- Email: [email protected]
Conservation and the World's Poorest of the Poor
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor Craig Leisher, The Nature Conservancy, Millburn, NJ, USA M Sanjayan, The Nature Conservancy, Missoula, MT, USA r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary Comanagement Resource users and resource managers share power and responsibilities to cooperatively manage a renewable natural resource, such as a fishery or forest. It may be two-way comanagement between a community and a government agency or three-way comanagement among a community, a bridging organization such as a nongovernmental organization or a university, and a government agency. Elite capture Benefits from a conservation or a development initiative may be ‘‘captured‘‘ by local elites who have the economic or political power to determine who will benefit from an initiative. When this happens, an initiative can cause an increase in economic inequality.
History of Conservation and Poverty Links Historically, the preservation of natural areas and prevention of anthropogenic impacts has been the primary goal of conservation and conservationists. Others, however, viewed the use of natural areas as economically important for improving human well-being. The conflict between preservation and use is exemplified in USA by John Muir and Gilford Pinchot – two early twentieth century contemporaries who shared the common goal of protecting wilderness in the US food division but had contrasting philosophies on how to do so. Pinchot, for example, believed sheep should be allowed to graze on public lands because it benefited shepherds and kept native grasses in check. Muir disagreed with this. He considered sheep a ‘‘hoofed locust’’ because of the damage they inflicted in the high sierras of California. Muir as the founder of the Sierra Club and Pinchot as the first leader of the US Forest Service personified the historical dichotomy in conservation of preservation versus use. A century later, this dichotomy still defines how some view conservation, but it is waning in the face of growing evidence that preservation and use are points on a spectrum and there are many shades in between. In developing countries, for example, conservation initiatives may seek to conserve local biodiversity while also providing sustainable goods and services to local people. One of the drivers of this more nuanced view is that the world’s human population is expected to increase by 50% between 2000 and 2100, and meeting the basic needs of 10 billion people will require greater use of natural resources and better stewardship of our natural patrimony. Strict preservation will continue to be important in places, but the sustainable use of natural resources is likely to be central to conservation in the twenty-first century. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than where poverty and the use of natural resource are entwined.
230
Integrated Conservation and Development A project that links biodiversity conservation, usually of a protected area, with local socioeconomic development activities in which alternative incomes or livelihoods are introduced to reduce pressure on local natural resources. Natural resource management This is the management of the resources that nature provides such as forests, fisheries and grasslands. Poverty The pronounced deprivation in well-being in which a person lacks opportunities, empowerment, and security. The most common proxy for measuring poverty is per capital income. If a person lives on less than US$1.25 a day at purchasing power parity, it is classified as ‘‘extreme poverty.’’ If a person lives on US$2.00 a day or less at purchasing power parity, it is classified as ‘‘moderate poverty.’’
The poor live disproportionately in the tropics and in rural areas, where much of the world’s biological diversity is also found (Redford et al., 2008). The rural poor also frequently have a proportionally greater dependence on local natural resources than the better-off (Balmford et al., 2008). For instance, the extremely poor are often the ones who rely most on nontimber forest products (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000), and the income and well-being of many poor households in forested areas depends greatly on the availability of forest products (Vedeld et al., 2004). Natural resources clearly matter for many rural poor, but does rural poverty matter to conservation of these resources? The debate on this point has been contentious (Sanderson and Redford, 2003, 2004; Roe and Elliott, 2004; Redford et al., 2008; Roe, 2008). To better understand the diversity of views and the evolution of thinking about conservation and poverty, it is helpful to examine a conceptual typology of the relations between conservation and poverty reduction. Based on a review of the conservation–poverty literature, Adams et al. (2004) identified four different conceptual views. The first is a predominantly preservationist one. Proponents believe that poverty reduction is best left to governments and organizations with poverty reduction mandates because of its inherent complexity and because the number of poor people in the remote natural areas favored by conservationists is less than 1% of the global poor (Redford et al., 2008). Dividing conservation and poverty reduction, however, may create a split that does not inherently exist in many rural communities. There is evidence that curtailing access to natural resources for local people can lead to extreme poverty such as when people are displaced by the establishment of a new protected area (Brockington et al., 2006). The second conceptual view began with a seminal United Nations (UN) report. In 1987, a UN commission produced a
Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00320-8
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
report entitled Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987) that called for ‘‘sustainable development.’’ The report argued, inter alia, that poverty is a major cause of environmental problems. Building on the thinking of this report, in the early 1990s, many conservationists expected that reducing poverty would help reduce destructive resource use (e.g., Wells and Brandon, 1992). In specific cases where the poor are the drivers of resource degradation, such as fuelwood consumption in parts of India and Tanzania (Baland et al., 2006; Ndangalasi et al., 2007), reducing poverty may in fact reduce pressure on some natural resources. Yet China, Indonesia, and Brazil have greatly reduced rural poverty while continuing to draw down their natural resources. There are two primary reasons why the alleviation of rural poverty is unlikely to break unsustainable resource-use patterns: consumption of many natural resources tends to increase with income (e.g., Narain et al., 2008; Brashares et al., 2011); and better-off people are often the ones who benefit the most from natural resources use because they have the capital to exploit the resources (Cavendish, 2000; Narain et al., 2008). The third conceptual view seeks to balance preservation and use. From the mid-1980s to the early 2000s, international organizations supported a number of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) that aimed to both conserve biodiversity and develop the local economy by providing alternative livelihoods and incomes while curtailing local resource use mainly in protected areas. The results, however, were lackluster and much has been written about the problematic nature of ICDPs (Sanjayan et al., 1997; Wells et al., 1999; Adams and Hulme, 2001; McShane and Newby, 2004; Hutton et al., 2005). Although interest in classical ICDPs has waned, the de facto integration of conservation and development activities in approaches such as Population, Health, and Environment (PHE) projects continues. The fourth conceptual view is on the usable portion of the spectrum and focuses on the essential goods and services that natural ecosystems provide to people. Within this conceptual view, ecosystem services (Daily, 1997) and the comanagement of natural resources (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005) are found. Proponents of ecosystem service note that it is the poor who often suffer most when ecosystem services, such as clean water and clean air, decline (Wunder, 2008). Proponents may be willing to trade a reduction in the biodiversity for an ecosystem for sustainable benefits to people and protecting the remaining nature (Kareiva and Marvier, 2010). The emphasis within the study of ecosystem services is often on valuations of ecosystem services to show the importance of an ecosystem to people in general and the poor in particular (e.g., the Natural Capital Project). The implicit assumption is that a better understanding of the value of ecosystem services will improve the political will to protect these services. Yet among the extremely poor, time horizons are often short and economic discount rates are high. Hence, managing ecosystem services for long-term sustainability in places with extreme poverty may be challenging. Within comanagement of natural resources, there is the recognition that local communities have the greatest stake in the sustainable use of the local natural resources, but that community-based natural resource management can just as easily be backwards and fragmented as progressive and cohesive (Blaikie, 2006). By balancing community power with government power in a comanagement arrangement, natural resources
231
can in principle be more equitably and sustainably managed. Comanagement conceptual analysis and a management framework have been developed (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004), but long-term experience with this approach is limited.
