Making Conservation Work for the Poor

Despite the fact that international agreements and processes have recognized the link between poverty and environment, much of the dialogues that occur are based more on rhetoric rather than any real meaningful action on the ground that actually puts poverty reduction at the centre of conservation. Part of the reason why pro-poor conservation strategies have failed to emerge so far may be due to the misrepresentation of the poverty-environment link. One common myth is that poor people are forced into a downward spiral of environmental degradation and human despair while another, more complacent, outlook suggests that environmental degradation may be an inevitable, short-term consequence of people moving from poverty to prosperity but that environmental damage will eventually be ameliorated once people pass a certain threshold of wealth.

IUCN believes that neither explanation holds as a general truth and suggests a third way of understanding the poverty-environment link. Poverty cannot be alleviated unless additional assets are made available to poor people. Conventionally, this is taken to mean better road networks, basic health care, primary education, reliable market access, and potable drinking water. Indeed, these are all necessary and should be put in place as quickly as possible. However, building these assets, and getting them to the right people, cannot be achieved over night - it may involve the construction of physical infrastructure or the training of additional staff, negotiation of new trade agreements or restructuring the civil service. In contrast, in many places, biological assets are already in place, although poor people are often denied access to them. Furthermore, poor people are often constrained from adopting new approaches and technologies or entering new markets because of risk and uncertainty.

Therefore, while pro-poor conservation and sustainable use programmes will often not be enough to lift people out of poverty by themselves, they nevertheless can still make an important, immediate and cost effective contribution to national poverty alleviation strategies while other assets are being put in place. In the longer term, sustainable forms of resource management can continue to contribute to human well-being as people begin to escape the constraints of poverty.

Concerns that handing over environmental assets to poor people will inevitably lead to further environmental loss and degradation have not been borne out in practice. A more common experience is that where poor people are given real decision-making authority over natural resources, even badly degraded ones, they can help turn these into productive and biologically rich assets (Box 1). This is not to say that poor people will not make mistakes in the conservation and management of natural resources; like government authorities before them, they inevitably will. However, they are far better placed to observe their mistakes and correct their management practices.

If we accept that giving poor people secure rights to, and responsibility for, natural resources is a powerful tool for poverty alleviation, then governments need to take several key steps, including:

Reform policies that constrain, and enact new policies that enable responsible community stewardship of natural resources.

Improve poor people's access to information and well-designed incentive schemes so that they are better equipped to manage risk and uncertainty.

Encourage and reward stewardship of ecosystems essential for mitigating the adverse impacts of extreme weather events.

Strengthen the capacity of environmental agencies to support the management and use of "publicly owned" natural resources by local communities