Being a part of the so called “environmental movement” in the country for about ten years, if one were to ask me what is the single most challenging aspect of my work, the answer would invariably be understanding poverty and its link to the environment. Over the course of my life I have come to understand poverty in a multitude of definitions- economic poverty, social, cultural and environmental and many more. Why is it that poverty is much talked about, billions are spent on its eradication and yet remains in the very heart of things? For the simple reason that we choose to put it out of context and work on it as if it were a malady waiting to be cured through prescription drugs. It is this that I discuss through the course of this article – why we ignore something we already know and see everyday only to come back to it in the end. This is an attempt to explain the poverty environment linkages in the Indian context, clarify some key questions on the linkages.
Two of the greatest global challenges are the elimination of poverty and the reversal of environmental degradation. These challenges are inextricably linked. The poor often depend directly on a diversity of natural resources for their livelihoods and survival. The problem of natural resource degradation in poor countries like India is increasing at an alarming pace. Indian economy is largely a biomass based subsistence economy. Majority of the people survive on products that they obtain from their immediate environment- food, fodder, firewood, timber, etc. Therefore the poor are most severely affected when the environment is degraded or their access to natural resources is restricted or denied.
Missing the Links
In India most of the poor are those who depend on natural resources for survival. However, Indian policy makers measure poverty based on income poverty. Going by the Indian reality i.e. the biomass based economy, a measure of poverty based on access to natural resources is an accurate measure of poverty. So we need to redefine Indian poverty as “ecological poverty” i.e. the inability to access natural resources. By doing so we will be able to reduce poverty as all development programmes will be focused on fixing ecological poverty. It infers that development in India has to be more ecological centric in nature. Local development ought to be done at the local level, instead it is dictated from the top level that is far removed form the local reality.
The poverty – environment myths
The linkages between environment and poverty have been debated for decades. Conventional economists and policy makers have long believed that poverty is the main reason for environmental degradation. In the last few decades however, the perception is changing. There are others who believe the reverse to be true i.e. environmental degradation leads to poverty. While there is no doubting the fact that the two- poverty and environment, are inextricably linked, reality is not as straight forward as the fore mentioned beliefs. Take for example the belief that poverty is the biggest polluter. To bust this myth one just has to look at European average levels of consumption, which, if made universal for the entire human population, we would require approximately 2.1 earths to sustain us. If everyone consumed at US rates we would need 5 earths. Within India many studies have proved that the rich consume more resources and have greater environmental impact than the poor. A Delhi University study in Jhabua district, M.P. found that rich households collect far more resources from the commons than an average middle income or a poor household. Poverty however forces the poor to use their resources unsustainably.
Another common belief that economic growth is sure to eradicate poverty is again a misconstruction. If anything, fast paced economic growth in India is leading to concentration of poverty in pockets. These areas of chronic poverty are often resource rich but economically backward. Areas like Orissa’s Kalahandi-Balangir-Koraput (KBK), Chhattisgarh’s undivided Bastar and Jharkhand’s Dumka and Hazaribagh districts, have been targets of India’s all poverty eradication schemes since 1951. After 57 years of such targeted poverty eradication schemes, they still remain the poorest districts of India, and arguably not the best governed also. They have more poor now than 1980. These states are the poorest states of India, and these districts are the poorest areas inside the states. Ironically these districts are very rich in natural resources like forests, land and minerals. Though states GDP are growing at high rate, these areas remain untouched by economic development.
The most important misconception that needs to be busted is that the poor do not care for the environment. We Indians fool ourselves with this belief! Given the dependence on natural resources the poor have more stake in taking care of their environment. Since time immemorial communities have excelled in managing their common pool resources like water, forests, etc. The presence of sacred groves and community forests all across the country are vivid examples of this. Till date societal norms in poor regions forbid collection of a certain plant due to its medicinal, ecological or ceremonial value amounting to a total ban on its collection and use. One such example is the Mahua tree (Madhuca Indica). In Jhabua, the Mahua tree is never lopped for firewood or timber due to its multifarious uses (such as mahua fruit used to make dyes, local liquor, medicines and as supplementary fodder for cattle). This helps protect the commons as well since restrictions extend to other resources like water. Communities like the Bishnoi of Rajasthan fiercely protect their natural resources. Situation worsened once the Government took control of the resources.
In this is also imbedded the answer to the fallacious notion that poor lack knowledge to manage their environment so they need constant “outside” expertise. Nothing can be farther from the truth, examples of traditional water harvesting systems like the bavdis in Rajasthan, the khul in Himachal, pat in Jhabua, the surangams of Kerala, etc. abound. The poor people of Ralegaon Siddhi have successfully managed their resources to prosperity.
Environment and the poor
Now comes the question “How do we measure priorities of the poor?” The basic needs of life- food, shelter and clothing dictate the lives of the millions of poor in our country. With more than 60 % of its population dependent on agriculture directly, and taking into account the jobs created by the agribusiness, forestry, fisheries and tourism sectors, it will not be an exaggeration to say that 80-90% of the jobs are based on natural resources. Needless to say that jobs end up high on the list of priorities of the poor. Therefore livelihood security is intrinsically linked to environmental goods and services. Ecology is then easily the top priority since it provides sustenance and is a dependable source of millions of poor across the country.
Following the above rationalisation, food security is again the mainstay of poor people’s thoughts. For the poor the environment forms an inseparable part of their coping strategies. With the lack of food security the only option available is often the locally available environmental goods. Based on experience of communities in India it is unanimous that environment plays a major role in local livelihoods. Eg. Tendu patta collection sustains a large number of people across rural Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. In the village of Mendha (Lekha), Gadchiroli district, Maharashtra, people eke out as much as 40% of their daily requirements from their immediate environment (read forest) in the form of food items (bamboo shoots, wild fruits, berries, etc.), medicinal herbs, fodder, firewood etc. This does not include the provision of water from the forests and other such services.
Supriya Singh
Posts