Key Players Understanding the key players in the conservation–poverty field is important for understanding the drivers of conservation–poverty activities. Many players have an institutional bias that emphasizes either conservation or poverty reduction. The primary implementers of conservation–poverty projects are the international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) ranked here by 2009 overall budgets: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the WWF, Conservation International (CI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Wildlife Conservation Society, Fauna and Flora International, African Wildlife Fund, the BirdLife International network, and Wetlands International. Among development NGOs in 2011, those with an active interest in poverty–conservation issues include CARE International members, Pathfinder International, and World Education. CARE in East Africa has a long-time presence in the poverty–conservation field. Among development agencies working on poverty and conservation issues, the standouts are Department for International Development (DFID), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank. DFID was the first government aid agency to extensively research the links between conservation and poverty reduction. USAID fostered community-based natural resource management in the 1990s and PHE projects more recently. UNDP is an important convener of conservation–poverty meetings. The World Bank was a large implementer of ICDPs in the late 1990s and has published influential studies examining the links between environment and poverty. The World Bank is also a key player in reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation that aims to link forest preservation, reduced CO2 emissions, and poverty reduction. Norway and its bilateral aid agency Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation have joined with the World Bank in this work. Other bilateral agencies with a history in poverty and conservation projects include Danish International Development Agency (Denmark), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (Switzerland), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sweden), Canadian International Development Agency (Canada), Finnish International Development Agency (Finland), Kreditanstalt fu¨r Wiederaufbau (Germany), Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany), and Fonds Franc- ais pour l’Environnement Mondial (France). Between the conservation and development organizations is the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. This organization has been at the center of conservation–poverty issues since the early 2000s, as a convener, publisher, and an analytic force. Other international organizations important to conservation and poverty reduction include Consultative Group on
232
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
International Agriculture Research members, the Center for International Forestry Research, World Agroforestry Center, and the World Fish Center. The Global Environment Facility and the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat are also influential multilateral players in conservation and poverty issues.
Does Conservation Benefit the Poor? Evidence Showing Conservation has Benefited the Poor Perhaps the central question in conservation and poverty studies is to what extent does the conservation of biodiversity actually benefit the poor and the extreme poor? Much of the existing conservation–poverty knowledge is based on anecdotal evidence for a variety of reasons (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). There is, however, suggestive empirical evidence that conservation initiatives can measurably benefit the poor and the extremely poor (see Leisher et al., 2010 for the full review). The best evidence of conservation initiatives that have reduced poverty comes from forestry, fisheries, grasslands, and naturebased tourism and is summarized here.
Forestry Within the forestry sector, evidence of conservation benefiting the poor is largely found in community-based timber enterprises. Timber is harvested in such enterprises at levels that ensure the ecological integrity of the forest, whereas the income generated from the timber sales contributes to local poverty reduction. Such enterprises are frequently based on contractual arrangements between communities and companies to supply fiber, pulp, or construction timber. A study of 14 community-forestry timber enterprises in developing countries found that they can be profitable (Molner et al., 2007), and in Mexico, community-forestry enterprises have helped reduce local poverty (Antinori and Bray, 2005). For nature, community forestry can also be a benefit. There is evidence from Nepal (Gautam et al., 2002), Mexico (Bray et al., 2003), and Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2009) that community forestry has led to increases in forest cover. It is not only timber that can benefit poor communities but also the forest itself. A meta-analysis of 51 case studies from 17 countries found that forest environmental income represents on average 22% of the total rural household income (Vedeld et al., 2004). Fuelwood and nontimber forest products are often an integral part of the livelihood strategies of the poor and extremely poor and maintaining an intact forest has benefits to the rural poor that are often overlooked (Naughton-Treves et al., 2011).
Fisheries Near-shore fisheries provide a high percentage of animal protein for people in poor countries, but many near-shore fisheries are fished beyond the limits of sustainable yields (FAO, 2010). One strategy to address this is the creation of no-take zones. Such zones provide space for fish to grow bigger, and bigger fish usually have exponentially more offspring than smaller fish (PISCO, 2007). After several years of protection, fish may spillover into the area outside the no-take zone where they can be caught (Gell and Roberts, 2003). Greater fish catches generate
more income for fishers and hence help reduce poverty, whereas the no-take zone provides protected habitat for marine life. In places where many people are poor, and fishing is in crisis, there may be medium-term poverty reduction benefits from no-take zones. WRI (2005) and Leisher et al. (2007) found that spillover from two community-managed marine areas in Fiji roughly doubled local incomes within 5 years of establishing the no-take zone compared with control sites, and women were the primary beneficiaries. The indirect benefits to the poor may also be important. Organizing a community to manage a no-take zone often strengthens the social fabric of the community, giving them a ready decision-making body and a more unified voice to address other community issues (Leisher et al., 2007). The stronger social cohesion also improves local security and empowers local decision making, two key elements of poverty reduction (World Bank, 2001). There is evidence that no-take zone management is more effective where there is active participation of local communities in the resource management (McClanahan et al., 2006). There is also evidence that size matters. If a no-take zone is too large, spillover will not offset the losses to fishers from closing sections of the fishing grounds (PISCO, 2007). From the perspective of fisheries, networks consisting of a number of smaller marine protected areas may be preferable to a few very large marine protected areas (IUCN-WCPA, 2008).
Grasslands Grasslands can have greater grass productivity with grazing than without grazing (Guo, 2007), and some types of grassland are ecologically dependent on grazing to maintain their biodiversity (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). Within grasslands, livestock is often the primary form of wealth for local communities (Eriksen and Watson, 2009), and these communities can be among the extreme poor when measured by a multidimensional definition of poverty (e.g., Glew et al., 2010). The relationship among grazing, biodiversity, and local livelihoods is what underpins grasslands conservation projects that have benefited the poor. Pastoralism, especially in drylands, may be one of the few land uses that is genuinely compatible with ‘‘formal’’ nature conservation (WISP, 2008). Studies in a South African community-managed grassland (Leisher et al., 2011a), in the Mongolian Gobi grasslands (Leisher et al., 2011b), and in northern Kenya’s grasslands (Glew et al., 2010) used household surveys and remote sensing to measure differences before and after and between impacted and matched control areas using a variety of socioeconomic and ecological indicators. These studies identified a number of benefits to the poor and extreme poor as well as greater net primary productivity of project grasslands compared with before the project and matched control sites. The evidence from these studies suggests that better grasslands management can benefit both the poor and the grasslands themselves.
Nature-Based Tourism Nature-based tourism can include community-based operations on one end and all-inclusive international ecolodges and safari operations on the other. Tourism can offer opportunities for reducing poverty via jobs in the formal tourism sector, such as accommodation and guiding, and in new
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
markets for local services and products, such as sales of crafts, cultural services, food, and drinks. Tourism may also be associated with infrastructure development, such as roads, telecommunications, and health care facilities, which when provided for the benefit of tourists, benefit the poor as well. A meta-review of 27 tourism case studies in Asia found income gains for all economic levels but with those already better-off gaining most (Shah and Gupta, 2000). In Zambia, a World Bank Study (2007) found that nature-based tourism had reduced poverty, but those with most assets benefit up to 50% more than the extremely poor. The indirect benefits may be important to the poor as well. There is a multiplier effect from tourism that creates opportunities and downstream effects for casual laborers, crafters, and small businesses (Ashley and Roe, 2002). The indirect benefits, such as better infrastructure, can also benefit poor people (e.g., Shackleton et al., 2007). Where tourism operators commit to hire and train local people, the financial benefits to a local community can be substantial (Davis, 2005). Although there is suggestive empirical evidence that a conservation initiative can benefit the poor from communityforestry timber enterprises, no-take zones for fish, grasslands management, and nature-based tourism, there are other areas where the evidence of poverty reduction is even more limited but may have potential for benefiting the poor, including nontimber forest products, payments for environmental services, mangrove restoration, protected area jobs, and agroforestry (Leisher et al., 2010). Some, such has nontimber forest products and payments for environmental services, have been well studied but the evidence is inconclusive. Others remain to be studied rigorously.
Evidence Showing Conservation has Hurt the Poor The evidence that conservation initiatives have hurt the poor comes primarily from the establishment of new protected areas that displaced local people (Brockington et al., 2006). This can be either physical displacement, such as eviction from their homes, or economic displacement by excluding people from an area that is important to their livelihoods (Cernea, 2005). Regardless of the type of displacement, the impacted people are often worse-off economically, culturally, and socially. For indigenous people displaced by a conservation initiative, the negative impacts can continue for decades after the displacement (Colchester, 2003). The number of people and the number of places where local people have been displaced by a new protected area are disputed (Borgerhoff-Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005; Wilkie et al., 2006), but most of the cases occurred before 1980. In recent decades, the impacts of displacing people from a new protected area have become better understood, and most donors and conservation organizations are reluctant to participate in such projects.
