Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Development
Author: Dr Eureta Rosenberg
Taken from
http://www.enviropaedia.com/
What is the most important thing we can do with land – set it aside for nature conservation, or invite poor people to build homes and grow food? What is more important – reducing plastic-bag pollution or protecting jobs in the plastics industry? Saving wetlands or saving people? I hope you find these questions difficult, for they are non-choices, really. There is no need to choose between people and the environment. And yet there is a common belief that we need to address poverty first, before we can think about the environment. Actually, looking after the environment and looking after destitute people go hand in hand – a point that the idea of sustainable development is meant to convey.
What will help the poor?Not presuming to speak on behalf of ‘poor’ people, I will restrict my comments to the links between poverty alleviation and environmental care. My aim is to illustrate the folly of pitting these two concerns against each other.
Approximately 18 million South Africans (45% of the population) live in poor households that earn less than R352 per adult per month. Power relations in poor households tend to be characterised by violence, fear, food insecurity, exploitative work and other pathologies. Three of every five South African children grow up in poor households. (Human Development Report for South Africa, UNDP, 2000)
1. Alleviate poverty through environmental protectionThe poorer we are, the harder environmental issues hit us. Desperate for employment, poor people suffer the most unhealthy work environments. Without much choice as to where to live, they are more exposed to disasters such as floods and fire, and to toxic dumps, and polluted air and water. As their quality of life declines and their health deteriorates, these environmental issues render them even less able to make a living.
Land degradation and the loss of biodiversity affect poor people most, as they often depend directly on natural resources (for firewood, food and building material). When environmental degradation destroys opportunities for development in one area, those who have the financial means to do so can still move on to greener pastures. Being poor means having nowhere better to go.
It is thus in the interest of poor people that laws protecting environmental quality and safety are enforced, and that they have access to the law when their right to a healthy environment is violated. The common natural resources on which rural people depend should be protected by laws for sustainable use. Far from being ‘anti-development’, environmental policies can actually be used to protect the health and livelihoods of poor people, and increase their political and economic power.
But look – someone disagrees. There he is, collecting bait in the Knysna lagoon. His spade has once again been confiscated by the authorities, and he received another fine he cannot pay. He disagrees that environmental laws work for the poor. Hey, lady, he says, this is my only means of survival, and Conservation is taking it away!
But he and millions of others in the same boat should not be in the position of having too few livelihood options in the first place. Relaxing the environmental laws will not solve their problem. It will only provide a short reprieve – and soon afterwards a resource may be destroyed forever, thus affecting the livelihoods of many others in the future.
2. Strengthening livelihood strategies and increasing optionsThose with few livelihood options often feel forced to exhaust even the few resources to which they do have access. Examples include overgrazing the land, hunting out the wildlife around ever-growing settlements, collecting muti plants to sell until none are left. This creates vicious cycles. When people can no longer survive on depleted land, they move into shacks in towns and cities, where the chances of a better life are also bleak.
Caring for natural resources so that they can be used indefinitely (sustainably) is an important way of increasing people’s livelihood options. Care means protection and restoration. If we protect the soil and increase its fertility, remove alien invasive plants and re-establish indigenous vegetation, we thus help people to make a living off the land – through farming, crafts and tourism – for generations to come. By protecting estuaries, where many marine species breed, we protect people’s ability to earn a living from the sea – sustainably. Renewing urban landscapes can help people grow food at home, and work and relax in safe and pleasant surroundings – indefinitely.
A livelihoods-centred perspective informed the ANC’s Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). The RDP puts people first, not profits. This is not the case with export-led and growth-oriented economic strategies, especially when these fail to take care of the ecosystems on which livelihoods are based. Current economics identify growth per capita as development, ignoring the way in which growth often depletes natural and social capital in order to produce money capital.
For the poor, boosting livelihood strategies and options makes a greater difference than the profits of economic growth, which by and large fail to trickle down to them from the consumer class. Some growth strategies can actually harm poor people. The livelihoods of millions of people around the world are threatened by exploitative ‘developments’ that benefit those who are already powerful. Logging, the extraction of minerals and oil, big dams – all displace people from where they had been able to derive a livelihood, onto barren lands and into city slums and menial labour. India’s Green Revolution was infamous for increasing the profits of a minority of richer farmers while devastating those people with more limited means or social status.
