Comments on IDS paper from Scherr

[SJSCHERR@aol.com]

 COMMENTS on IDS Poverty and Environment Paper

Sara J. Scherr, Visiting Fellow
Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of Maryland,
College Park


       I congratulate the IDS writers on a very useful paper, well-reflective
of the vast poverty-environment literature. Below are my main reactions, as
well as the requested notes on my own priorities.

COMMENTS

1. My own review of the empirical evidence of intensification in tropical
hillsides (Templeton and Scherr) supports the authors' thesis that population
and economic pressure, and poverty, do not necessarily lead to environmental
degradation, and in some circumstances lead to improvement. Their write-up
seems to swing the pendulum too far however; there are also many documented
examples where the "spiral of degradation" has indeed occurred. These are
associated with particular patterns of demographic and economic growth and
access to technology, as well as the failure to develop effective local
institutions to address environmental problems. One notable finding from my
own research in east Africa and central America is the extent to which
particular development pathways lead to deterioration in some environmental
variables, while at the same time improving others (e.g., vegetable crop
intensification on  hillsides may lead to increased forest cover on steep
slopes, but reduce water quality). This complicates analysis and policy
solutions..

2. The constraints to effective organizing by the poor around environmental
concerns (lack of resources, social and political conflicts, lack of skills
and knowledge, weak networks, e.g.) are not really addressed by the
authors--i.e., the necessary content for support to local organizations formed
by or including the poor.

3. In pressing the valid point that poor people may have different
environmental concerns from other groups, the authors fail to distinguish
between environmental policy to protect the flow of products and services from
nature (drinking water, healthy human habitat, long-term productivity), and
policy to protect the integrity of the natural environment (non-human habitat
protection, ecological systems function). It is certainly true that concerns
about diarrhea should receive vastly greater attention and allocation of
resources for improving the human environment. But that does not compete so
directly with action to protect the natural environment, species, etc.

      I think the distinction is important, since I am convinced that
technological and institutional innovations can create  sustainable landscapes
in most environments, in the sense of protecting environmental values for
human production and consumption. For this reason, I strongly opposed
environmental policies which, for example, exclude poor people from important
watersheds or timber reserves, because current production technologies are
degrading. However, if the policy goal is habitat protection, the management
options are often greatly restricted.

4. The authors make the important point--but perhaps without sufficiently
emphasizing it--that much of the poverty-and-environment literature and action
in the past two decades has been developed by advocates of the poor to justify
policy action in the absence of broad public support for poverty initiatives.
With  political will in the north to work on the environment--but not on
poverty-- it was only by linking poverty to the environment that resources for
the poor could be obtained. This has been particularly notable in Central
America. Unfortunately, this approach has often back-fired, as policymakers
who consider the poor as causes of degradation of resources important for the
more advantaged feel compelled to deprive them of access to those resources.

[I had a fascinating--and depressing-- experience two years ago in a training
course with developing country professionals. They spent two hours evaluating
the pros and cons of a wide range of policy options for protecting natural
resources in a hypothetical urban watershed, most of which involved working
with local people living there. I then asked them to take the role of
policymaker and decide which one to choose. Nearly all chose the option of
evicting local inhabitants, despite their own analysis which showed this was
unlikely to be effective.]

5. The paper does not really address much on the issue of choice of
methodologies in research on poverty and environment (other than in the
summary table on differences between new and old paradigms). I think this is
particularly crucial in the various fields of economics. Economic modeling
techniques have only recently become able to accomodate analysis of more
differentiated local situations; methods encourage homogeneity thinking. Also
standard  environmental valuation techniques almost definitially devalue uses
by the poor, who can afford to pay less, or are forced to accept less, for
goods and services.

6. My principal critique of the paper is the extent to which it appears to
marginalize the role of agriculture and agricultural intensification in the
poverty-environment nexus (especially given the high qualifications of the
authors to discuss the matter!). Agriculture is overwhelmingly the most
important land and resource use in most developing countries, and its
management affects water, forest, soil, habitats, watersheds, etc. With
population and market growth which demand growth in production, new
technologies and systems of managing agricultural landscapes are needed--often
in environments where there is little, if any, historical experience of
sustainable permanent cultivation. These will either lead to poverty
alleviation or greater impoverishment, greater or lesser environment
degradation. Agricultural development initiatives-- technologies,
institutions, regulations, policies, etc.--must be designed to meet the
"critical triangle" of development objectives (poverty alleviation, economic
development and environmental protection)--rather than through distinct
initiatives. 

Currently, poverty, development, and environment are being addressed by
different groups of people, working on different resources, in ways that often
exacerbate their long-term interaction effects. And while I agree that local
organizations must play a critical component in reconciling these sometimes-
competing objectives, they are simply not enough. They must link with major
efforts to develop and adapt more productive agricultural technology.

	Associated with this need to focus on production issues, is the need to focus
on rural settlements in densely-populated agricultural regions, not just on
problems of cities. The siting and management of rural settlements (for water
use, sanitation, infrastructure development, etc.), as well as the ecological
sustainability of other land uses, may require re-thinking of rural
landscapes. As the authors indicate, by being much more spatially explicit
about where the poor are living, what resources they are working with, and how
they access them, we can address the "critical triangle" more directly.

RECOMMENDATIONS

         In terms of priority-setting for UNDP around poverty and environment:

1. The most important policy directive would be to allocate more resources to
address the environmental problems of the poor--as defined by them. Effective
programs would likely need to work with other groups in order to solve those
problems, but problem resolution would be defined explicitly (if not solely)
in terms of solving the problem of the poor. If we think of watershed
protection and water quality problems, or forest protection, the policy
outcomes are likely to be very different from those currently arising from a
definition of the problem from the urban/industrial middle-class or elite
perspective.

2. In connection with my point 6 above, I believe that the two priorities for
research are the development of "critical triangle" solutions for agricultural
intensification by the poor (particularly in high-risk environments) and for
human settlements in densely-populated agricultural regions, to develop
'sustainable landscapes'. This necessarily requires thinking not only about
solutions for the poor alone, but solutions about landscape design and
management that integrate the needs of the poor into broader development
patterns. There is a large technology development component as well,
particularly for agro- environments with degradation-prone or otherwise
constrained soils and climates (Scherr 1999 discusses issues related to soil
degradation).

3. If I had to pick as a second priority (the first being my point above)
among the many good ideas presented in the paper in section 7, it would be the
development of national capacity. An underlying reason for the dominance of
1st world views in international dialogues is the greater expertise and
information base there. The reality is that there are still only a handful of
agricultural economics departments in Central America that can teach
environmental, natural resource or ecological economics at even the
undergraduate level, to mention one example. Capacity-building (for both
technical and organiational knowledge and skills) for local-level
governments--who will necessarily be on the front lines, if not the
initiatiors--of poverty-environment policies and activities, remains totally
inadequate. Most primary and secondary education programs in developing
countries remain very weak on environmental and environmental planning issues,
particularly those of relevance for local ecological conditions and for the
poor.

4. My third priority topic would be the authors' point 6 on identifying
conflicts in environmental policy at different levels. I would go well beyond
the issue of perceptions, to better understanding of trade-offs involved in
various uses, and development of institutional mechanisms to facilitate joint
planning and negotiation.

References:

Scherr, S.J. In press. Soil degradation: A threat to developing country food
security in 2020? Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Templeton, S. and S.J. Scherr. 1997. Population pressure and microeconomy of
land management in hills and mountains of developing countries. EPTD
Discussion Paper No. 26. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this message are solely those of the author; they do not necessary reflect the views of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) or the European Commission (EC).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------