads to the exhaustion of the resources. Therefore, the current resources cannot be used at the same pace as nothing will be left for future generations.

Also Read:  Resources on earth

Stay tuned with BYJU’S to learn more about the sustainability of natural resources.

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Biology related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

World Heritage and Sustainable Development

Heritage was long absent from the mainstream sustainable development debate despite its crucial importance to societies and the wide acknowledgment of its great potential to contribute to social, economic and environmental goals.

Based on a strong appeal from national and local stakeholders, the 2030 Agenda adopted by the UN General Assembly integrates, for the first time, the role of culture, through cultural heritage and creativity, as an enabler of sustainable development across the Sustainable Development Goals. World Heritage may provide a platform to develop and test new approaches that demonstrate the relevance of heritage for sustainable development.

On 19 November 2015, the 20th General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention adopted a Policy on the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention . The overall goal of the policy is to assist States Parties, practitioners, institutions, communities and networks, through appropriate guidance, to harness the potential of World Heritage properties and heritage in general, to contribute to sustainable development and therefore increase the effectiveness and relevance of the Convention whilst respecting its primary purpose and mandate of protecting the Outstanding Universal value of World Heritage properties. Its adoption represents a significant shift in the implementation of the Convention and an important step in its history.

Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention

English French

The Contribution of World Heritage to Sustainable Development

Outside the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) N. 7, on environmental sustainability, which addresses in part the need to protect biodiversity and natural resources, the MDGs adopted by the international community in 2000 made no specific reference to heritage or even to culture in general. Yet, the contribution of heritage to a sustainable human development is major.

Certainly, the protection of exceptional heritage properties cherished by people all over the world – such as great natural sceneries and landmark monuments - can be considered as an intrinsic contribution to human wellbeing. It would be hard to imagine our countries, cities and landscapes without the familiar remnants of our past, a witness to continuity through the passing of time, and the presence of nature, to inspire us with a profound sense of wonder and joy.

But in addition to its intrinsic value for present and future generations, World Heritage – and heritage in general – can make also an important instrumental contribution to sustainable development across its various dimensions.

Through a variety of goods and services and as a storehouse of knowledge, a well-protected World Heritage property may contribute directly to alleviating poverty and inequalities by providing basic goods and services, such as security and health, through shelter, access to clean air, water, food and other key resources.

Preserving natural resources, including outstanding sites containing some of the richest combinations of terrestrial and marine biodiversity, is obviously a fundamental contribution to environmental sustainability. Most of these sites, on the other hand, have developed over time through mutual adaptation between humans and the environment, and thus demonstrate how, rather than existing in separate and parallel realms, biological and cultural diversities interact with and affect one another in complex ways in a sort of co-evolutionary process.

Very often, World Heritage is also an important asset for economic development, by attracting investments and ensuring green, locally-based, stable and decent jobs, only some of which may be related to tourism. Activities associated to the stewardship of cultural and natural heritage, indeed, are local by definition (i.e. cannot be de-localised) and green “by design” since they embody an intrinsically more sustainable pattern of land use, consumption and production, developed over centuries if not millennia of slow adaptation between the communities and their environment. This is true for natural protected areas rich in biodiversity, of course, but also for cultural landscapes and historic cities.

World Heritage, of course, is also essential to the spiritual wellbeing of people for its powerful symbolic and aesthetic dimensions. The acknowledgment and conservation of the diversity of the cultural and natural heritage, fair access to it and the equitable sharing of the benefits deriving from its use, enhance the feeling of place and belonging, mutual respect for others and a sense of purpose and ability to maintain a common good, which contribute to the social cohesion of a community as well as to individual and collective freedom of choice and action. The ability to access, enjoy and care for one’s heritage is essential for what the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen calls the “capability of individuals to live and to be what they choose”, that is a fundamental component of human development.

A well-maintained heritage is also very important in addressing risks related to natural and human-made disasters. Experience has shown how the degradation of natural resources, neglected rural areas, urban sprawl and poorly engineered new constructions increase the vulnerability of communities to disaster risks, especially in poorer countries. On the other hand, a well-conserved natural and historic environment, based on traditional knowledge and skills, considerably reduces underlying disaster risks’ factors, strengthens the resilience of communities and saves lives.

At times of crisis, moreover, access to and care for the heritage may help vulnerable people recover a sense of continuity, dignity and empowerment. In conflict and post-conflict situations, in particular, the acknowledgment and conservation of heritage, based on shared values and interests, may foster mutual recognition, tolerance and respect among different communities, which is a precondition for a society’s peaceful development.

