Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Biodiversity as a Means of Poverty Alleviation in Sub-­Saharan Africa Riehl, Brianne 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Riehl_Brianne_ENVR200_Biodiversity_2012.pdf [ 1.2MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058126.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058126+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058126.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058126+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058126+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058126+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0058126 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0058126.txt
Citation
1.0058126.ris

Full Text

Biodiversity	
  as	
  a	
  Means	
  of	
  Poverty	
  Alleviation	
  in	
  Sub-­Saharan	
  Africa	
   	
    This	
  paper	
  investigates	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  poverty	
  and	
   biodiversity	
  in	
  sub-­‐Saharan	
  Africa	
  (SSA).	
  Using	
  a	
  collection	
  of	
  secondary	
   research,	
  it	
  was	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  link	
  between	
  these	
  two	
  variables	
  is	
  more	
  than	
   geographic,	
  and	
  that	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  is	
  a	
  crucial	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
   alleviation	
  of	
  poverty	
  in	
  SSA.	
  A	
  variety	
  of	
  poverty	
  reducing	
  strategies	
  that	
   incorporate	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  have	
  been	
  implemented	
  and	
  succeeded	
   elsewhere,	
  implying	
  that	
  the	
  same	
  is	
  possible	
  for	
  this	
  region.	
  Overall,	
  the	
   paper	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  biodiversity	
  of	
  SSA	
  will	
  be	
  particularly	
  important	
  for	
   the	
  economic	
  wellbeing	
  of	
  the	
  poor	
  in	
  a	
  future	
  of	
  climate	
  change.	
  	
   	
   1.	
  Introduction	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sub-­‐Saharan	
  Africa	
  (SSA)	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  region	
  of	
  Africa	
  that	
  lies	
  below	
  the	
   Sahara	
  desert	
  (Figure	
  1).	
  It	
  includes	
  47	
  African	
  countries,	
  800	
  million	
  people,	
  and	
   covers	
  an	
  area	
  of	
  23.6	
  million	
  square	
   kilometers	
  (Africa,	
  2010;	
  Walker,	
   2009).	
  Poverty	
  in	
  this	
  region	
  is	
   pervasive,	
  with	
  close	
  to	
  half	
  of	
  the	
   SSA	
  population	
  living	
  in	
  absolute	
   poverty	
  on	
  less	
  than	
  $1	
  per	
  day,	
  as	
   defined	
  by	
  the	
  World	
  Bank	
  (Fisher	
  &	
   Christopher,	
  2007;	
  Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
   Despite	
  such	
  a	
  simple	
  definition	
  in	
   this	
  case,	
  poverty	
  is	
  a	
  complex,	
   multi-­‐dimensional	
  material	
    Figure	
  1:	
  Map	
  of	
  sub-­‐Sahara	
  nations.	
  From	
  Buggey	
   (2007).	
   	
    deprivation	
  that	
  involves	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  access	
  to	
  basic	
  needs	
  such	
  as	
  education,	
  health	
   and	
  nutrition	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  poverty	
  in	
  SSA	
  will	
  only	
  be	
  amplified	
  by	
  the	
  region’s	
   expected	
  drastic	
  increase	
  in	
  population	
  to	
  1.7	
  billion	
  people	
  by	
  2050,	
  and	
  3	
  billion	
    	
    by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  century	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005;	
  Walker,	
  2009).	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  this	
   growing	
  population	
  lives	
  in	
  rural	
  areas	
  and	
  depends,	
  as	
  pastoralists	
  and	
  cultivators,	
   on	
  the	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  broad	
  range	
  of	
  climatic,	
  geological,	
   soil	
  and	
  landscape	
  forms	
  in	
  the	
  region	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009;	
  Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  This	
   biodiversity,	
  defined	
  as	
  species	
  variability,	
  encompasses	
  the	
  variety	
  that	
  occurs	
   within	
  living	
  things,	
  including	
  genetic	
  variation	
  and	
  variations	
  between	
  species	
   (Barrett,	
  Travis,	
  &	
  Dasgupta,	
  2011).	
  When	
  measured	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  species	
  richness	
   and	
  endemism,	
  SSA	
  has	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  highest	
  levels	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  globally,	
  making	
  it	
   home	
  to	
  7.5%	
  of	
  the	
  world’s	
  vascular	
  plant	
  species,	
  5.8%	
  of	
  mammals,	
  8%	
  of	
  birds,	
   16%	
  of	
  marine	
  fish,	
  and	
  5.5%	
  of	
  insects	
  (Roe,	
  2010;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  	
   2.	
  Understanding	
  SSA	
   2.1.	
  Environmental	
  Issues	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  SSA	
  is	
  a	
  region	
  particularly	
  vulnerable	
  to	
  environmental	
  degradation	
  due	
  to	
  the	
   heavy	
  reliance	
  of	
  its	
  rural	
  populations	
  on	
  the	
  land	
  for	
  their	
  livelihoods	
  (Darkoh,	
   2009).	
  These	
  environmental	
  concerns,	
  including	
  deforestation,	
  desertification,	
   population	
  growth,	
  pollution	
  and,	
  most	
  relevantly,	
  biodiversity	
  loss,	
  are	
  all	
  expected	
   to	
  be	
  amplified	
  by	
  future	
  changes	
  in	
  climate	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  The	
  past	
  decade	
  has	
   been	
  the	
  warmest	
  and	
  driest	
  of	
  the	
  century,	
  and	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  make	
   the	
  SSA	
  climate	
  more	
  variable,	
  bringing	
  more	
  frequent	
  and	
  severe	
  weather	
  events	
   such	
  as	
  droughts	
  and	
  floods	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  The	
  numerous	
  environmental	
  issues	
  that	
  exist	
  in	
  SSA	
  are	
  interlinked,	
  all	
   contributing	
  in	
  one	
  way	
  or	
  another	
  to	
  a	
  loss	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  in	
  the	
  region.	
   Deforestation	
  and	
  desertification	
  cause	
  a	
  loss	
  of	
  5.3	
  million	
  hectares	
  of	
  SSA	
  forests	
    and	
  woodlands	
  annually	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  These	
  losses	
  are	
  due	
  to	
  unsustainable	
  land	
   use	
  practices	
  such	
  as	
  overgrazing	
  and	
  excessive	
  fertilization,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  use	
  of	
   wood	
  for	
  cooking,	
  heating,	
  and	
  lighting	
  	
