Biodiversity and Poverty

Biological diversity is an essential source to human existence and plays a crucial role in sustainable development and poverty eradication. "Biodiversity provides goods to millions of people, helps to ensure nutrition and is a rich source of traditional and modern medicines!" With these words UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke for biodiversity on International Biological Diversity Day in 2003. But how is the concept of biodiversity defined? The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defined biodiversity as "... the diversity that occurs in all species, of living organisms, found amongst others in land, sea and other aquatic ecosystems as well as in ecological clusters made up of these organisms ... ". Furthermore, biodiversity is essential for the recycling of important elements (such as oxygen), to reduce pollution while acting as a balancing agent for weather and climate change. However, there is an explicit assumption that preserving biodiversity (or reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity) can help with efforts to tackle global poverty and enhance human well-being. Wealth and poverty, according to Madhav (2001), are recognized as the ability of a person or group of people to obtain goods and services through a market transaction service. According to the MDG (Millennium Development Goal) poverty is characterized by living with less than one dollar per day.

In general, the rich are the ones who have access to the production of artificial ecosystems with low biodiversity, such as crops. On the other hand, the poor have reduced access to the production processes of ecosystems. Ecosystems that support high levels of biodiversity are natural or partially natural ecosystems with a low level of human requirement for their production. Rich people rarely live near such ecosystems, although they can visit them for recreational purposes. In contrast with the poor ones, who live permanently near such ecosystems (rich in production) and in some cases act as supervisors of these ecosystems. Most of the time, however, these ecosystems are driven to overexploitation to meet the needs of the rich. The relationship between poverty and biodiversity is not simple and varies depending on the circumstances.

Figure 1. Reforestation in Uganda by South Sudanese Refugees (UNHCR, 2018)

Biodiversity-poverty correlation

A number of commentators have highlighted the dynamic relationship between biodiversity conservation and poverty eradication. Scientists suggested that factors such as: individual access and control of resources, changes in land use, financial systems, the market, political and economic measures for poverty and the protection of biodiversity, population growth and density and, finally, ecological migration are critical to determining whether the use of biodiversity leads to poverty reduction. The study of Madhav (2001), about the connection of poverty and biodiversity in India and the connection of various categories of people with different types of ecosystems is discussed, for example, autonomous people and their relationship with semi-natural ecosystems. Many studies refer to a qualitative relation between biodiversity and poverty, but the problem arises in the quantitative correlation of these two concepts with mechanisms and accurate measurements, as the situation changes in each case. In the study of Dilys et al. (2014), mechanisms that link biodiversity with poverty or prosperity, where it can be achieved, are presented. They categorized these mechanisms as direct and indirect use, non-use and poor resource management. It has been found that the most common mechanism for linking biodiversity to poverty was through its immediate use. By "direct use" is meant the use of specific species or resources of the ecosystem, such as the cultivation of land. Quantitative data are found in studies conducted to investigate Pijiang poverty in China (Hengsdijk et al., 2007; Fang, 2009).

Other studies, show results that with increasing incomes and productivity, at both crop and livestock levels, tend to degrade the environment as they increase the use of nitrates and pesticides for the fertilization and protection of crops (Fang, 2009). There is also the case of Namtumbo of the Tanzania. In this area, wildlife is managed and efforts are being made to eradicate the region's poverty. With a collection of questionnaires from the local population about the quality of life, ways of collecting income, land uses, etc. there was a result presenting, dependency of the inhabitants from some natural resources. The use of water was the most important factor as water and irrigation was served, providing residents with the safety of farming (Kangalawe, 2012).

Creating institutions in ecologically unstable areas, destined for agriculture and poverty alleviation is extremely complex concepts and deserves much more attention (Sanderson, 2005). Efforts took place later in the collective direction under the auspices of British chapters, such as the ESPA (Ecosystem Services Against Poverty). On the other hand, the knowledge base for linking biodiversity poverty is dominated by studies of direct, consumer use of biodiversity by humans. Very few studies have reported negative impacts on poverty, beyond human-wildlife studies but in most cases well-managed biodiversity reduces poverty levels (ESPA, 2014). Excessive poverty is related to biodiversity in many complex ways. In most cases, however, the poor are responsible for reducing biodiversity in their efforts to earn a living. There has been little success in addressing this problem through the design of programs combining the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity with poverty alleviation. This is a major challenge that needs to be addressed over the next few years.

Bibliography

Dilys R., Fancourt, M., Sandbrook, C., Sibanda, M., & Giuliani, A. (2014). Which components or attributes of biodiversity, environmental evidence.

ESPA (2014). Ecosystem services for poverty alleviation.

(http://www.espa.ac.uk/ Accessed: 31/7/2018)

Fang B. (2009). Poverty and biodiversity in rural areas based on two investigations in Pujiang County, China. Journal of Environmental Management , p. 1924-1932.

Hengsdijk Huib,Wang Guanghuo, Marrit M. Van den Berg, Wang Jiangdi, Joost Wolf ,Lu Changhe, Reimund P. Roetter,Herman Van Keulen. (2007).

Poverty and biodiversity trade-offs in rural development: A case study for Pujiang county, China. Agricultural Systems , p. 851-861.

Kangalawe Richard Y.M.,Christine Noe. (2012). Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , p. 90-100.

Madhav (2001) Poverty and biodiversity, Encyclopedia of biodiversity (second edition) p220-228

Sanderson S. (2005). Poverty and Conservation: The New Century's ‘‘Peasant Question?’’. World Development , p. 323-332.

UNHCR (2018). Uprooted refugees plant trees to rebuild Uganda’s forests, ( http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2018/2/5a8e89b94/uprooted-refugees-plant-trees-rebuild-ugandas-forests.html Accessed: 8/9/2018 )