Biodiversity loss and poverty revisited

My discussion of the areas in which we can, and should, collectively do better in the management of biodiversity change has so far focused on the gains we can make in efficiency rather than in equity. It has emphasized the quality of the information we generate on the nature and significance of biodiversity change, and the way we use that information to inform decisions in a world where we cannot know everything. It has distinguished between the kind of information needed to support mitigation and adaptation strategies, and the options for balancing the costs and benefits of precautionary action. It has also identified the instruments available to convert information on the effects of biodiversity change into signals to those who supply and those who demand non-marketed environmental public goods. It has not considered issues of fairness or justice. Yet our starting point – the report of the Brundtland Commission – placed issues of equity at the core of sustainable development. The Commission famously argued that: “Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.” It noted that the concept of sustainability necessarily implied a concern for equity between generations, and argued that the same concern logically extended to equity within generations. Specifically, it claimed that meeting the needs of this generation implied an assurance that the poor would receive their fair share of the resources required to sustain growth (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).