  (since	
  only	
  approximately	
  24%	
  of	
  the	
  SSA	
   population	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  electricity)	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009;	
  Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  This	
  high	
   level	
  of	
  land	
  degradation	
  poses	
  serious	
  threats	
  to	
  the	
  region’s	
  biodiversity	
  by	
   destroying	
  ecosystems,	
  natural	
  habitats,	
  and	
  threatening	
  the	
  survival	
  of	
  many	
  plant	
   and	
  animal	
  species	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  Population	
  growth	
  in	
  this	
  region	
  is	
  extreme,	
   putting	
  a	
  strain	
  on	
  environmental	
  resources	
  through	
  a	
  required	
  increase	
  in	
   production	
  and	
  consumption	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  As	
  standards	
  of	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  region	
   improve,	
  the	
  currently	
  low	
  levels	
  of	
  air	
  and	
  water	
  pollution	
  will	
  likely	
  be	
  increased	
   due	
  to	
  demands	
  for	
  industrialization	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  This	
  increased	
  stress	
  on	
   natural	
  resources	
  will	
  lead	
  to	
  further	
  biodiversity	
  degradation	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  Even	
   civil	
  conflicts	
  pose	
  a	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  region’s	
  diversity,	
  as	
  displaced	
  populations	
  are	
   forced	
  to	
  pay	
  little	
  attention	
  to	
  environmental	
  concerns	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009;	
  Lufumpa,	
   2005).	
  These	
  threats	
  to	
  biodiversity	
  are	
  a	
  major	
  concern	
  for	
  a	
  region	
  with	
  such	
   initially	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  diversity	
  and	
  such	
  high	
  economic	
  dependence	
  on	
  the	
  land	
   (Darkoh,	
  2009).	
  The	
  extinction	
  rate	
  in	
  SSA	
  is	
  already	
  high	
  by	
  global	
  standards,	
  and	
   the	
  region’s	
  plant	
  and	
  animal	
  species	
  continue	
  to	
  be	
  threatened	
  daily	
  (Darkoh,	
  2009;	
   Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  	
   2.2.	
  Poverty	
    1,000 people compared with 6.6 in South America and 7.7 for Asia. Though infant mortality in the region has fallen substantially since the 1970s to 80.6 children per 1,000 live births, it still compares unfavourably with the average of 60.9 for all low-income countries (see Figure 2). Further, though most African countries can sustain several harvests a year, malnutrition is istill widespread. It isparticularly	
   estimated ithat about 26 per 	
  	
  	
  	
  Poverty	
   n	
  SSA	
   is	
  widespread,	
   n	
  rural	
   regions,	
   with	
  at	
  least	
  313	
   cent of all African children under 5 years of age suffer from severe malnutritionmillion	
   or stunting, while only 62 perliving	
   cent oofn	
  lthe of	
  the	
  region’s	
   population	
   ess	
  African than	
  $1	
  apopula	
  day	
  (Munthali,	
  2007).	
   tion have access to health services, compared to 80 per cent for developing countries as a whole. Although	
   not	
  the	
  poorest	
  region	
  of	
  the	
  world,	
  SSA	
  is	
  the	
  only	
  region	
  in	
  which	
   Using its human development index (HDI), a measure incorporating s	
  anticipated	
  education to	
  increase	
  and significantly	
   (by	
  19%	
   by	
  2015),	
  contrary	
  to	
  the	
   aspects suchpoverty	
   as life iexpectancy, income levels to estimate the quality of life, the United Nations Development Program (2005) has United	
  Nations	
  Millennium	
  development	
  goal	
  to	
  cut	
  the	
  number	
  living	
  in	
  poverty	
  in	
   Figure 1: Population living in poverty (percentage below $1 a day, 2000) half	
  by	
  2015	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005;	
   50  Munthali,	
  2007).	
  SSA	
    46.7%  40  currently	
  accounts	
  for	
  30%	
  of	
    30  23%  20  20%  the	
  developing	
  world’s	
   population	
  living	
  in	
  poverty	
    10 0 Africa  Developing Countries  Developed Countries  Figure	
   2:	
  Population	
   living	
  Division. in	
  poverty	
  (percentage	
   Source: African Development Bank, Statistics  below	
  $1	
  a	
  day	
  of	
  income).	
  From	
  Lufumpa	
  (2005).	
  	
   # African  (Figure	
  2),	
  compared	
  to	
  16%	
   	
   in	
  the	
  1980’s	
  (Lufumpa,	
    Development Bank 2005  2005).	
  This	
  pervasive	
    poverty	
  is	
  closely	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  deterioration	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  in	
  the	
  region,	
  as	
  large	
   rural	
  communities	
  are	
  forced	
  to	
  degrade	
  the	
  environment	
  for	
  survival	
  (Lufumpa,	
   2005).	
  This	
  interrelation	
  is	
  a	
  major	
  concern	
  for	
  SSA,	
  as	
  these	
  impoverished	
  rural	
   residents	
  have	
  a	
  strong	
  dependence	
  on	
  this	
  degraded	
  land	
  as	
  their	
  main	
  source	
  of	
   livelihood,	
  thereby	
  creating	
  a	
  vicious	
  cycle	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  	
   3.	
  Link	
  Between	
  Biodiversity	
  and	
  Poverty	
   3.1.	
  Geographical	
  Link	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  high	
  magnitude	
  of	
  overlap	
  between	
  globally	
  important	
  regions	
  of	
   biodiversity	
  and	
  regions	
  of	
  poverty,	
  and	
  mounting	
  evidence	
  suggests	
  that	
  these	
  two	
   variables	
  do	
  coincide	
  spatially	
  (Figure	
  3)	
  (Barrett,	
  Travis,	
  &	
  Dasgupta,	
  2011;	
  Fisher,	
    98  EC O LO G ICA L E C O N O M I CS 6 2 ( 2 00 7 ) 9 3– 1 01  	
   Figure	
  3:	
  Global	
  biodiversity	
  and	
  poverty	
  overlap	
  (Darker	
  shades	
  show	
  the	
  most	
   Fig. 1 – Darker shades show the more imperiled of CI's 34 biodiversity hotspots according to this multifactor assessment, based impoverished	
   of	
  affected the	
  wby orld’s	
   34	
  bof iodiversity	
   hot	
  poverty. spots).	
  From	
  Fisher	
  &	
   on aggregate area of hotspot conditions socio-economic Christopher	
  (2007).	
   By &	
   re-aggregating the 2 countries back2to the biodiversity channeled and tied to political i.e. countries Christopher	
   007;	
  Roe,	
   010).	
   SSA	
  is	
  a	
  particularly	
   interesting	
   case	
  of	
  boundaries this	
  overlap	
   hotspots we can get a sense of the hottest areas as based on (Balmford et al., 2000). ecoregion (Table 2). Through this lens we see that 14 hotspots 2) With analysis on 125 countries multiple data sources between	
   and	
  pOfoverty,	
   as	
  three it	
  displays	
   increasing	
   overty	
   levels	
   long	
  towstandardize ith	
   appeared in Table b 1 iodiversity	
   at least three times. these only were used. Whilepall attempts were amade hotspots made the top 25 five times. They are Eastern the data, deficiencies may still exist. One example is that each country determines itshis	
   own poverty line, and Afromontane, Guinean Forests of West Africa, and Rthe decreases	
   in	
  biodiversity	
   (Roe,	
   2010;	
   oe,	
  Walpole,	
   &	
  Elliott,	
   2010).	
  T therefore there are inherent methodological and precision Himalaya. Six hotspots appeared in the top 25 four times. errors. They are the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa, East Melanegeographical	
   link	
   is	
  important	
   as	
  it	
  and is	
  othe ften	
  p3) resented	
   s	
  rationale	
   for	
  pfigures ursuing	
   Populationadensity and growth are only proxies for sian Islands, Horn of Africa, Indo-Burma, Madagascar human impact on ecological systems (Cincotta et al., 2000). India Ocean Islands, and Mountains of Central Asia. Of For texample, low density and& burn populations can specialbiodiversity	
   note are the Coastal Forests of Eastern Indoconservation	
   and	
  pAfrica, overty	
   reduction	
   ogether	
   (Roe,	
   Wslash alpole,	
   	
