do we need biodiversity to alleviate poverty? · nile perch over-fishing mali - koutiala...

An exploration

Do we needbiodiversity toalleviate poverty?

PBL

Ben ten Brink

Ben ten Brink, biodiversity-poverty relationship 17-10-08 2

Do we need biodiversity to alleviate poverty?

1. What says literature?2. Our vision and hypothesis3. 11 cases studies and test4. Results


poor rich

high

low

Well-being

Biod

iver

sity

a

e

d

c

b

f

1. What says the literature?

What is actually happening?


MSA

HDI

Human development & biodiversity

inversely related over time ?


Klein Goldwijk et al., 2008

2. Our vision & hypothesis A brief history of man


3000 BCLand use in the past

crop


0 ADLand use in the past

crop



crop


cityroad

Water basin National Park

timberplantation

cropsgolfShrimp

farm

Energy cropcattle

How do biodiversity and G&S relate?

We parcelate the world

‘Fight for the photons’


Most goods down-under

food, fiber, fuelwood, freshwaterC-sequestration, soil formation, flood contr

fish, meat, pollination

water purification, nutrient recycling

aesthetic, recreational, educationalcultural identity (shifting baseline)

disease regulation

5

4

3

2

1

-1-2-3-4

Trophic level


intensiveextensivenatural

. .

.

.

. .

..

. .

.

. .

.

..

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .. .

.

..

..

..

. .

.

. .


. .

.

.

. .

..

. .

.

. .

.

..

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .. .

.

..

..

..

. .

.

. .


. .

.

.

. .

..

. .

.

. .

.

..

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .. .

.

..

..

..

. .

.

. .


. .

.

. .

. .

.


. .

.

. .

. .

.

time

The gradual intensification of human use: parcelation


Hunter & gathers Self-subsistence Western

. .

.

.

. .

..

. .

.

. .

.

..

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .

.

..

..

..

. .

.

. .


Hunter & gathers Self-subsistence

. .

.

.

. .

..

. .

.

. .

.

..

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .

.

..

..

..

. .

.

. .


biodiversity

poor rich

Hypothesis

Win-lose

Lose-lose

1st interval

2nd interval

Critical level


3. 11 Case studies & test to hypothesisCase study

ountry & region Research team Ecosystem Production

sector/s Theme / focus

Brazil - Cerrado

AIDEnvironment Savanna Export oriented commodity development.

Forest conversion by soy expansion

Indonesia - Kalimantan

AIDEnvironment Tropical forest Export oriented commodity development.

Palm oil development

Costa Rica - Hojancha

CATIE Tropical forest Forestry Reforestation and Payments for Environmental Services.

Ecuador - Cotopaxi

Ecociencia Mountain Crop and livestock agric.

Smallholder farming system

Ghana - Coast

UBC Marine Fishery Subsistence and industrial fishing

Kenya - Lake Victoria

KWS, Maxillion Univerisity

Freshwater Fishery and lakeshore agric.

Nile perch over-fishing

Mali - Koutiala

Struif-Bont-kes & AIDE

Savanna Irrigated crop and livestock agric.

Cash crop development

Mexico - Chiapas

CIMMyT and ECOSUR

Tropical forest Crop and livestock agric.

Subsidised maize and bean system

Nicaragua - Chontales

UCA-ADAA Tropical forest Extensive livestock production of smallholders.

Expansion of agricultural frontier

0. Vietnam - Dakrong D.

CRES Tropical forest Crop and livestock agric.

Slash and burn system broken down

. Vietnam - Giao Thuy D.

CRES Marine and coastal

Fishery and aquaculture

Privatization, protection and overexploitation of the commoms


Indicators used of biodiversity & poverty

Biodiversity:– MSA, Species trend indices, Marine trophic index,

area with original biodiv,

Poverty: – poverty rate, poverty headcount, stunting, child

mortality, HPI,

Goods: – ha, productivity, GDP

Human wellbeing: – HDI, average farm income, GINI


Ecosystem

Economic system

Social system

FertilityBrittleness

State (MSA)Extent

Size biological assetsSize mineral assets

Market integrationMarket demandProfitability main commodityValue added prim/sec processingPower concentration market chain

Population density & growth

Income redistribution/equalityCorruption & accountability

Law & enforcement

Political stability/violenceGovernance effectivenessEconomic policiesConservation policiesSkills inhabitantsInstitutional capacity

Causal factors (candidate determinants)34 candidate determinants


poor rich

high

low

Well-being

Bio

dive

rsity

Brazil

Costa Rica

EcuadorIndonesia

MaliMexico

NicaraguaVietnam mangrove

Vietnam shifting cultivation

GhanaKenya

4. Results at first glance


Kenya

Costa Rica

Netherlands

Brasil

Mexico

EcuadorIndonesia

Mali

NicaraguaVietnam upland

Vietnam MangroveGhana fisheries

Poor Rich

At 1st glance


Kenya

Costa Rica

Netherlands

BrasilMexico

Ecuador IndonesiaMali

Nicaragua

Vietnam uplandVietnam Mangrove

Ghana fisheries

Poor Rich

Masking factors• population change • subsidies• source depletion• footprint• inequality• market collaps

At 2nd glance


Kenya

Costa Rica

Netherlands

BrasilMexico

Ecuador IndonesiaMali

Nicaragua

Vietnam uplandVietnam Mangrove

Ghana fisheries

Poor Rich

subs

idie

ssu

bsid

ies

subs

idies

footp

rint

Foot

prin

t &in

puts

subsidiessubsidiessubsidiessubsidies

subsidiesim

migation

subsidies

emigation

neutral - lose

subsidies

depletion


Key question: How to avoid lose-lose?

Relationship biodiversity – G&S

?

Brittle ecosystems•Dry•Cold/hot•Poor soils•Sloops•Mineral / biotic assets

Vulnerable societies•High pop growth•High poverty•No skills•No technics&inputs•No institutions•No enforcement•No owners•Low cost area•Conflict

Vulnerable economies• no access to market•……………………•…………………..


Our conclusion

Biodiversity and poverty alleviation inversally related

In 2050 4x bigger economy, technical but also ethical issue

Win – lose regular development

lose – lose if not managed well

Win – win does not exist (Kuznets curve)


Do we see ‘typical’ mechanisms?

• Poverty driven (group1) – low natural assets/capital, market integration, skills,

ecosystem management, high population growth (lose-lose).

• Capital driven (group 2)– The opposite as poverty driven. (win-lose).

• Policy driven (group 3)– Policies on intensification, expansion, diversification and

nature conservation influence win-lose and lose-lose outcomes into other forms, such as the win-win or neutral-neutral (Costa Rica and Mexico). Limitation by budgets & ecosystem features (fertility,

brittleness).


Thank you

do we need biodiversity to alleviate poverty? · nile perch over-fishing mali - koutiala...

Documents