Are poverty and protected area establishment linked at a national scale?

Abstract

The debate about poverty and conservation draws mainly on local case studies, particularly of the impacts of protected areas. Although it is clear that local and contingent variables have important effects on the social and economic impacts of protected area establishment, it is not known whether there is a general relationship between national wealth and the area, number and type of protected area designated. Here we conduct such an analysis. Our results suggest that wealthy countries have a larger number of protected areas of smaller size than poorer countries. However, we find few significant relationships between indicators of poverty and the extent of protected areas at a national scale. Our analysis therefore confirms that relationships between poverty and conservation action are dynamic and locally specific. This conclusion has implications for opposing positions within the debate on poverty and conservation. Critics of conservation who build upon local case studies to argue that protected areas make a significant contribution to poverty risk exaggerating the scale of the problem. However, conservation advocates also need to temper their enthusiasm. Outcomes in which both poverty alleviation and conservation goals are achieved may be possible in specific circumstances but clear choices will often need to be made between conservation and livelihood goals.

People, Parks and Poverty: Integrated Conservation and Development Initiatives in the Free State Province of South Africa

“…The campaign to increase the proportion of protected areas significantly was first seriously promoted at the 1982 World Parks Congress in Bali, where all nations were set a target of having 10% of countries under protection (Naughton-Treves, 2005). At the World Parks Congress in 2003, it was reported that the number of protected areas had tripled over the preceding 20 years bringing the total to an estimated 100 000 worldwide (World Parks Congress, 2003), although some put the current figure at more than 105 000 (Upton et al, 2008). The impact of these expanding protected areas on the livelihoods of neighbouring communities, has however largely been ignored by conservation authorities.…”

“…Ever since the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, the links between environment and development and, more specifically, conservation and poverty, have been intensely discussed and fiercely debated -a debate that has gained momentum in recent times (Andam et al, 2010;De Sherbinin, 2008;Dudley et al, 2008;Simpson, 2008;Upton et al, 2008;Wells & McShane, 2004). Scrutinising the social role of protected areas and their impact on rural livelihoods and development has become an increasingly central component of this debate (Naughton-Treves et al, 2005;Simpson, 2009;Spenceley, 2008b).…”

“…Almost two-thirds of the population of Africa are currently subsisting on less than US$2 per day (PRB, 2009). Further complicating this situation is the fact that those African countries displaying the highest indices of poverty also enjoy the greatest coverage in terms of protected areas of The World Conservation Union's Protected-Area Categories I-V (Upton et al, 2008). Hulme and Murphree (2001) note that, in most African countries, rural communities surrounding protected areas are likely to experience poverty rates higher than the national average.…”

“…This debate is intensifying as protected areas in developing nations continue to expand, consequently limiting agricultural development and access to natural resources. Some sectors within the conservation community are increasingly contesting the notion of an integrated development and conservation approach, and argue that the needs and objectives of both agendas cannot be met in a single, integrated and holistic approach without posing major threats to biodiversity protection (Brechin et al, 2007;Upton et al, 2008). Integrated conservation and development programmes can only succeed when stakeholders pool resources, in other words when conservation authorities engage with local and provincial government authorities whose first commitment should be to the delivery of key services to the community.…”

Integrating Conservation and Development in the Peruvian Amazon

“…Some see conservation as the main goal and poverty alleviation as an afterthought (Sanderson and Redford 2004), whereas others argue that separating parks from people is a false dichotomy (West and Brockington 2006). Because many of the most threatened areas in tropical regions are inhabited by poor people dependent on natural resources, conservation policy must take them into account (Cordeiro et al 2007, de Sherbinin 2008, Upton et al 2008. Although the use of terms such as "integrated conservation and development" may have fallen out of favor, many interventions do, and will continue to, consider the well-being of populations inhabiting and surrounding protected areas ).…”