printed on recycled, recyclable paper,using soy …assets.panda.org/downloads/mellor.pdfshubh...

M/P

/OM

ACRO

ECON

OMIC

SFO

R S

UST

AIN

AB

LE D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

ROGR

AM O

FFIC

E

A VI

EWPO

INT

SERI

ES O

N P

OV

ER

TY

AN

D T

HE E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

T

BY JOHN W. MELLOR

Poverty Reductionand BiodiversityConservation: The Complex Rolefor IntensifyingAgriculture

M/P

/OM

ACRO

ECON

OMIC

SFO

R S

UST

AIN

AB

LE D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

ROGR

AM O

FFIC

E WWF Macroeconomics Program Office1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, NWWashington, DC 20037-1175, USAPhone: (202) 778 9752Fax: (202) 293 9211E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.panda.org/mpo

Shubh Kumar-Range, Ph.D., Senior Program Manager

Economic Change, Poverty and the Environment

The Viewpoints on Poverty and theEnvironment series provides a forum todiscuss the difficult, often controversial,challenges of integrating poverty and theenvironment into effective developmentstrategies. We welcome the diverse viewsof a wide range of authors and institutions.The opinions expressed by the author ofthis work do not necessarily reflect theopinions of MPO or its donors.

©Copyright WWF Macroeconomics Program Office,

October 2002

©1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature

(Also known as World Wildlife Fund)

Photography:

Deborah Boyd

Steve Cornelius

Pablo Corral

Dennis Glick

O. Langrand

Russell Mittermeier

Steve Morello

John Newby

Edward Parker

Galen Powell

Juan Pratginestos

Tony Rath

Mauri Rautkari

This program is carried out with support from:

European Commission DG Development

Netherlands’ Ministrerie vanBuuitenladse Zaken (DGIS)

Swedish InternationalDevelopment Agency (SIDA)

A CPrinted on recycled, recyclable paper,using soy-based inks.

28746mWWFpoverty_cv.qxd 10/2/02 5:06 PM

Preface

Agriculture practices in countries around the worldhave multiple and enduring impacts on the environmentand on biodiversity conservation. Agriculture is one ofthe most widely-spread productive activities, using nearly 40% of the earth’s land surface, providing suste-nance for us all and generating direct employment orlivelihoods for the vast majority of rural dwellers world-wide. As a result, agriculture occupies a central place inthe quest for economic betterment for a large propor-tion of the people who are poor and live in rural areas.

As stated in WWF’s Global Agriculture NetworkInitiative, expanding the agricultural frontier in countries around the globe is largely responsible for the destruction of nearly 17 million hectares of forests each year. That land use conversion process has consequently become a leading driver in loss of topsoiland sedimentation of freshwater and marine systems.Moreover, excessive use of chemicals in input-intensiveproduction systems has caused pollution of freshwaterreserves with attendant consequences for the world’secology and human health.

In this paper, John Mellor looks at this dilemma — at the need for supporting agricultural productivitygrowth, on the one hand, and the challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation on the other. His analysis examines the complex interplay incountries with different levels of national income anddifferent potentials for intensifying agricultural produc-tion. John Mellor is uniquely qualified to offer thisanalysis. He brings a long and distinguished record ofscholarship and policy advice in the field of agriculturaldevelopment combined with a strong personal interestin nature and its protection.

Injecting controversy into the debate on the linksbetween poverty and the environment is urgently needed because of the hold that preconceptions andbiases exert over both the debate and programmaticinterventions to address poverty-environment dynamics. We look forward to your comments and reactions and we hope that this Viewpoint series cancontribute to breaking down some of the walls thatrestrain our collective efforts to address these complex,urgent issues.

David ReedDirector

John W. Mellor

John W. Mellor is Vice-President, Abt Associates, Inc., a policy consulting firm. Previously Mellor wasPresident of John Mellor Associates, Inc., Director ofthe International Food Policy Research Institute; ChiefEconomist of the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, and Professor of Agricultural Economics,Economics, and Asian Studies at Cornell University,where he was also Director of the Program on Com-parative Economic Development and of the Center forInternational Studies.

From these various positions he has consulted widelyfor foreign aid donors and national governments andother institutions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He has been a visiting professor/fellow at TheAmerican University, Beirut, The Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi, and Balwant RajputCollege, Agra He holds degrees from CornellUniversity and Oxford University. He has receivedmany awards for quality of research, as well as theWihuri Award (Finland) and the Presidential Award(the White House, USA) for his contributions to thereduction of hunger in the world.

He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts andSciences, the American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, and the American Agricultural Economics Association.

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to Shubh Kumar-Range and hercolleagues at WWF, David Reed and Pablo Gutman,for their encouragement, insightful suggestions,and detailed comments. It is a special privilege tocooperate with WWF in bringing my knowledge of the processes of agricultural intensification andpoverty reduction in low-income countries into thecontext of the immensely important long-term goalof ensuring that future generations receive in fullthe natural resources and the biodiversity that areat the moment in our custodianship. I am also grate-ful to Nick Kulibaba of Abt Associates for furtherencouragement and insight and to Moira Chiong forassistance on data, references, and content. NicoleArdoin was unusually helpful in editing.

28746mWWFpoverty_cv.qxd 10/2/02 5:06 PM Page 3

WWF–Macroeconomics Program Office, September 7, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction.................................................................................1

The Values – Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity ...........................5

A Basic Distinction: Population Density ........................................5

High Population Density...........................................................6

Low Population Density............................................................8

The Role of Agricultural Intensification inHigh Population Density Areas....................................................11

Specialization, Trade, and Physical Infastructure ....................11

Technology and Modern Science ............................................14

Sustainability, Intensification, and the Environment...............15

Intellectual Property Rights.................................................16

Powerful Multipliers and Linkages to Rural Non-FarmEmployment: A key to Poverty Reduction ...............................16

The Challenge of Poverty Reduction in LowPopulation Density Rural Areas................................................19

Enlarging and Protecting Areas for Biodiversity Conservation......20

Enlarging Biodiversity Reserves ...........................................21

Protecting High Priority Conservation Areas ..........................22

Community Organization .....................................................23

Land Tenure and Titling ...........................................................24

Foreign Aid, Agricultural Development, and Biodiversity ..............27

The Action Program to Preserve Biodiversity..............................28

References ............................................................................30

28746mWWF_poverty.qxd 10/2/02 5:25 PM Page 1

Introduction

Humankind has a responsibility to future genera-tions to leave a world rich in biodiversity, filledwith the plants, animals, and ecosystem processeson which all living things depend. However, forthat to happen, we must take seriously ourresponsibilities to conserve Earth’s biodiversity,recognizing the complexity of our needs andcarefully balancing those with the needs of futuregenerations. Moreover, we need to make an effortto think and to act both globally and locally. Whilethe world’s low-income nations possess a richheritage of biodiversity, it is precisely in thesecountries where poverty and biodiversity conser-vation are often in conflict, and the pressing challenge is to resolve that conflict.

Of course, there is need to conserve theremaining biodiversity in the rich nations of theworld, but the populations of these nations havealready wreaked havoc on the natural resources.As is evidenced in the widespread loss of biodi-versity in the Corn Belt of the United States, aswell as in other rich agricultural lands, we havelost the large centers of biodiversity preservationin many high-income countries. While it isimportant to conserve the natural diversity thatremains in the temperate latitude countries, thecurrent focus should be on protecting areas ofhigh biological diversity in the low-income,largely tropical countries of the world as many ofthese nations still possess abundant resourcesthat have yet to be depleted.

People living in low-income, high-biodiversityareas can learn from the mistakes that the high-income countries have made with pursuinggrowth at any cost. It is now the time to build onlessons learned, and to move forward in partner-ship by working together to preserve biodiversity in increasingly threatened areas. This partnershipshould strive to conserve the rich natural heritage

of many developing nations recognizing thatbiodiversity conservation will benefit theircountries in the short term, as well as all ofhumanity in the long term. At the time when the now-rich nations were rapidly depleting theirbiodiversity, there were no other countries withwhich to partner in seeking better and moresustainable alternatives. However, now there are opportunities for partnerships, and future generations will be the beneficiaries.

Financial leadership must come substantiallyfrom the rich nations, as the poorer countriesmust dedicate scarce financial resources to

1

WWF–Macroeconomics Program Office, October 2002

POVERTY REDUCTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: THE COMPLEX ROLE FOR INTENSIFYING AGRICULTURE

John W. Mellor


building political systems, initiating growth, andcombating extreme poverty. Exercising steward-ship through community participation, citizens oflow-income nations can contribute to biodiversityconservation by using abundant labor resourcesto define and protect highly critical and diverselandscapes. The governments of poorer nationsshould consider making institutional changes in property rights to facilitate individual and community action, and leadership in this venturerequires thought regarding four criticalcontrasting sets of considerations.

First, it is important to consider the populationdensity factor in various areas. The employmentand land-reserve opportunities available indensely populated areas that possess fertile agricultural lands (e.g., the great monsoon andirrigated plains of south Asia, as well as large

portions of the east African highlands) are different from those in lands that support onlysparse human populations (e.g., the farming areasbordering the Sahara Desert in Mali, the hillforest areas of south India, or the Appalachiancountryside in the United States). Land prices inthe densely populated rural areas tend to increaserapidly with development, while land prices in thesparsely populated rural areas tend to decrease.The rise in land values hinders expansion ofreserves located in high population density areas,while the decrease in land values within areas ofsparse human populations may facilitate wildlifereserve development. The high populationdensity areas, in general, have the greatestpotential for benefiting from globalization, andthey are also the areas in which agriculturalgrowth provides large employment multipliers.The expansion of employment and reduction of

2

The good news is that, with modern science and specialization, a given income or quantity of food and fiber can be produced within a much smaller area thanwithout science and specialization. The bad news is the incentive to cultivate asmuch as possible of the high-productivity land.


poverty are facilitated through demand-drivenlinkages to the labor-intensive, rural, non-farmsector, which employs the very poorest elementsof rural society. An understanding of the differen-tials in land value and development in the high-density versus low-density sectors of the rurallandscape is critical as the next two factors derivedirectly from this phenomenon.

