Grant me the indulgence of assuming that the Conservancy should be concerned about poverty. While not everyone on staff will agree, our field staff working in poor countries know that, unless our work there tangibly benefits local people, it will not be socially sustainable.

Here’s a question that several colleagues have raised: When the Conservancy focuses on “poverty,” should we focus on poverty reduction, poverty prevention...or both?

The analysis below suggests we should focus on poverty reduction wherever natural resources are heavily degraded…and poverty prevention wherever they are not. Why? Because poverty reduction and poverty prevention are a continuum that looks something like this:
Income-->--------------------------------------------------I--------------------------------------------------------->
Poverty Reduction                                      Poverty Line                                     Poverty Prevention

Poverty is reduced until a person is above the poverty line; the emphasis then shifts to poverty prevention. Reduction generates new economic activity and wealth and moves the country forward. Prevention guards against drops in economic activity, provides insurance against losing existing wealth, and keeps a country from falling back economically.

For governments in developing countries — as well as for international development efforts — prioritizing poverty reduction over poverty prevention makes sense. Giving poor people the opportunities to move themselves out of poverty has greater medium and long-term benefits for a country’s economic development than does preventing people from falling back into poverty. The poor also need the help more than the nonpoor. Poverty tends to be intergenerational, making it much harder to move someone out of poverty for the first time than move them out of poverty after a relapse.

For the Conservancy, it’s not about deciding whether to focus on reduction or prevention, but about how the conservation opportunities in a particular site might benefit those in poverty. Whether a conservation project reduces or prevents poverty has much to do with the state of the natural resources at the project site. If the fisheries or the grasslands are degraded, restoring their productivity may help reduce local poverty. If a forest or a watershed is largely intact, there is little scope for poverty reduction, but much scope for poverty prevention. The more degraded the natural resource and the higher the dependence of local people on this resource, the greater the benefits are from restoration. Conservation challenges are often poverty reduction opportunities!

But we also need to recognize that, as we build our work in developing countries, we will find more support from governments and donors in those sites where poverty can be reduced than in sites where our work amounts to “saving the last great places.” It’s the rare case for which the proverbial ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure.

Image: Waterfront view in the fishing village of Sanchez, Dominican Republic. Deforestation has washed sediments down rivers and choked parts of the bay. The shoreline has become an expanse of mud that local fishermen shove their boats
through to reach fishable waters. Sewage from their outhouses runs straight into the mud here, where their livestock feed and where their children play barefoot. Yolany di Lani, age 6 (center), sits on a fence next to her brother in front of their home. Image credit: Carolyn Drake.