Synergies and Tensions between Poverty Reduction

and Biodiversity Conservation A Case Study Based Exploration

Shahadat Hossain Shakil Environmental Management Coordinator

USAID/Bangladesh

E-mail: shshakil.buet@gmail.com

S. M. Labib

MURP Student

Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, BUET

E-mail: labib.l.m@gmail.com

Abstract— Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity Conservation

are different development agenda with contradictory aim.

According to the recent projection the world is continuously

losing its invaluable biodiversity. The opposite trend is evident in

the case of poverty reduction, but the trend of improvement is

unequal across the regions, while Asia is progressing the most of

the Africa is still lagging behind where the conflict or overlap

between these two issues are most evident. This paper has

depicted the constraints (tension) and potentials (synergies)

around coupling of biodiversity conservation and poverty

alleviation. Insights and arguments have been drawn from two

analytical case studies as follows. Development programs should

deal with these dual targets in an efficient way while fulfilling the

immediate livelihood need of the poor as well as not overlooking

the biodiversity concern. Scientists in this arena have reached in

this consensus that, there is no ‘silver bullet’ to serve these

opposite facing, integrated problem, while conserving

biodiversity and not driving the people behind the wall who lives

on it. If income inequality and other faulty governance schemes

cannot be addressed through separate programs, this complex

issue will be hard to sort out while we have to hit two targets at

the same time with the similar stone.

Keywords — Sustainable Development; Integrated

Development; Biodiversity Conservation; Poverty Reduction

I. INTRODUCTION

The overwhelming overlapping map of poverty and conservation area of the world [1] led the scientist in this arena to think about these two issues jointly. In addition, right-based thinking of conservation is also a crucial factor behind the amalgamation of these two development processes [2]. Naturally protected areas initiated or situated in the rural or peri-urban areas where poverty is already present in the highest degree [3]. In other way in can be said that acute poverty near the conservation site or protected area make it more vulnerable or threatened due to resource extraction for livelihood purpose [2]. In this regard [3] states, “conservation and poverty reduction are different societal goals that in particular contexts may come together in mutually supportive or conflicting ways”. Whereas [4] states “in many ways linking conservation with poverty reduction is more of an art than a science”.

Against this background world leaders tried to address this link in several international treaties. The Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

adopted in 2002 sets the target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. In addition, Goal 1 target 1A of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims to “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day” while target 7B, to “reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss” was specifically included since 2006 in Goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability) with additional biodiversity indicators. Furthermore, “ecosystem services underpinning welfare and livelihoods, particularly (although not exclusively) of the poor” was central to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 [5, 2, 6].

In the subsequent sections of this essay the constraints (tension) and potentials (synergies) around coupling of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation will be discussed. Insights and arguments will be drawn from two analytical case studies. Finally state-of-the art scenarios around this debate will be trying to formulate in the concluding section.

II. TENSIONS

Conservation together argue that, these two are completely different problems caused by separate reasons and should be treated independently [3, 7, 8]. [2]suggesting that “parks were unfairly being made responsible for curing structural problems such as poverty, unequal land and resource allocation, corruption, injustice and market failure” [7] state that conservation authorities neither possess the legitimacy nor the power to address the distributional inequality caused by the unequal development pattern. They have also asserted that conservation activities have lost its objectivity and vision.

On the other hand [2] identified “parks tend to reproduce existing economic inequalities within local communities and wider societies”. The creation of protected or conserved areas restricts the local population from resource consumption, which has significant economic opportunity cost. It has other detrimental effect through – eviction, crop raiding by the park animals, social unrest for the presence of militant as park guard etc. [2, 9, 10].

On another note, [11] describes that natural resources act only as a safety net for the poor rather than a way out of poverty. Besides, according to [3] conservation that focuses on particular elements of biodiversity will benefit the poor while those elements of biodiversity are of significance in the livelihoods of the poor. As much conservation activity focuses on globally threatened species rather than locally utilized biodiversity, this is not always the case.

In addition, conservation projects (i.e. tourism) are undertaken largely considering the economic benefits of the proponents while weighting the environmental agenda as minor. This reflects the neo-liberal idea of „environmentalism‟, which is, economic prospect will address its own consequence through further increased investment for environmental protection, which can be also be prominent from the rising trend (both in number and area) of protected areas around the world[10, 11, 13].