Second, the problem of small pockets of biodiver-sity (such as the Rwanda Gorilla Park) is differentfrom that of large areas (such as the CongoBasin). In general, only small, relatively isolatedpatches of biodiversity remain in areas of highrural population density, yet these patches can be particularly rich in species endemism anddiversity. In contrast, low population density areasstill offer potential for preserving large, expansivetracts of land, which may also harbor a diversityof species while at the same time allowing for the continued provision of complex ecologicalservices, such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, and soil stabilization. Imaginativeapproaches are needed, including corridorsconnecting high-biodiversity patches, combinedwith substantial financial investment to purchaseecologically important lands. However, localresidents may resist the expansion of reservesunless measures are taken to provide them withalternative income opportunities, and thosemeasures, as explained below, will tend to driveup the cost of reserve expansion. Because of thispotentially harmful conflict between biodiversitypreservation and economic opportunities for localresidents, timing and coordination are importantaspects of the reserve expansion process.

Third, short-run and long-run considerations mustbe distinguished as they relate to the underlyingproductivity of the resources. The distinctionrecognizes that small, incremental increases inincome for poor people may be adequate in theshort run, but in the long run they are not. Thus, while a strategy based on modest incomeincreases may be appropriate in the short term,long-term strategies must incorporate largeincome increases. Achieving this long-term goal

requires continuous intensification of agriculturein the high population density areas and substan-tial out migration from the low population densityareas to the cities and market towns of the moredynamic areas.

Fourth, a distinction must be made between globaland local action for both growth and biodiversity level. Both the necessary reduction in povertyand the protection of biologically diverse landrequire global action and leadership. Globalpolicies that facilitate increased agricultural inten-sification and the subsequent drastic decline inpoverty, along with international transfers ofresources for both poverty abatement and biodi-versity protection, are needed. The high-incomenations of the world dominate these decision-making processes—and from them we requireenlightened and responsible action.

Concurrently, both development and biodiversityconservation must be adapted to highly variablelocal conditions and the actions of diverse ruralpeople. This adaptation requires rural people tobecome organized, local unit by local unit, to mosteffectively meet their economic needs whileconserving local biodiversity. For that to happen,the governments of high-income nations andhigh-income people must think locally (recog-nizing the importance of local action in low-income countries) while acting globally (e.g.,improving the environment for trade). Thegovernments and people of low-income nationsmust act locally, as well as think globally, under-standing that their actions can have implicationsfor the world’s natural heritage. They must thinkglobally so as to take advantage of and to encour-age global actions in trade and capital flows thatfacilitate the local community’s development.

All of the distinctions, solutions, and relative rolesof rich and poor countries must take into accountthe immense poverty in and around many high-priority biodiversity conservation areas. Inworking to alleviate poverty, the driving forcebehind poverty reduction in low-income countriesis linked to increased farm income. This increase

3


in farm income is based on a radical increase inresource productivity, which is multiplied throughemployment links to the rural, non-farm sector.

Using agricultural intensification as a means ofraising incomes of the poor has beneficial as wellas detrimental consequences for biodiversity. Oneof the benefits is that agricultural intensificationallows for drastic income increases to occur,using a smaller amount of land than is currentlyunder cultivation. This potential reduction in theamount of land under cultivation creates an oppor-tunity to open more land for biodiversity preser-vation. Those growth processes in the areas thatrespond to agricultural intensification open largemigration potentials for the unresponsive areas,both to the market towns of the prospering areasand to the larger cities, to which people from theprospering areas no longer need migrate. (Asdescribed previously, rising farm incomes havelarge multipliers to rural non-farm employment.)

The drawback of this approach is that muchreserve expansion (but not all) will become morecostly, as the land’s value will be increased by itsheightened productivity. In addition, ruralpeople’s expectations for doubling and triplingincomes may encourage bringing land currentlyin forest reserves into cultivation to achieveeconomic gain. Thus, the key question that arisesis how rural communities, supported by local andnational governmental structures, should takeadvantage of the benefits of agricultural intensifi-cation without falling prey to the drawbacks of the approach.

In light of this challenge, two parameters definethis paper.

First, the paper is concerned with the interactionof poverty-reduction measures and biodiversityconservation strategies. To date, the mostsuccessful income-raising measures have provento be globalization and technological change inagriculture. In context of these measures, thepaper deals briefly with sustainability of naturalresources, particularly with respect to water, soil,and sanitation as they interact with agriculturalintensification processes. Sustainability issues are critical to consider as important factors inlong-term, effective growth, and they also helpdefine and clarify points of potential conflict withresource use.

Second, the paper is concerned with issues of costsharing between high-income and low-incomenations. This issue leads to consideration of theneed for larger, earlier action on biodiversity thanthe poor nations are likely to take on their own:Low-income nations will, in general, prefer toreduce poverty before they preserve biodiversity.The concomitant is the need for rich nations tonot only assist in the efforts of poverty reductionthrough strategies including agricultural intensification, but also to pay direct costs ofenlarging and protecting biodiverse areas, bothsmall and large. However, let us not look fordoing it “on the cheap,” diverting necessarypoverty-reduction resources to support biodiver-sity conservation. For political, if not moral,

4

With globalization, land values in areas ofhighly productive resources increase substanti-ally and the remaining small tracts of virginland in those areas are quickly developed.


reasons the biodiversity costs are necessarilyincremental to the poverty reduction costs. In thiscontext, the paper deals briefly with the mecha-nisms for dispersing transferred funds, includingthose payments for environmental services anddevelopment of community-based resourcemanagement groups to provide efficient resourceuse and stewardship.

The partnership calls for high-income countriesto help low-income countries achieve rapidincome growth in agriculture (with its attendantemployment multipliers) through technical assis-tance, and, even as incomes rise, to help financeland retirement and protection in biodiversitypreserves. Organized and engaged communitygroups within low-income countries would usethe total resource pool to reduce poverty while, at the same time, effectively enlarging andmanaging protected areas.

The Values—Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity

Underlying this paper are two value judgements:(1) a moral imperative to lift the mass of people in low-income countries out of abject poverty; and(2) a moral imperative to conserve for futuregenerations the rich, dynamic biodiversity that we have inherited.1 If, perchance, rich and poorcountries alike accept these imperatives, it will be necessary for them to partner on improvingthe quality of life for many of the world’s poorwhile, at the same time, working to protect theworld’s biodiversity.

For poor countries, it is absolute poverty, ratherthan income distribution, that drives our concern.Amartya Sen describes the philosophical basis forthat observation in saying that absolute poverty is

defined in terms of both (1) the proportion of thepopulation, and (2) the absolute number of peoplewho live with insufficient incomes. Within thiscontext, “sufficient” is defined as being an amountappropriate to provide the basic minimum foodintake for an active life in addition to the othergoods and services that ensure the provision offood, shelter, and basic health (Sen 1976). Thissufficient amount is defined by the World Bank to be an income of $1 per person per day in 1993purchasing power parity (World Bank 2001).2

We will note later that lifting the poorest within a society above this established poverty linerequires that the farming population is movedsubstantially above the poverty line. Within thisframework, farmers will prosper, at least by thestandards of low-income countries.

A Basic Distinction: Population Density

Areas of high population density generally haveremaining only small pockets of biodiversity, butoften that biodiversity is particularly rich. In thesehigh population density areas, frequently theforces of development have worked to reducepoverty, which, in turn, opens opportunities forin-migration from the low population densityareas. The migration to high-density areas alsomakes it less expensive to create biodiversityreserves in the low population density areas—and, subsequently, more expensive to createreserves in the high population density areas.This paper is explicit about both the complemen-tarities and conflicts between the means forpoverty reduction and biodiversity conservation,and provides suggestions for dealing with theissues that may arise as a result of conflicts.

5

1 Biodiversity is defined as conserved when areas, both large and small, are left with little or no human impact to evolve in a natural manner. For a more complex and classic view, see Wilson (1988) and McNeely et al. (1990). According to this traditional view, the biodiversity that should be conserved is believed to be far greater thanwhat is possible in the specialized contexts that define most high-income human economic activity. Furthermore, the larger scale land areas that are set aside for conser-vation tend to preserve a more representative sample of biodiversity.

2 The $1 per person per day measurement is the generally accepted measure of poverty in low-income countries. It is the one behind the OECD/DAC, Group of 8, WorldBank, and IMF approaches to poverty reduction, and is roughly analogous to the World Food Conference and FAO targets for hunger reduction by half (World Bank2001, 2001a; IFAD 2000; FAO 2000; UNDP 2000; DAC 2000).


High Population Density

High rural population densities are usually associated with highly productive agriculturalresources, as these resources provide the meansof support for greater numbers of people. Not only are these areas the most productiveinitially, they also generally respond best to theopportunities of globalization and new biologicaltechnologies. They are areas in which the costsare low per person or per family for providing thephysical infrastructure (consisting of roads, electrification, and water supplies) because of the large numbers of people per unit area. Thus,these are the areas where incomes are likely torise most quickly.

Not surprisingly, areas of highly productive agricultural resources, particularly in the tropics,contain much greater biodiversity than areas ofpoorer or more arid resources (Vogel 2001).

However, the areas tend to have, at best, smallparcels of undisturbed lands, which are undersevere threat as agricultural technologies andglobalization increase land productivity several-fold. With globalization, land values in areas ofhighly productive resources increase substan-tially, more funds are spent on rapidly improvingagricultural productivity, and the remaining small tracts of virgin land in those areas arequickly developed.

Recent research reported in the journal Scienceshows that, in Africa, areas of high human population density are also the areas of greatestbiodiversity (Vogel 2001). For example, popula-tion density in some areas of the Kenyanhighlands is comparable to that of Bangladesh.Andrew Balmford, a zoologist at CambridgeUniversity and author of the study reviewed byVogel, asserts that “you can’t do conservation anddevelopment in different places,” and “if your goal

6

Recent research reported in the journal Science shows that, in Africa, areas ofhigh human population density are also the areas of greatest biodiversity.


is to preserve most of Africa’s biodiversity, you’regoing to have to grapple with the challenges ofpreserving biodiversity where there are quite alot of people.”

