The progressive nature of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity:

The Convention on Biological Diversity’s objectives are:

>> The conservation of biological diversity;

>> The sustainable use of its components; and

>> The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources.

The CBD objectives clearly provide much opportunity for building on the links between livelihoods development and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This is further supported by the Convention’s explicit recognition that ‘economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries.’ The problem is that there is little guidance, insufficient models, and a lack of effective tools and mechanisms which are needed to achieve conservation objectives, whilst at the same time positively enhancing poverty reduction processes.

Biodiversity contributes to poverty reduction in at least five key areas:

>> Food Security: human society is highly dependent on genetic resources, including those from wild and semi-domesticated sources, for the productivity of its agriculture, livestock, and fisheries. These resources also provide communities with an adaptation capacity so varieties can be created that best cope with changing local conditions. Biodiversity is also a source of alternative food products during periods of scarcity.

>> Health Improvements: biodiversity is a source of the invaluable information and raw materials that underpin medicinal and health care systems, both for the ‘informal’ sector which meets local health care needs of some 60% of the world’s people, and the ‘traditional/modern’ medicine which derives a majority of the world’s modern drugs from biodiversity. Poor people also suffer most when water and air are scarce or polluted and from diseases associated with disrupted ecosystems. Further, a variety of sources of foods support better nutrition and therefore improved health.

>> Income Generation: poor people tend to be the most dependent upon the direct utilization of biodiversity for their livelihoods, and are therefore the first to suffer when these resources are degraded or lost. Biodiversity also offers great potential for marketing unique products, many of which are extremely valuable but the benefits only infrequently accrue to the poor.

>> Reduced Vulnerability: poor people are most often exposed to, and least prepared to cope with, unpredictable events such as fluctuations in access to food and other resources, and to environmental shocks and risks. Ecosystem degradation exacerbates the frequency and impact of droughts, floods, landslides, forest fires and other natural hazards, and can intensify competition and the potential for conflict over access to shared resources such as food and water.

>> Ecosystem Services: forests, wetlands, coastal ecosystems, etc. provide essential services that contribute in numerous ways to the productive activities of rural and urban poor people, including through the generation of water, cycling of nutrients, replenishment of soil fertility, prevention of erosion, etc. These services are public goods, providing indirect values that are not traded in the market place but are vital to the livelihoods of all people.

POVERTY REDUCTION THROUGH CONSERVATION
& SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY
by Izabella Koziel (UK DFID) and Charles I. McNeill Ph.D. (UNDP)

Growing concern over the effects of biodiversity loss on progress towards sustainable development led to the establishment of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. To date over 180 countries have ratified it, demonstrating a significant global commitment to the cause.

The CBD presents a comprehensive series of pragmatic and innovative principles for action which have been further elaborated by seven Conferences of the Parties. Yet there has been insufficient advancement in operational terms. This lack of progress should be taken very seriously as biodiversity loss, together with other forms of environmental degradation, has the potential to undermine progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It is also essential to acknowledge that the ‘environment’, including biodiversity, offers many interesting poverty reduction opportunities – yet these are often overlooked, and may function outside the prevailing policy environment. For instance, it is unlikely that the first MDG ("eradication of extreme poverty and hunger" through "halving, between 1990-2015, the proportion of people whose income is under $1 day and in hunger") can be achieved solely through the adoption of approaches to poverty reduction that focus on private accumulation of material goods. And even if poverty is successfully halved, in the absence of more sustainable approaches and reduced impact technologies to resource extraction and production, the associated pressures exerted on the world’s biodiversity are likely to threaten the sustainability of the poverty eradication process itself. Further, whilst a significant proportion of poor people are keen to adopt similar lifestyles to those in industrialized countries, this does not apply to all poor people – some may choose to continue a lifestyle that maintains a close interaction with natural ecosystems, or biodiversity, and that does not focus solely on material accumulation. The critical factor here is that poverty reduction processes should offer people choice – and paying closer attention to the links between biodiversity, poverty reduction and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods can help to achieve this.

