No abstract

Deforestation is a prominent issue in the call for global environmental sustainability whose status transcends the realm of environmental studies and extends to the broader domains of public policy and popular concern. Deforestation issues are complex, and narratives provide the simple explanations needed by policymakers and the public. One of the most common narratives explaining deforestation places the blame on the rural poor. These narratives make facile connections between the poor who depend on the forests for their livelihood and the environmental degradation which is taking place in their immediate vicinity. They unite two major problems in a neat hermeneutic circle: the rural poor are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation, where they are both the victims and the perpetrators. While rural poverty and deforestation are closely connected, the relationship is a complex one - contrary to what such simple narratives lead us to believe - and the causes of deforestation remain unclear. This article discusses the causes that explain why are narratives that place the blame for deforestation on the rural poor so pervasive and so persistent?

Many observers conceptualize the environment-poverty link as “downward spiral,” with population growth and social exclusion leading to environmental deterioration. However, recent micro and small scale existential study challenges this model, showing striking heterogeneity in natural resource management by the poor, including display of their success in adapting to environmental change and the efficacy of policies in affecting outcomes. Using both conceptual and empirical material, this article aims to assess the poverty-environment relationship.  I will specifically examine criticisms of the “poverty causes environmental degradation” approach, arguing that recent scholarly work on the complex web of factors involved in the poverty-environment nexus provides a more useful toolkit for assessing the poverty-environment link in local places.  I will conclude by analyzing how policies can more effectively address the interrelationship between poverty and environmental degradation, highlighting promising areas of impact.

No abstract

Wildlife presents both a threat and a resource to humans. Protected areas offer the best protection for conserving biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. Despite more than half protected areas around the world being established on indigenous land natives are generally prohibited official access. However, protected areas are suffering from encroachment of surrounding population and almost half of all protected areas are heavily used for agriculture. Those in the tropics especially are experiencing serious and increasing degradation from poor management of development projects, agricultural encroachment, and illegal resource use. As a result, human-wildlife conflict is a significant and growing problem around the world. The literature reviewed for this paper has been notable for its polarised assessment of the human-wildlife conflict. On one side are the biological sciences, devoted to understanding the mechanisms of biodiversity loss and its consequences for conservation. On the other side are the social scientists, concerned with livelihood issues in and outside protected areas. Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau claim that these two groups have had an unequal influence on policy, with biological sciences having devoted a “broader, deeper and more systematic research effort than the social sciences” [1:3]. To avoid some of the bias towards biological sciences present in the literature, this paper will examine the underlying conditions required for co-existence. As such, I developed the ‘human-wildlife interaction model’.