Disentangling the links between conservation and poverty reduction in practice
Disentangling the links between conservation and poverty reduction in practice
复制标题
在实践中理清保护与减贫之间的联系
DOI：
10.1017/s0030605308000744
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
L. Wilder
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Walpole;L. Wilder
摘要 人们越来越期望生物多样性保护能够减少贫困，而两者同时存在。然而，保护和贫困是多方面的概念，它们之间的联系是复杂多变的；保护是否以及如何在实践中促进减贫将取决于这些联系的具体性质。为了解开这一复杂性，我们探索了国际动植物群的投资组合，这是一个在一些最贫穷的国家和地区开展业务的国际保护组织。我们审查了 88 个项目的报告，并对 34 个以生计为重点的项目样本的理由、方法和结果进行了分类。项目之间和项目内部的理由各不相同，包括明显的“双赢”情景（减少贫困改善保护成果）、权衡（保护行动伤害穷人或减贫损害生物多样性）以及生计干预措施与保护成果没有直接联系的情况。项目揭示了直接（收入、粮食安全、健康）和间接（能力建设、减少脆弱性、治理、赋权）生计目标的平衡。总体而言，赋权、安全和社交网络发展是比创收更重要的短期成果。社会责任被广泛植入，但并不一定转化为对贫困的积极影响。保护组织有潜力改善其开展业务的许多地方的穷人的生活，并且可以说有责任确保保护不会使穷人的生活变得更糟。然而，重要的是要明确参与的原因以及可能结果的范围和规模。
Abstract Biodiversity conservation is increasingly expected to reduce poverty where the two coincide. Yet conservation and poverty are multifaceted concepts and the linkages between them are complex and variable; whether and how conservation contributes to poverty reduction in practice will depend on the specific nature of those linkages. To unravel this complexity we explored the portfolio of Fauna & Flora International, an international conservation organization operating in some of the poorest countries and regions. We examined reports from 88 projects and categorized the rationales, approaches and outcomes of a sample of 34 livelihoods-focused projects. Rationales varied among and within projects and included apparent ‘win-win’ scenarios (reducing poverty improves conservation outcomes), trade-offs (conservation action hurts the poor or poverty reduction damages biodiversity), and situations where livelihoods interventions were not directly linked to conservation gains. Projects revealed a balance of direct (income, food security, health) and indirect (capacity building, reduced vulnerability, governance, empowerment) livelihood goals. Overall, empowerment, security and social network development were more significant short-term outcomes than income generation. Social responsibility was widely embedded but does not necessarily translate into a positive impact on poverty. Conservation organizations have the potential to improve the lives of the poor in many places where they operate, and arguably a duty to ensure that conservation does not make poor people worse off. Yet it is important to be clear about the reasons for engaging and the scope and scale of likely outcomes.