The fourth and fifth MDGs, respectively, to “reduce child mortality” and to "improve maternal health” have clear linkages to biodiversity. The seventh MDG, "ensuring environmental sustainability", attempts to recognise some of the above challenges and the following two indicators assess some aspects of biodiversity: “the proportion of land area covered by forest" (indicator #25), and "the ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area" (indicator #26). Making progress on this last indicator will require serious and innovative thinking as pressures on existing protected areas are enormous, and will increase given the need to eliminate hunger.

Also within this seventh MDG there is a third indicator: “the proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural” that relates to the target “to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water”. The achievement of this target is indirectly related to the quality of the ecosystems that biodiversity provides.

Further thinking and analytical work is urgently needed on how biodiversity can positively contribute to the achievement of the MDGs.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan clearly acknowledged the importance of biodiversity in his 14 May 2002 speech in which he identified biodiversity as one of the five priority areas for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). However, despite this global spotlight on biodiversity and its critical links to the Millennium Development Goals and progress towards poverty reduction, it often fails to receive the attention it deserves in international and national policy- and decision-making fora.

There are many complex reasons for this. Firstly, biodiversity is an abstract concept, defined as the "variability of all organisms from all sources [...] and the ecological complexes of which they are part [...] this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems" (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). This notion of diversity has not proved easy to convert into a tangible entity. Planners and decision makers have therefore often overlooked it. Local people and the general public, whilst they continually interact within it, are simply not aware either of their dependence nor do they recognise that their enjoyment of the natural world often derives from their interaction with unusual plants, animals or landscapes – none of which would exist if not for biodiversity. It is often only when biodiversity has disappeared, or become scarce, that true appreciation of its value develops. However, if we are to wait until an appreciation of biodiversity’s value occurs due to scarcity on a global scale, the consequences would be disastrous.

How is biodiversity important?

There is often confusion as to why biodiversity has become a focus of attention through the establishment of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Why not simply focus attention on natural resources? But biodiversity is so much more – it encompasses all living natural resources, the processes and interactions within and between them, and the ecosystems they collectively create, maintain and inhabit. Thus biodiversity forces more holistic and more comprehensive thinking about natural and agricultural systems than does an exclusive focus on natural resources management.

There are other reasons why biodiversity should not be overlooked. For instance, biodiversity in any one location at any specific time provides a range of resources and services that provide people with options. For instance, biodiversity allows resource users to switch from one resource to another if the first becomes scarce, or if market demand changes. Access to diverse species enables the diversification of livelihood sources through for example planting multiple crops, staggering food production throughout the year, or engaging in alternative income-generating activities, such as collection of non-timber forest products. The availability of diverse resources also allows different genders, cultural or age groups to engage in and benefit from different activities. This is especially important as it can help reduce competition or conflict that might otherwise occur if each group had to compete for the same resources – as is indeed the case in many parts of the world where diversity and the choices it supports have been eroded.

There are many other notable benefits that biodiversity offers. Some are also highly under-appreciated by the public and by policy-makers, including the ecosystem services that sustain human society as a whole.

We are clearly all dependent on biodiversity, but we differ enormously from one another in the way we value and use it. Where people have no alternative means of acquiring food and their other basic needs, such as clothing, building materials and medicines, or where they do not have the capacity to regulate the environment, such as through building dams or protecting themselves from floods, biodiversity’s value is usually much greater.

Where we are concerned with producing vast quantities of one valuable product, such as wheat, and have access to artificial external inputs that can regulate the production environment, biodiversity’s direct value may be lower. This is not to undermine its value to all society – urban consumers for example depend heavily on the maintenance of genetic diversity for enhanced food production – but to point out that there are groups, such as the poor, who are more directly and more critically dependent upon biodiversity than others.

The challenge

Unfortunately, the habitats which harbour some of the world’s most valuable biodiversity are being lost at ever faster rates and over progressively wider areas. It so happens that many of these areas also coincide with severe income poverty and social and political marginalisation. This coincidence has led many to assume that financially poor and marginalised peoples are primarily responsible for biodiversity loss. Whilst this may sometimes be the case, a deeper understanding is developing to counter this assumption. Where poor people are overexploiting local resources, this has arisen usually because they have been pushed to the margins of existence. As more powerful groups appropriate lands or resources, the poor are forced to subsist on areas or resources too small and too unproductive to support a sustainable existence.

