R. AMANGELDIN, A. BEREKEYEVA
MA in Global Security, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
This paper will examine the possible relationship between poverty and environmental degradation. Finally evidence provided will suggest that poverty may only make an indirect contribution to environmental degradation and in some cases not have any effect at all.
Key words: poverty, environmental degradation, Brundtland Report (Our Common Future), orthodox school of thought, new schools of thought.
INTRODUCTION. In spite of long-running efforts to make the world a safer, more stable and harmonious place to live, many serious challenges continue to face humanity. By the time the Cold War came to and end and the Soviet Union collapsed, the international security agenda broadened beyond the military domain that had long been its focus [1, 5]. It could be claimed that this development led to environmental concerns becoming far more prominent, along with the range of related issues, such as the poverty and environmental degradation nexus [2, 8]. The poverty-environmental degradation nexus has come to be seen in the political and academic spheres as a national and international problem that must be urgently addressed. However, much controversy surrounds the concept of the poverty-environmental degradation nexus and there are currently two main perspectives on this relationship (if any): the orthodox
school of thought argues the validity of the nexus while their opponents could be seen to represent the new school of thought. Asadi et al. notes that the orthodox school of thought claims poverty to be a main reason of environmental degradation and that if policymakers want to tackle environmental problems, they have to tackle poverty [3, 205]. The new school of thought, however, assets that the notion of a direct relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is not necessarily correct and that it overly simplifies a complex issue and so the nexus actually represents less obvious factors [4, 2169]. While both the orthodox and new schools of thought accept that there is something of a connection between poverty and environmental degradation, the orthodox approach is perhaps to generalising and therefore may be misleading [5, 636]. A careful examination of these issues from the new school of thought’s perspective may therefore be illuminating, as it enables the impacts of poverty on various natural resources to be understood. In turn, this may show that poverty does not necessarily negatively affect natural resources and that environmental degradation more depends on factors such as geographical location or perhaps even non-environmental concerns, given the lack of capabilities to exert such influence. This paper will consider the merit of both the orthodox and newer schools of thought and seek to provide theoretical and evidential support for the latter. The paper is divided into three sections. The first defines the concepts of poverty and environmental degradation. The next outlines the competing claims of each school of thought. The last section summarises the earlier sections and concludes that poverty may only make an indirect contribution to environmental degradation and in some cases not have any effect at all.
POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION DEFINED. In order to provide a meaningful
answer to the question of whether there is a positive link between poverty and environmental degradation, it is necessary to define precisely what is meant by both poverty and environmental degradation. While poverty is universally applicable and has existed throughout human history, its exact definition is nevertheless debated. Gordon and Spicker state that the notion of poverty can be seen to consist of several overlapping concepts on the basis of the topic or aspect under discussion [6]. However, the global definition of poverty formulated by the United Nations is generally accepted by the international community. Following the World Summit for Social Development in 1995, some 117 countries signed up to the programme of action which included the eradication of ‘absolute’ poverty and a reduction of poverty ‘overall’, with the creation of national poverty reduction plans one of the priorities [7, 9]. Thus, the UN acknowledged two definitions of poverty. The first, ‘absolute poverty’, was said to be “characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services”. The second, ‘overall poverty’, is more encompassing and takes such aspects as low incomes and lack of access to social and other resources into account, along with increased susceptibility to illness (with fewer treatment options), inadequate housing (or homelessness), potentially dangerous physical environments social exclusion and discrimination and the inability to participate in political decision-making [8, 57; 7, 9]. In both forms, poverty is characterized by deprivation of basic needs and an inability to adequately take part in social and cultural life and decision- making (7, 9-10). It should be noted that in spite of the first Millennium Development Goal of eradicating absolute poverty not being met, poverty rates were nevertheless cut in half from 1990-2010, although around 1.2 billion people continue to subsist in conditions of absolute poverty [9].