233
Perhaps foremost is the considerable heterogeneity among poverty indicators used to measure poverty impact. The choice of indicators is often driven by differing definitions of who is poor (Agrawal and Redford, 2006). Existing definitions of ‘‘poor’’ may be qualitative or quantitative, temporal or pointsin-time, and may be multidimensional or one dimensional (Ravallion, 2008). The poverty reduction impact of a conservation initiative depends greatly on how poverty is defined and the indicators used to measure it. Conservation and poverty reduction links are often dynamic and locally specific (Kepe et al., 2004; Sanderson and Redford, 2004; BirdLife, 2007). Thus, universal models applicable to multiple local contexts for jointly addressing conservation and poverty are unlikely. Instead, habitat types where the biological diversity itself is fundamental to the benefits to people may hold more promise for conservation and poverty reduction. Examples of this are fisheries in which greater biodiversity produces greater biomass (Worm et al., 2006) and grasslands that have coevolved with grazers and now depend on grazing to maintain plant diversity (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). Elite capture of benefits is also an issue. The wealthier segments of a population participating in a conservation or development initiative may ‘‘capture’’ the majority of the benefits (e.g., Jagger, 2008; Bandyopadhyay and Tembo, 2009). Part of the reason is because the better-off generally have greater human and financial capital, which allows them to benefit more from an initiative (Weber et al., 2011), and they are also more likely to participate in an initiative (Groom et al., 2010). Where local leaders are not downwardly accountable to their constituents, the local elites may shape a conservation initiative to benefit themselves (Jumbe and Angelsen, 2006). A key issue often overlooked is that generating benefits from conservation to the poor and especially the poorest of the poor is frequently more about increasing biomass than increasing biodiversity (Balmford et al., 2008). For example, the volume of fish is usually more important to a small-scale fisher than the variety. Although in a few natural ecosystems, biomass productivity may be linked to species biodiversity, in other cases, a managed and less diverse ecosystem may provide greater production of the biomass that poor people value than a natural ecosystem. Examples of this include woodlots for firewood production and grasslands converted to agriculture. A final issue is the limited political will to improve the well-being of people in hard-to-reach areas. Rural, impoverished populations tend to be politically marginalized and expensive to reach with services. Conservation initiatives are frequent in remote areas, and the national government’s willingness to work in these areas on conservation–poverty issues may be lacking. This has implications for the sustainability of externally driven initiatives, especially those with exit strategies dependent on the government assuming a greater role in service delivery.
Trends Within Conservation and Poverty Other Key Issues In addition to the issue of whether conservation initiatives have helped or hurt the poor, there are several other key issues within conservation and poverty.
Within conservation and poverty reduction, what is happening at the global level influences what happens at the local level. Herein, we look at the macro- and microlevel trends within conservation and poverty.
234
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
Although the proportion of people under US$1.25 a day is dropping, the absolute number of the extreme poor continues to climb in most countries (Table 1). Much of the growth in the number of poor is in urban areas, but it is in rural areas where poverty is most often a chronic condition. It is also in rural areas where the extreme poor tend to be most dependent on the goods and services nature provides. Given existing demographic trends, the number of poor people is likely to increase in many of the remote, rural places where conservation organizations work. Poverty reduction is also becoming more challenging. The Millennium Development Goals signed by 192 of the world’s governments call for reducing poverty by 50% between 1990 and 2015 as the top priority. Even if this goal is achieved, this would leave more than 2 billion people still in poverty. Moreover, the easier gains would be past because those just below the poverty line will have moved over the line, and the ones left will require greater effort. Inside and outside of conservation, poverty will remain one of the greatest challenges globally.
Table 1 (millions)
Number of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day
Region
1990
2005
Change
South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa China East Asia and Pacific (minus China) Other
579 295 683 190 68
595 387 208 109 72
þ 16 þ 92 475 81 þ4
The World Database on Protected Areas shows that the rate of establishing new protected areas has dropped sharply, declining from a historic high of 2920 in 2002 to 40 in 2006 (UNEP-WCMC, 2009). For a variety of reasons, the focus within conservation has shifted away from establishing new protected areas. Protected areas will remain the core conservation strategy of most governments, but much of the conservation efforts in the twenty-first century are likely to be outside protected areas. This is especially true for conservation–poverty issues where efforts outside of designated protected areas are likely to yield greater conservation gains with greater poverty reduction benefits than inside protected areas. Another macro trend is the devolution of power. The locus for decision making in many countries has shifted to the subnational level. The principle is that power should be devolved to the lowest feasible level. The assumption is that the closer decision making is to the problem, the more likely the problem will be addressed successfully. For conservation, this may entail working more with local-level governments. For conservation and poverty reduction, this may result in focusing more on restoring degraded habitats than preserving intact habitats given the presumed development focus on most local-level governments. At the microlevel, conservation organizations have responded by making people more central to their mission. TNC and CI both changed their mission statements to highlight the benefits to people from conservation. Three of the largest US foundations that fund conservation organizations (Moore, Packard, and MacArthur) have shifted their funding toward more people-centered conservation.
# of conservation−poverty documents by year 60 52 50
47 45
45 43
40
37
36 33 30
19
20 16
10
7
6
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
1991
2004
1990
2003
1989
Figure 1 Number of conservation–poverty publications by year.
3
2002
1988
1
2001
1987
1
2000
1986
2
1999
1985
0
2
1998
0
1997
0
1996
0
1995
0
1994
1
1993
0
1992
1
4
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
There is also a growing recognition within international conservation organizations that the social sciences are as important as the natural sciences. After several decades of defining where the Earth’s maximal biodiversity is located and where it is most threatened, conservation organizations know where they need to work. What is lacking is a greater understanding of how they need to work. One promising development comes from the Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom. She identified how communities that self-organize to manage common-pool resources, such as fisheries and forests, can avoid the tragedy of the commons. Ostrom found 10 factors that are predictive of communities self-organizing to manage socioecological systems (Ostrom, 2009). Gutierrez et al. (2011) did similar work for marine areas and highlighted the success factors for fisheries comanagement. Yet these success factors were determined via ex-post quantitative analysis. Identifying and measuring the level of key factors before a conservation initiative begins (ex-ante) could improve conservation success. Turning the known conditions for success into site-screening tools that can be used by social scientists is a nascent trend in conservation. Another micro trend is the greater focus on measuring the impact of a conservation initiative on local people and the poor. Ferraro and Pattanayak (2006) provided a good summary of why this is needed and approaches that can separate what happened because of a conservation initiative and what would have happened without the conservation initiative. The authors call for greater use of baselines, measure of covariates, and matched control groups. Several international conservation organizations have been working together on improving conservation impact measures (www. conservationmeasures.org). A final trend is the growing interest in conservation– poverty issues as evidenced by the growth in the literature on the topic (Figure 1). A comprehensive literature review in June 2010 found 430 articles, books, and publications on conservation–poverty topics (Leisher et al., 2010). Few were published before 1998, but the field began to grow rapidly around 2000. In recent years, the average is about 50 new publications a year on the topic.
Conclusions As a former rancher in North Dakota, President Teddy Roosevelt believed in using the land to benefit people but wanted to balance this with protection of special places. He wanted both preservation and use of natural areas, and that is why he gave his political support to both Muir and Pinchot. Roosevelt recognized that preservation and use need not be an either/or choice but a spectrum with strict preservation on one end and destructive use on the other. Usage that is sustainable can enable biodiversity preservation. It also addresses the reality of several billion people globally needing resources to move out of poverty. The knowledge base of conservation–poverty issues continues to grow and the rigor of new studies has increased such that there is far more evidence of impacts than a decade ago. On balance, however, the evidence base is still limited and
235
largely suggestive of how the poorest of the poor may benefit from conservation.