All of the above concerned potential positive contributions that an appropriate WH conservation and management could make to sustainable development.

Sustainable development within the World Heritage Convention

The text of the Convention, adopted in 1972, does not make any specific mention of the term “sustainable development”. It has been argued, however, that the World Heritage Convention “carries in itself the spirit and promise of sustainability, …in its insistence that culture and nature form a single, closed continuum of the planet’s resources, the integrated stewardship of which is essential to successful long-term sustainable development – and indeed to the future of life on the Earth as we know it” (Richard Engelhardt).

This idea is enshrined in particular in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, recognizing that States Parties have the duty “of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations (emphasis added) of the cultural and natural heritage”, as well as “to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes”. In these articles, moreover, the scope of action of the Convention seems to go beyond the sites included in its List of World Heritage properties, to encompass national heritage policies and wider development strategies.

The notion of sustainability entered the Operational Guidelines in 1994, with reference to the “sustainable use” of cultural landscapes, then introduced for the first time as a new category of heritage properties. At its 26th Session (Budapest, 2002), the World Heritage Committee adopted the so-called “Budapest Declaration”, which stressed the need to “ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development, so that World Heritage properties can be protected through appropriate activities contributing to the social and economic development and the quality of life of our communities”.

In 2005, furthermore, the notion of sustainable development was taken into account in the introductory part of the Operational Guidelines, which notes that “The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage are a significant contribution to sustainable development” (paragraph 6). The Operational Guidelines further recognize (paragraph 119) that World Heritage properties “may support a variety of on-going and proposed uses that are ecologically and culturally sustainable”.

At its 31st Session (Christchurch 2007), the World Heritage Committee decided to add “Communities” to the previous four strategic objectives, “to enhance the role of communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention” (Decision 31 COM 13B).

At its 35th Session (Paris, 2011), the World Heritage Committee made a number of additions to the Operational Guidelines which refer to sustainable development, notably in paragraphs 112, 119, 132, as well as in Annex 5, points 4.b and 5.e. These amendments are aimed on one hand at ensuring that any use of World Heritage properties be sustainable with respect to the imperative of maintaining their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), and on the other hand to affirm the idea that management systems of World Heritage properties “should integrate sustainable development principles”. Various paragraphs of the Operational Guidelines, moreover, call for a full participatory approach in the identification, protection and management of World Heritage properties (e.g. paragraphs 64, 111 and 123).

The recent “ Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of the Convention, 2012-2022 ”, adopted by the 18th General Assembly (Paris, 2011), also integrates a concern for sustainable development, notably in its “Vision for 2022”, which calls for the World Heritage Convention to “contribute to the sustainable development of the world’s communities and cultures”, as well as through its Goal N.3 which reads: “Heritage protection and conservation considers present and future environmental, societal and economic needs”, which is to be achieved particularly through “connecting conservation to communities”.

All of these developments should be seen in the larger context of UNESCO’s initiative to integrate culture within the international sustainable development agenda (see: https://en.unesco.org/themes/culture-sustainable-development ). In this context, World Heritage sites could provide the testing ground where innovative approaches could be applied.

The Need for a Policy

Despite these advances, contributing to sustainable development is not an explicit policy in the framework of the implementation of the Convention, as this continues to focus primarily on protecting Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), which justifies the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.

The current procedures and guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, indeed, do not currently include specific recommendations, checks and controls that would enable governments to fully harness the potential of World Heritage for sustainable development, on one hand, and to ensure that their heritage conservation and management policies and programmes are aligned with broader sustainable development goals, on the other hand.

This means that many opportunities could be missed in the implementation of the Convention simply because those responsible may not consider them or may not know how to translate them in concrete sustainable development gains. Conversely, the current procedures of the Convention offer no clear means to encourage heritage conservation and management to better align its activities with important sustainable development objectives, such as the respect of human rights, addressing basic needs of local communities or non-depletion of natural resources.

All the ideas and recommendations formulated in the context of the 40 th Anniversary, in fact,  have not yet found their way into the policies of the World Heritage Convention, and thus have not become mainstream practice for nearly 1000 of the most outstanding heritage properties around the planet and, even more significantly, within the national heritage policies that – in many countries – are inspired by the standards set by the 1972 Convention.

For all these reasons, at its 36th Session (Saint Petersburg, 2012), the World Heritage Committee considered that the integration of sustainable development into the processes of the Convention should be promoted through a specific policy.

