Disentangling the links between conservation and poverty reduction in practice

Abstract

Biodiversity conservation is increasingly expected to reduce poverty where the two coincide. Yet conservation and poverty are multifaceted concepts and the linkages between them are complex and variable; whether and how conservation contributes to poverty reduction in practice will depend on the specific nature of those linkages. To unravel this complexity we explored the portfolio of Fauna & Flora International, an international conservation organization operating in some of the poorest countries and regions. We examined reports from 88 projects and categorized the rationales, approaches and outcomes of a sample of 34 livelihoods-focused projects. Rationales varied among and within projects and included apparent 'win-win' scenarios (reducing poverty improves conservation outcomes), trade-offs (conservation action hurts the poor or poverty reduction damages biodiversity), and situations where livelihoods interventions were not directly linked to conservation gains. Projects revealed a balance of direct (income, food security, health) and indirect (capacity building, reduced vulnerability, governance, empowerment) livelihood goals. Overall, empowerment, security and social network development were more significant short-term outcomes than income generation. Social responsibility was widely embedded but does not necessarily translate into a positive impact on poverty. Conservation organizations have the potential to improve the lives of the poor in many places where they operate, and arguably a duty to ensure that conservation does not make poor people worse off. Yet it is important to be clear about the reasons for engaging and the scope and scale of likely outcomes.

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

“…Having emerged largely since the 1980s, during a time when local development needs have been increasingly recognized in conservation policy and when environmental concerns have been simultaneously mainstreamed in development practice (Fisher et al, 2008;Walpole and Wilder, 2008), this nascent field is based on normative commitments to social equity and sustainable development. It is a highly interdisciplinary field that draws on the theories and methods of development studies, geography, anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, as well as the natural sciences to answer pragmatic policy oriented questions in different social and ecological contexts and at local to global scales.…”

Evaluating the Household Level Outcomes of Community Based Natural Resource Management: the Tchuma Tchato Project and Kwandu Conservancy

“…Analysis of the indicators revealed that significantly fewer CBNRM area households believed there was trust in their village, and that they could obtain help from fellow villagers in times of crisis. It is unclear why differences existed between the two groups, but they run counter to the argument that CBNRM activities contribute to increased social capital (Lise 2000, Bar-On 2005, Walpole and Wilder 2008.…”

Untitled

“…Nepal's policies also allow for a mix of activities to address both conservation and development without framing conservation and development as polarized goals. They have avoided the difficult, if not impossible, task of categorizing activities into discrete categories that reflect some set of perceived conceptual relationships between conservation and development (Kepe et al, 2004;Walpole & Wilder, 2008). These relationships are often conceptualized as categories that reflect some permutation of conservation as helping or hindering development and development as helping or hindering conservation (Salafsky, 2011;Adams et al, 2004).…”