In this news blog we often stress the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. However, to claim that just because you safeguard or increase the flow of an ecosystem service you will automatically contribute to well-being and poverty alleviation is grossly oversimplifying things.

On the contrary, the degree to which any individual can access the benefits from ecosystems tends to depend on social relationships, institutions, rights and various capitals. This is the result of a recent analysis published in Environmental Conservation, by Stockholm Resilience Centre researcher Tim Daw together with colleagues from the UK, Portugal and the US. In the study they look at ways to develop a more specific analysis of ecosystem services benefits and how they can contribute to poverty alleviation. Most analyses are still too general, they say, placing all humans in one basket, missing crucial aspects of social complexity and distribution of benefits. Two examples mentioned are:

In Kenya, for example, the establishment of a marine protected area reduced the overall number of fishers who benefited from fishing, but improved opportunities for tourism revenues in the area. Some fishers lost their livelihoods, while others who had skills and opportunities to benefit from tourism improved their well-being.

Likewise, in Tanzania, better prices for octopus increased the value of the fishery ecosystem service. However the wellbeing of women fishers, the traditional beneficiaries, was negatively affected when they were outcompeted by men attracted into the fishery by high prices.

In conclusion, Tim Daw and colleagues argue that a more disaggregated analysis is needed that reveals who derives which benefits from ecosystems, and how such benefits contribute to the well-being of the poor.
"By definition, aggregate measures of ES flows are poor indicators of the ES contribution to poverty alleviation of individuals, in the same way that national GDP figures hide variations in the wealth and fortunes of the poorest members of society," says Tim Daw.

Read more at the Stockholm Resilience Centre website:

Source:
Daw, Tim, Katrina Brown, Sergio Rosendo, and Robert Pomeroy. 2011. "Applying the Ecosystem Services Concept to Poverty Alleviation: The Need to Disaggregate Human Well-Being." Environmental Conservation 38 (04): 370-379. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000506.