This pattern occurs at ever-increasing scales. Indeed, over-consumption by industrialised countries is frequently singled out as the key driver of biodiversity loss and increased poverty. Identifying suitable measures to counter this trend presents the poverty reduction, economic development and biodiversity communities with a most difficult challenge.

A key problem lies in the fact that conventional development pathways – as pursued by industrialised countries – often focus on the generation and accumulation of private goods (food, clothing, buildings and other material goods: items that can be traded and exchanged). The importance of maintaining public goods – biodiversity, the atmosphere, the oceans – has not been recognised in the process of development mainly because their conservation appears to impose additional costs. Accordingly, such activities are rendered ‘priceless’ – that is, of no financial value.

Marginalised rural peoples are especially dependent on biodiversity

Also of direct relevance to the MDGs is the fact that tropical countries are beset by a host of health and ecological challenges that are distinct and more severe than those encountered by temperate countries. A high burden of disease from pests and parasites, including malaria, is concentrated in the tropics and other endemic diseases sharply shorten life spans. Low agricultural productivity caused by fragile soils and inappropriate technologies is 30-50 per cent below temperate levels, leading to poor nutrition which further undermines health. Since past ‘north to south’ transfers of technological knowledge from temperate environments have often resulted in ineffective and unsustainable practices, it appears that tropical nations and communities urgently need assistance in identifying, promoting and applying technologies appropriate to the tropical region itself.

It is now time to consider alternative approaches that are complementary to conventional methods to reduce poverty. Providing the poorest and most marginalised rural peoples with greater choice, involving them in decision-making, engaging with them in partnerships, assisting them in learning from each other – such measures have real potential to provide pragmatic solutions.

The opportunity

There is increasing evidence of financially poor, politically and socially marginalised peoples who have managed to strengthen the security and sustainability of their livelihoods by realising the value of their biodiversity asset in many diverse and pioneering ways. The UNDP Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants Programme (SGP) and the UNDP Equator Initiative have identified hundreds of such local initiatives. Examples include:

>> The Makuleke Land Claim in South Africa illustrates how the Makuleke community regained ownership of land twenty years after they were removed from it to make way for the Kruger National Park. After several years of negotiation, the various parties managed to resolve their differences and achieve a classic ‘win-win’ for biodiversity conservation and for improved livelihoods within the Makuleke community. The community was allowed back onto their lands on condition that they manage the land sustainably, engaging in livelihood activities that conserve or sustainably use the local biodiversity – ecotourism, for example. The community found this an entirely acceptable offer and agreed to sign the joint management agreement, to both parties’ benefit.

>> A partnership initiative called AmazonLife generates sustainable economic development options for traditional populations in the Amazon which are compatible with their culture and which protect the biodiversity of their territories. Through the initiative, local indigenous and rubber tapper families in the Brazilian Amazon produce sheets of rubber vulcanized through an exclusive process to be used as a leather substitute to manufacture bags, knapsacks, briefcases, clothing, shoes, etc. ‘Niche’ markets have been created outside Brazil and these products are in high demand. Each family involved in the process of collecting the natural rubber and making the sheets of leather-like fabric is part of an informal network that is safeguarding over thousands of hectares in the Amazon.

>> Also in the Amazon, the Brazil Nut Programme of the Amazon Conservation Association has been working in partnership with castaneros (Brazil nut harvesters) to strengthen the role that Brazil nuts play in sustainable livelihoods. As the ecosystem that supports Brazil nut production is quite diverse, maintaining livelihoods dependent on these nuts creates the incentive to conserve this ecosystem, rather than converting it to other uses.

>> Seed fairs are increasingly popular methods of promoting agro-biodiversity whilst strengthening food security. Farmers are keen to participate as they provide an opportunity to obtain crop varieties with interesting and valuable qualities and exchange ideas on seed sources. In Maragwa, Kenya, seed fairs are now held annually, having been initiated by an NGO in 1996.