The findings of Balmford’s Africa study areconfirmed by analyses in North America, “wheresome of the highest conservation priorities are inareas of the highest real estate values” (Vogel2001). Conservation International’s Gustavo daFonseca notes in the context of these studies that“we are going to have to bite the bullet and makesome very strong choices, even if these are costlyand difficult both economically and socially.”(Examples of these difficult choices includecreating well-protected parks and compensatinglocal residents for loss of income-generating activities because of biodiversity conservationinitiatives.) (Vogel 2001) Presumably the fertilesoil and well-timed rainfall regimes of Asia posesimilarly difficult choices. Later sections of thispaper discuss the complex interacting forces thatmust be dealt with in making those choices.

In the short run, the urge to encroach uponprotected areas can be contained by directinglimited financial resources for infrastructuredevelopment, such as roads and waterworks, tothe already-farmed areas, as is called for inNepal’s Agricultural Perspective Plan. As an addi-tional benefit of this strategy, the returns toinvestment will be higher in the farmed areas asthey already have much of the necessary physicaland institutional infrastructure for more rapideconomic development (Government of Nepal1995). However, it is by no means certain thatsuch investment policies will be followed and,therefore, efforts need to focus on biodiversitypreservation in light of the expanding pressuresof development.

As discussed previously, in the long run, the highreturn realized from intensified farming willtempt people to move onto the reserves to gainlarger agricultural plots. While the intensificationwill reduce poverty radically (as outlined in theintensification section on page 11), making it

7

POVERTY-REDUCTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A TRADE-OFF?

Two current examples of the conflict between agriculture and biodiversity come to mind. One is the Rwandaperiphery of the Volcano National Park, an area famous for its well-known mountain gorilla population. Althoughhilly, much of the area has excellent soils, the value of which will soon be increasing rapidly as use of fertilizerand improved potato varieties double and triple potato yields (Mellor 2001). Concurrently, export marketsthroughout the region are becoming more attainable with better operating markets, improved roads, and moreextensive communications networks. However, these poverty-reduction programs (as outlined in the sectionentitled The Role of Agricultural Intensification on page 11) may increase the amount of encroachment on theprotected areas, raising the land values and promising greater profitability for pursuing cultivation within the park.This problem needs to be anticipated and proactively deterred: In the case of Rwanda, expansion of the park isplanned. That expansion will take place along with other measures being implemented to raise the incomes ofthe adjacent population, which is extremely poor.

Similarly India and Nepal’s Terai, the forests and grasslands stretching along the base of the Himalayas, willexperience marked productivity increases with development of the ubiquitous groundwater resources, improvedcrop varieties, growing markets in India for high-value crops and livestock, and low-cost fertilizer (Government ofNepal 1995). These productivity increases will greatly increase the farming value of protected land, currentlymanaged under the auspices of national parks and national forests. Although the Government of Nepal is encour-aging user organizations to protect existing national parks, there is no effort underway to add to thesepreserves. And the rising value of land will soon make such expansion far too costly.


unnecessary for people to farm additional landwithin reserves, the same process will also makeit highly profitable (and tempting) to encroach onfertile, protected lands. A critical question toexplore at this juncture is what will happen whenthe unnecessary abuts the profitable. Over thenext few decades, with an increased focus on agricultural intensification and biodiversityconservation, many such examples will beevidenced in developing countries.

In the high population density areas, the totaleconomic benefits and the proportion of peoplebenefiting from reserves are seemingly smallcompared to those that benefit directly from agri-cultural growth. In this situation, external fundingis required to protect the reserves and to enlargetheir size. Poverty-reduction efforts increase the

acceptability of such funds because the preserveis to be enlarged in the context of rising incomes of the poor. Nevertheless, there is a conflict thatmust be faced.

Often at least small pockets of biodiversity remainin the high population density, highly productiveresource areas. These pockets are frequentlyassociated with the heterogeneity within theareas, with some land being less appropriate forhigh-intensity agriculture than others (such asplains that flood frequently or steep slopes).Increasing attention is being given to linkingsmall patches of high-biodiversity habitatsthrough the use of corridors.

The requirements for biodiversity conservationare clear.

First, agricultural development strategies thatreduce poverty must be pursued vigorously;otherwise the poor will be forced to encroach onthe remaining areas of biodiversity, and there willbe little local or national political support forholding them back.

Second, in the context of declining poverty andincreasing agricultural productivity, land must beacquired to enlarge and connect areas of biodiver-sity. The cost of doing so will escalate as agricul-ture becomes more profitable; therefore, thesooner such expansion of protected areas takesplace, the less costly it will be.

Third, as will be discussed in the section onprotecting high-priority conservation areas (seepage 22), local people must be organized andgiven the incentive to protect the reserves.

Low Population Density

In general, the remaining large, high-biodiversityareas are located on relatively low-productivityresource bases, with low population densities.The agriculture in those areas responds onlymodestly to breakthroughs in agricultural andbiological science. These areas are also not onlydeficient in physical infrastructure that facilitates

8

In the short run, the urge to encroach uponprotected areas can be contained by directinglimited financial resources for infrastructuredevelopment, such as roads and waterworks, to the already-farmed areas.


specialization, but their low population densitiesalso result in higher per family and per workerinfrastructure-provision costs than in high popula-tion density rural areas. Therefore, the economicsof providing infrastructure to these low-densityareas are not favorable: Some politicians andresidents of those areas will call for subsidizing ofthat infrastructure. That is a position that shouldbe resisted on economic, poverty reduction, and

biodiversity conservation grounds. Developmentand intensification of other areas will tend to drawpopulation away from these low populationdensity lands, and will, consequently, reduce thevalue of land and decrease the costs of enlargingand protecting those areas.

In the short run, growing population and subse-quent increasing poverty press for exploitation of

MAKING WAY FOR WILDLIFE: THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

One of the boldest efforts to connect fragments ofbiodiversity is the Meso-American Biological Corridorproject, which aims to linknumerous preserves throughan extensive corridor systemthat cuts across severalnational boundaries (Kaiser2001). The project has beencontroversial, however, withcriticism arising because ofits supposed emphasis onrural development aspectsrather than on preservationand conservation compo-nents. (Later sections of thispaper [see page 20] attemptto develop a framework foranalyzing such controver-sies.) While conservationbiologists continually argueover whether corridors posi-tively affect all species, theevidence is clear that atleast some are helped(Kaiser 2001).

9

The sooner such expansion of protected areastakes place, the less costly it will be.


limited resources to make marginal improve-ments in living standards. As a result of this, theimpact on biodiversity is likely to be devastating.Partly because the population density is low andpartly because the potentials for intensification ofagriculture are severely limited, the benefits fromactivities complementary to preserving biodiver-sity can be attractive for a substantial portion ofthe population. Community participation andengagement, in the context of well-understoodcommunity and individual property rights, will beimportant tools for facilitating those benefits.

Organizing local populations to benefit from nichemarkets for products from diverse environments,participate in the protection process itself, andcombine those activities with more traditionalactivities can add up to a substantially attractiveincome increase. The enterprise developmentbranch of the Biodiversity Conservation Network(BCN), financed by USAID for work over a widerange of conditions in Asia, gives many examplesof a successful search for niche markets andother economic activities to help support peopleliving in or near areas of high biological diversity(John Mellor Associates, Inc. 1996). Such income-augmenting activities demonstrably increase theincentive for conservation. The activities will bevaluable and relevant to local communities andindividuals for at least a decade or two and maybesomewhat longer. However, as incomes in the restof the nation greatly surpass these incomes, suchmarginal improvements will cease to be attractive.The section on protecting conservation areas (onpage 22) discusses the need for using thesestrategies to work toward income generationalong with biodiversity conservation.

However, these income-generating activities inthe low population density areas will not keeppace with rapidly rising incomes in the high population density areas. In fact, in the face ofrapid population growth, it is doubtful that activi-ties such as those demonstrated or tracked by theBCN program will continue to generate substan-tial incomes into the next generation. Migrationto more favored rural areas and to urban areaswill be essential for achieving the necessary

decline in population density in certain ruralareas. The achievement of appropriately lowdensity in certain areas, of course, cannot occurwithout the accompanying income increasethrough intensification in the more favored,more highly populated areas. Thus, in the long

10

Where population density is low, and the potentials for intensification ofagriculture are severely limited, thebenefits from activities complementaryto preserving biodiversity can beattractive for a substantial portion of the population.


run, rapid development of the more-favored areas(responding to globalization and new technology)is just as essential to the less-favored areas.Migration is a complement to the efforts toincrease incomes of the remaining population, not a substitute.

Out-migration will create a smaller number ofpeople to share the earned income related to thereserves, hence providing more economicsupport per person. The migration will be to themarket towns of the areas prospering throughintensification as well as to bigger cities, whichwill no longer be attracting people from theincreasingly prosperous rural areas. In bothcases, the migration opportunity for people in thelow-productivity areas is enhanced by intensifica-tion in the more responsive areas.

The requirements for biodiversity conservation inthe low population density areas are similar inbroad outline but differ in detail compared tothose for the high population density areas. First,in the short run, the many opportunities for smallincreases in income must be capitalized upon.Second, in the long run, measures to assistmigration to other areas, including increasededucation and other human capital investments,are needed. Third, in the context of the precedingtwo points, a vigorous program of reserveexpansion is needed. The reserve expansioninitiative will be facilitated by the likely decline inland values associated with increased productionin the more favored areas. Fourth, as discussed ina later section, community education and partici-pation are vital to engage local people inprotecting the reserves and deriving benefitsfrom them. In areas of low population density, thereserves have the potential to become the majorsource of income for the small remaining localpopulation. Throughout, it is essential that theagricultural development potential of high popula-tion density areas be vigorously pursued. Becauseagricultural intensification will be the necessarymeans of further reducing population density inthe low population density areas to better fit thepoor resource base, it will also serve to takepressure off the reserves and allow substantial income increases.