Furthermore, the establishment of any conservation area in other words, any economic activity like – forestry, handicraft, trade, tourism, infrastructure, etc. - reinforce „vicious poverty cycle‟ through making the poor people more poorer and rich people more richer due to – pre existing inequality in – power relation, utilization of resources to achieve more, education and health status etc. [6]. The critical factor behind the tension of blending conservation activity with poverty alleviation has been summarized by [6] as the following – when the political entity does not allow the accessibility and right of the poor section within the natural resource and decision making system, projects and policies aimed to conserve biodiversity primarily, cannot be expected to bring the desired benefit (ensure equity and reduce poverty). In contrast, counter as well as reinforcing argument has been provided by the IIED‟s Poverty and Conservation Learning Group as the subsequent way – poverty is only one of the factors within the broad range liable for biodiversity loss. Therefore, only reducing poverty will not necessarily lead to conservation goal unless all other drivers are also addressed simultaneously. Issues of governance, land tenure, equity and justice is very important for conservation projects being harmonized with the twin goal (poverty reduction) [6].

III. SYNERGIES

Biodiversity can contribute to well-being and livelihoods through – food security and health; income generation and livelihoods; reduced vulnerability to shocks; cultural and spiritual value [6, 13]. More importantly, reports of the think tanks of the world (i.e. WRI, UNDP) explored that rural households derive a significant share (15-40%) of their total income from ecosystem goods and services. Such nature-based income, referred to as “environmental income” [6]. For that reason it is broadly supported that biodiversity underpins the livelihood strategies of rural poor. Hence there is no choice but for conservation organizations to engage, for both ethical and pragmatic reasons [3, 5]. For practical manifestation [6] identified six conservation mechanisms that have been successful as a route out of poverty for some people in some places: community timber enterprises; nature-based tourism; fish spill over; protected area jobs; agro-forestry and agro-biodiversity conservation. In addition, some of the major

programs of development organizations such as the UNDP‟s Equator Initiative aim precisely to reduce poverty through the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity demonstrating the „win-win‟ situation through „pro-poor conservation‟ [13].

From another perspective, it has been illustrated by [2] that, the root of pairing poverty reduction with conservation has been the notion of „taking into account the impact of development‟. Which in turn develops the concept of „sustainable development‟, which had significantly underpinned 1980s World Conservation Strategy document. Further development beyond that point through World Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro-1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg-2002, the concept of „sustainable development‟ was extended to make explicit reference to justice, equity and the elimination of poverty.

Additionally, [2] also identified four different typologies for exploring the current debate around the connection and disconnection among conservation and poverty reduction; one of which is ‘poverty reduction depends on living resource conservation’. This school of thought suggests conservation strategies should be based on the needs of local communities for sustainable harvests of wild species resources and not necessarily a formally declared protected area at all. Seeing conservation strategies based on sustainable use primarily as a means to reduce poverty.

IV. CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

The following two case-studies have been selected to unraveling the complex association between poverty abolition and biodiversity preservation. The first one will give the insights about an existing conservation project‟s impact on surrounding people‟s life, mainly economic perspective. The second one is the categorization and evaluation of project portfolio of conservation NGO. It will highlight the general trend of conservation projects worldwide, their rational, approach, outcome and impact as well as input towards poverty eradication.

A. Livelihood Case Study around Mikumi National Park,

Tanzania

[10] Investigated livelihoods of communities around Mikumi, Tanzania's fourth largest national park and impacts of living close to the park. Quantitative survey has been conducted within five villages (randomly picked 25 households/village) of the eighteen villages surrounding the park. The villages were selected based on the location and different ecological zones. They have seen that the park has considerable impacts on rural livelihoods - indirect costs in the form of loss of access to resources resulting loss of potential incomes, and direct costs from crop and livestock raiding which results in total income losses in the range of 10–20%. For many households, crop damages result in food insecurity. This damage is also location and income group specific. Households near the park and within the low income group suffered more. In addition, poor household showed lower „environmental income‟ but higher dependence if compared with others. The average environmental income (6.3%)

reported here is lower if compared with the similar type of cases (20-30%). This is due to the extreme restriction on accessibility to the park resource which hampers the livelihood most.

On the other hand benefit from the park are not allowing direct resource access, but indirect non-farm option. The Support to Community Initiated Projects (SCIP) mechanism supports community goods and services like dispensaries, police posts, primary and secondary schools and drinking water projects. This benefit sharing program is also blamed due to its insignificance if compared to the direct cost and for over-ruling local priorities by the park authorities and also because of outside politicians interfering within the priority processes.