3. Basic incomes
An income does not always improve quality of life, but it can help. Economic growth in South Africa has failed to address the vast inequality in incomes, and government recently responded by increasing grants to the poorest 20% of households. Social grants are thus supplementing (or substituting for) the trickling down of wealth through economic growth. A Basic Income Grant has been recommended in order to alleviate hardship. This could also relieve the over-harvesting of natural resources in some areas.
Conservation of the natural environment is being increasingly recognised as a source of income for both government and communities. Over a period of five years, the Table Mountain National Park contributed a total of R377 million to South Africa’s Gross Domestic Product through employment and contracts. In just one year, the Park added more than R15 million of visitor fees to the tourism economy. Nature-based tourism is now the fastest-growing industry in the world travel business. The departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and Agriculture recognised the successful marriage one could make between labour intensive conservation activities and poverty relief. The result was three environmental restoration programmes: Working for Water, Working for Wetlands and Land Care. Working for Water removes alien invasive trees; Working for Wetlands rehabilitates wetlands; and Land Care aims to prevent and reverse rural land degradation. Several conservation activities in the country’s National Parks also make use of poverty-relief funds. These initiatives all employ destitute people. As a solution to poverty, they unfortunately tend to lack sustainability, except where entrepreneurial skills and long-term opportunities are simultaneously developed.
Sustainable efforts to improve the land help people to secure their livelihoods while generating an income. In examples from Uganda, low-input agriculture helps the owners of small plots to farm with nature, using environmentally friendly pesticides and fertilisers that cost little. Not only do these farmers have food security, they can export their produce to new markets for organic produce, fetching a 20% higher price. Securing subsistence is an important form of sustainable development for the poor, a point that is overlooked by advocates of a move away from subsistence to commercial activities.
4. Improving basic services
Providing basic services is a huge task, not only because of the apartheid backlog but also the rapidly growing population. Struggling to deliver, government seeks to hand over the responsibility through various forms of privatisation. But privatising common natural resources such as water and energy has proven to be to the disadvantage of the poor. Around the world, privatisation has pushed up costs of services, despite promises that it won’t. The privatisation of Telkom saw increases in the price of local phone calls, while international calls became cheaper, to the advantage of wealthier customers.
However, providing services to the millions of still disadvantaged South Africans can present government and service providers with a great opportunity. We could become a world leader in sustainable development if we built new infrastructure in a resource-light, pollution-light manner and invested in public transport; grey-water recycling; waterless sewage; low-energy housing… to name a few. Such innovations also create new job opportunities.
5. Meaningful jobs
There was a time when economic growth meant more jobs – when growth was built on mining and other labour-intensive industries. Increasingly, economic growth is generated by industries, which are not labour intensive, either because they are mechanised or because they require small numbers of highly skilled people to run them. Creating jobs by investing in industry is a capital-intensive process and industrial jobs grow at a slow rate – slower than populations and the numbers of unemployed. And, in a free-trade regime, businesses need to be competitive, and industrial developments cannot be competitive and job-intensive at the same time.
For these very reasons, the world economy is now characterised by jobless growth, and South Africa’s strategy of seeking world market integration has not supported job creation. There have been 800 000 job losses between 1995 and 2000, and the number of unemployed people increased from 1.9 million in 1995 to 4.2 million in 2002. Better-than-predicted growth in the more recent past had little impact on unemployment.
Government recommends self-employment in the informal sector. In the process, we also look towards the environment for employment opportunities. Indeed, conserving nature and places of natural and cultural significance does create jobs, either directly in conservation or indirectly but more extensively, through ecotourism. This is why we increasingly understand conservation to be a form of development. Jobs can also be created by ‘greener’ lifestyles (e.g. making durable shopping bags), greener production (such as producing renewable energy technology), better waste management (e.g. jobs in the recycling industry) and environmental restoration (e.g. alien-clearing contractors). These kinds of activities require both high- and low-skill work.
Protecting the environment can also lead to temporary job losses, for example when a polluting business is closed down. However, if that business starts a more sustainable enterprise, jobs will be recreated. Failing to look after the environment, on the other hand, leads to long-term job losses – for example, when a fishing industry collapses.
