Poverty-environment linkages are inherently dynamic and involve behavioral responses that make identifying cause and effect difficult. Rural households in Sindh make up a large proportion of the country’s poor. While markets and infrastructure such as roads, irrigation dams, and water pipes have mostly made their way into the lives of these households, many still largely depend on two assets for their subsistence: labor and nature’s capital. But is this reliance on natural assets so significant that investments in nature can contribute to poverty reduction? It is a fact that a large population of the province’s poor draw upon natural resources for most of their livelihoods. Farmlands, grasslands, forests, freshwaters, and sea-fishing are the sources of more than half of the income of poor households in most societies worldwide. Pakistan/Sindh is not an exception, yet those natural resources—the basis of the “GDP of the poor”—are rapidly being degraded and depleted, especially in Sindh, where population growth is higher than in any other region of the country.

Economic analyses two or three decades ago focused on agricultural farm income and often neglected the role of other forms of off-farm labor income, petty trade, remittances, and other types of jobs and income that supported the rural economy. We now understand that there are multiple sources of income in rural areas in Sindh and that households often diversify and support themselves with different earnings. Income from natural resources such as forests, fisheries, and wildlife is still frequently neglected. Real income that accrues to households from village commons, state-owned forests, or open-access aquatic resources often does not get included in national income accounts or estimates of rural household income. This often leads to an underestimation of the use of local natural resources by the poor and can also contribute to an overestimation of poverty.

The UN 2030 Agenda reflects the major poverty-environment challenges facing the poor population: depleted natural capital, climate vulnerability, gender inequality, rural-urban migration, and growing resource demands—all of which disproportionately harm the livelihoods and living conditions of the poor. However, in our country, the Poverty-Environment Action set for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is merely limited to routine meetings in the official premises of the concerned ministries and departments in the federal and provincial governments. No practical approaches focusing on integrated efforts that could bring poverty, environment, and climate objectives into the heart of national and provincial plans, policies, budgets, and public and private finance to strengthen the sustainable management of natural resources and alleviate poverty are witnessed elsewhere.

It is evident that poverty-environment mainstreaming is a powerful practice to help eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and combat environmental degradation. Economic development and poverty reduction strongly depend on improving the management of the environment and natural resources—the “natural capital” of the poor. New tools of economic analysis and transparency that reveal the true value of natural capital and sustainable environment and natural resource (ENR) management can mobilize support for poverty-environment mainstreaming within government. To ensure that poverty eradication goes hand in hand with sustainable management of natural resources, the federal, provincial, and local institutions of government can apply poverty-environment mainstreaming within their own organizations and practices.

To enhance Poverty-Environment Action’s effectiveness and reach in both deepening and broadening mainstreaming efforts and influencing public and private finance and investment flows in support of poverty-environment and climate objectives, we should establish effective and viable links to jobs, growth, and inclusive green economy policy agendas, including linking local poverty, environment, and climate solutions with provincial policy, planning, and financing processes to catalyze bottom-up change. Ensure the integration of poverty-environment and climate linkages in multidimensional poverty measurement, and support the establishment of economic-environment accounting (‘beyond GDP’) metrics and methods. Identify and cost actions to achieve poverty-environment and climate objectives, and mobilize new and innovative financing sources, instruments, and mechanisms—both public/private and domestic/national—such as climate finance, blended finance, public or private green bonds, and provincial funds to support integrated poverty, environment, and climate solutions. Strengthen efforts to empower poor and vulnerable groups and ensure their effective participation in poverty-environment and climate mainstreaming through inclusive programming approaches, including deeper integration of gender and rights-based approaches. Strengthen links with civil society, the private sector, and the media to promote their engagement in poverty-environment and climate mainstreaming—through support for multi-stakeholder dialogue and learning processes, networking, and other means of engagement.

The government should prioritize poverty-environment measures, as both are interlinked and interdependent. The more incidents of environmental degradation that occur, the more facets of poverty will emerge. By making the environment sustainable through practical efforts and measures, the government will succeed in moving forward towards poverty alleviation on sustainable grounds.

ABDUL SAMAD CHANNA,

Karachi.