Appendix List of Courses 1. Conservation Beyond Reserves – Oxford University http:// www.geog.ox.ac.uk/graduate/msc-bcm/structure.html# core4 2. Management of Ecosystems and Landscapes – Columbia http://www.columbia.edu/cu/e3b/graduate_ University offerings.html 3. Social Science of Development and Conservation – Yale School of Environment http://environment.yale.edu/ courses/detail/535/ 4. Human Dimensions of Biological Conservation – University of Florida http://www.wec.ufl.edu/entities/pstc/ courses.php
See also: Biodiversity and Human Health. Biodiversity, Human WellBeing, and Markets. Conservation and People. Economic Value of Biodiversity, Measurements of. Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. International Organizations and Biodiversity. Justice, Equity and Biodiversity. Market Economy and Biodiversity. Poverty and Biodiversity
References Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, et al. (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–1149. Adams WM and Hulme D (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35: 193–200. Agrawal A and Redford K (2006) Poverty, Development and Biodiversity Conservation. Shooting in the Dark?. New York, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society. WCS Working Paper No. 26. Antinori C and Bray DB (2005) Community Forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico. World Development 33: 1529–1543. Ashley C and Roe D (2002) Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 19: 61–82. Baland J, Bardhan P, Das S, Mookherjee D, and Sarkar R (2006) Managing the environmental consequences of growth: Forest degradation in the Indian midHimalayas. In: Bery S, Bossworth B, and Panagariya A (eds.) India Policy Forum. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications. Balmford A, Rodrigues ASL, Walpole M, et al. (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Scoping the Science. Cambridge, UK: European Commission. Bandyopadhyay S and Tembo G (2009) Household Welfare and Natural Resource Management Around National Parks in Zambia. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4932. BirdLife (2007) Livelihoods and the Environment at Important Bird Areas: Listening to Local Voices. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34: 1942–1957. Borgerhoff-Mulder M and Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation. Linking Ecology, Economics and Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar T, Kothari A, and Renard Y (2004) Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources Throughout the World. London, UK: IIED. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, and Okello GV (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa.
236
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13931–13936. Bray DB, Merino-Pe´rez L, Negreros-Castillo P, Segura-Warnholtz G, Torres-Rojo JM, and Vester HFM (2003) Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conservation Biology 17: 672–677. Brockington D, Igoe J, and Schmidt-Soltau K (2006) Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20: 250–252. Brundtland G (ed.) (1987) Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carlsson L and Berkes F (2005) Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 65–76. Cernea M (2005) Restriction of access is displacement: A broader concept and policy. Forced Migration Review 23: 48–49. Cavendish W (2000) Empirical regularities in the poverty–environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28: 1979–2003. Colchester M (2003) Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: World Rainforest Movement, Forest Peoples Program. Daily G (ed.) (1997) Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Davis, T (2005) Local and Semi-Local Economic Impacts of Dive Tourism in Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Master Thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle. Eriksen SEH and Watson HK (2009) The dynamic context of southern African savannas: Investigating emerging threats and opportunities to sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 5–22. FAO (2010) State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. Ferraro PJ and Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Library of Science Biology 4: e105. Fratkin E and Mearns R (2003) Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: Lessons from east African Maasai and Mongolia. Human Organization 62: 112–122. Gautam AP, Webb EL, and Eiumnoh A (2002) GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22: 63–69. Gell FR and Roberts CM (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448–455. Glew L, Hudson MD, and Osborne PE (2010) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community-Based Conservation in Northern Kenya. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Unpublished report. Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon A, Swanson T, and Zhang S (2010) Relaxing rural constraints: A ‘‘win-win’’ policy for poverty and environment in China? Oxford Economic Papers 62: 132–156. Guo Q (2007) The diversity-biomass-productivity relationship in grasslands management and restoration. Basic and Applied Ecology 8: 199–208. Gutierrez NL, Hilborn R, and Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470: 386–389. Hutton J, Adams WM, and Murombedzi J (2005) Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 2: 341–370. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) (2008) Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – Making It Happen. Washington, DC: IUCNWCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and The Nature Conservancy. Jagger P (2008) Forest Incomes After Uganda’s Forest Sector Reform: Are the Rural Poor Gaining?. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. CAPRi Working Paper No. 92. Jumbe C and Angelsen A (2006) Do the poor benefit from devolution policies? Evidence from Malawi’s forest co-management program. Land Economics 82: 562–581. Kareiva P and Marvier M (2010) Conservation Science: Balancing the Needs of People and Nature. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company. Kepe T, Saruchera M, and Whande W (2004) Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: A South African perspective. Oryx 38(2): 143–145. Leisher C, Brouwer R, Boucher TM, Vogelij R, Bainbridge WR, and Sanjayan M (2011a) Striking a balance: Socioeconomic development and conservation in grassland through community-based zoning. Public Library of Science One 6(12): e28807.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028807. Leisher C, Hess S, Boucher TM, van Beukering P, and Sanjayan M (2011b) Measuring the Impacts of Community-Based Grasslands Management in Mongolia’s Gobi. Arlington, TX: The Nature Conservancy.
Leisher C, Sanjayan M, Blockhus J, Kontoleon A, and Larsen SN (2010) Does conserving biodiversity work to reduce poverty. In: Roe D (ed.) Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. Montreal, Canada: CBD Secretariat. CBD Technical Series No: 55. Leisher C, Van Beukering P, and Scherl LM (2007) Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction. Arlington, TX: The Nature Conservancy. McClanahan T, Marnane M, Cinner J, and Kiene W (2006) A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16: 1408–1413. McShane TO and Newby SA (2004) Expecting the unattainable: The assumptions behind ICDPs. In: McShane TO and Wells MP (eds.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Molner A, Liddle M, Bracer C, Khare A, White A, and Bull J (2007) Communitybased forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: Status and potential. Report to the ITTO. Washington, DC: Forest Trends/Rights and Resources Group. Narain U, Gupta S, and Van’t Veld K (2008) Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecological Economics 66: 161–176. Naughton-Treves L, Alix-Garcia J, and Chapman CA (2011) Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13919–13924. Ndangalasi HJ, Bitariho R, and Dovie D (2007) Harvesting of non-timber forest products and implications for conservation in two montane forests of East Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 242–250. Neumann RP and Hirsch E (2000) Commercialization of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Nguyen QT, Tran NT, Hoang HT, Yasmi Y, and Enters T (2009) Red Books for Greener Trees: Strengthening Community Forestry in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: Forest Governance Learning Group. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socialecological systems. Science 325: 419–422. PISCO (2007) The Science of Marine Reserves. Corvallis, OR, USA: Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO). www.piscoweb.org. Ravallion M (2008) Poverty lines. In: Blume L and Durlauf S (eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Redford KH, Levy MA, Sanderson EW, and deSherbinin A (2008) What is the role for conservation organizations in poverty alleviation in the world’s wild places? Oryx 42: 512–528. Roe D (2008) The origins and evolution of the conservation poverty debate: A review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx 42: 491–503. Roe D and Elliott J (2004) Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: Rebuilding the bridges. Oryx 38: 137–139. Sanderson S and Redford K (2004) The defense of conservation is not an attack on the poor. Oryx 38: 146–147. Sanderson SE and Redford K (2003) Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviations. Oryx 37: 389–390. Sanjayan M, Shen S, and Jansen M (1997) Experiences with IntegratedConservation Development Projects in Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank Technical Paper 388. Shackleton C, Shackleton S, Buitenb E, and Bird N (2007) The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 5: 558–577. Shah K and Gupta V (2000) Tourism, the Poor and Other Stakeholders: Experience in Asia. London, UK: Odi Fair Trade in Tourism Project. UNEP-WCMC (2009) World Database on Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: UNEPWCMC. Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, and Kobugabe Berg G (2004) Counting on the Environment: Forest Incomes for the Rural Poor. Washington, DC: World Bank. Environmental Economics Series No. 98. Weber JG, Sills EO, Bauch S, and Pattanayak SK (2011) Do ICDPs Work? An empirical evaluation of forest-based microenterprises in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 87: 661–681. Wells M and Brandon K (1992) People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Wells MP, Guggenheim S, Khan A, Wardojo W, and Jepson P (1999) Investing in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wilkie D, Morelli G, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P, and Steil M (2006) Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 247–249.
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
World Bank (2001) Attacking Poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2007) Zambia Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-Based Tourism. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Report No. 43373-ZM. World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) (2008) Policies that Work for Pastoral Environments: A Six-Country Review of Positive Policy Impacts on Pastoral Environments. Nairobi, Kenya: WISP. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, et al. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.
