Fordham Lecture Series
People and the Environment

Poverty Reduction and Protecting the Environment Are Not Opposing Goals

Charles McNeill, Environment Programme Team Manager and Senior Biodiversity Advisor, UNDP, opened the night with the assertion that “poverty reduction and protecting the environment are NOT opposing goals.” While not a new idea, a vast body of knowledge has recently been presented through new economic data and instruments that make linkages between poverty and the environment. The last 50 years have seen unprecedented changes in the structure and function of the world’s ecosystems. Global economic activity has increased exponentially; massive land conversion, over-fishing, and increases in nitrogen production have changed the earth’s surface. The effects of these changes have mainly come to bear on the poor, as 1.3 billion poor rely heavily on the environment, with women and children constituting the most vulnerable. Populations. Those gains that have resulted from these global changes have not been equally distributed.

Charles McNeill asked the “Dream Team” of panelists to discuss this assertion and these dramatic changes in the context of the following questions: What is the economic case to be made for the role of sound management of the environment? What win/win opportunities exist for improving life and the environment? How can we (in industrialized countries) support win-win options? How can we be catalysts for the right kind of change?

The first panelist was Dr. Andrew Deutz, Special Adviser for Global Policy, IUCN. Addressing the case for investing in the environment to reduce poverty, Dr. Deutz framed his lecture in economic terms. The majority of his data was from a recent report by Dr. David Pearce titled, Investing in Environmental Wealth for Poverty Reduction. The lecture addressed the following four questions: 1) How important are environmental assets to poor people and countries; 2) How much does the world need to invest / what will it cost; 3) Are pro-poor environmental investments economically attractive; and 4) What policies will make environmental investments more attractive and effective?

Dr. Deutz argued that environmental assets are extremely important to the poor. Most of the world’s poor live in rural areas and depend on natural resources for their survival; the poorest of these live on the outskirts of dense forest. Twenty six percent of national wealth in developing countries is environmental capital, as opposed to four percent in developed countries. Given the importance of environmental assets to the poor, how much will it cost to change the current status? According to recent data, when adding the variables, the global community will need to spend $60-90 billion each year to solve these problems. The five main areas of focus identified were: water and sanitation, clean energy, improving land degradation, protected areas and eliminating urban slums. While the amount seems substantial, global agricultural subsidies alone account for $400 billion per annum. The environmental financing gap is large, but not insurmountable when put into context. Dr. Deutz pointed out that there are a wide range of attractive environmental investments that have large returns. Ventures in water and sanitation can bear anywhere from four to fourteen times the initial investment while soil and water have a 2:1 ratio. Those investments that directly affect human health have larger returns on investments. However, Deutz recognizes that not all investments are as profitable; forest conservation (unless carbon or other environmental values can be captured) and fisheries (due to political consequences of subsequent unemployment) are two examples of poor investments.

Dr. Deutz offered six policy recommendation to make environmental investment more attractive: the removal of harmful subsidies; clear resource rights; good governance; gender equality; credit and insurance to address ‘short-termism’; and support for local management of communal resources. In closing, Dr. Deutz reiterated that the environment matters disproportionately to the poor, and is not a luxury. Ending on a positive note, Dr. Deutz stressed that funding and profitable environmental investments to change the current status of the environment do exist.

The second panelist was Dr. Sara Scherr, Pesident and CEO of Ecoagriculture Partners.. Dr. Scherr focused her lecture on the need for partnerships and communication. Contrary to what was common thought only ten years ago, innovative new agricultural concepts and methods that benefit the poor are being employed on a small scale. There are clear areas of innovation and activities that everyone can engage in that can make a difference. With a map of Biodiversity Hotspots, Scherr identified areas inhabited by 1.3 billion poor people. Historically the lives and needs of the poor living in these hotspots have been seen in opposition to conservation efforts. They have been referred to as “threats” to rather than stewards of the environment. Today 40% of the earth’s land is affected by crop production; agriculture is the number one impact on biodiversity. Biodiversity is important in agricultural communities because the wild species provide foods, medicines, fuels, farm inputs and “safety nets” for when crops fail. With these facts in mind, Scherr gave her perspective on future trends. Agriculture will be a key element of rural food security and poverty reduction; 90% of food consumed in most countries is domestically grown. Research shows that agricultural product demand is growing; as incomes are increasing people are buying/demanding more food. Thus, the global community needs strategic partnerships. Ecoagriculture Partners’ mission is to mobilize scaling up successful ecoagriculture approaches, by catalyzing strategic connections, dialogue and joint action among key actors at local, national and international levels. There are new and exciting scientific advances and synergies that need to be applied by bringing all of these partners together. Three key areas for action were proposed: 1) understanding of how, when and why (documenting ecoagriculture outcomes and mobilizing ecoagriculture research); 2) investment in the capacity of innovators around the world (i.e. smaller scale farmers doing great work and training people to work across sectors; and 3) the promotion of policies and markets that support ecoagriculture.

The third and final panelist was Tensie Whelan, Executive Director of Rainforest Alliance. Whelan addressed the question of what industrialized countries can do to support win/win options and become catalysts for the right kind of change in terms of Rainforest Alliance’s work. To begin Ms. Whelan introduced Rainforest Alliance’s mission: to protect ecosystems and the people and wildlife that depend on them by transforming land-use practices, business and consumer behavior. Ms. Whelan and the Rainforest Alliance recognize that the impact of the private sector is huge in the global economy, yet the current status of the system is prone to failure. Sustainable products are not making a significant impact in the market and corporations are continuing to press for the bottom line. Illustrating this point, coffee and banana plantations were given as examples. In both cases the current systems use highly potent chemicals and pesticides and methods that destroy biodiversity for the plantation and those in surrounding villages. More cost-efficient and sustainable methods are available but not being used.

