TWO APPROACHES TO POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT

["Ralph Chipman"<chipman@un.org>]

     TWO APPROACHES TO POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT
     Ralph Chipman
     Division for Sustainable Development
     United Nations
     
        The Overview Study on Poverty and Environment presents an 
     interesting challenge to common views of poverty-environment linkages. 
     The "downward spiral" of mutually reinforcing poverty and 
     environmental degradation (usually driven by population growth) is 
     indeed a pervasive theme of the environmentalist literature.  There 
     are good reasons, mentioned in the Study, to believe that reality is 
     more complex.  Nonetheless, it seems clear that there are situations 
     where poverty and environmental degradation are mutually reinforcing.  
     Indeed, the Study notes that "growing poverty and inequality can 
     result in the breakdown of [common property management] arrangements". 
     In the hills of northern Thailand, the Study also notes the need to 
     address the problem of declining soil fertility on upland flat slopes 
     that are being used more frequently as a result of population growth.
     
        The alternative view, promoted in the Study, that "many poor people 
     are able to adopt protective mechanisms" can also be supported by 
     examples.  Indeed, much of the history of human societies is of 
     successful adaptation to population growth through increasingly 
     intensive, and sustainable, use of resources.  Likewise, the argument 
     that poverty-related environmental degradation can be caused by 
     ill-conceived "development" intervention is also true.
     
        I believe, however, that the Study does some disservice to the 
     issue and the debate by presenting the positions as more polarized and 
     more contradictory than they actually are.  It is not the "dominant 
     view" that "poverty eradication has to come before environmental 
     protection", nor are such views pessimistic.  On the contrary, the 
     Commission for Sustainable Development, with delegations from 53 
     governments, has repeatedly proclaimed that poverty reduction and 
     environmental protection can and must go together.  What the Study may 
     be referring to, in a somewhat misleading way, is the position of the 
     developing countries that their priority is economic growth and that 
     the developed countries must bear responsibility for dealing with the 
     global environmental problems which they have caused.  It is 
     unfortunate that as a result of that contentious international 
     political debate, the local environmental problems of developing 
     countries, which have their causes and impacts in those countries, are 
     not adequately addressed in international policy forums.
     
        Furthermore, I think that one has to distinguish between the broad 
     international policy-oriented generalizations of reports such as the 
     Brundtland (WCED) report and the complexity reflected in detailed case 
     studies.  The function of a Brundtland Commission is to generalize and 
     simplify issues so as to catch the attention of people who would not 
     otherwise be interested in environment and development.  Of course 
     reality is more complex - and generally less catastrophic.  
     Unfortunately, it is often only the appearance of a catstrophe which 
     will induce people and governments to fund ambitious research and 
     capacity- and institution-building programmes such as those proposed 
     in the Study.  Nonetheless, for those seriously interested in the 
     issues, it is useful to be reminded that the reality is complex and 
     that "expert" outside intervention is not a simple answer.
     
        Perhaps the basic difference between the two approaches considered 
     in the study is one of scale of intervention.  The more traditional 
     approach has tried to identify more general common factors that could 
     be addressed on a larger scale, such as improving access to markets, 
     information, transportation, credit, electricity, propane, education 
     and health care, better crop prices, and public conservation works.  
     It is true that most of these focus on poverty on the assumption that 
     increasing income will promote more sustainable land use.  Only the 
     last (e.g. minimum wage public works for water conservation and 
     reforestation in Maharastra, India) directly addresses both poverty 
     and the environment, and should be attempted more widely.  The 
     argument of the study suggests that projects to promote environmental 
     protection in poor rural communities should be community-specific and 
     participatory.
     
        The two approaches, thus defined, are not contradictory, but 
     potentially complementary.  In particular, detailed community case 
     studies, taking into account the local institutions and culture, would 
     contribute to an understanding of the effectiveness of the broader 
     economic policies.  A key question may be whether small-scale projects 
     requiring very detailed local study and consultations are financially 
     feasible for dealing with a widespread problem.  In any case, detailed 
     case studies of the response of communities through their social 
     structures to both internal pressures and external conditions are 
     needed to improve our understanding of poverty-environment linkages 
     and the effectiveness of intervention to reduce poverty and protect 
     the environment.
     
        Incidentally, the World Bank published a report on "Putting People 
     First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development" (1991) which 
     focused on participatory rural development projects in three areas, 
     irrigation, resettlement and livestock, along the lines called for in 
     the study.  Further work along those lines might usefully take that 
     work into account.