Policy to integrate a sustainable development perspective within the processes of the World Heritage Convention

To make a real impact on nearly a thousand sites around the world, the outcomes of expert meetings and other consultations on World Heritage and sustainable development need to be translated into actual policy for the implementation of the Convention.

Recognizing this, at its 36th session (St. Petersburg, 2012), the World Heritage Committee requested in Decision 36 COM 5C   that the World Heritage Centre, with the support of the Advisory Bodies, convene a small expert working group to develop, within a year, a policy for the integration of sustainable development into the processes of the World Heritage Convention, for possible inclusion in the future Policy Guidance document.

On 19 November 2015, the 20th General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention adopted a Policy on the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the Convention.The overall goal of the policy is to assist States Parties, practitioners, institutions, communities and networks, through appropriate guidance, to harness the potential of World Heritage properties and heritage in general, to contribute to sustainable development and therefore increase the effectiveness and relevance of the Convention whilst respecting its primary purpose and mandate of protecting the Outstanding Universal value of World Heritage properties. In line with the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, adopted last September by the UN General Assembly, this new policy revolves around the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely environmental sustainability, inclusive social development and inclusive economic development, complemented by the fostering of peace and security. Its adoption represents a significant shift in the implementation of the Convention and an important step in its history.

Following the adoption of the policy, relevant changes will have to be introduced within the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention , so as to translate its principles into actual procedures. The concrete implementation of the policy will no doubt require the building of necessary capacities among practitioners, institutions, concerned communities and networks, across a wide interdisciplinary and inter-sectorial spectrum. The necessary tools and programmes will therefore have to be developed, and appropriate indicators defined, to monitor progress in the implementation of the policy. Ongoing consultation with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders will be also established with a view to enriching the policy in the future.

Paraty Meeting on the Relationship between the World Heritage Convention, Conservation and Sustainable Development (29-31 March 2010)

The Paraty meeting’s conclusions recognized the important contribution of World Heritage to sustainable development while noting that securing sustainable development is – almost by definition - an essential condition to guarantee the conservation of the heritage. The results of the Paraty Meeting included an Action Plan (see Annex I). By its Decision 34 COM 5D, the World Heritage Committe agreed “that it would be desirable to further consider, in the implementation of the Convention, policies and procedures that maintain the Outstanding Universal value of properties, and also contribute to sustainable development”.

A brief summary of the outcomes of the Paraty Meeting is provided in Document 34 COM 5D . See:  https://whc.unesco.org/en/events/665/

Ouro Preto Meeting on World Heritage and Sustainable Development (5 to 8 February 2012)

The Meeting acknowledged that, in the current context of changing demographics, growing inequalities and diminishing resources, heritage institutions would need to view conservation objectives within a larger system of social and environmental values and needs encompassed in the sustainable development concept. « Ultimately - the participants in the meeting noted - if the heritage sector does not fully embrace sustainable development and harness the reciprocal benefits for heritage and society, it will find itself a victim of, rather than a catalyst for wider change ».

A brief summary of the outcomes of the Ouro Preto Meeting is provided in Document 36 COM 5C . The full proceedings are accessible. See: whc.unesco.org/en/events/794/

40th Anniversary Events

The year 2012 marked the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention . Significantly, the choice of theme for the anniversary was “World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the role of local communities”. Over 100 meetings and conferences were held to mark the occasion, culminating in the final event of Kyoto  and the resulting declaration called “Kyoto Vision” . These events produced a wealth of reflections, principles and recommendations concerning ways to integrate local community concerns in World Heritage.

An analytical summary of the events associated to the 40th Anniversary was prepared by the World Heritage Centre, focusing on the specific outcomes that are relevant to the debate on World Heritage and sustainable development. This analysis is accessible here .

Toyama Meeting on “World Heritage and Sustainable Development: from principles to Practice” (3-5 November 2012)

The Toyama meeting took place immediately before the conclusive event of the 40 th Anniversary (Kyoto, 6-8 November 2012), to prepare and nourish its deliberations.

Its outcome document, the “Toyama Proposal on World Heritage and Sustainable Development”, reiterates the importance of mainstreaming heritage in the current and future international policies on sustainable development, but also stresses the need to mainstream sustainable development in heritage policies and practice, starting from the World Heritage Convention.  The document also recommends placing emphasis on capacity-building for local development actors, drawing in particular from various successful models and practices and to consider all the above in the drafting of the policy that the World Heritage Committee has asked the Centre and the Advisory Bodies to draft.