The Rainforest Alliance developed a certification process that brings together conservationists, industry, scientists, and communities in order to guarantee that corporations are more responsible and offer sustainable products. The intense certification process has a number of steps that need to be fulfilled before the client can receive and display the certificate. The process includes pre-assessment, assessment, certification committee, surprise audit, annual audit, and continual surveillance.

There are quite a few new and exciting projects that Rainforest Alliance is involved in that will help support win/win options. GEF-UNDP Coffee Project works to move certified sustainable coffee from 1% of market up to 10%. Several large corporations such as Kraft, Caribou coffee, and Proctor and Gamble have committed funding to the project. The goal is to have 200-300k retailers offering this coffee. Rainforest Alliance is also partnering with USAID to bring sustainable bananas, coffee, and timber products to US and overseas markets.

To show what a difference can be made, Ms. Whelan offered four examples of what Rainforest Alliance has accomplished: Chiquita bananas has 100% of all company-owned farms certified (it took 12 years for all to become certified); Kraft is mainstreaming sustainable coffee; Gibson Guitars have created the world’s first line of eco-friendly guitars; and Ejido San Pablo provides an example of local communities managing their own forests. Lastly, Ms. Whelan noted that communities, corporations, and consumers need to come together to make a difference and right now the consumers are slowest to jump on board.

After the three panelists spoke the forum was opened for the audience to ask questions. The questions were as follows: Why aren’t there any biologists represented? What role is there for state interaction / governments? In terms of scaling up and win/wins, what is needed from larger institutions, especially governments? How can we change the culture of consumerism? In an urbanizing world, is there a role for cities and/or local government? What happens if we bring in scientists and the research isn’t in sync? How many people can we sustain on this planet? What about oversupply, such as the introduction of Vietnam into the coffee trade?

Ms. Whelan addressed the role of governments, the global marketplace and oversupply. Over the last 10 years, governments have been fairly absent. The 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg showed that the work being done was through small organizations, absent an active role by governments. But since then, in the last two or three years governments have been getting more involved. The NY State government has required that all wood products used in the building of the new World Trade center be sustainable, and the LEED certificate is a green building code that municipalities are requiring of developers. Although much government interaction has been absent, things are slowly changing; governments are beginning to play important roles. In the global marketplace business, not consumers, decide what choices are out there. It is up to the corporations to bring good choices to us. We need to support them when they can offer us a sustainable option. Write letters thanking corporations for supporting sustainable products; they need to know that the consumers appreciate the options. As far as oversupply, yes, the entrance of Vietnam into the global marketplace has been very destructive, and it further illustrates the need for funding bodies and governments to take a look at the bigger picture.

Dr. Scherr tackled the questions dealing with the absence of biologists, scaling up and the earth’s capacity. Scherr addressed the biologists question by simply stating that biologists have not stepped up to the task. The data is poor and the sectored specialties have prevented a larger interaction. Whelan agreed adding that there has been reluctance by scientists to get involved in applied work; they are not as interested in real world situations as they are in labs with controlled environments. And frankly, they are often looking at the wrong things. Tying into this point, Scherr argues that we want the science to show where it isn’t working. We are in such a beginning phase that probably 50% of what we are doing may not be working but that is why we need the biologists and scientific data. Both panelists agreed that there needed to be more interaction with the biologists and they were waiting.

As far as scaling up, Scherr is learning that the organization and institutional issues are the principal barriers to the work. Effective governance is needed and policy at the national level can really help the small scale. Although regulation is very important, it often deprives agricultural communities from taking proactive roles. There needs to be regulation that supports the innovators. Lastly, Scherr addressed the issue of how many people the earth can sustain. Although qualifying her remarks as solely her own and not those of Ecoagriculture Partners, Scherr said that in 100 years there will be a very different system in place; multi-story/multi-crop systems, not monocultures will dominate. Thus, we can’t extrapolate from the system in place today.

Dr. Deutz addressed the role of government, scaling up and ‘getting it wrong’. Deutz reiterated Whelan’s point that in Johannesburg World Summit 2002 nothing was said about governments. But government interaction doesn’t guarantee success; governments can be both problem and solution. Whereas Whelan’s examples of NY State government showed positive effects of their participation, the IUCN’s work in Nepal and Uganda illustrate the problems that arise from government involvement. In Nepal, the government handed back control of the forests to the local people. As the forests began thriving and the economic value increased, the government wanted the land back. The IUCN’s work in Uganda highlights a similar point as well as the difficulties involved in scaling up. The Minister of Finance sat down with the bilateral donors of USAID and UK Foreign AID to create a plan for poverty reduction and development, but other relevant ministers (ie. Forestry and Fisheries ) were not invited. When they were finally brought to the table these ministers knew nothing about poverty reduction or development and were initially intimidated by the process. This experience showed the huge disconnect that exists, and the need for communication and cooperation with all relevant sectors in the government. Lastly, Deutz argued that there is a long history of conservationists getting it wrong. In Africa, the conservationists used to believe that the best way to protect forests was by kicking out all of the local people. As it became clear that this was not the solution, the methods and practices adjusted, as may happen in the future with the practices today.

Charles McNeill ended the night by thanking the panelists and all relevant sponsors and organizers, and reminding the audience that whom we buy from makes a difference. When we choose sustainable products, we are making them a success.

Shanon McNab