  Elliott,	
   have large ecological effects. Also, proximity to urban areas Burma and Madagascar and the India Ocean Islands. These may also provide a link to the impact of poverty on three also appeared in the hottest hotspots list based solely 2010).	
  indicators 	
   ecosystems. on ecological in the original Myers et al. Nature 4) The indicators used were picked from available global article. When re-ranked by area affected, we get a different datasets. Sufficient datasets for additional appropriate ordering, with the Horn of Africa well above the rest. Again 3.2.	
  Misleading	
  Implication	
   socio-economic indicators do not exist. For example, the Indo-Burma, Madagascar and the India Ocean Islands, primary fuel source data would be an appropriate and the Eastern Afromontane hotspots rank highly. But with 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  On	
  they the	
  sare urface,	
   strong	
   overlap	
   etween	
  indicator high	
  levels	
   f	
  biodiversity	
   and	
  on high	
   for opopulation pressure local forest this ranking joinedthis	
   by the Tropical Andes band resources. Extensive data on the nutritional sources of a Cerrado hotspots (Table 3). country would also be an important indicator to flesh out levels	
  of	
  poverty	
  may	
  suggest	
  that	
  a	
  healthy	
  economy	
   and	
  diverse	
  environment	
  are	
   the human dependence on local resources. On the 7. Limitations economic side some figure on national wealth as mutually	
  exclusive	
  occurrences	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2adjusted 004).	
  Tbyhis	
   strong	
  spatial	
   link	
  as can	
   a distribution index (such the Gini Index) Our examination of the socio-economic landscape in the would also be of great value for this analysis. countries where CI's hotspots lie has a number of limitations: 5) Due to its recent political history there is no data on the lead	
  to	
  dangerous	
  conclusions,	
  as	
  it	
  may	
  suggest	
   a	
  cause-­‐and-­‐effect	
  relationship	
  in	
   state of Western Sahara. This country, which contains part of the West African Forests hotspot, is likely to have 1) The biodiversity hotspots are aggregated based on similar socio-economic statistics and ttherefore it ecological political which	
  characteristics, poverty	
  is	
  aignoring 	
  constraint	
   on	
  boundaries, conservation,	
  poor or	
  conservation	
   is	
  harmful	
   o	
  those	
  although in	
   is not included in the analysis both the country and while most socio-economic data, including all used in hotspot should be given careful consideration. this analysis, are available only for national boundaries. As poverty	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
   2007).	
  The	
  more	
  dangerous	
  of	
   6) Myers et al.'s analysis created ecoregion sized biodiversity global datasets improve and become more closely linked hotspots, where only 3–30% of their extent would truly be with geographical information systems, this analysis could a ‘hotspot’. this analysisnot	
   we utilized the focus directly on hotspots rather than through nations.eAt these	
   conclusions	
   is	
  that	
   conservation	
   fforts	
  mconsidered ay	
  be	
  harmful	
   to,	
  aInnd	
   should	
   entire defined hotspot (ecoregion) for analysis. the same time much important initiative funding is  compromise,	
  poverty	
  reduction	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
  2007).	
   This	
  implies	
  that	
  poverty	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  increased	
  due	
  to	
  conservational	
  efforts,	
  and	
   that	
  the	
  livelihood	
  of	
  the	
  poor	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  undermined	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  conserve	
   biodiversity	
  in	
  the	
  region	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  troubling	
  implication,	
  as	
  it	
   suggests	
  that	
  a	
  choice	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  made	
  between	
  the	
  environmental	
  and	
  social	
   wellbeing	
  of	
  this	
  region.	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Further	
  research	
  has	
  shown	
  that	
  this	
  implied	
  causal	
  link	
  may	
  be	
  too	
  simplistic	
  to	
   describe	
  the	
  complex	
  interconnection	
  between	
  these	
  variables	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
   Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  Although	
  the	
  geographical	
  overlap	
  should	
   not	
  be	
  ignored,	
  a	
  more	
  in	
  depth	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  link	
  between	
  poverty	
  and	
   biodiversity	
  may	
  suggest	
  a	
  more	
  accurate	
  approach	
  to	
  this	
  complex	
  relationship	
   (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   4.	
  Importance	
  of	
  Biodiversity	
  in	
  Alleviating	
  Poverty	
   4.1.	
  Dependence	
  on	
  Biodiversity	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  poor	
  in	
  SSA	
  live	
  in	
  rural	
  areas	
  with	
  a	
  livelihood	
  critically	
   dependent	
  upon	
  the	
  exploitation	
  of	
  natural	
  resources	
  such	
  as	
  water,	
  arable	
  land,	
   and	
  forest	
  resources	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  This	
  makes	
  the	
  poor	
  in	
  this	
  region	
   disproportionately	
  and	
  directly	
  dependent	
  upon	
  its	
  biodiversity	
  (Reid,	
  &	
  Swiderska,	
   2008;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  The	
  history	
  of	
  civilization	
  in	
  SSA	
  shows	
  a	
   remarkable	
  link	
  with	
  biodiversity,	
  as	
  pre-­‐colonial	
  population	
  centers	
  were	
  built	
  in	
   areas	
  with	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  444.4	
  species,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  359.6	
  species	
  average	
  in	
   the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  region	
  (Fjeldsa,	
  &	
  Burgwss,	
  2011).	
  Current	
  population	
  centers	
  and	
   species	
  richness	
  also	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  strongly	
  correlated	
  (Figure	
  4),	
  suggesting	
  that	
  the	
    38  J. Fjeldsa˚ and N. D. Burgess  spatial	
  patterns	
  of	
  population	
   growth	
  have	
  been	
  governed	
   by	
  environmental	
  factors	
   such	
  as	
  biodiversity	
  (Fjeldsa,	
   &	
  Burgwss,	
  2011;	
  Roe,	
   Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
   This	
  implies	
  that	
  biodiversity	
   is	
  intrinsic	
  to	
  the	
  indigenous	
   agro-­‐pastoral	
  systems	
  of	
  the	
    Figure	
  4:	
  Scatter	
  plot	
  showing	
  species	
  richness	
  and	
  endemism	
   against	
  human	
  population	
  density	
  in	
  SSA.	
  From	
  Fjeldsa	
  &	
   Burgwss	
  (2008).	
    	