The Role of Agricultural Intensificationin High Population Density Areas

To understand why so much of the income andpoverty reduction burden is placed on the highpopulation density rural areas requires under-standing the basic elements of their development.Those elements can be categorized under threeinterrelated headings: specialization, technology,and linkages to rural non-farm employment. Allthree of these topics relate to various aspects ofagricultural intensification.

Specialization, Trade, and Physical Infrastructure

In the late 1700s, Adam Smith postulated thatspecialization and trade are the roots of theproductivity increase that drives the “wealth ofnations.” In the intervening centuries, those basiceconomic principles are still subscribed to bymainstream economists. However, because of theless advanced state of science then, as comparedto now, Smith no doubt underemphasized the role of technological advance. In modern times,however, technological advance, specialization,and trade interact and powerfully reinforceeach other.

Technology advances specialization and trade in four ways.

First, technological improvements in transporta-tion have constantly reduced transportation costs.

Second, technology has decreased the perisha-bility and bulkiness of many products.

Third, because technological advance can beuneven, over time and across commodities, a fewspecific crops may suddenly become much moreprofitable than others, encouraging specializationin those crops and varieties.

Fourth, the cost of generating new technologyencourages specialization, which allows forhigher payments and the subsequent accrual ofgreater benefits.

11


Investment, institutions, and policies that reducetransaction costs are favorable to resource conser-vation because they allow each area to specializein the products for which their natural resourcesare best suited. Thus, without trade, Nepal’s hillfarms must cultivate annual subsistence crops,which are not well suited to hilly terrain and,therefore, the accompanying agriculturalprocesses often result in much erosion. Tradeallows those farms to specialize in tree fruits,which are more suited to the resource base butfor which the local market is insufficient. Notethat, in the case of the hill regions of Nepal, popu-lation densities are already high, reducing the

cost of infrastructure per family; thus, intensifica-tion is economically feasible. Such cases shouldbe distinguished from low population densityareas that have poorer initial infrastructure. Inthese cases, the costs of migration and protectionof biodiversity conservation areas will be muchlower than the costs of providing an intricate gridof physical infrastructure.

Policies that favor specialization and trade fall intwo categories: international policies that keepgovernments from impeding trade throughinhibiting laws and taxes, and national policiesthat improve the physical infrastructure. The

12

Specialization and trade, especially when reinforced by technology, result in greatly reducedbiodiversity within agriculture.


urban bias of so many developing countries, andin recent decades, most foreign aid donors aswell, has resulted in gross under-investment inrural physical infrastructure, such as the buildingof roads and the improvement of communica-tions. The change in foreign aid focus, away fromagriculture, is one of the most important reasonsfor relatively low poverty declines in the 1990scompared to impressive rates of povertyreduction the 1980s. Fortunately, the U.S. foreignaid program is now leading the way back to anemphasis on agriculture and, consequently, onrural development.

Specialization that increases income, reducespoverty, and conserves soil is not necessarilybeneficial for biodiversity. Specialization andtrade, especially when reinforced by technology,result in greatly reduced biodiversity within agriculture. By increasing the value of output,specialization and trade result in escalating landvalues, making it substantially more costly toexpand reserves and connecting corridors. Those processes that increase land values can beexpected to continue into the foreseeable future.High-income countries, by providing for reserveexpansion, can take advantage of the lowercurrent land values.

Structural adjustment programs pushed by inter-national financial organizations are designed toencourage market forces that accelerate growth.Structural adjustment attempts to eliminategovernment-imposed distortions in prices, and itcan be good for the environment in encouragingspecialization in what is most suitable to thearea’s agro-ecology. Structural adjustment canhelp agricultural growth by eliminating the many price biases against agriculture that areoften imposed by urban-focused governments in low-income countries. However, structural adjustment, in attempts to control inflation, hassometimes fostered budget cuts that dispropor-tionately harm rural areas.

Thus, because of budget cuts associated withstructural adjustment programs, many activitiesthat directly benefit rural people, such as

education and outreach, are the first to losefunding. Positions and funds that deal withsustainability, as related to rapid agricultural inten-sification, are particularly vulnerable as theseprograms often require highly trained personneland relatively expensive educational initiatives. Asthe government and international financial institu-tions recognize the harm from severe budgetcuts, they may begin to make exceptions for social

13

Even as modern agriculture depends onbiodiversity for the gene pool to provideincreased yields, it pushes towardspecialization and away from biodiversity.


programs, but often still neglect the needs of agriculture, not recognizing the special problemsof a small farming sector. Urban-biased budgetbalancing also leaves little scope for expenditureon the biodiversity-focused reserve expansion andprotection programs that should accompanysuccessful agricultural intensification. Thus, inAfrica, for example, the net effect of structuraladjustment has been more harm than good forpoverty reduction—but that need not be the case.

The baby does not have to be thrown out with thebathwater. What is needed is a push for openmarkets and private activity, recognizing that therural sector needs government programs to helpsupport rural roads, research, education, andcarefully chosen institutional development. In that context, biodiversity conservation can playan integral role in efforts for rural development, combined with efforts to set aside protectedareas. (For a detailed treatment of structuraladjustment as related to environmental issues, see Reed 1996.)

Technology and Modern Science

Technological advance is essential to agriculturalgrowth because agriculture is, inherently, characterized by a land constraint. Agriculturalproduction cannot be increased, as in manufac-turing, by a proportionate increase in all inputs.Thus, agriculture illustrates the classic problem ofdiminishing returns to labor and capital, unlessscience and technology develop ways to addressand mitigate the land constraint.

Farmers have always understood the need fortechnological improvements and have done theirbest to select seed carefully and to graduallyimprove cultural practices as well as the varietiesgrown. However, such trial and error methodsgive at best a one-half percent per year rate ofgrowth of productivity, while, at the same time,population grows at two to three percent andlevels of living decline. Scientific advances, on theother hand, have been shown to increase agricul-tural efficiency, reaching up to two and threepercent per year rates of yield increase.

As stated previously, modern science worksunevenly, raising the productivity of certain cropsfar more than that of others. Consequently,specialization is boosted in only a few crops and,among those crops, only within a few varieties.Even as modern agriculture depends on biodiver-sity for the gene pool to provide increased yields,it pushes toward specialization and away frombiodiversity. In this move toward specialization,we see a conflict with biodiversity—a conflict thathas been present since the beginning of agricul-ture, but that has also been greatly reinforced bymodern science and transportation technology.Yet there is another problem, too: with dynamicadvances in major production areas, prices maydecline and reduce incomes for people who mustfarm on poorer resources or who cannot other-wise benefit from technological improvements.

The good news is that, with modern science andspecialization, a given income or quantity of foodand fiber can be produced within a much smallerarea than without science and specialization. Thebad news is that the consequent higher landprices provide the incentive to cultivate as muchas possible of the high-productivity land. That iswhy, in productive areas of rich countries, fewpatches of biodiversity remain, most of which arequite small. Low-income countries today may beheaded down this same path that higher-incomecountries have traveled in the past, leadingtoward drastic declines in biodiversity whilepreserving only a few, small remaining islands.

As rapidly rising crop yields do not comenaturally, a great deal of research and funding isrequired from the public sector as well as theprivate sector. In high-income countries, privatecompanies tend to conduct an increasing propor-tion of agricultural research, playing a particularlyimportant role when partnering with public sectorentities. In contrast, in low-income countries, theprivate sector is much smaller and less willing tomake long-term investments; consequently, thepublic sector plays a more important and visiblerole in conducting agricultural research.

14


Sustainability, Intensification, and the Environment

Although farmers may believe it is important topreserve their farms for their children and grand-children, in conditions of extreme poverty theymay feel forced to sacrifice future benefits in favorof present needs. Intensification, and the accom-panying higher incomes, can relieve the pressureof extreme poverty and give a freer rein toachieving sustainable agriculture. Reducedpoverty provides a favorable environment foreducation programs that reinforce sustainablepractices, and such educational efforts can have a lasting impact on rural populations.

However, the processes of intensification bring tolight additional issues that should be addressedthrough public action. Because of their rapidgrowth rates, high-yielding crops require substan-tially more plant food than low-yielding crops.Improved transportation options not only increasecrop specialization, but they also help address theplant nutrient problem by facilitating productionof plant nutrients off the farm. With low-costfertilizer, it is common for farmers to err on theside of using too much, rather than too little,which may increase the chances of ground waterpollution, as is evidenced in many Westerncountries. Public action can provide the necessaryimpetus to search for and implement improvedmanagement techniques.

Similarly, specialization, particularly in high-valuecrops, increases the profitability of using pesti-cides. While the same problem of overuse islikely to occur, increased education focused onusing integrated pest management techniquesmay help improve the efficiency and effectivenessof pest control chemicals. For example, in wettropical areas, heavy pesticide applications are notan effective method of pest control as high levelsof rainfall wash away most of the chemicals;therefore, integrated pest management practicesmay be more useful and readily accepted by local farmers.

However, there is a fundamental problem withintensive agricultural techniques in low-incomecountries: the new processes require relativelyknowledgeable resource managers, while mostfarm-worker populations are often poorlyeducated. Because of this, far more emphasisshould be placed on developing educated farmworkers with the knowledge and capacity to mostefficiently use agricultural chemicals. Throughresearch, extension, and education, the old beliefthat erring on the side of using too much fertil-izer (or too many chemicals) is better than usingtoo little must change. Unfortunately, neitherresearch nor extension is being pursued suffi-ciently or vigorously in low-income countries, yet this is an opportunity for resource managersand farmers in Africa to learn from previousmistakes made in Asia. To do so requiresthoughtful public policy and appropriate foreigntechnical assistance.

15


Intellectual Property Rights

The discovery of valuable genetic resources inareas of high biological diversity should providegreater incentives for conservation. As companiesare often rewarded for developing useful chemicalcompounds derived from natural substances,countries and communities should also berewarded for preserving areas of high diversity,which often contain unique, endemic species thatmay provide these substances. Intellectual prop-erty rights laws should be developed and upheldto provide incentives for land conservation. Theselegal rights can also work to ensure payments torural community organizations, which often play a major role in biodiversity preservation. Muchneeds to be done to realize these potentials.