6. Economic reforms
Efforts to alleviate poverty will not be successful without a complete overhaul of the economic systems that have maintained poverty for so long. We are using outdated economic models that lead to the redundancy of people, and poverty thrives (see Topic ECONOMICS).
Campaigns to alleviate poverty often call for international assistance. However, the track record of donor aid suggests that it may benefit governments more than it benefits the poor. Donors can use aid to reinforce their assumed supremacy and create positions and markets for their own citizens; recipient governments have been known to expand their consumer class and secure their own power base, under the banner of poverty eradication.
A more equal relationship between nations would be fostered by facilitating fair trade. This means scrapping the trade barriers that rich countries have erected against imports from poorer countries, while they ask for the liberalisation of poorer countries’ markets. Economists estimate that reducing unfair trade barriers could allow southern countries to generate $130 billion a year, roughly three times the sum total of the official development aid assistance.
7. Alleviating affluence
Poor people need to consume more environmental resources. What are the implications for the Earth? Not good, if they were to consume at the same rate as the ‘consumer class’. The environmental footprint of a wealthy person is far greater than that of a poor person. Even when we multiply the number of poor, we still find that a mere 20% of the population – the wealthy – is responsible for the bulk of the world’s consumption and pollution.
The global environmental resources are finite and unequally divided. To obtain more resource rights for the low-consumers, the over-consumption of the affluent must be reduced. The idea is to have both convergence (of the consumption of the poor, towards a more sustaining livelihood) and contraction (of the consumption of the rich, towards more sustainable lifestyles).
In practice, this means choosing a development path that is both pro-environmental and pro-poor, and de-linking economic growth from an increase in resource use, and social progress from economic growth. For individuals, it means that as our incomes grow, we should find ways other than excessive consumption to fulfil our personal ambitions and social needs (see Topic
Consumerism).
It is a matter of promoting both ecology and equity, proving the point with which we started out – that poverty alleviation and environmental care go hand in hand.
8. Acknowledging rightsPoverty is about a lack of power. Poverty alleviation should thus also address situations in which some people have few opportunities to exercise their rights. Rather than thinking of the poor as needy persons awaiting hand-outs, recognise their basic rights to common resources.
‘Existing macroeconomic policies [in South Africa] leave existing power relations intact and reinforce the subordinate position of women and poor people.’ (Human Development Report for South Africa, UNDP, 2000)
South Africa’s democracy brought equal rights, but not yet equal access. Historical inequalities remain largely untouched by current economic policy, including black empowerment strategies. Unemployment figures are higher among women, and womenheaded households are more likely to suffer from poverty.
9. Slowing down population growth
Most measures to alleviate poverty will be easier if the exponential growth in human numbers slows down (see Topic
Population).
10. Education and capacity-buildingEducation and training must help the unemployed, under-employed and youth at risk to move from being unskilled or redundant in one kind of economy to contribute productively to a new economy based on social justice and ecological sustainability. Equally important is capacity-building for government departments, which must deliver on poverty reduction and development. Policies such as the Integrated Rural Development Programme are well intentioned, but lack substance, particularly on sustainable development. Rather than recognising the many links between environment and poverty alleviation illustrated here, ‘environment’ is either ignored or tacked on to development policies and initiatives – when in fact it is at the heart of sustainable measures to alleviate poverty.
What you can do?Three years ago, at the Millennium Summit, 189 countries pledged to pursue an ambitious global poverty fighting agenda embodied in a set of eight Millennium Development Goals. The first Goal is to halve extreme poverty and hunger by the year 2015. The Goals have been broken down into a list of targets that are specific, practical and realistic. They are technically feasible and financially affordable. But without social mobilisation, we will not progress from concept to achievement. A movement is needed to create awareness, trigger policy reforms, mobilise resources, and motivate actions to meet the goals, both globally and locally. The world cannot remain neutral... Doing nothing is not an option. Each of us can make a difference.
From an address by The UNDP Administrator, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, 17 October 2003http://www.enviropaedia.com/
Vodacare destroys all collected cellphones
There is no debate as to whether radiation kills, maims, causes mutations, is cumulative, causes leukaemia cancers and respiratory illness, and attacks the immune system (with children, pregnant women and the elderly the most vulnerable). 
Furthermore, nuclear power stations and spent-fuel facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack. 
Posts
