Part 2: Protected areas and development
2.3 Links between poverty and protected areas
The most obvious relationship between poverty and protected areas is that they are located in the same place, emphasising the need to integrate policies for both if they are to support and not negate one another. The co-location also draws attention to the complex relationship between poor communities and protected areas.
2.3.1 Co-location of protected areas and poor communities
The PAD Review found that most protected areas in the Lower Mekong countries lie entirely within or overlap significantly with regions of “high” poverty. Table 2.2 shows that 44 per cent of protected areas lie inside regions of “high” poverty and another 39 per cent in regions of “medium” poverty. Over 80 per cent of protected areas are located in areas of “medium” and “high” poverty.
Table 2.2: Poverty and protected areas
National protected area systems Poverty level *
Low Medium High Total**
Cambodia 13% 41% 46% 100%
Lao PDR 18% 51% 30% 100%
Thailand 27% 28% 46% 100%
Vietnam 15% 34% 52% 100%
Average 18% 39% 44%
* Based on UNEP poverty criteria measured at district and provincial levels (UNEP, 2002)
** Errors due to rounding
The correlation is particularly significant for the larger and more important protected areas. In Vietnam, the eight most highly ranked protected areas in consideration for World Heritage listing are located mostly or entirely within “high” poverty areas. In Cambodia, the larger existing and proposed protected areas feature prominently in the poorer north-east and north-west provinces (Map 2.1).
Individual exceptions tend to occur where protected areas are close to major urban centres or regions of industrial development. But even those areas are generally associated with poorer socio-economic groups, such as the poor communities around the protected areas in the Eastern Forests Complex relatively close to Bangkok and the industrial centre in Rayon Province in Thailand.
A key reason for the high quality of biodiversity and natural habitat in these areas is also a reason for the high rates of poverty. Their distance from urban centres and difficult market access has kept them out of reach of commercial interests and other modern developments. Remoteness, which has been good for the environment, has clearly been a cause of poverty, creating an uncertain tension between poverty reduction and environment conservation. But this is only one side of the story.
Another side is that these remote areas, rich in natural resources, are also the refuge of displaced communities and a “last resort” employer for some of the poorest and most powerless people (Sunderlin et al. forthcoming). Often they have been forced to move higher up mountains, deeper into forests, or
Map 2.1: Poverty and protected areas in the lower Mekong region
closer to sandy shorelines because of upheavals resulting from development in the lowlands, such as overpopulation, exploitation of new economic zones, and forced resettlement schemes for development projects (e.g., hydropower dams). Indeed, high levels of immigration have been noted in areas adjacent to the South-West Cluster protected areas in Cambodia (ICEM 2003 a and g). In Vietnam, migratory trends indicate significant population shifts from densely populated areas into “frontier” lands, such as natural forests (ICEM 2003c). Exploitation of these “New Economic Zones” has meant wealth for some, but it has also meant displacement for others and disruption in traditional uses of land and natural resources, particularly for upland ethnic minority groups (Huynh Thu Ba 1999). In these cases, remoteness and association with protected areas is the consequence of poverty and powerlessness. The advent of modern development has been the problem and remote areas have been the solution, albeit a sometimes temporary or inadequate one.
The situation is complex. The good standing of the environment in protected areas can be linked to both the causes and the consequences of poverty in local communities. It has represented both problems and solutions to their immediate and long-term living conditions. Poverty reduction strategies will need to address these communities at both levels by supporting the stabilising and nurturing aspects of protected areas while promoting possibilities for economic advancement where available.
2.3.2 Valuation of protected areas for poor communities
The real value of protected areas to local communities needs to be recognised and better understood.
These values are often overlooked or underestimated because they are not accounted for in formal economies. Field studies by the PAD Review valued the direct benefits that local communities derive from protected areas and demonstrated their special importance to poor communities (ICEM 2003g). These values increase when the direct benefits, indirect benefits, future options and existential values of protected areas are considered together.
In Cambodia, for example, 85 per cent of households living in and adjacent to Ream National Park depend on park resources for their basic subsistence and income to a net value of US$ 1.24 million per year, an average of US$233/year for each household. Median household income in the region was US$316 and only US$200 for one third of households. Non-timber forest product (NTFP) collected from Nam Et and Phou Loei National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCA) in the Lao PDR were valued at 2.7 million kip (US$250) for households living outside the NBCA, 5.4 million kip (US$500) for those on the border, and almost 7.3 million kip (US$677) for those inside. Data on median household income in the locality was unavailable, but the per capita GDP for Houaphan province was approximately US$180 (ICEM 2003g).
In Thailand, however, forest products collected from Khao Chamao-Khao Wong National Park generated a total of 265,000 Baht/year (US$6,163), which is only a small portion of 277 million Baht, which is the estimated annual income for all households living around the park . Fisheries contributed an average of US$323/year per household. The field studies in Vietnam found a declining importance of forest products from Phong Dien Nature Reserve from 50-60 per cent (1991) of total per capital income to 4-5 per cent (2000). The decline was inversely related to increases in agricultural production (ICEM 2003g). Broadly speaking, the results suggest that the direct benefits of protected areas are especially important for the poorer communities, as in the Lao PDR and Cambodia, but decline in importance with economic advancement, as in Vietnam and Thailand.
In addition, the field studies found that protected areas provide important indirect benefits to local livelihoods through important environmental and ecological services. These include human habitation, wildlife habitat, erosion control, recycling of soil nutrients, micro-climactic stabilisation, and hydrological services such as providing reliable water for irrigation, preventing sedimentation in reservoirs, regulating water supply, maintaining ground water and water quality, and mitigating against impacts of floods.
Around aquatic protected areas, their functions include maintaining fish stocks, regulating water salinity, protecting coastlines, and providing river navigation and travel.
The total value of protected areas is even more significant when future options and existential values are included. Values documented in the field studies included conservation of internationally important wildlife species, agro-biodiversity values, development of tourism and recreational activities, future water resources and energy development, and the application of wild species and genetic resources for a range of uses, such as village and commercial domestication and use in pharmaceutical and other industries (ICEM 2003e,f and g).
Despite the range of values provided by protected areas, the field studies also suggested that poverty remains a key issue around protected areas and is still deep in Cambodia and the Lao PDR. In Cambodia,
“the incidence of rural poverty is extremely high around the South-West Cluster protected areas, including lack of such basic amenities as water, food and adequate housing” (ADB 1999 cited in ICEM 2003g).
Huoaphan Province in Lao PDR, which is home to 88 per cent of the territory for Nam Et and Phou Loei NBCAs, “has been identified as the poorest province in the country with a poverty rate of 75 per cent” and a per capita GDP estimated at 56 per cent of the national level (UNDP 2001 cited in ICEM 2003g). The vast majority of communities living in and around these two protected areas “have insufficient access to the basic food and non-food items deemed necessary for a minimum standard of living, a low cash income, and suffer high infant mortality rates, poor availability of medical care, education, social services and other essential infrastructure” (ICEM 2003g). In Vietnam, the per capita GDP around Phong Dien Nature Reserve was significantly lower than the national average. In Thailand, the provinces in the Eastern Region had a high per capita income, but Chanthanaburi province, where Khao Chamao and Khao Wong National Parks are located, had one of the lowest incomes among them.