WRI (2005) World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor – Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Wunder S (2008) Payments for environmental services and poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13: 279–297.
237
Glossary Comanagement Resource users and resource managers share power and responsibilities to cooperatively manage a renewable natural resource, such as a fishery or forest. It may be two-way comanagement between a community and a government agency or three-way comanagement among a community, a bridging organization such as a nongovernmental organization or a university, and a government agency. Elite capture Benefits from a conservation or a development initiative may be ‘‘captured‘‘ by local elites who have the economic or political power to determine who will benefit from an initiative. When this happens, an initiative can cause an increase in economic inequality.
History of Conservation and Poverty Links Historically, the preservation of natural areas and prevention of anthropogenic impacts has been the primary goal of conservation and conservationists. Others, however, viewed the use of natural areas as economically important for improving human well-being. The conflict between preservation and use is exemplified in USA by John Muir and Gilford Pinchot – two early twentieth century contemporaries who shared the common goal of protecting wilderness in the US food division but had contrasting philosophies on how to do so. Pinchot, for example, believed sheep should be allowed to graze on public lands because it benefited shepherds and kept native grasses in check. Muir disagreed with this. He considered sheep a ‘‘hoofed locust’’ because of the damage they inflicted in the high sierras of California. Muir as the founder of the Sierra Club and Pinchot as the first leader of the US Forest Service personified the historical dichotomy in conservation of preservation versus use. A century later, this dichotomy still defines how some view conservation, but it is waning in the face of growing evidence that preservation and use are points on a spectrum and there are many shades in between. In developing countries, for example, conservation initiatives may seek to conserve local biodiversity while also providing sustainable goods and services to local people. One of the drivers of this more nuanced view is that the world’s human population is expected to increase by 50% between 2000 and 2100, and meeting the basic needs of 10 billion people will require greater use of natural resources and better stewardship of our natural patrimony. Strict preservation will continue to be important in places, but the sustainable use of natural resources is likely to be central to conservation in the twenty-first century. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than where poverty and the use of natural resource are entwined.
230
Integrated Conservation and Development A project that links biodiversity conservation, usually of a protected area, with local socioeconomic development activities in which alternative incomes or livelihoods are introduced to reduce pressure on local natural resources. Natural resource management This is the management of the resources that nature provides such as forests, fisheries and grasslands. Poverty The pronounced deprivation in well-being in which a person lacks opportunities, empowerment, and security. The most common proxy for measuring poverty is per capital income. If a person lives on less than US$1.25 a day at purchasing power parity, it is classified as ‘‘extreme poverty.’’ If a person lives on US$2.00 a day or less at purchasing power parity, it is classified as ‘‘moderate poverty.’’
The poor live disproportionately in the tropics and in rural areas, where much of the world’s biological diversity is also found (Redford et al., 2008). The rural poor also frequently have a proportionally greater dependence on local natural resources than the better-off (Balmford et al., 2008). For instance, the extremely poor are often the ones who rely most on nontimber forest products (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000), and the income and well-being of many poor households in forested areas depends greatly on the availability of forest products (Vedeld et al., 2004). Natural resources clearly matter for many rural poor, but does rural poverty matter to conservation of these resources? The debate on this point has been contentious (Sanderson and Redford, 2003, 2004; Roe and Elliott, 2004; Redford et al., 2008; Roe, 2008). To better understand the diversity of views and the evolution of thinking about conservation and poverty, it is helpful to examine a conceptual typology of the relations between conservation and poverty reduction. Based on a review of the conservation–poverty literature, Adams et al. (2004) identified four different conceptual views. The first is a predominantly preservationist one. Proponents believe that poverty reduction is best left to governments and organizations with poverty reduction mandates because of its inherent complexity and because the number of poor people in the remote natural areas favored by conservationists is less than 1% of the global poor (Redford et al., 2008). Dividing conservation and poverty reduction, however, may create a split that does not inherently exist in many rural communities. There is evidence that curtailing access to natural resources for local people can lead to extreme poverty such as when people are displaced by the establishment of a new protected area (Brockington et al., 2006). The second conceptual view began with a seminal United Nations (UN) report. In 1987, a UN commission produced a
Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00320-8
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
report entitled Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987) that called for ‘‘sustainable development.’’ The report argued, inter alia, that poverty is a major cause of environmental problems. Building on the thinking of this report, in the early 1990s, many conservationists expected that reducing poverty would help reduce destructive resource use (e.g., Wells and Brandon, 1992). In specific cases where the poor are the drivers of resource degradation, such as fuelwood consumption in parts of India and Tanzania (Baland et al., 2006; Ndangalasi et al., 2007), reducing poverty may in fact reduce pressure on some natural resources. Yet China, Indonesia, and Brazil have greatly reduced rural poverty while continuing to draw down their natural resources. There are two primary reasons why the alleviation of rural poverty is unlikely to break unsustainable resource-use patterns: consumption of many natural resources tends to increase with income (e.g., Narain et al., 2008; Brashares et al., 2011); and better-off people are often the ones who benefit the most from natural resources use because they have the capital to exploit the resources (Cavendish, 2000; Narain et al., 2008). The third conceptual view seeks to balance preservation and use. From the mid-1980s to the early 2000s, international organizations supported a number of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) that aimed to both conserve biodiversity and develop the local economy by providing alternative livelihoods and incomes while curtailing local resource use mainly in protected areas. The results, however, were lackluster and much has been written about the problematic nature of ICDPs (Sanjayan et al., 1997; Wells et al., 1999; Adams and Hulme, 2001; McShane and Newby, 2004; Hutton et al., 2005). Although interest in classical ICDPs has waned, the de facto integration of conservation and development activities in approaches such as Population, Health, and Environment (PHE) projects continues. The fourth conceptual view is on the usable portion of the spectrum and focuses on the essential goods and services that natural ecosystems provide to people. Within this conceptual view, ecosystem services (Daily, 1997) and the comanagement of natural resources (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005) are found. Proponents of ecosystem service note that it is the poor who often suffer most when ecosystem services, such as clean water and clean air, decline (Wunder, 2008). Proponents may be willing to trade a reduction in the biodiversity for an ecosystem for sustainable benefits to people and protecting the remaining nature (Kareiva and Marvier, 2010). The emphasis within the study of ecosystem services is often on valuations of ecosystem services to show the importance of an ecosystem to people in general and the poor in particular (e.g., the Natural Capital Project). The implicit assumption is that a better understanding of the value of ecosystem services will improve the political will to protect these services. Yet among the extremely poor, time horizons are often short and economic discount rates are high. Hence, managing ecosystem services for long-term sustainability in places with extreme poverty may be challenging. Within comanagement of natural resources, there is the recognition that local communities have the greatest stake in the sustainable use of the local natural resources, but that community-based natural resource management can just as easily be backwards and fragmented as progressive and cohesive (Blaikie, 2006). By balancing community power with government power in a comanagement arrangement, natural resources
231
can in principle be more equitably and sustainably managed. Comanagement conceptual analysis and a management framework have been developed (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004), but long-term experience with this approach is limited.
Key Players Understanding the key players in the conservation–poverty field is important for understanding the drivers of conservation–poverty activities. Many players have an institutional bias that emphasizes either conservation or poverty reduction. The primary implementers of conservation–poverty projects are the international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) ranked here by 2009 overall budgets: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the WWF, Conservation International (CI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Wildlife Conservation Society, Fauna and Flora International, African Wildlife Fund, the BirdLife International network, and Wetlands International. Among development NGOs in 2011, those with an active interest in poverty–conservation issues include CARE International members, Pathfinder International, and World Education. CARE in East Africa has a long-time presence in the poverty–conservation field. Among development agencies working on poverty and conservation issues, the standouts are Department for International Development (DFID), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank. DFID was the first government aid agency to extensively research the links between conservation and poverty reduction. USAID fostered community-based natural resource management in the 1990s and PHE projects more recently. UNDP is an important convener of conservation–poverty meetings. The World Bank was a large implementer of ICDPs in the late 1990s and has published influential studies examining the links between environment and poverty. The World Bank is also a key player in reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation that aims to link forest preservation, reduced CO2 emissions, and poverty reduction. Norway and its bilateral aid agency Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation have joined with the World Bank in this work. Other bilateral agencies with a history in poverty and conservation projects include Danish International Development Agency (Denmark), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (Switzerland), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sweden), Canadian International Development Agency (Canada), Finnish International Development Agency (Finland), Kreditanstalt fu¨r Wiederaufbau (Germany), Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany), and Fonds Franc- ais pour l’Environnement Mondial (France). Between the conservation and development organizations is the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. This organization has been at the center of conservation–poverty issues since the early 2000s, as a convener, publisher, and an analytic force. Other international organizations important to conservation and poverty reduction include Consultative Group on
232
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
International Agriculture Research members, the Center for International Forestry Research, World Agroforestry Center, and the World Fish Center. The Global Environment Facility and the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat are also influential multilateral players in conservation and poverty issues.