Finally their results and analysis indicates that poorer people suffer more (costs) than the less poor. This phenomenon cannot only be attributed to the park. General policies regarding land use and agricultural pricing lead to lower profitability in agriculture sector. In addition a substantial in-migration and high natural population growth creates pressure on land access and livelihood generation possibilities. This is then further reinforced by the park induced restricted resource access and the direct costs of crop raiding.

In conclusion the park is not the principal reason of poverty. Though it contributes to the local poverty, but it cannot be responsible for total poverty alleviation independently. It could still contribute (more) to reduce costs and increase benefits for local people through increased accessibility and good governance.

B. Disentangling the Links between Conservation and

Poverty Reduction in Practice

To explore the above mentioned complexity [3] investigated the portfolio of Fauna & Flora International (FFI), an international conservation organization operating in some of the poorest sections of the world. They inspected reports from 88 projects and characterized the rationales, approaches and outcomes of a sample of 34 livelihoods-focused projects (spanning over 22 countries and 4 continents). Although this study is based on the knowledge of a single international conservation entity, but it represents a wide variation of such projects and is thus likely to reflect the range of scenarios that other international conservation organizations will experience.

They have summarized in their analysis that of the 88 project more than 85% have some kind of engagement with local communities and integrated poverty issues as part of their conservation activities. The majority of the sample projects (34) focused on terrestrial landscape conservation (n=21), with near about 25% being species-focused (n=9). A minority of projects (n=3) were unspecific, working indirectly at broader scales. Marine projects were largely underrepresented (n=1).

On the other hand, the highest proportion of sample projects (18, the majority was landscape project) intended to reduce the threat to biodiversity by improving livelihoods/reducing poverty, expressing the behind rational –

poverty reduction leads to conservation. Following that the second highest share (8, the majority was species project) aimed to offset the costs of conservation for local people, which demonstrate the rational – conservation hinders poverty reduction. Some projects were designed for the provision of ecosystem goods (i.e. sustainable use of elements of biodiversity by the poor through tourism or consumptive use), revealing the rational - conservation underpins poverty reduction. In addition, there were some projects in response to the planned activities of governments and development agencies that risked neglecting environmental concerns in the face of economic or humanitarian pragmatism. This type of project uttered another typology of the underlying rational - poverty reduction threatens conservation efforts. Few projects intended to be using an indirect rationale for livelihoods interventions as a means of introducing engagement with poor rural communities to generate a population of support during future conservation activity highlighting the rationale behind the amalgamation – poverty reduction generates goodwill and trust.

In addition the majority (18) of the projects of the sample focused on direct (field-based) intervention. Several projects (8) aimed at indirect interference (institutional and policy-related). The remaining projects (8) centered on a mixed approached. Furthermore, about 30% of projects focused on building organizational capability and developing appropriate policies and a similar percentage aimed to increase local empowerment, mainly through participatory approaches to increase local engagement in conservation decision making. Moreover, across the broader project portfolio of FFI, more than 33% of project managers mentioned that the project achieved its desired result while supporting community activities or integrating local people in the project planning and implementation.

This study disclosed that addressing human requirements in conservation is not irrational and often tactically vital. They have also concluded that, at a local scale, conservation activities have the potential to make a difference where local poverty threatens biodiversity. In contrast, majority of the projects (60%) focus on community empowerment and governance reform. Which are complex to conceptualize and less easily quantifiable, in terms of their impact on poverty, than the objective instrument such as income and jobs.

V. DISSCUSSION

The presence of many theoretical frameworks [2, 3, 14] to conceptualize the nexus of poverty-conservation illustrates the intricacy and dynamism of this issue. Due to logical spatial overlap between this two in most of the cases, both „blind conservation‟ through „restriction‟ and „short-sighted poverty alleviation‟ by means of „short-term income generation‟, bypassing environmental sustainability, are infeasible ethically and practically.

From the case study of Mikumi national park, Tanzania it can be seen that imposing restriction to the park made the poor more poor (due to their high dependency) and the rich more rich (due to high power status and resources to invest further). Benefits offered in return are very negligible

and did not reflect local priorities. Reducing income inequality, improving land use policy, ensuring better pricing for agriculture and overall improving the general governance has been suggested by [10] through separate programs. Insights drawn at the end that parks should be protected, but keeping access for locals to the tolerable limit, to ensure that, if parks cannot do better-off the people, it will not make the situation worse as well.