Powerful Multipliers and Linkages to Rural

Non-Farm Employment: A Key to Poverty Reduction

Somewhat surprisingly, recent statistical studies,as well as earlier analyses, suggest that agricul-tural growth has a dominant role to play inpoverty alleviation (Ravallion and Datt 1996,Timmer 1997, Mellor 1976, Ahluwalia 1978). Thissuggestion runs contrary to initial appearances asfarmers are generally not the poorest people inrural areas. While smaller-scale farmers may notseem to benefit as much as larger-scale farmersfrom increased production, farmers at both levelsdo tend to make a better living than extremelypoor people, who are generally employed by therural non-farm sector in the same areas. However, new biological technology increases

16

Poverty reduction creates an economic environment within which areas of highbiological diversity must be enlarged and protected. The requirement forenlarging protected areas will differ between high population density and lowpopulation density areas.


labor productivity, which means that a 10 percentincrease in agricultural output may only require 3to 6 percent more labor (Mellor 1976). The expla-nation of why agricultural growth is critical topoverty reduction lies with understanding wherethe poor are located and what they do for a living.

More than 75 percent of the poor of low-incomecountries live in rural areas (IFAD 2000), wherethey derive a modest portion of their income fromfarming. The rural poor may have very small landholdings or, more likely, are landless, and the families are comprised of minimally skilledindividuals. Much of what they produce is low-quality non-farm goods, which are not suitable forexport and would require high transportationcosts to arrive at an appropriate market setting;therefore, the goods and services they produceare described as non-tradable. By extension,demand is necessarily local and, in rural areas, theincome fueling that demand comes dominantlyfrom farming (Liedholm and Meade 1987).Therefore, a linkage can be assumed: Without amassive increase in farm income, poverty will notdecline. (These powerful connections betweengrowth in farm incomes and increased productionand employment in the rural non-farm sector are discussed extensively in numerous studiesincluding Delgado 1998, Mellor 1976 and 1995,Bell and Hazell 1980, Hagblade et al. 1989, Hazelland Roell 1983, and Lee 1971.) Even microcreditand microenterprise programs for the poor failunless farm incomes rise, which serves to createthe necessary and subsequent increase in totaldemand for output (Hossain 1988).

Fortunately, but not surprisingly, in low-incomecountries the greatest concentration of poverty isin areas of high potential for growth in agricul-tural productivity and output, which are also theareas with substantial landless populations. It isthese areas that must initially drive the process of poverty reduction as their rapid developmentrelieves pressures to migrate, leaving peopleliving in less-favored areas with income-gener-ating activities. Furthermore, rapid growth inhigh agricultural production areas will allowabsorption of in-migrants from less-favored areas,

providing these people with economic opportuni-ties in rapidly expanding market towns. Thus,development of these high potential areas is vitalnot only to the people of those areas, but also tothe people of less favorably situated areas.

One further relationship should be noted.Agriculture itself is less capital intensive thaneven the labor-intensive export manufacturingindustries, and the rural non-farm sector requiresvery little capital. Resulting from this low capitalrequirement, the benefits of agricultural growth,and accompanying multipliers to the rural

17

Through research, extension, and education, theold belief that erring on the side of using too muchfertilizer (or too many chemicals) is better thanusing too little must change.


non-farm sector, go largely to labor. Consequently,the impact of agricultural growth is far moreevident in rising employment rates than in risingnational income levels.

Table 1 provides examples of the relationshipsbetween gross domestic product (GDP) growthand employment growth for two quite differentcountries: Egypt and Rwanda. In the table, therural sector is divided into two parts: the farmingsector and the rural non-farm sector, for whichthe bulk of incremental demand, and thus thebasis for output growth, comes from rising farmincomes. By contrast, all components of the urbansector are lumped together.

In Egypt, under a fast-growth scenario as depictedin Table 1, agriculture (labeled “farm”) and therural non-farm sector (for which agricultureprovides the effective demand) comprise only 32 percent of the initial gross domestic product(GDP), account for an even smaller proportion ofincremental growth in GDP (22 percent), but arelinked to 56 percent of employment growth.

By contrast, in Rwanda, agriculture represents a far greater portion of GDP, accounting for

40 percent, with another 25 percent comprised ofthe agriculture-driven rural non-farm sector.However, in Rwanda, the rural sector accounts foran even larger 86 percent of employment growth.

Through the processes that lie behind Table 1,rapid agricultural development has been shown toeliminate poverty within the high-potential areaswithin a few decades of instigating this rapidgrowth. But, as will be shown in the followingsection (titled The Challenge of Poverty Reductionin Low Population Density Rural Areas), poverty inthe less favored areas is much more intractable.Pockets of poverty remain in such areas not onlyin middle-income countries, but also even in high-income countries including the United States.3

Through agricultural intensification, betteremployment opportunities become available forthe landless labor class. While employment in thefarming sector does not rise proportionately withoutput, as the incomes of peasant farmers rise,these farmers do tend to reduce the input offamily labor and instead substitute hired labor.Farmers’ children are relieved of fieldwork sothey can attend school, and wives are allowedmore time for household and child-rearing tasks.

18

3 For example, in the United States, areas of Appalachia and much of the southeastern Piedmont have, until very recently, remained impoverished.

TABLE 1: Incremental Growth of GDP and Employment in Egypt and Rwanda: Fast Growth Scenario (All numbers represent percentages.)

Egypt Rwanda

Share of Share of Share of Share ofSector Initial GDP GDP Employment Base GDP GDP Employment

(percent) Growth Growth (percent) Growth Growth

Rural 32 22 56 65 59 86Farm (16) (10) (18) (40) (33) (26)Non-farm (16) (12) (38) (25) (26) (60)Urban 68 78 44 35 41 14Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: The “farm” and “non-farm” categories are sub-components of rural and, therefore, the values are containedwithin parentheses. The numbers not in parentheses add up to 100 percent.

Source: Mellor and Gavian 1999 and Mellor 2001


The Challenge of Poverty Reduction in LowPopulation Density Rural Areas

It is difficult to increase farm incomes and reducerural poverty in areas of low population density.The people in such areas tend to be quiteuniformly poor, even though population persquare mile is less than in the high populationdensity areas. Improved technology, in general,raises incomes less in these areas than in thehigh population density areas, and the cost perfamily of providing infrastructure is far higherbecause of the dispersion of the population. Aspopulation increases in these areas, people aredriven to intensify unsustainably and, sometimes,to encroach on protected areas.

Areas of low rural population density arediverse—some suffer from low rainfall, somefrom extraordinarily nutrient-poor soils, andothers from unfavorable topography. Each ofthese issues, which impact negatively upon anarea’s ability to be optimally agriculturally productive, calls for a different solution.Nevertheless, in most situations, increasing soilproductivity will improve the agricultural opportu-nities, which will subsequently increase incomes.But two problems slow that process. First, poorinfrastructure makes the transportation of goodscostly. Second, the total returns on the itemsproduced are less. Even though the rate of returnto small quantities of inputs may be as high as inthe more responsive areas, it rarely pays in suchareas to use more than a small quantity of inputs.As a result, the impact on total income is small.Sometimes investment returns to improvedfarming technology are higher in the low popula-tion density areas than in high-density areas—aphenomenon that usually occurs because theresearch for the high-density areas has slowedand the poorer, low-density areas have the chanceto catch up. That slackening of the research effortrarely happens in high-income countries and it isnot desirable in low-income countries.

In some cases, the resource base in areas of lowpopulation density is in fact highly responsive to

the forces of modernization. Particularly, this maybe the case when low-density areas begin to produce commercial export crops; however, evenin such events, the low population density areasoften will have poorly developed physical infra-structure, which will hinder commercial produc-tion and transport and, thus, prevent prosperity. In that case, the high cost of infrastructure perfamily and per unit of land will be an economicbarrier to development, as is evidenced in areas ofthe Congo Basin. In these situations, biodiversityconservation is best served by not investing in thephysical infrastructure (such as building roadsthat would open these areas for intensification)—and, most certainly, such infrastructure in areas oflow human-population density and high biologicaldiversity should not be subsidized. One can arguethat the global interest is best forwarded bytaking advantage of the low population densities

19

HIGH-POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AREAS

Examples of high-potential agricultural areas inlow-income countries include the great alluvialplains of northern India, Pakistan, andBangladesh; the middle belt of west Africa withits favorable rainfall; and large expanses of theextremely fertile east African highlands.

However, some areas with a poor environmentfor subsistence food crops possess strongpotential for cash crops (such as the coastalareas of west Africa and Malaysia). These areasmay also have high potential for rapid agricul-tural growth and associated high populationdensities. Where infrastructure is already welldeveloped, or can be provided at a low costbecause of proximity to ports and urban areas,these areas will intensify in agriculture. On thecontrary, where infrastructure costs are high, itwould be better to expand biodiversity conserva-tion areas.


and lack of infrastructure by making payments tothe sparse population for environmental services,encouraging out migration, and avoiding infra-structure investment.4

On the other hand, in some protected areas,natural commodities—from herbs to honey— can be produced and removed without signifi-cantly disturbing natural biological processes(Peters 1994). Approaches that rely on local,natural products, and that remove productswithout harming the ecosystem, are attractive astheir economic viability is intimately linked withthe health of the ecosystem, which encourageslocal people to invest in protecting biologicaldiversity. As a result, USAID has documented

considerable success stories linked to theseapproaches. (For examples, see the box titledThe Use of Community Enterprises to IncreaseRural Incomes.)

Enlarging and Protecting Areas forBiodiversity Conservation

Poverty reduction creates an economic environ-ment within which areas of high biologicaldiversity must be enlarged and protected. Therequirement for enlarging protected areas willdiffer between high population density and lowpopulation density areas.

20

4 The Amazon and Congo Basins provide examples of low population density areas that harbor important pockets of biodiversity.