Does Conservation Benefit the Poor? Evidence Showing Conservation has Benefited the Poor Perhaps the central question in conservation and poverty studies is to what extent does the conservation of biodiversity actually benefit the poor and the extreme poor? Much of the existing conservation–poverty knowledge is based on anecdotal evidence for a variety of reasons (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). There is, however, suggestive empirical evidence that conservation initiatives can measurably benefit the poor and the extremely poor (see Leisher et al., 2010 for the full review). The best evidence of conservation initiatives that have reduced poverty comes from forestry, fisheries, grasslands, and naturebased tourism and is summarized here.
Forestry Within the forestry sector, evidence of conservation benefiting the poor is largely found in community-based timber enterprises. Timber is harvested in such enterprises at levels that ensure the ecological integrity of the forest, whereas the income generated from the timber sales contributes to local poverty reduction. Such enterprises are frequently based on contractual arrangements between communities and companies to supply fiber, pulp, or construction timber. A study of 14 community-forestry timber enterprises in developing countries found that they can be profitable (Molner et al., 2007), and in Mexico, community-forestry enterprises have helped reduce local poverty (Antinori and Bray, 2005). For nature, community forestry can also be a benefit. There is evidence from Nepal (Gautam et al., 2002), Mexico (Bray et al., 2003), and Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2009) that community forestry has led to increases in forest cover. It is not only timber that can benefit poor communities but also the forest itself. A meta-analysis of 51 case studies from 17 countries found that forest environmental income represents on average 22% of the total rural household income (Vedeld et al., 2004). Fuelwood and nontimber forest products are often an integral part of the livelihood strategies of the poor and extremely poor and maintaining an intact forest has benefits to the rural poor that are often overlooked (Naughton-Treves et al., 2011).
Fisheries Near-shore fisheries provide a high percentage of animal protein for people in poor countries, but many near-shore fisheries are fished beyond the limits of sustainable yields (FAO, 2010). One strategy to address this is the creation of no-take zones. Such zones provide space for fish to grow bigger, and bigger fish usually have exponentially more offspring than smaller fish (PISCO, 2007). After several years of protection, fish may spillover into the area outside the no-take zone where they can be caught (Gell and Roberts, 2003). Greater fish catches generate
more income for fishers and hence help reduce poverty, whereas the no-take zone provides protected habitat for marine life. In places where many people are poor, and fishing is in crisis, there may be medium-term poverty reduction benefits from no-take zones. WRI (2005) and Leisher et al. (2007) found that spillover from two community-managed marine areas in Fiji roughly doubled local incomes within 5 years of establishing the no-take zone compared with control sites, and women were the primary beneficiaries. The indirect benefits to the poor may also be important. Organizing a community to manage a no-take zone often strengthens the social fabric of the community, giving them a ready decision-making body and a more unified voice to address other community issues (Leisher et al., 2007). The stronger social cohesion also improves local security and empowers local decision making, two key elements of poverty reduction (World Bank, 2001). There is evidence that no-take zone management is more effective where there is active participation of local communities in the resource management (McClanahan et al., 2006). There is also evidence that size matters. If a no-take zone is too large, spillover will not offset the losses to fishers from closing sections of the fishing grounds (PISCO, 2007). From the perspective of fisheries, networks consisting of a number of smaller marine protected areas may be preferable to a few very large marine protected areas (IUCN-WCPA, 2008).
Grasslands Grasslands can have greater grass productivity with grazing than without grazing (Guo, 2007), and some types of grassland are ecologically dependent on grazing to maintain their biodiversity (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). Within grasslands, livestock is often the primary form of wealth for local communities (Eriksen and Watson, 2009), and these communities can be among the extreme poor when measured by a multidimensional definition of poverty (e.g., Glew et al., 2010). The relationship among grazing, biodiversity, and local livelihoods is what underpins grasslands conservation projects that have benefited the poor. Pastoralism, especially in drylands, may be one of the few land uses that is genuinely compatible with ‘‘formal’’ nature conservation (WISP, 2008). Studies in a South African community-managed grassland (Leisher et al., 2011a), in the Mongolian Gobi grasslands (Leisher et al., 2011b), and in northern Kenya’s grasslands (Glew et al., 2010) used household surveys and remote sensing to measure differences before and after and between impacted and matched control areas using a variety of socioeconomic and ecological indicators. These studies identified a number of benefits to the poor and extreme poor as well as greater net primary productivity of project grasslands compared with before the project and matched control sites. The evidence from these studies suggests that better grasslands management can benefit both the poor and the grasslands themselves.
Nature-Based Tourism Nature-based tourism can include community-based operations on one end and all-inclusive international ecolodges and safari operations on the other. Tourism can offer opportunities for reducing poverty via jobs in the formal tourism sector, such as accommodation and guiding, and in new
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
markets for local services and products, such as sales of crafts, cultural services, food, and drinks. Tourism may also be associated with infrastructure development, such as roads, telecommunications, and health care facilities, which when provided for the benefit of tourists, benefit the poor as well. A meta-review of 27 tourism case studies in Asia found income gains for all economic levels but with those already better-off gaining most (Shah and Gupta, 2000). In Zambia, a World Bank Study (2007) found that nature-based tourism had reduced poverty, but those with most assets benefit up to 50% more than the extremely poor. The indirect benefits may be important to the poor as well. There is a multiplier effect from tourism that creates opportunities and downstream effects for casual laborers, crafters, and small businesses (Ashley and Roe, 2002). The indirect benefits, such as better infrastructure, can also benefit poor people (e.g., Shackleton et al., 2007). Where tourism operators commit to hire and train local people, the financial benefits to a local community can be substantial (Davis, 2005). Although there is suggestive empirical evidence that a conservation initiative can benefit the poor from communityforestry timber enterprises, no-take zones for fish, grasslands management, and nature-based tourism, there are other areas where the evidence of poverty reduction is even more limited but may have potential for benefiting the poor, including nontimber forest products, payments for environmental services, mangrove restoration, protected area jobs, and agroforestry (Leisher et al., 2010). Some, such has nontimber forest products and payments for environmental services, have been well studied but the evidence is inconclusive. Others remain to be studied rigorously.
Evidence Showing Conservation has Hurt the Poor The evidence that conservation initiatives have hurt the poor comes primarily from the establishment of new protected areas that displaced local people (Brockington et al., 2006). This can be either physical displacement, such as eviction from their homes, or economic displacement by excluding people from an area that is important to their livelihoods (Cernea, 2005). Regardless of the type of displacement, the impacted people are often worse-off economically, culturally, and socially. For indigenous people displaced by a conservation initiative, the negative impacts can continue for decades after the displacement (Colchester, 2003). The number of people and the number of places where local people have been displaced by a new protected area are disputed (Borgerhoff-Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005; Wilkie et al., 2006), but most of the cases occurred before 1980. In recent decades, the impacts of displacing people from a new protected area have become better understood, and most donors and conservation organizations are reluctant to participate in such projects.