>> The decline in fish stocks within the Khong District of Lao People’s Democratic Republic raised many local concerns. In response, the national government, in collaboration with local communities, established the Lao Community Fisheries and Dolphin Project which has established co-management planning mechanisms and regulations to sustainably manage the inland aquatic resource. Villagers have reported that as a result of these monitoring activities over a number of years there have been increases in the stocks of 50 species.

Increasing awareness of the existence of these various initiatives, analysis of the factors underlying the success of each, and dissemination of positive impacts and lessons learnt to sectoral policy- and decision-makers must become a priority. This has sometimes been made more complicated as many of these initiatives have arisen in the absence of any donor or external support and are entirely self-driven and self-motivated, and thus hard to gather information on. At the same time, the more widespread uptake of successful initiatives has been hampered by unsupportive or non-existent policy, institutional and legislative frameworks. And these are often reinforced by strict conditions around loans which dictate which policies highly indebted countries can pursue. In other instances successful initiatives have been attributed to one highly committed individual or organisation that has maintained a high level of support throughout. Consequently they have proved difficult to replicate.

However, this does not mean that wider adoption of such activities is not possible.

There is a critical need now to build on these initiatives by understanding which factors have contributed to their success in balancing biodiversity conservation with sustainable livelihoods, which factors constrain their wider adoption, and how to create a more enabling environment at local, national and international levels.

This opportunity must not be overlooked. The value of biodiversity to all societies must be made to offer comparative advantage by basing livelihood and economic development activities on maintaining a set of biodiverse assets, whether this means supporting corporate-community partnerships in ecotourism, the production of ‘bird-friendly’ coffee by smallholders or direct payments to landholders from the marketing of environmental services.

This is not about advocating sweeping changes towards ‘biodiversity-friendly’ forms of development. It is simply about highlighting the fact that there might be alternative ways of achieving viable and sustainable poverty reduction that build on the conservation of the existing biodiversity asset. Those actions being proposed should be seen as complementary ways forward, that have the potential to manage the ‘trade-offs’ and maximize the ‘win-win’ opportunities between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction more effectively.

What is being advocated is the need to explore the sort of incremental changes, within policy, institutions and legislation, that could help provide the enabling environment for such activities to be tried, refined and expanded where appropriate. It is clear that there are many areas within the tropical region where conventional development has simply not worked for the majority, and if we are serious about achieving the first Millennium Development Goal for all there is a real need to consider these alternative approaches.

Priority areas of work required to move this important new agenda forward include:

>> Place emphasis on the effective implementation and realisation of the third objective of the CBD ("fair and equitable access to the sharing of benefits arising out of utilisation of genetic resources").

>> Stimulate the flow of information on innovative and successful community practices integrating biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction by establishing a ‘clearinghouse of good practices’, along with a deeper analysis and understanding of the policy, legal and socio-political environment that would allow for their more widespread adoption.

>> Generate a wider appreciation for the contribution that environmental goods and services make to production systems and markets, find ways to incorporate these in accounting procedures, and develop innovative payment systems to communities for provision of ecosystem services and other public goods.

>> Expand worldwide demand and markets for goods produced in ‘biodiversity-friendly’ ways and establish certification systems for sustainably produced goods and services that do not discriminate against small or marginal producers.

>> Provide appropriate support to indigenous and other local peoples to address resource access and land ownership issues and bring marginalised peoples into decision-making processes around land use (through capacity building, provision of information, applied ‘socially’-oriented research activities, etc.).

>> Undertake a systematic analysis of the MDGs to identify opportunities where activities related to biodiversity can and should make a contribution to the achievement of the MDGs (through a careful review of each goal, target and indicator), and address the need to define and formulate new indicators for the MDGs since the current ones reflect only a limited aspect of biodiversity.

References

 

Further information:

Biodiversity Brief 1: The Links Between Biodiversity and Poverty (PDF) [IUCN / DFID / EC]

 

>> Back to top

 

Top photo by Galen R Frysinger (www.galenfrysinger.com)