THE USE OF COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES TO INCREASE RURAL INCOMES: CASES FROM INDIA AND NEPAL

The Tere project in South India is located in a sparsely populated, somewhat dry, hilly area. In an effort toincrease local incomes, a foreign aid-supported effort is organizing producers of non-timber resources from thearea and helping to develop high-value markets for the products. The incremental income increase derived fromproducing the non-timber products clearly increases the incentive to preserve the resource base. However, in thelonger run, incomes will not be able to keep up with higher population density areas. At that time, the extensiveuse of forest resources will most likely drop off, out migration will occur, and income from tourism will begin tosubstitute for the current non-timber sources. This process will be complicated by the ethnic differentiation ofmany of the people of the area, which is quite common in low population density, low-income areas.

In Humla, Nepal, which is a low population density district in the far northwest and near the Tibetan border, a community-organized integrated approach to local enterprise development is successfully raising incomes.Again, this success is from an initially low income base and the extensive development of the resources willsoon hit a ceiling or increase only slowly. Development of other agriculturally favored areas, such as the low hillsand the terai plains, will facilitate out migration to allow for the spreading of incomes over a smallerpopulation. In addition, a high percentage of the remaining people in the low population density areas will engagein activities associated with tourism—an industry that is expected to increase in economic importance as facili-ties improve and incomes elsewhere rise.

In each of these cases, significant income enhancements will accrue to the low population density residents,although those incomes will not increase at a level on par with the continuously rising incomes of the high popu-lation density areas. To achieve the higher income levels available to people in high-density areas, low-densityresidents will need to out-migrate, allowing a concentration of the environmental services and tourism income togo to a smaller number of people.


Enlarging Biodiversity Reserves

In high population density areas, the value of landis high and will continue to be driven higher bythe processes of intensification. Those areas tendto have a long history of cultivation so patches ofhigh biodiversity are small, but they do exist: forexample, parks and national forests in the teraigrasslands of Nepal, Corbett Park in the teraigrasslands of India, the Gorilla Parks in Rwandaand Uganda, and Nairobi National Park in Kenya,among others. While these parks tend to besmall, the biodiversity they protect is important asit is representative of the productive soils andforests of the area. In addition, these relativelyurban parks provide important benefits to thenearby human populations, including ecosystemservices and recreational opportunities.

Given rapidly rising land values, it is urgent toenlarge reserves before the costs become prohib-itive. In areas of high population density, landvalues are initially higher than in low populationdensity areas. Even so, development of agricul-ture greatly increases the difference in prices.That makes for difficult decisions about where to allocate resources for reserve expansion. Forexample, conservation groups and governmentsmust make choices such as whether to protectsmall parcels of land in high population density,productive areas or larger parcels located in lowerproductivity, less populated areas.

However, it is important to note that, even withinresponsive production areas, there are oftenmodest-sized areas of low agricultural productivity(e.g., in temperate latitudes, farmers may leaveclusters of trees in areas of intensive agriculture).Because these areas are not optimal for agricul-ture, they may represent parcels of land thatcould be, relatively easily, set aside as biodiversitypreserves. Moreover, linking these small areas ofbiodiversity using corridors may improve oppor-tunities for species preservation through allowingfor genetic diversification, habitat enlargement,and migration pathways. While the cost per unit

area tends to be high for wildlife corridors,this method can ensure significant benefits to biodiversity.

Once priority conservation areas have been iden-tified, implementation considerations shouldinclude substantial financial reimbursements toensure that market-related levels of compensationare provided to the small farmers who are askedto reduce their claims to land.5 And because theconservation of these diverse areas benefits not

21

One can argue that global interest is best forwarded by making payments forenvironmental services in low populationdensity areas, encouraging out migration,and avoiding infrastructure investment.

5 The taking of land by government, without proper compensation for the landowners, is neither an ethical nor a sustainable approach, although it does occur in manylow-income countries.


only the local, immediate populations but trulythe entire world, wealthier local citizens, as well as conservation groups and internationalgovernmental organizations, should help supportthese efforts.

As shown previously, land values are low in thelow population density areas. The processes ofintensification in more responsive areas tend tofurther lower land values in the low populationdensity areas as productivity and labor are drawnaway from those areas. Thus there is less urgencyto enlarge reserves in the low-population areas.However, the sooner reserves are enlarged, thesooner the potential for tourism will be realizedand the sooner local people will start to seebenefits from conservation.

Protecting High-Priority Conservation Areas

Areas of high biological diversity must beconserved, which requires monetary resources inaddition to a well-organized and committedcommunity. Several key questions arise fromthese needs, including how funds specificallyearmarked for conservation should be transferredand, once they are transferred, who will providecustodianship for the funds. Clearly, the mostappropriate people to administer the conservationfund are community members, working togetherwithin a community-based management organiza-tion. If that is the case, formal measures need tobe developed, including those that regulatepayment for environmental services and aprocess for providing the funds for protection. As in the case of reserve enlargement, protectionhas somewhat different circumstances in highand low population density areas.

In the high population density areas, with rapidlyincreasing farming intensity, protection occurs ina context of increasing value of the land andhence increasing incentive to encroach.Concurrently, the value of destruction by animalsmoving out of the preserves is increasing rapidlywith farming intensification.

Even on high-productivity, high populationdensity lands, the local population can benefitfrom preserving areas of biological diversity.These protected lands can provide aesthetic and utilitarian values, potentially even helping tomitigate the effects of predators within agricul-tural and pastoral systems. However, the largestgain is most likely to come from watershedprotection as forested lands and particularlywetlands provide natural filtration services,helping maintain healthy and functioning hydro-logical systems. Local people need to work toprotect natural areas, while also supporting theexpansion of land for corridors and enlargementof existing protected areas. Payment to localresidents for protection of resources that provideenvironmental services can encourage moresustainable and intensive local support of biodi-versity conservation measures (Reed 1996, 2001).

22

The sooner reserves are enlarged, the soonerthe potential for tourism will be realized andthe sooner local people will start to seebenefits from conservation.


In many respects, ensuring the conservation ofbiodiversity in low population density areas ismuch easier than doing so in high populationdensity areas. Given the less intensive farmingmethods and less extensive agricultural lands inthe low-density areas, the damage by wanderinganimals is less and hence the costs of compensa-tion and protection are less. Also, because thepopulations adjacent to protected areas tend to besmall in low-density areas, a higher proportion ofthat population will receive economic benefitsfrom environmental service payments—aphenomenon that will only increase as outmigration further reduces the population of low-density areas.

However, it will be difficult even to protect lowpopulation density areas without concurrentefforts to raise local incomes. In these areas,economic benefits derived from the protectedlands accrue to a considerable portion of thepopulation, whether through the harvest oftimber or non-timber products, gathering of food-stuffs for subsistence purposes, or providinggrazing and fodder for livestock. Many of thetimber and non-timber products have a market inhigh-income countries (Peters 1994); therefore,technical assistance is needed to organizecommunities to protect their resources at thesame time as drawing upon the flow of goodsfrom the areas. In addition, better access to high-income markets is crucial for developing along-term, sustainable flow of timber and non-timber microenterprise products from low population density, low agricultural intensityareas. Products that can be harvested from theseareas and then sold in high-income marketsinclude a wide range of medicinal products,honey, and exotic fruits and berries.

In recognizing that these small niche marketscannot support an income increase for largenumbers of people, it becomes clear, though, thatthe bulk of the poverty problem must be solvedelsewhere, as discussed in previous sections.However, for the relatively small number ofpeople living in the low population density areas,

a doubling of incomes, due to small businessdevelopment focused on non-extractive products,may be conceivable.

Tourism is another example of an income-gener-ating activity that cannot raise the incomes oflarge numbers of people, but that may besuccessful in low population density areas, whereeconomic gains from tourist activities can make amajor impact on raising the income of the poor.Again, technical assistance and thoughtful organi-zation are needed as tourism is generally acapital-intensive business. Tourist enterprisesrequire a great deal of capital to develop the trans-portation and hotel facilities to address the needsand wants of visitors. On the other hand, low-costand low-end tourism may not require as manycapital inputs, but it is also lower in employmentrequirements so, in the end, the ratio of capitalinput to employment benefits is comparable.Examples of successful tourism enterprises wouldinclude those in Nepal’s rain shadow areas, whichalso possess low population density. However, in the higher population density areas of Nepal,tourism has provided little economic benefit forthe mass of local people, which is similar to the situation in high population density areassurrounding the major tourist attractions ofLuxor, Egypt.

Community Organization

As the rural economy grows and differentiates,increasing opportunities arise for people to jointogether and organize to realize mutual benefits.At the farm operator level, organizations mayinclude groups focused on marketing strategiesand technology provision. In the rural non-farmsector, organizational opportunities may includegroups that work to recognize, promote, andequitably distribute benefits from nearbyprotected areas, including benefits from activitiessuch as tourism, marketing of niche commoditiesfrom the protected areas, and credit programs tosupport expanding small industries.

23


Conservation and development projects have nowhad a great deal of experience in organizingcommunity groups to manage forest resources(e.g., Shilling and Osha 2002). These experiencesneed to be expanded and drawn upon to pull outlessons applicable to biodiversity conservationstrategies. The proximity and close personal identification with local resources allowcommunity groups an advantage in understandingand lobbying for protection and conservation ofhigh biological diversity areas. And an additionalbenefit to having local groups take the lead onprotection efforts is that costs are inevitably lowerthan when outside groups are involved. Finally,experience with forestry groups suggests thatlocal community groups have a clearer andstronger conviction regarding the importance ofprotecting resources for the future, as comparedto less connected and more economically drivenpopulations. Local community groups have been

shown to highly value the conservation of naturalresources, holding the resources in trust andmanaging them wisely for future generations.

As there may be costs involved with organizinglocal groups, some outside input and support are generally needed to get them off the ground.Also, the local groups often need continuing,subsidized funding to cover operating costs andenvironmental services payments may be a logicalway of covering those costs (Balvanera 2001).