The definition of environmental degradation is generally more straightforward, and describes the
process of deterioration of the physical environment due to human activities resulting in natural resource depletion and the contamination of the soil, air and water, along with ecosystem destruction and wildlife extinction. Environmental degradation is defined in the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction as “the reduction of the capacity of the environment to meet social and ecological objectives and needs”. Such degradation can alter the occurrence of and worsen natural hazards and includes deforestation, desertification, biodiversity loss, various forms of pollution and other detrimental processes [10]. Sharma describes environmental degradation as a process “by which our environment i.e., air, water and land, progressively contaminated, over-exploited and destroyed” [11]. In other words, environmental degradation is said to occur when the environment loses value or is damaged. Therefore, environmental degradation may be defined as occurring when natural resources are exploited at a higher rate than nature’s capacity to replace them.
THE CONNECTION OF POVERTY TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN THE ORTHODOX
AND NEW APPROACHES. Orthodox school of thought. The orthodox approach takes as its major idea the notion that a direct causal link exists between poverty and environmental degradation – the so-called nexus. From this it follows that poverty is the primary cause of environmental degradation and so in order to tackle environmental issues, poverty must be addressed [12, 350]. The main source of this thinking
seems to be the Brundtland Report (‘Our Common Future’) of 1987, which also originated the concept of ‘sustainable development’ and asserted poverty and environmental degradation to be inextricably connected. Moreover, poverty and environmental degradation are said to be linked within a “downward spiral”, with poverty causing environmental degradation that in turn deepens poverty, and so on, suggesting that poverty necessarily entails the environmental degradation [13, 3-27].
In many developing countries, the poor are heavily reliant on natural resources to meet their basic needs and may frequently have no choice but to exhaust the natural resources they have access to in order to survive, thereby causing environmental degradation. Barbier argues that such degradation means that they must search more widely for resources and use those they can access more intensively, thus perpetuating the vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradation. This state of affairs has led to the destruction of many important ecosystems in the developing world, including mangrove trees (of which over 35 percent have been degraded or destroyed), tropical rainforests (30 percent) and coral reefs (30 percent) [5, 635-636].
At this point it should be noted that the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was established by the UN in 1983 with the goal of internationally co-ordinating sustainable development efforts. The WCED defines sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [13, 43]. Thus, sustainable development enables development and any human activity requiring the use of natural resources to take place sustainably, allowing for intergenerational replenishment. Sustainable development has therefore become an organising guideline for ensuring that finite resource quantities will be sufficient for the needs of future generations [14, 9-10]. It can therefore be surmised that the orthodox school of thought postulates a direct link between poverty and environmental degradation, since poverty is claimed to be main cause of natural resource depletion. As a result, poverty must be addressed to ameliorate degradation of environment. However, a notion of a linear causal relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is questionable. For example, Barbier states that the orthodoxy approach is too simplistic, as the connection between poverty and natural resource depletion is highly complex [5, 636]. The inland valleys of Papua New Guinea support this contention, as there, poor Wola people keep the topsoil fertile over long periods by employing soil conservation practices. For instance, they build up mounds of soil consisting of compost from vegetation they have cleared and arrange this with soil management techniques and planting of crops that grow well in the nutrient-rich conditions provided by the mounds. This results in fertile soil in spite of intensity of land use and population growth [15, 127-130]. This demonstrates that poor people can adapt to
environmental needs and manage resource depletion.
Asadi et al. notes that many studies have shown the role played by economic factors like institutional and market failure in causing both poverty and environmental degradation [3, 206]. Tanzania vividly illustrates institutional failure. Its Poverty Reduction Strategy hardly mentioned the natural resource endowments and the environment as fundamental to reducing poverty and thus the policy was ineffectual. However, subsequent policies to tackle poverty placed more emphasis on the crucial function of natural resources in poverty alleviation efforts and environmental concerns [16]. The aforementioned points therefore question the legitimacy of the orthodox perspective and thereby shed point towards the contrasting views of the new approach.
The new school of thought. Adherents of the new paradigm argue that the interaction between poverty and the environmental is far more multifaceted than the orthodox view claims and that poverty only indirectly causes environmental degradation. Duraiappah critiques the orthodoxy view as overly simplistic and states that the connection of poverty to environmental degradation is mediated by a complex assortment of factors, including the effect of poverty on primary natural resources like the land, forests, air and water [4, 2169-2170]. Likewise, Leach and Mearns criticise the orthodox theory in favour of a greater complexity of variables, incorporating institutional, cultural, geographic and demographic factors and arguing that the over-generalisation of a multidimensional phenomenon is inaccurate and in fact overlooks many important considerations [17]. Dasgupta, Folke, and Mäler claim that institutional failures are at the root of environmental degradation to at least the degree that poverty is [18]. To summarise, the orthodox perspective is argued to be too general and may therefore be misleading.
