Posted on February, 24 2003

WWF – Macroeconomic Programme Office Media Advisory 2003-001 Lack of Focus in Agricultural Policy threatens Development Goals (Washington DC – 14 February 2003) Sweeping change is needed in agricultural investment policy in developing countries in order to integrate poverty reduction and conservation of biodiversity, according to an analysis sponsored by WWF's Macroeconomics Programme Office and its Economic Change, Poverty, and the Environment Programme. Failure to do so will exacerbate the problems that are already being faced by developing countries and lead to rising poverty and loss of biodiversity. Agriculture is important, as it is both the primary source of livelihood for the rural poor, and also the greatest cause of habitat and biodiversity loss. Despite that, support for promoting sustainable agriculture is negligible. Overall development investments for this sector have gone down sharply since the 1980s which has not helped matters. For example, the World Bank now allocates only 10 percent of what it did then, adjusted for inflation. Its important that poverty oriented agriculture investments be increased, but with an emphasis on sustainable measures, as distinct from the past “growth at any cost” practices. According to a new study, by John Mellor, entitled “Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity Conservation: The Complex Role for Intensifying Agriculture”, (http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/other_news/index.cfm?uNewsID=5303) and opinions of a panel of experts convened in Washington DC (see www.panda.org/mpo for more information) to deliberate this issue, countries need to focus investment to grow more and better crops on the better off areas with higher population densities, in order to encourage growth and poverty reduction. However these areas also harbor some of the richest biodiversity remaining on the planet, so judicious use of inputs is needed along with greater effort to expand conservation areas here. In the marginal, sparsely populated areas, countries should focus investments on education and use biodiversity conservation as a means of providing incomes for the local population. Investments here need to support selective agricultural intensification, and to focus on improved control and management of resources by local populations for conservation. This view is not without controversy since many believe that poor are mainly in low density areas, and it would be radical for the donor community to shift its focus on the better off high density areas. Since increasing agricultural productivity among smallholders has been and will remain a key element of reducing rural poverty, countries will need to focus on protecting the rich biodiversity areas in the highly populated areas, as these will continue to be threatened because as farmers see incomes rise from better farming of existing land, they will want more land. This is clearly brought out by the fact that most of the twenty five hot spots (The 25 biodiversity hotspots contain 44 percent of all plant species and 35 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species in only 1.4 percent of the planet's land area http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots) where biodiversity is highly degraded are in fact in areas where population density is high. Empowering people and reducing developed country subsidies are two approaches that need to be considered as well. The World Bank’s analysis shows that reducing agricultural subsidies in rich nations would be the greatest contribution that could be made to conserving biodiversity and reducing rural poverty. Subsidies in developed countries amounted to 311 billion dollars vs. 8 billion dollars that is given in aid for agriculture. (see Rural Strategy: Reaching the Rural Poor http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/11ByDocName/StrategyRuralStrategy) Re-directing these subsidies in rich countries to support sustainable agricultural practices worldwide will have a significant impact. In protecting biodiversity and intensifying agriculture it is important to promote participation. It is indigenous people that will do most of the biodiversity protection. Ninety percent of biodiversity is outside of parks, and by working with indigenous communities that have lived for many years in forests without destroying them we can achieve three goals at the same time : economic development, protection of biodiversity and social justice. The problem is that people generally lack rights, and legal mechanisms and protections are lacking. (see USAID paper http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACR288.pdf ). This analysis is provided by the Economic Change, Poverty, and the Environment Programme of WWF’s Macroeconomic Programme Office based in Washington D.C. as part of their ongoing efforts to study ways of integrating environmental conservation and poverty reduction. This programme is carried out with financial support from the European Commission DG Development, the Swedish International Development Agency, and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS). For more information contact : Brent Nordstrom brent.nordstrom@wwfus.org 202-486-8972 or Shubh Kumar-Range shubh@wwfus.org 202-778-9729