Land Tenure and Titling

The driving force of rural employment growth,linked to intensified agriculture, comes from theincreased income expenditure by farmers.However, if agricultural lands are concentrated inthe hands of wealthy people—particularly wealthy

24

Development efforts should focus on areas dominated by small farms.


people who do not actually live in the local area—local expenditures will not help reduce poverty.Because the driving force of rural employmentgrowth is the expenditure of increased farmincomes on locally produced, employment-intensive goods and services, rich landownerswho spend their money on imports and capital-intensive goods and services do not contribute toalleviating local poverty. However, because thereis not a good alternative to agricultural growth forreducing poverty, poverty reduction has proven tobe relatively intractable in places such as in LatinAmerica, the Sindh of Pakistan, and a few placesin Africa, particularly southern Africa, wherelarge landholdings by people who do not spendmuch locally are quite common.

In countries where this problem is prevalent,development efforts should focus on areasdominated by small farms, which are oftenconcentrated in upland areas. These upland small-farm holdings represent potential for increasedproductivity, particularly in export markets.6

When working for poverty alleviation throughthis method, the emphasis must be on measuresto increase incomes by large multiples. Thatrequires producing commercial crops and solvingthe difficult problems of smallholder access andsuccess in such crops.

Of course, land reforms that divide large holdingsamong numerous small farmers represent a boonto poverty reduction. Unfortunately, policies thatsupport this type of land reform are difficult tocreate and enforce. In such areas, politicalsystems are mainly dominated by wealthy andcorporate interests, and the foreign policy of richcountries is often not sympathetic to radicalchange in power structures. Compounding theproblem, institutional structures in areas of greatinequity in landholdings are traditionally suited tomore easily manage and reward large holdings.For these reasons, major institutional changemust accompany land reform: From both a

growth and equity point of view, radical landreform is a good idea. However, this type of landreform, which drastically shifts political andeconomic structures toward favoring multiple,small landholdings, does not seem to happenexcept when foreign armies are involved, such asin Japan and Taiwan.7

25

WORKING WITH PEOPLE IN A HIGHPOPULATION DENSITY AREA:NEPAL’S ROYAL CHITWANNATIONAL PARK

The Royal Chitwan National Park lies withinNepal’s Terai Arc (an extensive grasslandextending along the base of the Himalayas).Much of the park has excellent agriculturalresources, and areas of high population densityand rapidly increasing agricultural intensitysurround it. Foreign aid grants have helpedNepali non-governmental organizations (NGOs)to organize local communities and help themrealize benefits from the park through providingtourist facilities, serving as guides, and devel-oping some of the park’s renewable resources.These economic-enhancement and community-management efforts have been successfulin raising the incomes of people in theimmediate surrounding areas (John MellorAssociates, Inc. 1996).

The community-management strategies under-taken in Royal Chitwan are desirable anduseful, but they will have to be complementedby efforts to increase the overall size of thepark (which would, subsequently, increase theprotected-area-to-perimeter ratio). Community-management teams have been successful indeveloping a group interest in protecting and drawing non-consumptive benefits fromthe reserve.

6 For example, the highest quality coffee is produced at higher elevations where the farms tend to be small (such as in the highlands of Guatemala), and these representareas that also possess potential for producing high-value horticultural crops.

7 In the case of Japan, General Douglas MacArthur imposed land reforms as part of the post-World War II peace process. In Taiwan, land reform was instigated by thearmies fleeing the mainland following China’s communist takeover in 1950.


In noting the negative effect of large landhold-ings, a critical issue is the expenditure patterns ofthose benefiting from agricultural advance. Forexample, peasant farmers with holdings two orthree times the average do increase productionrapidly in response to new income opportunitiesand their expenditures drive the local economyand local employment. On the other hand, large absentee landowners do not spend theirmoney locally.8

A complex yet related issue is the titling of land.At its simplest, providing community title toconserved land undoubtedly encourages coopera-tion and organization of community members.

Title to land also leads to a longer-term view ofthe income from and use of land, both of whichsupport future-oriented conservation mentalitiesand approaches. However, if the local people arenot properly educated about the benefits andprocedures associated with individual titling ofland, the process may lead to land grabs by thewealthier, more informed political elite. While theprinciple of individual title to farmed land andcommunity title to shared resources makes sense,great care has to be taken to ensure that thebenefits of applying the principles are realizedequally by all people.

26

8 For example, in Guatemala, many landowners do not spend in the local rural economy, but rather in the capital city and abroad.

Experience with forestry groups suggests that local community groups have a clearer and stronger conviction regarding the importance of protecting resources for the future, as compared to less connected and more economicallydriven populations.


Foreign Aid, AgriculturalDevelopment, and Biodiversity

The primary problem in the pursuit of biodiver-sity in low-income countries is the urban bias ofthe political systems. This bias leads to inatten-tion to critical public goods, such as rural roadsand agricultural research, required to accelerateagricultural production in a manner that willsharply reduce poverty. Further, within urban-focused political agendas, rural poverty reductionis not a priority, which makes it difficult todevelop biodiversity conservation policies that arelinked to poverty reduction.

Exacerbating the issue, many high-incomecountries have pursued foreign aid programs thathave also neglected agriculture and supported theexisting urban bias. Foreign aid agencies havedone little clear thinking about how to preserve

biodiversity in the several quite contrasting typesof situations of high and low population densityand therefore have failed to capitalize on comple-mentary relationships between agricultural devel-opment and biodiversity conservation.

Typically, developing countries of Asia and Africaachieved independence under urban-basedmovements and, consequently, the resultinggovernments have been highly urban biased.Since independence, governments have main-tained the urban bias, often reinforced by fear ofunrest by urban populations, which can mobilizeagainst political systems more easily than canrural populations. The urban focus of manygovernments has resulted in under-investment in rural infrastructure, lack of funding for institutions related to technology generation and dissemination, continuously rising ruralpoverty levels, and massive encroachment onprotected areas.

27

The primary problem in the pursuit of biodiversity in low-income countries isthe urban bias of the political systems.


In the early decades of foreign aid, manyprograms were particularly interested in fundingnational groups involved with agriculture andrelated issues, which resulted in much moreemphasis on agriculture than the governmentswould naturally have provided. This emphasis, infact, accelerated overall growth and had dramaticeffects on poverty reduction.9 In Asia, typically,poverty declined by one-half or more in the 1970s and 1980s (Ravallion 1995), and statisticalanalyses show that on the order of 85 percent ofthat decline in poverty was due to the direct andindirect effects of agricultural growth (Ravallion1995; Ravallion and Datt 1996; Timmer 1997).

Just when the green revolution was at its peakimpact, foreign aid started turning sharply awayfrom the agricultural emphasis. Between 1987 and1997, USAID reduced by 80 percent its supportfor agriculture and released the bulk of its agricul-tural technicians. Other donors, including theWorld Bank, followed suit. As a result, povertyreduction in Asia has slowed and poverty hasincreased in Africa, as well as in those Asiancountries that were at an African stage of development (e.g., Nepal). It is notable that, as overall foreign aid has declined in the pastdecade, agricultural programs have absorbed all of the budgetary reductions, while othersectors have actually seen an increase in theircollective budgets.

What explains the decline in funding for agricul-tural programs? First, the decline can be traced tothe very success of the Green Revolution, whichprompted thoughts that it was time to move on tosecond-generation problems, such as empha-sizing broader participation and social programs.However, aid agencies and development organiza-tions did not realize that the first-generationproblems had not yet been fully solved in Asia,and they had not even been approached in Africa.Second, agricultural surpluses in the wealthiercountries lessened enthusiasm for further devel-oping agricultural solutions in poor countries.

And, some environmentalists, observingproblems with fertilizer in countries like theNetherlands, which applies 800 kilograms ofnutrients per hectare, applied those sameconcerns to developing countries such asRwanda, which uses only 2 kilograms per hectare.However, now aid agencies and developmentorganizations are finally reverting to a focus onagriculture in foreign aid, recognizing theimportant role played by agriculture in povertyalleviation and food production.

The Action Program to Preserve Biodiversity

The action program for low-income countries and foreign aid donors that follows from thepreceding analysis includes the subsequent five components.

1. Agricultural development, based on intensifica-tion, globalization, and rapidly improving tech-nology, is a primary factor in poverty reductionand enlarging biodiversity conservation areas.

2. In the context of intensified agricultural development, protected areas that house highconcentrations of biological diversity need to be enlarged. Enlarging protected areas willrapidly become more expensive in the areas of agricultural intensification, which are also oftenthe areas of greatest biodiversity. The rising landvalues add urgency to this task, which is onethat will fail if large transfers of funds from richcountries to poor countries are not made. Bycontrast, in areas of low population density,opportunities remain for obtaining large tracts ofland at declining cost; but, for that to occur,short-term opportunities for raising the incomesof poor people living in low-density areas mustbe grasped. Strategies for raising rural incomesinclude modest improvements in farming technologies, coupled with providing income forworking in, as well as protecting, biodiversity-rich areas. In the longer run, migration to urban

28

9 India is a notable example of such forces (Mellor et al. 1968).


areas and prospering rural areas will be essen-tial because, as migration occurs, the remainingfamilies will see an increase in the incomesgained from conservation-oriented uses ofprotected areas (including appropriate forms of tourism).

3. As areas of biodiversity are enlarged, good stew-ardship becomes increasingly important.Community participation and management relyon encouraging local people to organize andprovide efficient and effective stewardship at lowcost. Another key aspect of community manage-ment is that channels and funds must be devel-oped to ensure that the costs that are incurredare covered through appropriate payment forenvironmental services. For organized communi-ty groups to succeed, the local people must havelegal and uncontested ownership of the land ofwhich they are stewards, which is likely torequire titling and related political actions.

4. To grasp fleeting opportunities, foreign aid mustbe attuned to the technical and financial needsof agricultural intensification in high populationdensity rural areas. At the same time, foreign aid must be earmarked to support expansion of reserves and to finance community organiza-tions. In particular, as international financialinstitutions pursue macro-level policy reforms,they must be sensitive to the interacting public

goods requirements for agricultural intensifica-tion (e.g., rural roads, agricultural research,teaching improved management, and developingrural financial markets), poverty reduction, andbiodiversity conservation.