233
Perhaps foremost is the considerable heterogeneity among poverty indicators used to measure poverty impact. The choice of indicators is often driven by differing definitions of who is poor (Agrawal and Redford, 2006). Existing definitions of ‘‘poor’’ may be qualitative or quantitative, temporal or pointsin-time, and may be multidimensional or one dimensional (Ravallion, 2008). The poverty reduction impact of a conservation initiative depends greatly on how poverty is defined and the indicators used to measure it. Conservation and poverty reduction links are often dynamic and locally specific (Kepe et al., 2004; Sanderson and Redford, 2004; BirdLife, 2007). Thus, universal models applicable to multiple local contexts for jointly addressing conservation and poverty are unlikely. Instead, habitat types where the biological diversity itself is fundamental to the benefits to people may hold more promise for conservation and poverty reduction. Examples of this are fisheries in which greater biodiversity produces greater biomass (Worm et al., 2006) and grasslands that have coevolved with grazers and now depend on grazing to maintain plant diversity (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). Elite capture of benefits is also an issue. The wealthier segments of a population participating in a conservation or development initiative may ‘‘capture’’ the majority of the benefits (e.g., Jagger, 2008; Bandyopadhyay and Tembo, 2009). Part of the reason is because the better-off generally have greater human and financial capital, which allows them to benefit more from an initiative (Weber et al., 2011), and they are also more likely to participate in an initiative (Groom et al., 2010). Where local leaders are not downwardly accountable to their constituents, the local elites may shape a conservation initiative to benefit themselves (Jumbe and Angelsen, 2006). A key issue often overlooked is that generating benefits from conservation to the poor and especially the poorest of the poor is frequently more about increasing biomass than increasing biodiversity (Balmford et al., 2008). For example, the volume of fish is usually more important to a small-scale fisher than the variety. Although in a few natural ecosystems, biomass productivity may be linked to species biodiversity, in other cases, a managed and less diverse ecosystem may provide greater production of the biomass that poor people value than a natural ecosystem. Examples of this include woodlots for firewood production and grasslands converted to agriculture. A final issue is the limited political will to improve the well-being of people in hard-to-reach areas. Rural, impoverished populations tend to be politically marginalized and expensive to reach with services. Conservation initiatives are frequent in remote areas, and the national government’s willingness to work in these areas on conservation–poverty issues may be lacking. This has implications for the sustainability of externally driven initiatives, especially those with exit strategies dependent on the government assuming a greater role in service delivery.
Trends Within Conservation and Poverty Other Key Issues In addition to the issue of whether conservation initiatives have helped or hurt the poor, there are several other key issues within conservation and poverty.
Within conservation and poverty reduction, what is happening at the global level influences what happens at the local level. Herein, we look at the macro- and microlevel trends within conservation and poverty.
234
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
Although the proportion of people under US$1.25 a day is dropping, the absolute number of the extreme poor continues to climb in most countries (Table 1). Much of the growth in the number of poor is in urban areas, but it is in rural areas where poverty is most often a chronic condition. It is also in rural areas where the extreme poor tend to be most dependent on the goods and services nature provides. Given existing demographic trends, the number of poor people is likely to increase in many of the remote, rural places where conservation organizations work. Poverty reduction is also becoming more challenging. The Millennium Development Goals signed by 192 of the world’s governments call for reducing poverty by 50% between 1990 and 2015 as the top priority. Even if this goal is achieved, this would leave more than 2 billion people still in poverty. Moreover, the easier gains would be past because those just below the poverty line will have moved over the line, and the ones left will require greater effort. Inside and outside of conservation, poverty will remain one of the greatest challenges globally.
Table 1 (millions)
Number of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day
Region
1990
2005
Change
South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa China East Asia and Pacific (minus China) Other
579 295 683 190 68
595 387 208 109 72
þ 16 þ 92 475 81 þ4
The World Database on Protected Areas shows that the rate of establishing new protected areas has dropped sharply, declining from a historic high of 2920 in 2002 to 40 in 2006 (UNEP-WCMC, 2009). For a variety of reasons, the focus within conservation has shifted away from establishing new protected areas. Protected areas will remain the core conservation strategy of most governments, but much of the conservation efforts in the twenty-first century are likely to be outside protected areas. This is especially true for conservation–poverty issues where efforts outside of designated protected areas are likely to yield greater conservation gains with greater poverty reduction benefits than inside protected areas. Another macro trend is the devolution of power. The locus for decision making in many countries has shifted to the subnational level. The principle is that power should be devolved to the lowest feasible level. The assumption is that the closer decision making is to the problem, the more likely the problem will be addressed successfully. For conservation, this may entail working more with local-level governments. For conservation and poverty reduction, this may result in focusing more on restoring degraded habitats than preserving intact habitats given the presumed development focus on most local-level governments. At the microlevel, conservation organizations have responded by making people more central to their mission. TNC and CI both changed their mission statements to highlight the benefits to people from conservation. Three of the largest US foundations that fund conservation organizations (Moore, Packard, and MacArthur) have shifted their funding toward more people-centered conservation.
# of conservation−poverty documents by year 60 52 50
47 45
45 43
40
37
36 33 30
19
20 16
10
7
6
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
1991
2004
1990
2003
1989
Figure 1 Number of conservation–poverty publications by year.
3
2002
1988
1
2001
1987
1
2000
1986
2
1999
1985
0
2
1998
0
1997
0
1996
0
1995
0
1994
1
1993
0
1992
1
4
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
There is also a growing recognition within international conservation organizations that the social sciences are as important as the natural sciences. After several decades of defining where the Earth’s maximal biodiversity is located and where it is most threatened, conservation organizations know where they need to work. What is lacking is a greater understanding of how they need to work. One promising development comes from the Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom. She identified how communities that self-organize to manage common-pool resources, such as fisheries and forests, can avoid the tragedy of the commons. Ostrom found 10 factors that are predictive of communities self-organizing to manage socioecological systems (Ostrom, 2009). Gutierrez et al. (2011) did similar work for marine areas and highlighted the success factors for fisheries comanagement. Yet these success factors were determined via ex-post quantitative analysis. Identifying and measuring the level of key factors before a conservation initiative begins (ex-ante) could improve conservation success. Turning the known conditions for success into site-screening tools that can be used by social scientists is a nascent trend in conservation. Another micro trend is the greater focus on measuring the impact of a conservation initiative on local people and the poor. Ferraro and Pattanayak (2006) provided a good summary of why this is needed and approaches that can separate what happened because of a conservation initiative and what would have happened without the conservation initiative. The authors call for greater use of baselines, measure of covariates, and matched control groups. Several international conservation organizations have been working together on improving conservation impact measures (www. conservationmeasures.org). A final trend is the growing interest in conservation– poverty issues as evidenced by the growth in the literature on the topic (Figure 1). A comprehensive literature review in June 2010 found 430 articles, books, and publications on conservation–poverty topics (Leisher et al., 2010). Few were published before 1998, but the field began to grow rapidly around 2000. In recent years, the average is about 50 new publications a year on the topic.
Conclusions As a former rancher in North Dakota, President Teddy Roosevelt believed in using the land to benefit people but wanted to balance this with protection of special places. He wanted both preservation and use of natural areas, and that is why he gave his political support to both Muir and Pinchot. Roosevelt recognized that preservation and use need not be an either/or choice but a spectrum with strict preservation on one end and destructive use on the other. Usage that is sustainable can enable biodiversity preservation. It also addresses the reality of several billion people globally needing resources to move out of poverty. The knowledge base of conservation–poverty issues continues to grow and the rigor of new studies has increased such that there is far more evidence of impacts than a decade ago. On balance, however, the evidence base is still limited and
235
largely suggestive of how the poorest of the poor may benefit from conservation.
