The Social Benefits of Ecosystems

Deriving income from the environment is clearly a powerful tool for improving the lives and livelihoods of individual families, but it can also bring significant societal benefits by making the distribution of wealth in a community more equal. If environmental income is not counted, the income distribution in rural communities is often significantly skewed, with a large gap between rich and poor. However, if environmental income is included in the income profile, the gap between rich and poor shrinks somewhat (Vedeld et al. 2004:36-38; Jodha 1986:1177). This supports the contention that ecosystem goods and services act as community assets, whose benefits reach beyond the individual household level. By providing an income source to those without other assets, ecosystems moderate and buffer the rural economy and increase economic equity. This provides another rationale for sound management of local ecosystems.

The use of natural resources and especially their degradation also has other implications for households and for communities. Rural communities are often bound together by shared professions based on nature—fisher, pastoralist, or farmer—or their use of a specific set of forest resources. In other words, natural resources are often a binding element of communities. Community-based resource management can increase this bond, fostering community cohesion and strengthening the social safety net for poor community members.

Conversely, degradation of resources can harm communities and poor households by increasing the effort and time required to meet basic needs. Deforestation and scarce or polluted water supplies can increase the amount of time required to collect adequate fuelwood and water for daily use. Since women are usually charged with providing wood and water, longer collection times usually translate to less time to prepare food, care for young children, and help with agricultural activities. In low-income households, this can translate into poorer nutritional status and can harm the general household welfare (Kumar and Hotchkiss 1988:55-56).

Often, a portion of the collecting burden falls on the children in a household. Greater collection times can reduce the chances that children, especially girls, will remain in school. In Malawi, where more than 90 percent of households use firewood as their main source of energy, children in fuelwood-scarce districts are 10 to 15 percent less likely to attend secondary school (Nankhuni and Findeis 2003:9). (See Figure 2.6.) A study in Nepal found that educational attainment of girls in poor households dropped as fodder and water availability decreased, suggesting that the additional labor fell to school-age girls in the household (Cooke 1998:19). On the other hand, restoration of traditional forest enclosures in the Shinyanga region of Tanzania has dramatically increased forest cover in the district and reduced collection times for fuelwood by several hours per day, on average—a direct benefit to poor families.
(See Chapter 5 case study, Regenerating Woodlands in Tanzania: The HASHI Project.)

These social and community benefits of nature point to how intact ecosystems can support many non-income aspects of rural livelihoods, adding weight to the argument that better ecosystem management is a crucial element of rural poverty reduction.