Working Document for the Toyama Meeting Toyama Proposal on World Heritage and Sustainable Development See:  https://whc.unesco.org/en/events/930/

Hangzhou Congress

The International Congress "Culture: Key to Sustainable Development" was held in Hangzhou (China) from 15 May to 17 May 2013. This event was the first International Congress specifically focusing on the linkages between culture and sustainable development organized by UNESCO since the Stockholm Conference in 1998.  As such, the Congress provided the very first global forum to discuss the role of culture in sustainable development in view of the post-2015 development framework, with participation of the global community and the major international stakeholders.

Heritage and its contribution to sustainable development was a key consideration within the Congress (a specific session was devoted to this theme) and was strongly reflected in the final outcome of the event, the Hangzhou Declaration.

Background Paper:  “Introducing Cultural Heritage into the Sustainable Development Agenda” Watch the video of the Session on Cultural Heritage The Hangzhou Declaration

The Vilm workshop on World Heritage and Sustainable development – From Policy to Action (14–16 November 2016)

To operationalize the Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention , the participants of the Vilm workshop elaborated an action plan, which was produced as an aspirational set of activities and timescales for the implementation of the policy, aiming to engage all the stakeholders of the Convention, at international, regional, and local levels. The meeting was organised jointly by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with its International Academy for Nature Conservation, IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS, in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre.

The proceedings of the Vilm expert workshop

• UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) – (Rio 1992)
• United Nations Millennium Declaration (New York, 2000)
• Johannesburg World Summit on SD (Johannesburg, 2002)
• UN MDG Summit – (New York, September 2010) 
• Paraty Meeting Outcome and Action Plan –Decision 34 COM 5D – (Paraty and Paris, June 2010)
• Ouro Preto Meeting – Brazil (February 5-8, 2012)
• Rio+20 Conference – (Rio, June 2012)
• Kyoto Vision – (Kyoto, November 2012)
• Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies – (Hangzhou, May 2013)
• The World Heritage Review n°65 - Sustainable Development
• The publication: “World Heritage: Benefits Beyond Borders

Related Themes and Programmes

UNESCO and Sustainable Development Goals

Climate Change

Cultural Landscapes

World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme

Economic impact of World Heritage Listing

World Heritage and Indigenous Peoples

World Heritage Marine Programme

Synergies to protect Global Heritage

World Heritage and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Small Island Developing States Programme

World Heritage Education Programme

UNESCO @UN Oceans Conference

World Heritage Cities Programme

World Heritage and Gender Equality

Publications.

• Brochure UNESCO moving forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• UNESCO Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Cities, Culture: Urban Future
• UNESCO global priority: gender equality - tools and resources 2014 UNESCO Report on Gender Equality and Culture
• World Heritage: Benefits Beyond Borders
• World Heritage Review n°65- Sustainable Development
• World Heritage Review n°82 - African Heritage and its sustainable development
• Exhibition- African World Heritage: a pathway for development

Decisions / Resolutions (8)