Furthermore, scrutiny of the poverty-environmental degradation nexus from the new perspective has the advantage of illuminating the influence of poverty on different natural resource types. Duraiappah, for instance, points out two key issues pertaining to water – shortages and pollution – that contribute to the poverty-environmental degradation relationship. The author argues that with increasing human populations, human waste (much of it from the poor) has far exceeded the capacity of natural processes
to absorb. It should also be noted though that increased water contamination by agricultural and industrial pollutants represents more of a threat to water quality; agricultural and industrial effluent has long been dumped in waterways as a cheap alterative to special cleaning systems [4, 2175]. It is therefore obvious that both poor and richer people contribute to water degradation, though it should also be noted that this occurs at different scales. Nonetheless, who degrades water resources the most is hardly relevant, though modern sanitation technology is essential for replenishing water sources over the longer term.
Dasgupta et al. explored the poverty-environment nexus hypothesis in Southeast Asia, focusing on the relationship of poor people and environmental degradation practices such as air pollution, water contamination and deforestation [19]. In Cambodia, for instance, household waste seems to be most strongly correlated with water contamination, indoor air pollution and inadequate sanitation. No considerable link was found between poverty and deforestation, soil erosion and water pollution are not significantly associated. Laos, by contrast, features a discernible poverty-environment nexus, with various forms of environmental degradation exhibiting a direct connection to poverty. Vietnam, on the other hand, is more variable, suggesting the presence of some degree of poverty-environment nexus in relation to indoor air pollution and soil erosion [19, 630-633]. These results therefore suggest that any extant nexus differs by country.
Thus, poverty is not always the primary source of environmental degradation. Ravnborg conducted a study in Nicaragua which calls the notion of poverty as a cause of environmental degradation into question [20]. Having examined major environmentally harmful resource management approaches in Nicaragua, people making the greatest contribution to environmental degradation were found to be relatively affluent farmers, rather than the poorest, as poor farmers enjoy only limited access to natural resources and the impact of their practices is negligible by comparison to that of their more affluent counterparts [20, 1934- 1944). Thus, the evidence collected by Ravnborg in Nicaragua contravenes the orthodox notion that poverty is the pre-eminent source of environmental degradation.
The empirical evidence presented above outlines the main hypotheses and claims of both the orthodox and new schools of thought concerning the poverty-environmental degradation nexus. It is apparent that the new approach presents a more detailed account of this connection and thus is less likely to have overlooked key information. It might therefore be concluded that poverty is not in fact the direct or even a main cause of environmental degradation and all apparent instances of this nexus should be considered on their own terms.
CONCLUSION. To conclude, this paper has explored the relationship purported to exist between poverty and environmental degradation. In answer to this question, claims of the orthodox and new schools of thought on this issue have been considered. The orthodox school conceives poverty as a fundamental contributor to environmental degradation, whereas the latter is sceptical of this claim and argues that at most, poverty may indirectly contribute. Overall, both approaches acknowledge a relationship. The orthodox school of thought, however, ascribes natural destruction to the poor. In consequence, to address environmental issues the orthodoxy view stresses development programmes that tackle poverty. However, the seeming oversimplification of the problem in this way can result in policy failures. The new approach aims to modify this stance and makes compelling assertions, in particular that the poverty-environmental degradation nexus is highly complex and comprises a range of diverse factors. The validity of the relationship should therefore be considered on the basis of the natural resource in question. Moreover, geographical location seems to be a vital consideration, as the nexus differs by state. The evidence outlined in this essay demonstrates that poor people do not invariably negatively influence the natural environment and environmental degradation can depend on geographical location and features and sometimes a country’s lack of natural resources means that there is little possibility of degrading the natural environment.
REFERENCES
1 Buzan, B. (1997) ‘Rethinking Security after the Cold War, Cooperation and Conflict, 32(5), pp. 5-28.
2 Bryant, R. L. (1997) ‘Beyond the Impasse: The Power of Political Ecology in Third World Environmental Research’, The Royal Geographical Society, 29 (1), pp. 5-19.