5. Large environmental NGOs, focused on biodiver-sity, land preservation, and species conservation,need to broker compacts between foreign aiddonors from high-income countries and govern-ments of low-income countries pursuing povertyreduction and biodiversity conservation. Theinvolved low-income countries must also workwith major international financial institutionswhile also enlisting their own bilateral programs.However, conservation NGOs must recognize thata single-minded approach to enlarging protectedareas, without a major assault on poverty andcooperative programs in the buffer zones, willnot work. The compact between high-income and low-income nations must clearly ensurethat substantial benefits will accrue for all parties that are essential to the compact’s long-term success.

Partnerships between rich and poor countries,achieved in the context of understanding theneeds and the urgency of addressing biodiversityconservation and poverty alleviation at the sametime, will ensure success and work toward a moreglobal sense of responsible stewardship.

29


Ahluwalia, Montek S. 1978. Rural Poverty and Agricul-tural Performance in India. Journal of DevelopmentStudies, Volume 14: 298-323.

Balvanera, Patricia, et al. 2001. Conserving Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services. Science, Volume 291.

Bell, C. L., and P. B. R. Hazell. 1980. Measuring theIndirect Effects of an Agricultural Investment Project onIts Surrounding Region. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, Volume 62: 75-86.

Delgado, C., et al. 1998. Agricultural Growth Linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa (Research Report No. 107).Washington, DC: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI).

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) InformalNetwork on Poverty Reduction. 2000 (Draft). DACGuidelines on Poverty Reduction: Volumes 1 and 2.Paris: OECD.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. 2000. The State of Food Insecurity in the World:1999. <http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/SOFI home-e.htm>.

Hagblade, S., P. Hazell, and J. Brown. 1989. Farm–Non-farm Linkages in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa. WorldDevelopment, Volume 17(8): 1173-1202.

Hazell, Peter B. R., and Ailsa Roell. 1983. Rural GrowthLinkages: Household Expenditures Patterns in Malaysiaand Nigeria (Research Report No. 41). Washington, DC:IFPRI.

Hossain, Mahabub. 1988. Credit for the alleviation ofrural poverty: the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh(Research Report No. 65). Washington, DC: IFPRI.

IFAD. 2000. Rural Poverty: Ending It in the Twenty-FirstCentury: IFAD’s Rural Poverty Report 2000/2001.<http://www.ifad.org>.

John Mellor Associates, Inc. 1996. Midterm Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Network. Washington, DC:USAID.

Kaiser, Jocelyn. 2001. Bold Corridor Project ConfrontsPolitical Reality. Science, Volume 293.

Lee, T. H. 1971. Intersectoral Capital Flows in theEconomic Development of Taiwan, 1895-1960. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Liedholm, Carl, and Donald Meade. 1987. Small-ScaleIndustries in Developing Countries: Empirical Evidenceand Policy Implications. East Lansing: MSUInternational Development Papers.

McNeely, J. A., et al. 1990. Conserving the World’sBiological Diversity. Washington, DC: World Resources

Institute, World Conservation Union, World WildlifeFund-U.S., and Conservation International.

Mellor, John W. 2001. Rapid Employment Growth andPoverty Reduction: Sectoral Policies in Rwanda.Washington, DC: Abt Associates, Inc.

Mellor, John W. 1995. Agriculture on the Road to Indust-rialization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mellor, John W. 1976. The New Economics of Growth.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Mellor, John W., and Sarah Gavian. 1999. Impact Assess-ment of Agricultural Policy Reform on Employment andProductivity in Egypt. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc.

Nepal, Government of. 1995. Agricultural PerspectivePlan. Katmandu: Government of Nepal.

Peters, C.M. 1994. Sustainable harvest of Non-timer PlantResources in Tropical Moist Forest: An Ecological Primer.Washington DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Ravallion, Martin, and Gaurav Datt. 1996. HowImportant to India’s Poor Is the Sectoral Composition ofEconomic Growth. The World Bank Economic Review, Volume 10(1).

Ravallion, Martin. 1995. Growth and Poverty: Evidencefor the Developing World. Economics Letters.

Reed, David. 2001. Poverty Is Not a Number. TheEnvironment Is Not a Butterfly. Washington, DC: WWF.

Reed, David. 1996. Structural Adjustment, theEnvironment, and Sustainable Development.Washington DC: WWF.

Sen, Amartya. 1976. Poverty: an Ordinal Approach toMeasurement. Econometrica, Volume 46: 437-446.

Shilling, John, and Jennifer Osha. 2002. Making MarketsPay for Stewardship. Washington, DC: WWF.

Timmer, C. Peter. 1997. How Well Do the Poor Connect to the Growth Process? (CAER II Discussion Paper No. 17). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute forInternational Development.

UNDP. 2000. Overcoming Human Poverty (UNDPPoverty Report). New York: UNDP.

Vogel, Catherine. 2001. No Easy Answers for Biodiversityin Africa. Science, Volume 291.

Wilson, E.O. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington DC:National Academy Press.

World Bank. 2001. World Development Indicators (CD-ROM). Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2001a. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.

30

REFERENCES


Preface

Agriculture practices in countries around the worldhave multiple and enduring impacts on the environmentand on biodiversity conservation. Agriculture is one ofthe most widely-spread productive activities, using nearly 40% of the earth’s land surface, providing suste-nance for us all and generating direct employment orlivelihoods for the vast majority of rural dwellers world-wide. As a result, agriculture occupies a central place inthe quest for economic betterment for a large propor-tion of the people who are poor and live in rural areas.

As stated in WWF’s Global Agriculture NetworkInitiative, expanding the agricultural frontier in countries around the globe is largely responsible for the destruction of nearly 17 million hectares of forests each year. That land use conversion process has consequently become a leading driver in loss of topsoiland sedimentation of freshwater and marine systems.Moreover, excessive use of chemicals in input-intensiveproduction systems has caused pollution of freshwaterreserves with attendant consequences for the world’secology and human health.

In this paper, John Mellor looks at this dilemma — at the need for supporting agricultural productivitygrowth, on the one hand, and the challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation on the other. His analysis examines the complex interplay incountries with different levels of national income anddifferent potentials for intensifying agricultural produc-tion. John Mellor is uniquely qualified to offer thisanalysis. He brings a long and distinguished record ofscholarship and policy advice in the field of agriculturaldevelopment combined with a strong personal interestin nature and its protection.

Injecting controversy into the debate on the linksbetween poverty and the environment is urgently needed because of the hold that preconceptions andbiases exert over both the debate and programmaticinterventions to address poverty-environment dynamics. We look forward to your comments and reactions and we hope that this Viewpoint series cancontribute to breaking down some of the walls thatrestrain our collective efforts to address these complex,urgent issues.

David ReedDirector

John W. Mellor

John W. Mellor is Vice-President, Abt Associates, Inc., a policy consulting firm. Previously Mellor wasPresident of John Mellor Associates, Inc., Director ofthe International Food Policy Research Institute; ChiefEconomist of the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, and Professor of Agricultural Economics,Economics, and Asian Studies at Cornell University,where he was also Director of the Program on Com-parative Economic Development and of the Center forInternational Studies.

From these various positions he has consulted widelyfor foreign aid donors and national governments andother institutions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He has been a visiting professor/fellow at TheAmerican University, Beirut, The Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi, and Balwant RajputCollege, Agra He holds degrees from CornellUniversity and Oxford University. He has receivedmany awards for quality of research, as well as theWihuri Award (Finland) and the Presidential Award(the White House, USA) for his contributions to thereduction of hunger in the world.

He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts andSciences, the American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, and the American Agricultural Economics Association.

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to Shubh Kumar-Range and hercolleagues at WWF, David Reed and Pablo Gutman,for their encouragement, insightful suggestions,and detailed comments. It is a special privilege tocooperate with WWF in bringing my knowledge of the processes of agricultural intensification andpoverty reduction in low-income countries into thecontext of the immensely important long-term goalof ensuring that future generations receive in fullthe natural resources and the biodiversity that areat the moment in our custodianship. I am also grate-ful to Nick Kulibaba of Abt Associates for furtherencouragement and insight and to Moira Chiong forassistance on data, references, and content. NicoleArdoin was unusually helpful in editing.


M/P

/OM

ACRO

ECON

OMIC

SFO

R S

UST

AIN

AB

LE D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

ROGR

AM O

FFIC

E

A VI

EWPO

INT

SERI

ES O

N P

OV

ER

TY

AN

D T

HE E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

T

BY JOHN W. MELLOR

Poverty Reductionand BiodiversityConservation: The Complex Rolefor IntensifyingAgriculture

M/P

/OM

ACRO

ECON

OMIC

SFO

R S

UST

AIN

AB

LE D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

ROGR

AM O

FFIC

E WWF Macroeconomics Program Office1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, NWWashington, DC 20037-1175, USAPhone: (202) 778 9752Fax: (202) 293 9211E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.panda.org/mpo

Shubh Kumar-Range, Ph.D., Senior Program Manager

Economic Change, Poverty and the Environment

The Viewpoints on Poverty and theEnvironment series provides a forum todiscuss the difficult, often controversial,challenges of integrating poverty and theenvironment into effective developmentstrategies. We welcome the diverse viewsof a wide range of authors and institutions.The opinions expressed by the author ofthis work do not necessarily reflect theopinions of MPO or its donors.

©Copyright WWF Macroeconomics Program Office,

October 2002

©1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature

(Also known as World Wildlife Fund)

Photography:

Deborah Boyd

Steve Cornelius

Pablo Corral

Dennis Glick

O. Langrand

Russell Mittermeier

Steve Morello

John Newby

Edward Parker

Galen Powell

Juan Pratginestos

Tony Rath

Mauri Rautkari

This program is carried out with support from:

European Commission DG Development

Netherlands’ Ministrerie vanBuuitenladse Zaken (DGIS)

Swedish InternationalDevelopment Agency (SIDA)

A CPrinted on recycled, recyclable paper,using soy-based inks.


printed on recycled, recyclable paper,using soy …assets.panda.org/downloads/mellor.pdfshubh...

Documents