The World Heritage Committee,

• Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/5C,
• Recalling Decisions 36 COM 5C , 38 COM 5D , and 39 COM 5D , and 40 COM 5C , adopted respectively at its 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012), 38th (Doha, 2014) and 39th (Bonn, 2015) and 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) sessions, as well as Resolution 20 GA 13 , adopted by the General Assembly at its 20th session (UNESCO, 2015),
• Welcomes the follow-up activities and the progress made by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in disseminating the “Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention ” and mainstreaming it into statutory processes, international policies and operational activities and requests that this effort be pursued;
• Reiterates the need to achieve the right balance between environmental, social and economic sustainability, while fully respecting and protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties;
• Underscores the important role and the contribution of the Convention towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal, Target 11.4: “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”;
• Takes note of the support provided by the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to Members States in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and of the further work anticipated on developing indicators in this regard;
• Also welcomes the work by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goal, Target 11.4. through an indicator that reflects the total amount per capita each country spends to protect their cultural and natural heritage, and invites UNESCO and all parties to identify and make visible the many ways in which the implementation of the World Heritage Convention contributes to achieving the SDGs, in particular SDG 11 for cultural sites and SDGs 14 and 15 for natural sites;
• Calls upon States Parties to ensure that sustainable development principles are mainstreamed into their national processes related to World Heritage, in full respect of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties;
• Further calls on States Parties to support capacity-building programmes and activities aimed at providing methodologies and tools for integrating heritage conservation into sustainable development frameworks and mainstreaming the Sustainable Development approach in conservation and management activities;
• Recalling Resolution 20 GA 13 and Decision 40 COM 12 , and in view of the ever increasing urgency to balance sustainable development and implementation of the Convention at the site level, urges the World Heritage Centre in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies to finalize a clear framework of the Policy Compendium for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018;
• Commends the efforts undertaken by the State Party of Germany in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies concerning the operationalization of the World Heritage – Sustainable Development policy and calls for wider collaboration in consolidating these efforts;
• Decides to inscribe an agenda item concerning World Heritage and Sustainable Development at its 43rd session in 2019 and also requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to present a progress report in this regard.
• Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/5C,
• Recalling Decisions 36 COM 5C , 38 COM 5D , and 39 COM 5D , adopted respectively at its 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012), 38th (Doha, 2014) and 39th (Bonn, 2015) sessions, as well as Resolution 20 GA 13 , adopted by the General Assembly at its 20th session (UNESCO, 2015),
• Welcomes the adoption of the “Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention ” by the 20th General Assembly of States Parties (UNESCO, 2015);
• Reiterates the need to achieve appropriate balance and integration between the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and the pursuit of sustainable development objectives and invites the World Heritage Centre to develop a strategy in due time, as appropriate, for the implementation of the sustainable development policy;
• Takes note of the follow-up activities and the progress made by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in disseminating and mainstreaming the policy into operational activities, as requested by Decision 39 COM 5D and Resolution 20 GA 13 ;
• Also takes note of the active participation of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies in supporting Members States in the implementation of SDG 11 and Target 11.4 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and of the further work anticipated on developing indicators in this regard;
• Also notes contributions by the World Heritage Convention to a number of other SDG goals and also invites the World Heritage Centre, Advisory Bodies and States Parties to highlight all World Heritage related contributions in their follow-up processes and reporting on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
• Calls upon States Parties to ensure that sustainable development principles are mainstreamed into their national processes related to World Heritage and integrated at the level of local communities, in full respect of the boundaries and the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties;
• Recalls the Article 13.7 of the World Heritage Convention and encourages all States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to invite the perspectives of non-governmental and civil society organizations with practical experience of conservation of World Heritage properties in the further development of principles intended to mainstream sustainable development into national, regional and other relevant policies related to World Heritage;
• Decides to inscribe an agenda item concerning World Heritage and Sustainable Development at its 41st session in 2017 and requests the World Heritage Centre to present a progress report in this regard.