    region,	
  emphasizing	
  their	
   dependence	
  upon	
  it	
  (Fjeldsa,	
  &	
  Burgwss,	
  2011;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Biodiversity	
  is	
  important	
  in	
  this	
  region	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  of	
  direct	
  income,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
   insurance,	
  since	
  the	
  prevalent	
  biodiversity	
  acts	
  as	
  a	
  buffer	
  against	
  risks	
  and	
  shocks	
   that	
  the	
  region	
  may	
  face	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  direct	
  economic	
  benefit	
  of	
  biodiversity	
    comes	
  from	
  the	
  biodiversity-­‐based	
  resources	
  used	
  for	
  household	
  income,	
   Fig 4 Scatter plots of species richness and endemism (range-size rarity sc grid2010).	
   cells inWsub-Saharan (a) Log vertebrate species richness agains production,	
  and	
  consumption	
  (Roe,	
   ild	
  animals	
  aAfrica. nd	
  plants	
   play	
   an	
   log human population density, (c) log vertebrate species richness against l enormous	
  role	
  as	
  resources	
  for	
  the	
   poor	
  iinfrastructure n	
  this	
  region,	
  and	
  the	
  genetic	
  diversity	
  in	
   human these	
  plant	
  and	
  animal	
  resources	
  is	
  therefore	
  vital	
  for	
  the	
  livelihood	
  of	
  these	
   communities	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  Table	
  1Discussion 	
  shows	
  the	
  dependence	
  of	
  different	
  areas	
  of	
  SSA	
   on	
  certain	
  biodiversity	
  resources,	
  and	
  Table	
  2	
  shows	
  how	
  this	
  dependence	
    Environmental conditions of Africa’s population centres  decreases	
  for	
  those	
  relieved	
  of	
  poverty	
  (The	
  variability	
  in	
  biodiversity	
  resources	
    Our assessment confirms the idea of a general large-scale correlation biodiversity used	
  as	
  a	
  source	
  of	
  livelihood	
  in	
  these	
   tables	
  rbetween eflects	
  the	
   availability	
  aand nd	
  ahuman ccess	
  to	
  population in Africa, suggested by Fjeldsa˚ & Lovett (1997) and Balmford the	
  resource	
  each	
  area)	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
   The	
   biodiversity	
   SSA	
  we is	
  amay lso	
  indirectly	
   relied	
   et al. (2001). From in	
   this, infer that the traditional land use in Africa did not erase the natural large-scale biodiversity pattern. Table 1 shows a stronger positive correlation in the past than under the present diachronic regime, where effects of political change and globalization  st ex tio N de tr an re su ri bi Ca  upon,	
  as	
  it	
  improves	
  the	
  resilience	
  of	
  the	
  regions	
  ecosystems	
  and	
  agricultural	
  land	
   (Roe,	
  2010).	
  Resilience	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  to	
  absorb	
   shocks	
  or	
  disturbances,	
  and	
  return	
  to	
  a	
  reference	
  state	
  after	
  perturbation	
  (Roe,	
   2010).	
  Strong	
  and	
  consistent	
  findings	
  show	
  that	
  by	
  improving	
  the	
  resilience	
  of	
  a	
   system,	
  biodiversity	
  has	
  a	
  positive	
  effect	
  on	
  mean	
  crop	
  yields	
  and	
  a	
  negative	
  effect	
   on	
  the	
  variability	
  of	
  crop	
  yields	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  This	
  provides	
  strong	
  insurance	
  against	
   food	
  security	
  risks	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  High	
  levels	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  in	
  SSA	
  farms	
  not	
  only	
   decrease	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  crop	
  failure,	
  but	
  also	
  increase	
  soil	
  fertility,	
  improve	
  water	
   supplies,	
  and	
  provide	
  natural	
  pest	
  control	
  that	
  allows	
  for	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  productivity	
   and	
  a	
  direct	
  economic	
  benefit	
  (Roe,	
  2010;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  	
   Table	
  1:	
  Collected	
  evidence	
  on	
  the	
  dependence	
  of	
  different	
  regions	
  of	
  SSA	
  on	
   biodiversity	
  for	
  income.	
  From	
  Roe	
  (2010).	
  	
