Are Human Development and Environmental Conservation Antithetical Goals?
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 12:32PM By Erika Keaveney, Executive Director
This delicate subject periodically comes up in my conversations with both Lotus Outreach (LO) supporters and environmental activists. On one hand, the short answer is yes: they are indeed antithetical goals. LO works to lift our target communities out of poverty, and ensure they have access to safer, more nutritious food, healthcare, transportation and many other aspects of modern life. When people are educated and economically empowered, their standard of living increases as does their consumption. And with current technologies, this undoubtedly means more fossil fuel burning, more carbon emissions and continued encroachment on the natural environment.
Some people, however, take the perspective that the terrible poverty confronting our target communities serves as a form of “population control” which will ensure environmental sustainability. It is my opinion that this Malthusian position is not only inhumane, it is horribly misguided.
LO focuses primarily on improving access to education for women and girls. Though we believe that basic health and education are essential human rights, we also believe that focusing on girls’ education is one of the most effective ways for countering the environmental costs of poverty in developing countries. And here’s why:
- Thirty-eight percent of girls in the developing world marry before age 18.
- One-quarter to one-half of girls in developing countries become mothers before the age of 18.
- When a girl in the developing world receives seven or more years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children.
The Sun Bear is one of many species that stands to benefit from enhancing village-based livelihood opportunities for poor communities in the Cambodian jungleFurthermore, continued human poverty often causes--rather than prevents--environmental degradation. Take our Integrated Rural Development program, for example, which operates in Cambodia’s Pursat province at the intersection of the Phnom Aural Wildlife Sanctuary and the Cardamom Protected Forest. Covering nearly two million hectares of land, the Cardamom Mountain Range represents the largest mainland forest in Southeast Asia. The mountain range is considered one of the main biodiversity hotspots on the planet, with 16 distinct ecosystems and 14 globally endangered and threatened species. It is one of the last remaining elephant corridors in Southeast Asia and is the hunting range for the Pileated Gibbon, Asiatic Black Bear, Malaysian Sun Bear, Marbled Cat, Southern Serow, and half of Cambodia's bird species.
In rural Phnom Kravanh (meaning “Cardamom Mountain” in Khmer) of Pursat, thousands of villagers teeter on the brink of survival. In this remote and forested district, illiteracy, lack of access to education, poor health and food insecurity continue to plague the already desperate local population. Because of their lack of alternative livelihoods, rural villagers often resort to illegal logging, wildlife poaching, foraging, and slash-and-burn agriculture in order to ensure their survival.
While many conservation efforts in this region are underway, relatively few organizations are working with local populations to provide them with alternative economic opportunities. LO is responding to this great human and environmental need by providing rural villagers and ethnic minorities in Phnom Kravanh with resources and training to help improve their livelihoods. By helping villagers start small, village-based businesses through microloans and providing them with tools, training and resources to start small family farms, we hope to remedy both the human and environmental effects of poverty in this extraordinary region of the world.
A village-based fish farm in Pursat helps ensure income and sustenance for a poor familyDespite innovative programs like these that successfully address both human and environmental needs, we are still confronted with the reality that as developing nations move up in their standard of living, their impact on the environment will likely increase.
So what is the solution? Can we expect these communities to want any less than what we have – electricity, clean water, and the freedom of movement transport vehicles bring?
It is my feeling that developed nations bear most of the responsibility for environmental degradation, and we need to start by turning the mirror inward. I have read before that the U.S. makes up only 5% of the global population, but consumes 25% of the planet’s resources and produces 50% of the world’s waste. So in the absence of a clear-cut solution to this problem confronting the international development sector, it is my feeling environmentalists would do better to focus their energies on reducing our own consumption to make a bit more room for everyone else to have a better standard of living, while continuing to advocate for rigorous investment in the development of green technologies.
For our part, LO will continue to identify and invest in sustainable development solutions—including teaching our beneficiaries about the importance of protecting the environment around them—so we can help both people and the natural world thrive.
Reader Comments (1)
I happened to stumble upon your blog while researching for an assignment i have to submit tomorrow. And i have fallen in over with your article. It is so well written and to the point. Coming to the subject matter, my idea is simple. The chain of thought that i have been pursuing is that environmental degradation is a result of overuse of resources, in particular fossil fuels. As the world population grows, this degradation becomes more severe naturally. Now the basic idea should be to control the population. Education and awareness in the third world are proven measures to improve the population growth situation. So i totally agree with you that the focus has to be on educating young women especially in the third world.