1. I do not think that the orthodox view is that poverty and environmental degradation are "inextricably" linked. Linked yes, and there are examples of situations which support the view. But not inextricably linked. Indeed the presumption is that the link where it exists can be broken. Hence the need for research and appropriate policies. There are also examples of situations where poor people have long sustained their resource base. The problem with the orthodox view is its limitation. In that it is not a full explanation of what might explain a frequent correlation of poverty with environmental degradation. The fact that many poor people 'are able to adopt protective mechanisms... ' does not negate an observed correlation of env degrad and poverty in many situations. Presumably the research and policy formulation are for the purpose of enabling them to deal with their demographic, economic and environmental situation.
2. I therefore wonder whether it is helpful for us to juxtapose the orthodox and the new as mutually exclusive explanations, however good grist for academic mills.
3. The reactions against a heavy conservation agenda dominant during the Brundtland period, by emphasising the priority for poverty eradication for most of humankind, should be regarded for what they are. Reactions. And a lot of rhetoric. And imperatives of development. And a recognition and reminder that protection of the environment is politically unpalatable if the cost is more poverty as a consequence of foregone use of natural resources. And a reproach to those countries who now enjoy high standards of living on the basis of previous use of resources of others and degradation of their own environment. An equity of opportunity argument. They should be seen more in this light than in advancing a view about an ineluctable relationship between poverty and environment. (And Ralph Chipman has already dealt with that.) Besides, I have a difficulty in understanding why the formulations of the Brundtland Report are taken as the point of intellectual departure. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. And understanding and approaches to the poverty problem or the environmental degradation problem have moved on since then. This is just like if we limited our current explanation of 'sustainable development' to the expression in Brundtland of not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and ignore all the deepening of understanding of the complexities that has taken place in the last decade.
4. My understanding was that the response to the universal concern for poverty eradication had already seen the need to understand poverty in its local context. And to provide enabling circumstances for poor people to create their own institutional responses. I believe that this has been the approach that has guided the UNDP Sustainable Livelihoods programme to date. The approach is manifest in many other poverty-focussed programmes.
5. It seems to me that longstanding concerns about tenure, title and access to natural resources, protection of those rights, etc. are elements of what is now called a 'new' approach of 'environmental entitlements' . (Note: the Figures and Boxes in the paper were not available in my file.)
6. The cases cited in Section 2.3 are good news. Of course they challenge the simple generalisations about poverty and environment. (All simple generalisations on any subject are challengeable.) But can they really be used to argue against the suggestion of a frequent coincidence between poverty and env degradation? I think not. Not without assessing those practices in a historical context: whether they have changed over time; whether the actors have been exposed to/influenced by the recent three decades of
preoccupation with the natural resource base; whether they have benefited from extension and technical assistance services; whether there are policies and measures which propel them in that direction, or have made possible some of these approaches. (I am not however implying here that there can be no innate or internal forces which propel people to do the right thing.)
7. I do think that the questions at the end of Section 2.3 for more attention are valid questions to continue addressing in localised contexts (defining env, defining poverty, influence of institutional factors.) But, localising cause, relationships, and effect betwen poverty and environment has the risk of letting societies and governments off the hook for a societal and central responsibility for eradicating poverty. The increasing inequity within societies between those who are poor and those who are not poor, is explicable not by what poor people do or don't do, but by a whole array of political and economic philosophies and arrangements and practices and values over which those who are poor have no influence. We must be careful not to so romanticize the capacities of poor people to pull themselves out of the poverty trap that we ignore the need for the major general policy interventions that are necessary.