   Source	
   Region	
   Evidence	
   Resource	
  type	
   Bene	
  et	
  al.	
   West	
  Africa	
  	
   Varies	
  from	
  90%(poorest)-­‐ Fish	
   2009	
   29.7%(richest)	
   Cavendish	
   2000	
   de	
  Merode	
  et	
   al.	
  2004	
   Fisher	
  2004	
    Southern	
   Africa	
    35.4%	
  of	
  household	
  income	
  in	
   Wild	
  foods,	
  wood,	
  grasses	
   1993-­‐94;	
  36.9%	
  in	
  1996-­‐97	
   and	
  other	
  environmental	
   resources	
   West	
  Africa	
   24%	
  of	
  cash	
  sales	
   Wild	
  foods	
    Southern	
   Africa	
  	
   Kamanga	
  et	
  al.	
   Southern	
   2009	
   Africa	
  	
   Mamo	
  et	
  al.	
   East	
  Africa	
  	
   2007	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    30%	
  of	
  household	
  income	
    Forests	
    15%	
  of	
  total	
  household	
   income	
   39%	
  of	
  total	
  household	
   income	
  	
    Forests	
   Forests	
    Table	
  2:	
  Collected	
  evidence	
  on	
  the	
  relative	
  dependence	
  of	
  the	
  poor	
  in	
  different	
   regions	
  of	
  SSA	
  on	
  biodiversity	
  resources	
  (NTFP	
  means	
  non-­‐timber	
  forest	
  products).	
   From	
  Roe	
  (2010).	
  	
   Reference	
  	
   Region	
   Resource	
  	
   Relative	
   Dependence	
   Babulo	
  et	
  al.	
  2008	
   East	
  Africa	
  	
   Forests	
  	
   Decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
   Bene	
  et	
  al.	
  2009	
   West	
  Africa	
  	
   Fish	
   Decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
   Cavendish	
  2000	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   Multiple	
  	
   Decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
   de	
  Merode	
  et	
  al.	
   West	
  Africa	
  	
   Wild	
  plants	
  	
   Consumption/sale	
   2004	
   decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
  	
   Fisher	
  2004	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   Low	
  return	
  forest	
   Decreases	
  with	
   activities	
  	
   wealth	
   Kamanga	
  et	
  al.	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   Forests	
   Decreases	
  with	
   2007	
   wealth	
   Mamo	
  et	
  al.	
  2007	
   East	
  Africa	
  	
   Forests	
   Decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
   Paumgarten	
  and	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   NTFP	
   Sale	
  decreases	
   Shackleton	
  2009	
   with	
  wealth	
   Shackleton	
  and	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   NTFP	
   Sale	
  decreases	
   Shackleton	
  2006	
   with	
  wealth	
  	
   Shackleton	
  and	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   Fuelwood	
   Consumption	
   Shackleton	
  2006	
   decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
  	