3 Asadi et al. (2008) ‘Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development: The Role of Social Capital’, Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (3), pp. 202-215.
4 Duraiappah, A. K. (1998) ‘Poverty and Environmental Degradation: A Review and Analysis of the Nexus’, World Development, 26 (12), pp. 2169-2179.
5 Barbier, E. B. (2010) ‘Poverty, development, and environment’, Environment and Development Economics, 15 (6), pp. 635-660.
6 Gordon, D. and Spicker, P. (1999) The International Glossary on Poverty. London: Zed Books Ltd.
7 Gordon et al. (2000) ‘Poverty and social exclusion in Britain’, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/185935128x.pdf
8 UN. (1995) Report of the World Summit for Social Development [online]. The United Nations. Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm
9 UNDP. (2014) Human Development Report [online]. The United Nations Development Programme. Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hdr/ 2014 -human-development-report/
10 UNISDR. (2007) Terminology on disaster risk reduction [online]. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-e
11 Sharma, P. D. (2008) Concept of Environmental Degradation [online]. Available from: https://saferenvironment. wordpress.com/2008/08/14/concept-of-environmental-degradation/
12 Johnson, C. (2013) ‘Climate Change Adaptation and the International Aid Regime Prospects for Policy Convergence’, in H. B. Dulal (ed), Poverty Reduction in a Changing Climate. Plymouth: Lexington Books, pp. 343- 376.
13 WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. World Bank. (2004) Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Development [online]. The World Bank. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/ depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_all.pdf
15 Sillitoe, P. (1998) ‘It’s All in the Mound: Fertility Management under Stationary Shifting Cultivation in the Papua New Guinea Highlands’, Mountain Research and Development, 18 (2), pp. 123-134.
16 Winrock International. (2006) Case Study – Tanzania [online]. Winrock International. Available from: http:// www.winrock.org/publications
17 Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (1991) ‘Poverty and environment in developing countries. An overview study’, Institute for Development Studies [online]. Available from: http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/415397
18 Dasgupta, P., Folke, K., and Mäler, K. (1994) The Environmental Resource Base and Human Welfare [online].
The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics. Available from: http://www.beijer.kva.se/discussions.php#pubid64
19 Dasgupta, S. (2005) ‘Where is the Poverty–Environment Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam’, World Development, 33 (4), pp. 617-638.
20 Ravnborg, H. M. (2003) ‘Poverty and Environmental Degradation in the Nicaraguan Hillsides’, World Development, 31 (11), pp. 1933–1946.
Р.Б. Амангелдин, А.Б. Берекеева. Шеффилд университетінің магистрі, Шеффилд қ., Ұлыбритания Назарбаев Университетінің студенті, Астана, Қазақстан.
Кедейшілік пен қоршаған ортаның деградациясы арасындағы байланыс.
Бұл мақала кедейшілік пен қоршаған ортаның деградациясы арасындағы ықтимал байланыстарды зерт- теуге арналған. Аталған мақалада келтірілген дәлелдер кедейшіліктің қоршаған ортаның деградациясына тек жанама әсер ететіндігін, ал кейбір жағдайларда мүлдем әсер етпейтіндігін куәландырады.
Түйін сөздер: кедейшілік, қоршаған ортаның деградациясы, Брундтланд есебі (Біздің ортақ болашағымыз), дәстүрлі ой мектебі, жаңа ой мектебі.
Р.Б. Амангелдин, А.Б. Берекеева. Магистр Шеффилдского университета, г. Шеффилд, Великобри- тания. Студент Назарбаев Университета, г.Астана, Казахстан.
Взаимосвязь между бедностью и деградацией окружающей среды
Данная статья посвящена исследованию возможной связи между бедностью и деградацией окружаю- щей среды. Доказательства, приведенные в данной статье, будут свидетельствовать о том, что бедность влияет на ухудшение окружающей среды только косвенно, а в некоторых случаях не имеет никакого эффек- та вообще.
Ключевые слова: бедность, деградация окружающей среды, доклад Брундтланд (Наше общее будущее), традиционная школа мысли, новая школа мысли.