The General Assembly,

• Having examined Documents WHC-15/20.GA/13 and WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13 ,
• Recalling Decisions 36 COM 5C , 38 COM 5D , and 39 COM 5D , adopted respectively at the 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012), 38th (Doha, 2014), and 39th (Bonn, 2015) sessions of the World Heritage Committee,
• Thanks the Technical University of Brandenburg, the Government of Germany and the Government of Viet Nam for their support in the development of the draft policy document on the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention;
• Welcomes the work accomplished by the group of experts on a voluntary basis despite the lack of resources, under the coordination of the World Heritage Centre, and in close consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to develop the draft of the policy document annexed to Document WHC-15/39.COM/5D;
• Notes the debate on this item that took place at the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee (Bonn, 2015), the comments expressed by the States Parties on this draft through a broad consultation process, as well as the main outcomes of UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda;
• Adopts the revised policy document as a first step toward the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the implementation processes of the Convention , contained in document WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13 as amended;
• Invites the World Heritage Centre and States Parties to continue engagement through an ongoing consultation process involving all stakeholders to enrich the policy document and invites the World Heritage Centre to provide an update on progress made to the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee (Istanbul, 2016);
• the necessary changes to the Operational Guidelines , which would translate the principles of the policy document on sustainable development into specific operational procedures,
• indicators for measuring the progress of the policy’s implementation;
• capacity-building initiatives, needed to enable implementation, including an indication of the related costs;
• Calls on States Parties to contribute financially towards this end;
• Encourages the World Heritage Centre to sensitize States Parties, as appropriate, to the implications of the policy, notably in terms of the need to establish appropriate governance mechanisms to achieve the right balance between World Heritage and Sustainable Development, and integration between the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and the pursuit of sustainable development objectives and to that same end encourages the World Heritage Centre to cooperate with all of UNESCO’s sectors and in particular with the relevant programmes such as MAB and MOST;
• Also encourages UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to widely disseminate the Policy Document as adopted by the General Assembly, and other related publications, to the world heritage community and the broader public, and promote its application;
• Recommends that Category 2 Centres and UNESCO Chairs related to World Heritage, and the wider network of the UNESCO Forum University and Heritage, prioritize issues related to the implementation of this policy within their capacity-building and research initiatives;
• Further requests the World Heritage Centre to present to the General Assembly, at its 21st session in 2017, a report on the progress made in the implementation of the above provisions.
• Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/5D ,
• Recalling Decisions 36 COM 5C and 38 COM 5D , adopted respectively at its 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012) and 38th (Doha, 2014) sessions,
• Thanks the Technical University of Brandenburg, the Government of Germany and the Government of Viet Nam for having supported the development of the policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention through the organization of two workshops in Cottbus (Germany) and Ninh Binh (Viet Nam), respectively in October 2014 and January 2015;
• Welcomes the work accomplished by the group of experts on a voluntary basis, under the coordination of the World Heritage Centre and in close consultation with the Advisory Bodies, despite the lack of resources;
• Endorses the “Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention ” as described in Annex to Document WHC-15/39.COM/5D;
• Requests the World Heritage Centre to disseminate the draft Policy Document to all States Parties and collate their comments;
• Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to revise the Policy Document by incorporating views expressed at the 39th session and other comments received from States Parties, as well as by taking into account the final outcome of the negotiations for the establishment of the UN Post-2015 development agenda and other relevant processes;
• Decides to transmit the revised Policy Document for discussion and adoption at the 20th General Assembly of States Parties in 2015;
• Further requests the World Heritage Centre, along with the Advisory Bodies, to ensure - once the Policy Document is adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties that the Policy Document will be taken into account in the preparation of the overall Policy Guidelines as one of the essential elements to be inserted in the text;
• Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre along with the Advisory Bodies, to elaborate – once the overall Policy Document is adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties – proposals for specific changes to the Operational Guidelines that would be required to translate the principles of the Policy Document into actual operational procedures;
• Calls on States Parties to contribute financially to this end and after adoption by the General Assembly in 2015, to strengthen the Policy by promoting a wider participation of the government, private sector and communities;
• Encourages the World Heritage Centre to sensitize States Parties, as appropriate, to the adoption of the policy as well as to its implications, notably in terms of the need to establish the appropriate governance mechanisms to achieve the appropriate balance and integration between the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and the pursuit of sustainable development objectives;
• Also encourages UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to disseminate widely the Policy Document as adopted by the General Assembly, and other related publications through appropriate means to the World Heritage community and the broader public, and promote its application and a wider fostering in multilateral scenarios, especially in those related to sustainable development;
• Recommends to the Category 2 Centres and UNESCO Chairs related to World Heritage and to the wider network of the UNESCO Forum – Universities and Heritage, to prioritize issues related to the implementation of the policy within their capacity-building and research initiatives as well as involving in their activities other actors and sectors related to sustainable development;
• Finally requests the World Heritage Centre to present to the Committee, at its 40th session in 2016, a report on the progress made in the implementation of the above provisions.
• Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/5D,
• Recalling Decisions 35 COM 5E and 36 COM 5C , adopted at its 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) sessions respectively,
• Welcomes the progress made towards the development of a draft policy for integrating a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention , despite the lack of resources;
• Acknowledges the eight key dimensions of sustainable development, namely Inclusive Economic Development, Environmental Sustainability, Peace and Security, Resilience/Disaster Risk Reduction, Gender Equality, Local Communities/Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights;
• Acknowledges the significance of developing a policy which would emphasize the link between World Heritage and sustainable development in conjunction with the upcoming establishment of the UN post-2015 development agenda;
• Endorses the proposed methodology for developing the draft policy for integrating a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention ;
• Recognizes however, that broader consultations should be conducted in the drafting process of the policy and that adequate financial resources should be mobilized in this regard;
• Strongly encourages all States Parties, other potential donors and partner institutions to provide financial or in-kind support for the successful completion of this initiative;
• Requests the World Heritage Centre along with the Advisory Bodies, if feasible, within the available resources, to submit a draft of the policy for examination by the Committee at its 39th session, in 2015. 

1. Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/5C ,

2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 14A.2 , 34 COM 5D and 35 COM 5E adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th(Paris, 2011) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the outcome of the Consultative Meeting on World Heritage and Sustainable Development held in Ouro Preto (Brazil) from 5 to 8 February 2012, takes note of its recommended actions and thanks the State Party of Brazil for having generously hosted this event;

4. Recognizing that the conservation of cultural and natural heritage is of critical importance for the achievement of sustainable development in its various dimensions at global and local levels, recommends that, in full consistency with the Convention ’s primary objectives, the processes of the Convention should seek to appropriately integrate a sustainable development perspective to realize the full benefits of heritage to society, and the benefits of sustainable development approaches to the enhanced protection and conservation of heritage;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre, with the support of the Advisory Bodies to convene a small expert working group to develop, within a year, a proposal for a policy on the integration of sustainable development into the processes of the World Heritage Convention , for possible inclusion in the future Policy Guidelines document. This policy should take into consideration the outcomes of the Ouro Preto Meeting, of other meetings that are taking place in the anniversary year across the world and of the Rio + 20 Conference, as well as integrate the relevant reflection from previous and ongoing discussions on related topics, in connection with the UNESCO initiative to promote the role of culture in development;

6. Further requests the interested States Parties to consider provision of extrabudgetary resources to enable the implementation of this and the other actions recommended by the Ouro Preto Meeting;

7. Also requests , within available resources, the World Heritage Centre to submit a draft of the above-mentioned policy and a report on the progress made in the implementation of other actions recommended by the Paraty and Ouro Preto meetings, for examination by the Committee no later than at its 38th session in 2014. 

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/5E ,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10, 33 COM 14A.2 , 34 COM 5D adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the progress made in implementing the recommended actions;

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, and with the support of interested States Parties to continue its efforts to implement various activities contained in the Action Plan 2012;

5. Also requests that the results of the proposed consultative meeting on "World Heritage and Sustainable Development" be reported for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012 and thanks the State Party of Brazil for its offer to host such a meeting.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/5D,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10 and 33 COM 14A.2 , adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively,

3. Thanks the State Party of Brazil for supporting the organization of an expert meeting on the relations between the World Heritage Convention , conservation and sustainable development, held in Paraty (Brazil) from 29 to 31 March 2010;

4. Welcomes the outcomes of the above-mentioned meeting and agrees that it would be desirable to further consider, in the implementation of the Convention , policies and procedures that maintain the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, and also contribute to sustainable development; 

5. Also welcomes the proposed Action Plan for 2012 developed during the Expert Meeting at Paraty and presented in the above-mentioned Document, and encourages to reflect and to pursue the efforts to strengthen linkages between the World Heritage Convention and other relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs);

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to pursue the study of the revision of the Operational Guidelines , to integrate sustainable development, and to further consider these matters within the framework of the reflection on the Future of the Convention ;

7. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to seek extra-budgetary funding to organize, within the framework of the reflection on the Future of the Convention , a consultative meeting on "World Heritage and Sustainable Development" with all States Parties and secretariats of the concerned MEAs, before the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2012, and further requests the World Heritage Centre, within the limits of its capacity, to seek extra-budgetary funding for the implementation of the other activities mentioned in the Action Plan for 2012 presented in Document WHC-10/34.COM/5D;

8. Also requests the World Heritage Centre to identify opportunities, of potential collaboration with the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other MEAs, and taking into account the needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in the form of pilot projects to address the relation between conservation and sustainable development at regional/ecosystem scales;

9. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress accomplished in the implementation of the above for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Natural Resources and Sustainable Development

We research the origin, the exploration and the usage of Earth´s raw materials and the impact it has on our global ecosystems. Our two research themes are "Environment, Nature and Society" and "Energy, Resources and Society". We also work with "Climate Change Leadership", an interdisciplinary research area that starts with the global and national ambitions for climate change and other environmental challenges.

Our Research

Natural Resources and Sustainable Development Programme research focuses on the different dimensions of sustainable development. We consider the environment and its natural resources and ecosystem services as an overarching foundation for society and economy and aim to provide knowledge on how to identify, explore for, extract, and utilize natural resources in a safe and sustainable fashion. Our work involves considerations of both natural and social systems and their interactions, often adopting transdisciplinary approaches

Research themes:

Environment, Nature and Society research focuses on understanding interactions between the living components of nature and society that are of relevance to management and policy for a more sustainable future. Some focal areas in our work include fisheries, ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation often in aquatic and coastal contexts, food systems, preservation of agricultural land, as well as remediation of contaminated sediments.

