The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World Conservation Union (IUCN) believe that Pakistan's economic team is giving more heed to economic growth than environmental protection, which it thinks is a luxury which the country can not afford.
A new book, 'Poverty, Health and Ecosystem: Experience from Asia', a case study regarding Pakistan, co-written by Khawar Mumtaz, Usman Ali Iftikhar and Meher Marker Noshirwani, has raised the question: 'Do Decision-Makers Hear and Respond to What the Poor Say About Poverty and the Environment? Recent Experience from Pakistan'.
It says that Pakistan faces several daunting challenges, particularly relating to basic attitudes and mindsets. "The Ministry of Finance's economic team believes in economic growth today and environmental protection tomorrow. In the minds of these planners, environmental protection is a luxury that Pakistan could not afford," it said.
Moreover, the Ministry of Finance, as the interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) demonstrated, lacked awareness and knowledge on environmental factors exacerbating poverty. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Water and Power, and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources suspected that the environmental community, through the PRSP, would retard business of economic development, it observed.
According to the authors, Finance Ministry's other dominant view was that the poor people damage and degrade the environment. Less appreciated was how environmental degradation resulted in the loss of livelihood, deteriorating health, and increased vulnerability of the poor.
The study also stresses participatory processes, which have been instrumental in highlighting, addressing, and implementing poverty, health, and environment links across scales and sectors, and will continue to hold appeal for future harmonisation.
Generally, it emphasises upon the links between environment, livelihood, health, and vulnerability of the poor, and the need for the PRSP to be cognisant of environmental factors.
It speaks of specific provincial and local poverty-environment links, for example, drought in Balochistan, deforestation in the Northwest Frontier Province and Northern Areas, and water scarcity and seawater intrusion in lower Sindh. Further, highlighting the PRSP's shortcomings, these examples prompted broader coalition building for the inclusion of poverty-environment concerns.
It also observes that Pakistan's capacity and advocacy on poverty-environment concerns were limited largely to theories. The research and the statements of the poor substantiate much of what is being theorised. It added that the Ministry of Environment, which would have the responsibility of monitoring poverty-environment indicators, was hesitant and felt it had limited capacity to monitor and report.
Recent estimates classify one-third of Pakistan's population as poor. An analysis of the survey data confirms that poverty and extreme poverty, especially in the rural areas, are widespread in Pakistan. In all provinces, a large number of people earn and consume very little and represent low human development indicators.
The case study further says that in Pakistan as a whole, income poverty dropped substantially in the 1980s. This, however, was not sustained in the 1990s, and several key social indicators have shown little or no improvement since then, it added.
The partnerships and dialogue with the Ministry of Finance and the Planning Commission, along with the Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) findings, went a long way in defending the argument that environmental management can play a key role in economic development and poverty reduction.
In 1997, the Planning and Development Division decided to conduct a PPA in Pakistan. In 1998, a PPA design mission was formed comprising of government and civil society representatives, bringing together expertise in poverty analysis, policy making, and participatory inquiry. It consulted local communities in some of the poorer areas of 51 districts in Pakistan, government officials at the provincial and federal levels, and civil society organisations.
The study lists most important finding of the PPA that even the richest district could have pockets of abject poverty. Moreover, the PPA found that poverty has structural roots; environmental resources are critical for the livelihood of the poor; and the physical capacity of the poor is perhaps the only asset they possess, which means good health is one of the imperative elements required to emerge from poverty.
Again, the findings of the PPA--specifically that the poor would give such a high priority to environmental conditions--astonished many in the environment and development communities, the study says.
The poor viewed forests, wildlife, land, water, and domestic livestock as vital assets. Any natural disaster or policy actions that destroyed or degraded natural resources were seen to have a major impact on their livelihood.