   Shackleton	
  and	
   Southern	
  Africa	
  	
   Edible	
  herbs	
  	
   Consumption	
   Shackleton	
  2006	
   decreases	
  with	
   wealth	
   	
   4.2.	
  Biodiversity	
  Conservation	
  as	
  a	
  Means	
  of	
  Poverty	
  Reduction	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  The	
  conservation	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  is	
  a	
  unique	
  way	
  to	
  provide	
  direct	
  and	
  indirect	
   services	
  that	
  sustain	
  the	
  economy	
  in	
  SSA	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  The	
  labour	
  of	
  the	
   poor	
  results	
  in	
  economic	
  returns	
  that	
  are	
  directly	
  dependent	
  upon	
  the	
  quality	
  and	
   quantity	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  resources	
  available,	
  and	
  these	
  resources	
  are,	
  in	
  turn,	
   dependent	
  upon	
  the	
  biodiversity	
  of	
  the	
  region	
  (Barrett,	
  Travis,	
  &	
  Dasgupta,	
  2011).	
   The	
  high	
  dependency	
  of	
  the	
  SSA	
  economy	
  on	
  its	
  biodiversity	
  suggests	
  that,	
  at	
  a	
    minimum,	
  this	
  biodiversity	
  acts	
  as	
  a	
  safety	
  net	
  to	
  maintain	
  the	
  region’s	
  current	
   economy	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  It	
  also	
  suggests	
  that	
   biodiversity	
  is	
  a	
  crucial	
  factor	
  in	
  any	
  hope	
  for	
  poverty	
  alleviation	
  in	
  the	
  region	
   (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  Although	
  ecosystem	
  services	
   (sometimes	
  looked	
  at	
  as	
  natural	
  capital),	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  services	
  generated	
   by	
  a	
  habitat,	
  are	
  often	
  taken	
  for	
  granted,	
  underpriced,	
  and	
  overexploited,	
  these	
   services	
  are	
  extremely	
  valuable	
  and	
  essential	
  in	
  the	
  SSA	
  economy	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
   2012;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  If	
  current	
  payments	
  for	
  these	
  ecosystem	
  services	
  made	
  it	
  directly	
   to	
  the	
  poor,	
  there	
  would	
  be	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  economic	
  value	
  of	
  49.7%,	
  suggesting	
  that	
   management	
  of	
  this	
  natural	
  capital	
  could	
  result	
  in	
  poverty	
  alleviation	
  in	
  the	
  region	
   (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  An	
  example	
  of	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  to	
   alleviate	
  poverty	
  comes	
  from	
  the	
  comparison	
  of	
  two	
  similar	
  districts	
  in	
  both	
  Costa	
   Rica	
  and	
  Thailand,	
  one	
  with	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  and	
  one	
  without	
  (Turner	
  et	
   al.,	
  2012).	
  The	
  protected	
  areas	
  experienced	
  10%	
  less	
  poverty	
  in	
  Costa	
  Rica,	
  and	
  30%	
   less	
  poverty	
  in	
  Thailand,	
  providing	
  discrete	
  examples	
  of	
  how	
  this	
  relationship	
  could	
   provide	
  possible	
  benefits	
  to	
  the	
  SSA	
  economy	
  as	
  well	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  A	
  variety	
   of	
  similar	
  success	
  stories	
  are	
  available,	
  emphasizing	
  the	
  promising	
  capability	
  of	
   biodiversity	
  conservation	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  of	
  poverty	
  reduction	
  (Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
   2007;	
  Munthali,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   4.3.	
  Implementation	
  of	
  Findings	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  The	
  complex	
  relationship	
  between	
  poverty	
  and	
  biodiversity	
  in	
  SSA	
  provides	
   compelling	
  reasons	
  for	
  its	
  communities	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  conservation,	
  as	
  it	
  can	
  be	
   economically,	
  environmentally,	
  politically,	
  socially,	
  and	
  culturally	
  beneficial	
  (Roe,	
    Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  Community	
  appropriate	
  strategies	
  and	
  policies	
  for	
   incorporating	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  and	
  poverty	
  reduction	
  must	
  be	
  designed	
  in	
   order	
  to	
  take	
  advantage	
  of	
  these	
  compelling	
  benefits	
  (Roe,	
  Walpole,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  2010).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  There	
  are	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  possibilities	
  and	
  previously	
  implemented	
  strategies	
  that	
   take	
  advantage	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  these	
  two	
  variables,	
  providing	
  “win-­‐ win”	
  solutions	
  (Munthali,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  Community	
  based	
  natural	
  resource	
   management	
  programs	
  are	
  key,	
  as	
  they	
  recognize	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
   participation	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  live	
  near	
  and	
  are	
  interconnected	
  with	
  the	
  resources	
  at	
   hand	
  (Munthali,	
  2007).	
  A	
  complex	
  example	
  of	
  such	
  an	
  ecosystem	
  management	
   initiative	
  is	
  Transfrontier	
  Conservation	
  Areas	
  (TFCAs),	
  which	
  recognize	
  that	
   political	
  borders	
  between	
  countries	
  are	
  not	
  necessarily	
  ecological	
  borders	
   (Munthali,	
  2007).	
  This	
  strategy	
  aims	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  key	
  ecological	
  processes	
   continue	
  to	
  function	
  where	
  borders	
  have	
  divided	
  an	
  ecosystem,	
  while	
  also	
   encouraging	
  cooperation	
  between	
  different	
  governments	
  and	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
   region	
  (Munthali,	
  2007).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  A	
  variety	
  of	
  other	
  conservation	
  mechanisms	
  provide	
  strong	
  evidence	
  of	
   contributions	
  to	
  reductions	
  in	
  poverty	
  by	
  conserving	
  biodiversity	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
   Examples	
  include	
  non-­‐timber	
  forest	
  products	
  (NTFPs)	
  in	
  which	
  products	
  such	
  as	
   honey,	
  bamboo	
  and	
  mushrooms	
  can	
  be	
  cultivated	
  and	
  generate	
  profit	
  for	
  the	
  region,	
   as	
  well	
  as	
  timber	
  itself,	
  when	
  forests	
  are	
  owned	
  by	
  communities	
  and	
  harvested	
   sustainably	
  by	
  small-­‐scale	
  wood	
  processing	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  community	
  with	
  wealth	
   that	
  has	
  historically	
  gone	
  to	
  national	
  elites	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  these	
  strategies	
    in	
  example	
  cases	
  such	
  as	
  Mexico,	
  Bolivia,	
  and	
  Vietnam	
  has	
  been	
  successful	
  in	
   reducing	
  poverty	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  An	
  initiative	
  called	
  payments	
  for	
  environmental	
  services	
  (PES),	
  which	
  involves	
   the	
  selling	
  of	
  well-­‐defined	
  environmental	
  services	
  (such	
  as	
  watershed	
  protection	
  or	
   carbon	
  sequestration)	
  so	
  that	
  landowners	
  are	
  compensated	
  for	
  providing	
   environmentally	
  sustainable	
  ecosystem	
  services,	
  has	
  been	
  successfully	
  implemented	
   in	
  Costa	
  Rica	
  for	
  forest	
  protection,	
  and	
  in	
  Ecuador	
  for	
  watershed	
  protection	
  (Fisher,	
   &	
  Christopher,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  These	
  cases	
  of	
  PES	
  provide	
  considerable	
  evidence	
   of	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  this	
  strategy	
  to	
  reduce	
  poverty,	
  as	
  it	
  now	
  supplies	
  more	
  than	
  30%	
  of	
   the	
  household	
  income	
  for	
  the	
  poor	
  in	
  both	
  of	
  these	
  regions	
  (Fisher,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
   2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Nature-­‐based	
  tourism	
  is	
  another	
  possible	
  option	
  for	
  SSA,	
  as	
  international	
   attractions	
  such	
  as	
  eco-­‐lodges	
  and	
  safari	
  operations	
  provide	
  direct	
  and	
  indirect	
   benefits	
  to	
  the	
  region	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  implemented	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  Direct	
  benefits	
   include	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  jobs	
  in	
  the	
  tourism	
  sector	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  Indirect	
  benefits	
  are	
   the	
  infrastructure	
  and	
  development	
  that	
  come	
  along	
  with	
  tourism,	
  as	
  research	
  has	
   shown	
  that	
  each	
  dollar	
  spent	
  by	
  a	
  tourist	
  leads	
  to	
  a	
  $2-­‐3	
  national	
  economic	
  benefit	
   (Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fish	
  spillover	
  is	
  another	
  strategy	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  proven	
  to	
  reduce	
  poverty	
  in	
  the	
   locations	
  it	
  is	
  implemented	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  protection	
  of	
  a	
  key	
  area	
  of	
  marine	
   habitat	
  allows	
  for	
  the	
  fish	
  stocks	
  to	
  replenish	
  and	
  overspill	
  into	
  adjacent	
  areas	
   where	
  they	
  can	
  be	
  caught	
  and	
  benefitted	
  from	
  by	
  the	
  poor	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
   protected	
  areas	
  provide	
  marine	
  biodiversity	
  conservation,	
  while	
  the	
  spillover	
  areas	
    generate	
  income	
  to	
  reduce	
  poverty	
  in	
  the	
  region	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  This	
  strategy	
  has	
  lead	
   to	
  a	
  doubling	
  of	
  local	
  incomes	
  within	
  five	
  years	
  of	
  its	
  establishment	
  in	
  two	
  different	
   Fijian	
  communities	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  these	
  various	
  strategies	
  and	
  policies	
  that	
  will	
  be	
  necessary	
   to	
  establish	
  any	
  significant	
  poverty	
  alleviation	
  in	
  a	
  region	
  as	
  large	
  and	
  diverse	
  as	
   SSA.	
  Research	
  and	
  experience	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  these	
  strategies	
  can	
  contribute	
   measurably	
  to	
  both	
  the	
  conservation	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  and	
  alleviation	
  of	
  poverty	
  if	
   executed	
  properly	
  (Munthali,	
  2007;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  that	
  the	
  strategies	
   implemented	
  incorporate	
  sufficient	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  complex	
  relationship	
   between	
  poverty	
  and	
  the	
  environment	
  in	
  SSA,	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  ensure	
  an	
  overall	
   sustainable	
  outcome	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  Challenges	
  faced	
  by	
  such	
  policy	
   implementation	
  include	
  political	
  instability	
  in	
  the	
  region,	
  poor	
  government	
   implementation	
  and	
  a	
  disconnection	
  between	
  government	
  policy	
  and	
  the	
  scholarly	
   research	
  behind	
  the	
  issues	
  (Munthali,	
  2007).	
  A	
  main	
  challenge	
  for	
  the	
  region	
  is	
   ensuring	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  poor	
  who	
  benefit	
  from	
  these	
  policy	
  implementations,	
  as	
   opposed	
  to	
  the	
  elite	
  capturing	
  the	
  benefits	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  	
   5.	
  Conclusions	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Biodiversity	
  loss	
  and	
  poverty	
  reduction	
  are	
  global	
  challenges,	
  agreed	
  to	
  be	
  of	
  first	
   order	
  importance	
  in	
  the	
  Convention	
  on	
  Biological	
  Diversity	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  Millennium	
   Development	
  Goals	
  (Barrett,	
  Travis,	
  &	
  Dasgupta,	
  2011).	
  The	
  connection	
  between	
   these	
  two	
  variables	
  therefore	
  holds	
  profound	
  possibilities	
  for	
  SSA	
  and,	
  if	
  understood	
   fully,	
  could	
  provide	
  promising	
  mechanisms	
  to	
  combat	
  poverty	
  and	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
   biodiversity	
  together	
  (Lufumpa,	
  2005;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  close	
  interrelation	
  between	
    these	
  two	
  variables	
  suggests	
  that	
  if	
  not	
  arrested,	
  biodiversity	
  degradation	
  will	
  affect	
   the	
  regions	
  economic	
  growth,	
  further	
  worsening	
  the	
  situation	
  of	
  those	
  in	
  poverty	
   (Lufumpa,	
  2005).	
  The	
  importance	
  of	
  this	
  complex	
  relationship	
  must	
  be	
  taken	
  into	
   account,	
  and	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  priority	
  in	
  international	
  efforts	
   to	
  address	
  poverty	
  reduction	
  in	
  SSA	
  (Adams	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  The	
  services	
   provided	
  by	
  diverse	
  ecosystems	
  and	
  the	
  habitats	
  providing	
  them	
  are	
  vanishing	
  at	
   alarming	
  rates,	
  and	
  are	
  undervalued	
  in	
  markets,	
  businesses,	
  and	
  government	
   decisions	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  This	
  is	
  particularly	
  true	
  when	
  looking	
  into	
  a	
  future	
  of	
   climate	
  change,	
  where	
  this	
  biodiversity	
  will	
  be	
  especially	
  crucial	
  (Turner	
  et	
  al.,	
   2012;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
  Although	
  SSA	
  emits	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  lowest	
  levels	
  of	
  green	
  house	
  gases	
   globally,	
  research	
  has	
  shown	
  that	
  this	
  drought-­‐prone	
  region	
  is	
  most	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
   climate	
  change	
  hazards	
  (Reid,	
  &	
  Swiderska,	
  2008).	
  Biodiversity	
  in	
  SSA	
  can	
  act	
  as	
  a	
   buffer,	
  ensuring	
  protection	
  and	
  resilience	
  against	
  the	
  adverse	
  weather	
  associated	
   with	
  climate	
  change	
  (Roe,	
  2010).	
  Those	
  in	
  poverty	
  have	
  the	
  lowest	
  capacity	
  to	
  deal	
   with	
  climate	
  change-­‐related	
  shocks,	
  and	
  the	
  resilience	
  provided	
  by	
  conserving	
  the	
   region’s	
  biodiversity	
  will	
  be	
  increasingly	
  important	
  for	
  the	
  economic	
  wellbeing	
  of	
   SSA	
  communities	
  in	
  a	
  future	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  (Reid,	
  &	
  Swiderska,	
  2008;	
  Roe,	
  2010).	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    References	
   Adams,	
  W.	
  M.,	
  Aveling,	
  R.,	
  Brockington,	
  D.,	
  Dickson,	
  B.,	
  Elliot,	
  J.,	
  Mutton,	
  J.,	
  …	
  	