The Energy, Resources and Society  theme focuses on highly topical and problem-oriented interdisciplinary research concerned with the sustainable use and management of energy and natural resources underpinning contemporary modern society. We analyse energy-resources-society nexuses by implementing both natural and social science approaches. The focal research areas include challenges and threats concerned with, among others, sustainable cities and infrastructure, energy transitions, as well as long-term resource and energy supply and security, and the effect of natural and anthropogenic processes on climate change.

Climate Change Leadership   is an interdisciplinary research area that starts with the global and national ambitions for climate change and other environmental challenges and studies the issues of strategies and tools for action.

• Environment, Nature and Society
• Energy, Resources and Society
• Climate Change Leadership

Educational Programmes

Master Programme in Sustainable Development - An interdisciplinary programme covering a wide range of issues that concern sustainable development from a variety of perspectives – from basic understanding of the the concept of Sustainable Development and its links to existing policies, to principles in economic, energy  and raw materials aspects, to very concrete aspects, such as how sufficient drinking water can be made available to everyone on our planet.

Bachelor's Programme in Energy Transition - Sustainability and Leadership - The interdisciplinary character of the programme trains you to understand and integrate knowledge from different disciplines in order to handle the complex topics of energy, energy transition processes and sustainability. Here you will practice critical analysis and evaluation of different approaches from different perspectives where active student participation plays an important role. The programme is taught at Uppsala University's Gotland Campus which offers a well-coordinated education environment and a profile towards sustainability.

PHD STUDIES

The research subject of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development aims to deepen the knowledge of the occurrence and origin of natural raw materials and energy resources as well as the development of  best exploration and best extraction practises in respect to these resources´  especially in respect to ecological, technical and socioeconomic terms and conditions, as well as environmental and social consequences of their utilization by society. Trans-disciplinary approaches are encouraged to identify and manage the flow of natural resources to society for long term sustainable development. The research study subject offers specialization in two areas -  Global Energy Systems and Environment, Nature and Society.

Read more about the PhD studies  

Uppsala University initiatives under NRHU

Blue Centre Gotland Collaboration project between Uppsala University, the County Administrative Board of Gotland and Region Gotland focusing on the research and development questions regarding water

Use of cookies

Uppsala University uses cookies to make your website experience as good as possible.

Read more in our cookie policy.

December 2022 - You are accessing an archived version of our website. This website is no longer maintained or updated. The Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform has been migrated here: https://sdgs.un.org/

You will be redirected to the new Partnership Platform in 10 seconds.

• Journal Home
• Editorial Board and Advisors
• Read all articles published since the Journal's inception, at the Wiley Online Library

The ocean and its resources play an important role in human well-being and livelihoods and are critical in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, many threats endanger the well- being of the ocean and its resources, including unsustainable fishing practices and ineffective waste management that results in marine pollution, such as plastic pollution and nutrient pollution. The deterioration of the health of the ocean and its resources caused by the cumulative impacts of human activities is further exacerbated by adverse impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.

The Sustainable Development Goals under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015, in particular Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 on the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, provide the international community with a plan to address this important issue. Building on the momentum created by the United Nations Conference to Support the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, held in June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly decided to convene the 2020 United Nations Conference to Support the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas and marine resources for sustainable development in Lisbon, from 2 to 6 June 2020, co- hosted by Kenya and Portugal. The overarching theme of the Conference will be “scaling up ocean action based on science and innovation for the implantation of Goal 14: stocktaking, partnership and solutions.”

In addition, a number of other important ocean-related processes and initiatives also exist, including the process to develop the post-2020 global biodiversity framework within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. All in all, the year 2020 will be a critical year for the health of the ocean and its resources.

To promote understanding of the science-policy nexus and enhance global awareness of ongoing efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean, seas and marine resources, Natural Resources Forum, a United Nations Sustainable Development Journal (NRF) calls for papers for a Special Issue on the Ocean, to be published in May 2020.

We invite articles on different aspects of issues concerning the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean, seas and marine resources at the global, regional, national and sub-regional levels. Articles to be submitted must be scientifically strong and policy-relevant. The editorial team of the NRF will give priority to articles that focus on applied research and/or case studies, in particular those relating to SDG 14 and its 10 targets.

Articles should contain original material and should be between 6,000 and 8,000 words in length. Contributions to the journal are accepted at the NRF manuscript submission site at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nrf

Author guidelines may be consulted at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/14778947/homepage/ForAuthors.html

Questions and comments may be addressed to: [email protected]