Appendix List of Courses 1. Conservation Beyond Reserves – Oxford University http:// www.geog.ox.ac.uk/graduate/msc-bcm/structure.html# core4 2. Management of Ecosystems and Landscapes – Columbia http://www.columbia.edu/cu/e3b/graduate_ University offerings.html 3. Social Science of Development and Conservation – Yale School of Environment http://environment.yale.edu/ courses/detail/535/ 4. Human Dimensions of Biological Conservation – University of Florida http://www.wec.ufl.edu/entities/pstc/ courses.php
See also: Biodiversity and Human Health. Biodiversity, Human WellBeing, and Markets. Conservation and People. Economic Value of Biodiversity, Measurements of. Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. International Organizations and Biodiversity. Justice, Equity and Biodiversity. Market Economy and Biodiversity. Poverty and Biodiversity
References Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, et al. (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–1149. Adams WM and Hulme D (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35: 193–200. Agrawal A and Redford K (2006) Poverty, Development and Biodiversity Conservation. Shooting in the Dark?. New York, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society. WCS Working Paper No. 26. Antinori C and Bray DB (2005) Community Forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico. World Development 33: 1529–1543. Ashley C and Roe D (2002) Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 19: 61–82. Baland J, Bardhan P, Das S, Mookherjee D, and Sarkar R (2006) Managing the environmental consequences of growth: Forest degradation in the Indian midHimalayas. In: Bery S, Bossworth B, and Panagariya A (eds.) India Policy Forum. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications. Balmford A, Rodrigues ASL, Walpole M, et al. (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Scoping the Science. Cambridge, UK: European Commission. Bandyopadhyay S and Tembo G (2009) Household Welfare and Natural Resource Management Around National Parks in Zambia. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4932. BirdLife (2007) Livelihoods and the Environment at Important Bird Areas: Listening to Local Voices. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34: 1942–1957. Borgerhoff-Mulder M and Coppolillo P (2005) Conservation. Linking Ecology, Economics and Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar T, Kothari A, and Renard Y (2004) Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources Throughout the World. London, UK: IIED. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, and Okello GV (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa.
236
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13931–13936. Bray DB, Merino-Pe´rez L, Negreros-Castillo P, Segura-Warnholtz G, Torres-Rojo JM, and Vester HFM (2003) Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conservation Biology 17: 672–677. Brockington D, Igoe J, and Schmidt-Soltau K (2006) Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20: 250–252. Brundtland G (ed.) (1987) Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carlsson L and Berkes F (2005) Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 65–76. Cernea M (2005) Restriction of access is displacement: A broader concept and policy. Forced Migration Review 23: 48–49. Cavendish W (2000) Empirical regularities in the poverty–environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28: 1979–2003. Colchester M (2003) Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: World Rainforest Movement, Forest Peoples Program. Daily G (ed.) (1997) Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Davis, T (2005) Local and Semi-Local Economic Impacts of Dive Tourism in Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Master Thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle. Eriksen SEH and Watson HK (2009) The dynamic context of southern African savannas: Investigating emerging threats and opportunities to sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 5–22. FAO (2010) State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. Ferraro PJ and Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Library of Science Biology 4: e105. Fratkin E and Mearns R (2003) Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: Lessons from east African Maasai and Mongolia. Human Organization 62: 112–122. Gautam AP, Webb EL, and Eiumnoh A (2002) GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22: 63–69. Gell FR and Roberts CM (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448–455. Glew L, Hudson MD, and Osborne PE (2010) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community-Based Conservation in Northern Kenya. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Unpublished report. Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon A, Swanson T, and Zhang S (2010) Relaxing rural constraints: A ‘‘win-win’’ policy for poverty and environment in China? Oxford Economic Papers 62: 132–156. Guo Q (2007) The diversity-biomass-productivity relationship in grasslands management and restoration. Basic and Applied Ecology 8: 199–208. Gutierrez NL, Hilborn R, and Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470: 386–389. Hutton J, Adams WM, and Murombedzi J (2005) Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 2: 341–370. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) (2008) Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – Making It Happen. Washington, DC: IUCNWCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and The Nature Conservancy. Jagger P (2008) Forest Incomes After Uganda’s Forest Sector Reform: Are the Rural Poor Gaining?. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. CAPRi Working Paper No. 92. Jumbe C and Angelsen A (2006) Do the poor benefit from devolution policies? Evidence from Malawi’s forest co-management program. Land Economics 82: 562–581. Kareiva P and Marvier M (2010) Conservation Science: Balancing the Needs of People and Nature. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company. Kepe T, Saruchera M, and Whande W (2004) Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: A South African perspective. Oryx 38(2): 143–145. Leisher C, Brouwer R, Boucher TM, Vogelij R, Bainbridge WR, and Sanjayan M (2011a) Striking a balance: Socioeconomic development and conservation in grassland through community-based zoning. Public Library of Science One 6(12): e28807.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028807. Leisher C, Hess S, Boucher TM, van Beukering P, and Sanjayan M (2011b) Measuring the Impacts of Community-Based Grasslands Management in Mongolia’s Gobi. Arlington, TX: The Nature Conservancy.
Leisher C, Sanjayan M, Blockhus J, Kontoleon A, and Larsen SN (2010) Does conserving biodiversity work to reduce poverty. In: Roe D (ed.) Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. Montreal, Canada: CBD Secretariat. CBD Technical Series No: 55. Leisher C, Van Beukering P, and Scherl LM (2007) Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction. Arlington, TX: The Nature Conservancy. McClanahan T, Marnane M, Cinner J, and Kiene W (2006) A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16: 1408–1413. McShane TO and Newby SA (2004) Expecting the unattainable: The assumptions behind ICDPs. In: McShane TO and Wells MP (eds.) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Molner A, Liddle M, Bracer C, Khare A, White A, and Bull J (2007) Communitybased forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: Status and potential. Report to the ITTO. Washington, DC: Forest Trends/Rights and Resources Group. Narain U, Gupta S, and Van’t Veld K (2008) Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecological Economics 66: 161–176. Naughton-Treves L, Alix-Garcia J, and Chapman CA (2011) Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13919–13924. Ndangalasi HJ, Bitariho R, and Dovie D (2007) Harvesting of non-timber forest products and implications for conservation in two montane forests of East Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 242–250. Neumann RP and Hirsch E (2000) Commercialization of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Nguyen QT, Tran NT, Hoang HT, Yasmi Y, and Enters T (2009) Red Books for Greener Trees: Strengthening Community Forestry in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: Forest Governance Learning Group. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socialecological systems. Science 325: 419–422. PISCO (2007) The Science of Marine Reserves. Corvallis, OR, USA: Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO). www.piscoweb.org. Ravallion M (2008) Poverty lines. In: Blume L and Durlauf S (eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Redford KH, Levy MA, Sanderson EW, and deSherbinin A (2008) What is the role for conservation organizations in poverty alleviation in the world’s wild places? Oryx 42: 512–528. Roe D (2008) The origins and evolution of the conservation poverty debate: A review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx 42: 491–503. Roe D and Elliott J (2004) Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: Rebuilding the bridges. Oryx 38: 137–139. Sanderson S and Redford K (2004) The defense of conservation is not an attack on the poor. Oryx 38: 146–147. Sanderson SE and Redford K (2003) Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviations. Oryx 37: 389–390. Sanjayan M, Shen S, and Jansen M (1997) Experiences with IntegratedConservation Development Projects in Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank Technical Paper 388. Shackleton C, Shackleton S, Buitenb E, and Bird N (2007) The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 5: 558–577. Shah K and Gupta V (2000) Tourism, the Poor and Other Stakeholders: Experience in Asia. London, UK: Odi Fair Trade in Tourism Project. UNEP-WCMC (2009) World Database on Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: UNEPWCMC. Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, and Kobugabe Berg G (2004) Counting on the Environment: Forest Incomes for the Rural Poor. Washington, DC: World Bank. Environmental Economics Series No. 98. Weber JG, Sills EO, Bauch S, and Pattanayak SK (2011) Do ICDPs Work? An empirical evaluation of forest-based microenterprises in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 87: 661–681. Wells M and Brandon K (1992) People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Wells MP, Guggenheim S, Khan A, Wardojo W, and Jepson P (1999) Investing in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wilkie D, Morelli G, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P, and Steil M (2006) Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 247–249.
Conservation and the World’s Poorest of the Poor
World Bank (2001) Attacking Poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2007) Zambia Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-Based Tourism. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Report No. 43373-ZM. World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) (2008) Policies that Work for Pastoral Environments: A Six-Country Review of Positive Policy Impacts on Pastoral Environments. Nairobi, Kenya: WISP. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, et al. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.
WRI (2005) World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor – Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Wunder S (2008) Payments for environmental services and poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13: 279–297.
237