   Wolmer,	
  W.	
  (2004).	
  Biodiversity	
  Conservation	
  and	
  the	
  Eradication	
  of	
  	
   Poverty.	
  Science,	
  306(5699),	
  1146-­‐1149.	
  	
   	
   Africa.	
  (2010).	
  Retrieved	
  March	
  23,	
  2012,	
  from	
  The	
  World	
  Bank	
  website:	
  	
   http://go.worldbank.org/0KBY1V9YT0	
   	
   Babulo,	
  B.,	
  Muys,	
  B.,	
  Nega,	
  F.,	
  Tollens,	
  E.,	
  Nyssen,	
  J.,	
  Deckers,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Mathijs,	
  E.	
  (2008).	
  	
   	
   Household	
  livelihood	
  strategies	
  and	
  forest	
  dependence	
  in	
  the	
  highlands	
  of	
  	
   	
   Tigray,	
  Northern	
  Ethiopia.	
  Agricultural	
  Systems,	
  98(2),	
  147-­‐155.	
   	
   Barrett,	
  C.	
  B.,	
  Travis,	
  A.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Dasgupta,	
  P.	
  (2011).	
  On	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  and	
   poverty	
  traps.	
  Proceedings	
  Of	
  The	
  National	
  Academy	
  Of	
  Sciences	
  Of	
  The	
  United	
  	
   States	
  Of	
  America,	
  108(34),	
  13907-­‐13912.	
  doi:10.1073/pnas.1011521108	
   	
   Béné,	
  C.,	
  Steel,	
  E.,	
  Kambala	
  Luadia,	
  B.,	
  &	
  Gordon,	
  A.	
  (2009).	
  Fish	
  as	
  the	
  ‘bank	
  in	
  the	
  	
   	
   water’	
  –	
  Evidence	
  from	
  chronic-­‐poor	
  communities	
  in	
  Congo.	
  Food	
  Policy,	
  34(1),	
  	
   	
   108–118.	
   	
   Buggey,	
  T.	
  (2007,	
  Summer).	
  Storyboard	
  for	
  Ivan's	
  morning	
  routine.	
  Diagram.	
  Journal	
  	
   of	
  Positive	
  Behavior	
  Interventions,	
  9(3),	
  151.	
  Retrieved	
  December	
  14,	
  2007,	
  	
   from	
  Academic	
  Search	
  Premier	
  database.	
   	