Through the second case study analysis by [3] it can be pointed that, most of the conservation project addressed the poverty issue. The foremost rational behind the conservation projects are – poverty alleviation leads to conservation. Most of the projects focused on local empowerment which has been also criticized for their intangible nature to measure actual reduction in the level of poverty.

In light of the preceding literature review about the tensions and synergies regarding the twin goal (poverty-conservation), case study analysis and critical evidences/facts from them generally, the following way out/strategy has been highlighted in this regard while echoing propositions by the two case studies.

Conservation projects should address human needs, but it should not be the paramount focus while losing the conservation goal. In real world various development organizations work in the same area holding the common goal - „human development‟. Conservation NGOs should partner with them through sharing of resource and knowledge and make clear the importance of biodiversity. The Success of any conservation project in terms of poverty reduction will not come only through focusing on the livelihood intervention project but combination with site specific biodiversity management scheme. Conservation aim cannot be achieved only through local empowerment and poverty eradication. Site and context specific approach should be taken rather than generalized approach. At last, local people‟s participation and access should be ensured during project development and execution.

VI. CONCLUSION

Biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction are two different development agenda with conflicting aims. According to the latest data the world is continuously losing its precious species [15]. The opposite trend is evident in the case of poverty, but the trend of improvement is unequal across the regions, while Asia is progressing the most Africa is still lagging behind where the conflict or overlap between these two issues are most prominent [16]. Development programs should deal with these dual targets in an efficient way while fulfilling the immediate livelihood need of the poor as well as not neglecting the biodiversity. However scientist in

this arena has reached in this consensus that there is no „silver bullet‟ to serve these opposite facing, combined problem, while conserving biodiversity and not driving the people behind the wall who lives on it. In the end it should be borne in mind that if income inequality and other faulty governance schemes cannot be addressed through separate programs, this complex issue will be hard to sort out while we have to hit two targets at the same time with the similar stone.

References

[1] Sunderlin, W. D., Dewi, S., Puntodewo, A., Müller, D., Angelsen, A., &

Epprecht, M. Poverty and Forests: Multi-Country Analysis of Spatial Association and Proposed Policy Solutions. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2007.

[2] Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., & Wolmer, W. Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science, 306, 2004, pp.1146–1149.

[3] Walpole, M. and Wilder, L. Disentangling the Links Between Conservation and Poverty Reduction in Practice. ORYX, 42(4), 2008, pp.539–547.

[4] Fisher, R.J. Poverty and Conservation: Landscapes, People and Power. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 2005.

[5] Roe, D. and Elliott, J. Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity Conservation: Rebuilding the Bridges. Oryx, 38(02), 2004, pp.137–139.

[6] Billé, R., Lapeyre, R. and Pirard, R. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: A Way Out of the Deadlock? Sapiens, 5(1), 2012, pp.1–15.

[7] Sanderson, S.E. and Redford, K.H. Contested Relationships Between Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation. Oryx, 37(04), 2003, pp.389–390.

[8] Kiss, A. Is Community-Based Ecotourism a Good Use of Biodiversity Conservation Funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(5), 2004, pp.232–237.

[9] Brockington, D., Igoe, J. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. Conservation, Human Rights, and Poverty Reduction. Conservation Biology, 20(1), 2006, pp.250–252.

[10] Vedeld, P., Jumane, A., Wapalila, G., & Songorwa, A. Protected Areas, Poverty and Conflicts: A Livelihood Case Study of Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics, 21, 2012, pp.20–31.

[11] Wunder, S. Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests: What Scope for Synergies? World Development, 29(11), 2011, pp.1817–1833.

[12] Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview. Conservation and Society, 4(3), 2006, pp.424–470.

[13] Timmer, V. and Juma, C. Taking Root: Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction Come Together in the Tropics. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(4), 2005, pp.24–44.

[14] Roe, D. and Elliott, J. Poverty-Conservation Linkages: A Conceptual Framework. London: IIED, 2005.

[15] WWF. Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature, 2012.

[16] Olinto, P., Beegle, K., Sobrado, C., & Uematsu, H. The State of the Poor: Where are the Poor, Where is Extreme Poverty Harder to End, and What is the Current Profile of the World‟s Poor? World Bank-Economic Premise, (125), 2013, pp.1–8.