Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services.

Conservation managers frequently face the challenge of protecting and sustaining biodiversity without producing detrimental outcomes for (often poor) human populations that depend on ecosystem services for their well-being. However, mutually beneficial solutions are often elusive and can mask trade-offs and negative outcomes for people. To deal with such trade-offs, ecological and social thresholds need to be identified to determine the acceptable solution space for conservation. Although human well-being as a concept has recently gained prominence, conservationists still lack tools to evaluate how their actions affect it in a given context. We applied the theory of human needs to conservation by building on an extensive historical application of need approaches in international development. In an innovative participatory method that included focus groups and household surveys, we evaluated how human needs are met based on locally relevant thresholds. We then established connections between human needs and ecosystem services through key-informant focus groups. We applied our method in coastal East Africa to identify households that would not be able to meet their basic needs and to uncover the role of ecosystem services in meeting these. This enabled us to identify how benefits derived from the environment were contributing to meeting basic needs and to consider potential repercussions that could arise through changes to ecosystem service provision. We suggest our approach can help conservationists and planners balance poverty alleviation and biodiversity protection and ensure conservation measures do not, at the very least, cause serious harm to individuals. We further argue it can be used as a basis for monitoring the impacts of conservation on multidimensional poverty.

Incorporación de las Necesidades Básicas para Reconciliar a la Pobreza y a los Servicios Ambientales Resumen Los administradores de la conservación frecuentemente enfrentan el reto de proteger y mantener la biodiversidad sin producir resultados perjudiciales para las poblaciones humanas (comúnmente pobres) que dependen de los servicios ambientales para su bienestar. Sin embargo, las soluciones benéficas para ambos son comúnmente elusivas y pueden cubrir compensaciones y resultados negativos para las personas. Para tratar con dichas compensaciones se requiere la identificación de umbrales ecológicos y sociales para determinar el espacio de solución aceptable para la conservación. Aunque el bienestar humano como concepto ha ganado prominencia recientemente, los conservacionistas carecen de herramientas para evaluar cómo afectan sus acciones en un contexto dado. Aplicamos la teoría de las necesidades humanas a la conservación al basarnos en una aplicación histórica extensiva de estrategias de necesidades en el desarrollo internacional. Evaluamos cómo se cumplen las necesidades humanas con base en umbrales relevantes localmente en un método participativo innovador que incluyó grupos de enfoque y censos de hogares. Después establecimos conexiones entre las necesidades humanas y los servicios ambientales por medio de grupos de enfoque con informantes clave. Aplicamos nuestro método en la costa oriental de África para identificar los hogares que no podrían cumplir con sus necesidades básicas y para descubrir el papel de los servicios ambientales en el cumplimiento de estas necesidades. Esto nos permitió identificar cómo los beneficios derivados del ambiente estaban contribuyendo al cumplimiento de las necesidades básicas y nos permitió considerar las repercusiones potenciales que podrían surgir por medio de cambios en la provisión de los servicios ambientales. Sugerimos que nuestra estrategia puede ayudar a los conservacionistas y a los planificadores a balancear el alivio de la pobreza y la protección de la biodiversidad y a asegurar que las medidas de conservación, como mínimo, no causen daño serio a los individuos. También sustentamos que puede usarse como base para el monitoreo de los impactos de la conservación sobre la pobreza multidimensional.

Rural protein insufficiency in a wildlife-depleted West African farm-forest landscape.

INTRODUCTION: Wildlife is an important source of protein for many people in developing countries. Yet wildlife depletion due to overexploitation is common throughout the humid tropics and its effect on protein security, especially for vulnerable households, is poorly understood. This is problematic for both sustainable rural development and conservation management. METHODS: This study investigates a key dimension of protein security in a cash-crop farming community living in a wildlife-depleted farm-forest landscape in SW Ghana, a region where protein-energy malnutrition persists. Specifically, we monitored protein sufficiency, defined as whether consumption met daily requirements, as benchmarked by recommended daily allowance (RDA). We focus on whether more vulnerable households were less likely to be able to meet their protein needs, where vulnerability was defined by wealth, agricultural season and gender of the household head. Our central hypothesis was: (a) vulnerable households are less likely to consume sufficient protein. In the context that most plant proteins were home-produced, so likely relatively accessible to all households, while most animal proteins were purchased, so likely less accessible to vulnerable households, we tested two further hypotheses: (b) vulnerable households depend more on plant protein to cover their protein needs; and (c) vulnerable households are less likely to earn sufficient cash income to meet their protein needs through purchased animal sources. RESULTS: Between 14% and 60% of households (depending on plant protein content assumptions) consumed less than the RDA for protein, but neither protein consumption nor protein sufficiency co-varied with household vulnerability. Fish, livestock and food crops comprised 85% of total protein intake and strongly affected protein sufficiency. However, bushmeat remained an important protein source (15% of total consumption), especially during the post-harvest season when it averaged 26% of total protein consumption. Across the year, 89% of households experienced at least one occasion when they had insufficient income to cover their protein needs through animal protein purchases. The extent of this income shortage was highest during the lean season and among poorer households. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that despite wildlife depletion, bushmeat continues to make a substantial contribution to protein consumption, especially during the agricultural lean season. Income shortages among farmers limit their ability to purchase bushmeat or its substitutes, suggesting that wildlife depletion may cause malnutrition.

The importance of bushmeat in the livelihoods of West African cash-crop farmers living in a faunally-depleted landscape.

Bushmeat is an important resource in the livelihoods of many rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa and may be a crucial safety-net for the most vulnerable households, especially during times of economic hardship. However, little is known about the impacts of wildlife depletion on these functions. This study quantifies the role of bushmeat in diversified rural household economies in a wildlife depleted forest-farm landscape in Ghana, assessing its importance overall, as well as differentiated by the relative vulnerability of households. Using repeat socioeconomic questionnaires (N=787) among 63 households over a one-year period, the following hypotheses were tested: (a) vulnerable households harvest more bushmeat; (b) bushmeat contributes a greater proportion of household production in vulnerable households; (c) bushmeat is more important for cash income than consumption in vulnerable households; and (d) bushmeat sales are more important for vulnerable households. The bushmeat harvest value averaged less than US$1.0 per day for 89% of households and comprised less than 7% of household production value. Household wealth and gender of the household head had little effect on the importance of bushmeat. However, bushmeat harvest and sales were highest during the agricultural lean season. Overall, most harvested bushmeat (64%) was consumed, enabling households to spend 30% less on meat/fish purchases. These findings suggest that, despite heavily depleted wildlife and diversified livelihoods, bushmeat continues to have an important role in rural livelihoods by acting as a safety net for income smoothing and reducing household expenditure during times of economic hardship.