   Cavendish,	
  W.	
  (2000).	
  Empirical	
  Regularities	
  in	
  the	
  Poverty-­‐Environment	
  	
   	
   Relationship	
  of	
  Rural	
  Households:	
  Evidence	
  from	
  Zimbabwe.	
  World	
   	
   Development,	
  28(11),	
  1979-­‐2003.	
   	
   Darkoh,	
  M.	
  (2009).	
  An	
  overview	
  of	
  environmental	
  issues	
  in	
  Southern	
  Africa.	
  African	
  	
   Journal	
  Of	
  Ecology,	
  47,	
  93-­‐98.	
  doi:10.111/j.1365-­‐2028.2008.01054.x	
   	
   de	
  Merode,	
  E.,	
  Homewood,	
  K.,	
  &	
  Cowlishaw,	
  G.	
  (2004).	
  The	
  value	
  of	
  bushmeat	
  and	
  	
   	
   other	
  wild	
  foods	
  to	
  rural	
  households	
  living	
  in	
  extreme	
  poverty	
  in	
  Democratic	
   	
   Republic	
  of	
  Congo.	
  Biological	
  Conservation,	
  118(5),	
  573-­‐581.	
   	
   Fisher,	
  B.,	
  &	
  Christopher,	
  T.	
  (2007).	
  Poverty	
  and	
  biodiversity:	
  Measuring	
  the	
  overlap	
  	
   of	
  human	
  poverty	
  and	
  the	
  biodiversity	
  hotspots.	
  Ecological	
  Economics,	
  62(1),	
   	
   93-­‐101.	
  doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.020	
   	
   Fisher,	
  M.	
  (2004).	
  Household	
  welfare	
  and	
  forest	
  dependence	
  in	
  Southern	
  Malawi.	
  	
   	
   Environment	
  and	
  Development	
  Economics,	
  9(02),	
  135-­‐154.	
   	
   Fjeldsa,	
  J.J.,	
  &	
  Burgwss,	
  N.	
  D.	
  (2008).	
  The	
  coincidence	
  of	
  biodiversity	
  patterns	
  and	
  	
   human	
  settlement	
  in	
  Africa.	
  African	
  Journal	
  of	
  Ecology,	
  46,	
  33-­‐42.	
  	
   doi:10.1111/j.1365-­‐2028.2008.00927.x	
    	
   Kamanga,	
  P.,	
  Vedeld,	
  P.,	
  &	
  Sjaastad,	
  E.	
  (2009).	
  Forest	
  incomes	
  and	
  rural	
  livelihoods	
  	
   	
   in	
  Chiradzulu	
  District,	
  Malawi.	
  Ecological	
  Economics,	
  68(3),	
  613-­‐624.	
   	
   Lufumpa,	
  C.	
  (2005).	
  	
  The	
  Poverty-­‐Environment	
  Nexus	
  in	
  Africa.	
  African	
  Development	
  	
   Review,	
  17(3),	
  366-­‐381.	
  doi:10.1111/j.1017-­‐6772.2006.00120.x	
   	
   Mamo,	
  G.,	
  Sjaastad,	
  E.,	
  &	
  Vedeld,	
  P.	
  (2007).	
  Economic	
  dependence	
  on	
  forest	
  	
   	
   resources:	
  A	
  case	
  from	
  Dendi	
  District,	
  Ethiopia.	
  Forest	
  Policy	
  and	
  Economics,	
  	
   	
   9(8),	
  916-­‐927.	
   	
   Munthali,	
  S.M.	
  (2007).	
  Transfrontier	
  conservation	
  areas:	
  Integrating	
  biodiversity	
  	
   and	
  poverty	
  alleviation	
  in	
  Southern	
  Africa.	
  Natural	
  Resources	
  Forum,	
  31(1),	
  	
   51-­‐60.	
  doi:10.1111/j.1477-­‐8947.2007.00130.x	
   	
   Paumgarten,	
  F.,	
  &	
  Shackleton,	
  C.M.	
  (2009).	
  Wealth	
  differentiation	
  in	
  household	
  use	
  	
   	
   and	
  trade	
  in	
  non-­‐timber	
  forest	
  products	
  in	
  South	
  Africa.	
  Ecological	
  Economics,	
  	
   	
   68(12),	
  2950-­‐2959.	
   	
   Reid,	
  H.,	
  &	
  Swiderska,	
  K.	
  (2008).	
  Biodiversity,	
  climate	
  change	
  and	
  poverty:	
  exploring	
  	
   the	
  links.	
  In	
  International	
  Institute	
  for	
  Environment	
  and	
  Development	
  briefing.	
  	
   	
   Roe,	
  D.	
  (2010).	
  Linking	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  and	
  poverty	
  alleviation:	
  A	
  state	
  of	
  	
   knowledge	
  review.	
  In	
  Secretariat	
  of	
  the	
  Convention	
  on	
  Biological	
  Biodiversity:	
  	
   CBD	
  Technical	
  Series	
  No.	
  55.	
   	
   Roe,	
  D.,	
  Walpole,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Elliott,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Linking	
  biodiversity	
  conservation	
  and	
  	
   poverty	
  reduction:	
  what,	
  why	
  and	
  how?	
  In	
  Zoological	
  Society	
  of	
  London	
  	
   symposium.	
   	
   Shackleton,	
  C.M.,	
  &	
  Shackleton,	
  S.E.	
  (2006).	
  Household	
  wealth	
  status	
  and	
  natural	
  	
   	
   resource	
  use	
  in	
  the	
  Kat	
  River	
  valley,	
  South	
  Africa.	
  Ecological	
  Economics,	
  57(2),	
  	
   	
   306-­‐317.	
   	
   Turner,	
  W.R.,	
  Brandon,	
  K.,	
  Brooks,	
  T.M.,	
  Gascon,	
  C.,	
  Gibbs,	
  H.K.,	
  …	
  Selig,	
  E.R.	
  (2012).	
  	
   Global	
  Biodiversity	
  Conservation	
  and	
  the	
  Alleviation	
  of	
  Poverty.	
  BioScience.	
  	
   62(1),	
  85-­‐92.	
   	
   Walker,	
  M.	
  (2009).	
  The	
  World’s	
  New	
  Numbers.	
  Wilson	
  Quarterly,	
  33(2),	
  24-­‐31.	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 5 0
China 3 0
Thailand 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 3 0
Shenzhen 3 0
Bangkok 1 0
Unknown 1 0
Kansas City 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0058126/manifest

Comment

Related Items