Part 2: Protected areas and development
2.2 Links between poverty and the environment
2.2.1 The poverty-environment debate
Tracing the links between protected areas and poverty is part of a larger international debate on poverty and environment. The debate is complex because the
concepts of both “poverty” and”“the environment” are multi-dimensional and they interact within a seemingly infinite variety of local contexts. The debate is also controversial and emotionally charged, particularly because of its political implications concerning changes in practices and lifestyles.
One of the less ambiguous points arising from the debate is that the poor suffer environmental degradation most. An inter-agency paper prepared for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development emphasised three key dimensions of poverty related to environmental conditions:
• Livelihoods – poor people tend to be most dependent on the environment and the direct use of natural resources, and therefore are the most severely affected when the environment is degraded or their access to natural resources is otherwise limited or denied;
• Health – poor people suffer most when water, land and the air is polluted;
• Vulnerability – the poor are most often exposed to environmental hazards and environment-related conflict, and are least capable of coping when they occur.
(DFID, European Commission, World Bank & UNDP 2002)
Environmental degradation also impacts on the urban poor and other poor populations at a distance from protected areas. Environmental hazards are among the main causes of ill-health, injury and premature death among the urban poor (Satterthwaite undated). Losses to national economies resulting from the direct costs and preventative expenditures of environmental degradation tend to hurt the poor most (IUCN- Pakistan 2002). Consequently, effective conservation and environmental management has far reaching implications for the poor.
The four countries in the Lower Mekong region have recognised the links between poverty and environment. Lao PDR considers “conservation of natural resources” among the three pillars of its strategic approach to poverty alleviation, along with economic growth and social/cultural development (GoL 2001). Vietnam’s Comprehensive Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002) identifies
“environmental sustainability and protection” as one of twelve key target areas for poverty reduction.
Thailand’s Ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan for 2002-2006 emphasises that “sound natural resource conservation practices are important for building a strong social foundation as well as sustainable poverty reduction”. The Cambodian interim-PRSP argues that “there is a strong correlation between sound natural resource management and poverty reduction”. However, the link between
conservation and poverty is not simple. In many cases, conservation has further impoverished and limited opportunities for poor communities and conversely, poverty reduction programs have undermined
conservation.
2.2.2 Poverty reduction in the Lower Mekong region
Impressive strides in poverty reduction have been made in the Lower Mekong region over the past few decades, especially in Thailand and Vietnam. According to government statistics, poverty rates reduced from 32.6 per cent (1988) to 11.6 per cent (1996) in Thailand (Ninth Plan), from 58 per cent (1993) to 37 per cent (1998) in Vietnam (CPRGS, 2002), and from 45 per cent (1992-93) to 38.6 per cent (1997-98) in the Lao PDR (GoL 2001). No comparable early estimates are available for Cambodia. But even so, poverty rates remain high and ranking on the Human Development Index (HDI) remains low in Cambodia, the Lao PDR and Vietnam (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: UNDP poverty rates and HDI ranking for 2002
Country Poverty rate HDI ranking (of 173 countries)
Lao PDR 39% 143
Cambodia 43% 130
Vietnam 27% 109
Thailand 14% 73
Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2002
The four countries continue to make poverty reduction a top priority giving it prominence in their respective national socio-economic development plans and strategies. The three main goals in the Lao PDR’s Development Vision to 2020 are to reduce poverty by half by 2005, eradicate poverty by 2010, and graduate from the status of Least-Development Country by 2020. The Cambodian government’s Policy Framework Paper and “Triangle Strategy” both emphasise poverty alleviation. The main objectives in Vietnam’s current Five-Year Action Plan 2001-2005 include eliminating hunger and reducing the number of poor households. Even in Thailand, government, donors and academics have argued that poverty is re- emerging as one of the nation’s most serious problems (World Bank 2001). Accordingly, poverty reduction has been given high priority in Thailand’s Ninth National Socio-Economic Development Plan for 2002- 2006.
The goals for poverty reduction are usually stated in tandem with strong economic growth, which is
preferably rapid, sustained and equitable. However, that linkage raises questions concerning the nature of poverty and how it can be addressed through economic growth. This debate goes well beyond the focus of this chapter, but there are important emerging poverty related issues in the Lower Mekong region that are of critical relevant to protected areas.
Social and economic inequality has been increasing, especially in Thailand and Vietnam where economic growth has been strongest. A key area of difference has been between the outer-lying rural provinces and the provinces in close proximity to economic centres and industrial zones. The four regions in Vietnam considered as remote, isolated and mountainous areas account for 64 per cent of the nation’s poverty (Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2002). In Thailand, 17 of its 76 provinces account for two thirds of the nation’s poverty and 4 provinces account for one quarter (World Bank 2001). Most of these provinces are in the north-east and north regions. Ninety per cent of the poor in Cambodia live in rural areas, compared to 2.3 per cent in Phnom Penh and 7.2 per cent in other urban areas (Royal Government of Cambodia 2000). The growth in consumption rate in the rural areas of the Lao PDR was a little more than half of what it was in urban areas (GoL 2001).
Vulnerability and powerlessness among poor communities is becoming an increasing concern, risking recent gains made in poverty reduction. The impacts of the 1998 regional financial crisis on Thailand, during which time both poverty rates and inequality increased, and successive years of mass flooding in Cambodia and Vietnam have provided harsh reminders of the vulnerability of large segments of the population. In Vietnam, many rural communities just above the poverty line are “highly vulnerable to negative shocks, such as natural disasters, job loss, sickness and highly volatile agricultural
prices”(Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2002). Governments are looking at developing effective safety nets, decentralisation and local empowerment to address issues of vulnerability and powerlessness.
More often than not, the burden of poverty rests on ethnic minority groups which concentrate in isolated mountainous regions where most protected areas are located. In Vietnam, ethnic minority groups represent 14 per cent of the population, but 29 per cent of the poor. Protected areas impact significantly on the livelihoods of many ethnic minority groups and other poor communities in remote areas.