STATE OF THE WORLD'S FORESTS 2003 PART‖ SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR
2003 FORESTS S’WORLD THE OF STATE 60 II PART CURRENT SELECTED FOREST THE IN ISSUES SECTOR
PART II SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR Forests and poverty alleviation his chapter focuses on the role of forests, chapter specifies two types of poverty alleviation particularly natural ones, in poverty associated with forest resources, as seen at the alleviation in developing countries. While some household level. These are attention is given to the potential of planted poverty avoidance or mitigation, in which forests and agroforestry to alleviate poverty, forest resources serve as a safety net or fill space constraints allow only a passing reference gaps, for example by providing a source of to trees outside forests. Thus, while not petty cash; tempting to provide an extensive analysis of poverty elimination, in which forest the chapter defines forest-ba resources help to lift the household out of poverty alleviation, examines the potential of poverty by functioning as a source of forests in this regard, notes obstacles to progress, savings, investment, accumulation, asset identifies conditions that may strengthen the building and permanent increases in income role of forests in alleviating poverty, and welfar proposes several strategies to impro The term"forest-based poverty alleviation contributions of the forest sector lus covers situations in which forest resources I Forests can be vital safety nets, helping rural are used either to avoid or to mitigate poverty, people to avoid, mitigate or rise out of poverty. and situations in which they are used to This function is unknown to many policy-makers eliminate poverty. Forest-based poverty and planners because it is not well understood or alleviation cannot be carried out in isolation. It explained. One reason is that the contribution of tends to be linked to other land uses, in forests to poor households is largely unrecorded particular agriculture, grazing and mixed in national statistics, as most of it is for systems of crop and tree growing subsistence or for trade on local markets. In There are three main ways of achieving fores addition, most wealth from timber goes to better- based poverty alleviation: preventing forest off segments of society, while some aspects of the resources from shrinking if they are necessary for access to and processing of timber resources maintaining well-being("protecting the pie); actually inhibit their potential to assist making forests accessible and redistributing marginalized people. Despite these obstacles, the resources and rents("dividing the pie contribution of forests to poverty alleviation can differently"); and increasing the value of forest be increased, provided that decision-makers production("enl nlarging the pie"). All are vital, recognize and act on this potential but they are applied differently, depending on forest use and the strategies adopted DEFINITION OF TERMS It is also recognized that, in examining the overty can be defined as a pronounced forest-poverty relationship, there is a need to deprivation of well-being related to lack of consider all types of disadvantaged people, material income or consumption, low levels of irrespective of their level of poverty or of education and health, vulnerability and exposure whether they are landless or have access to land to risk, no opportunity to be heard, and Even small differences in the level and type powerlessness( World Bank, 2001). Thus, poverty household assets influence how forest people alleviation can be defined as the successful use their local resources( Barham, Coomes and lessening of the deprivation of well-being. This Takasaki, 1999)
61 SECTOR FOREST THE IN ISSUES CURRENT SELECTED II PART ,forests of role the on focuses chapter This poverty in, ones natural particularly some While. countries developing in alleviation planted of potential the to given is attention ,poverty alleviate to agroforestry and forests reference passing a only allow constraints space not while, Thus. forests outside trees to of analysis extensive an provide to attempting based-forest defines chapter the, topic the of potential the examines, alleviation poverty ,progress to obstacles notes, regard this in forests the strengthen may that conditions identifies and, poverty alleviating in forests of role the improve to strategies several proposes .sector forest the of contributions rural helping, nets safety vital be can Forests .poverty of out rise or mitigate, avoid to people makers-policy many to unknown is function This or understood well not is it because planners and of contribution the that is reason One. explained unrecorded largely is households poor to forests for is it of most as, statistics national in In. markets local on trade for or subsistence the of aspects some while, society of segments offbetter to goes timber from wealth most, addition resources timber of processing and to access assist to potential their inhibit actually the, obstacles these Despite. people marginalized can alleviation poverty to forests of contribution makers-decision that provided, increased be .potential this on act and recognize TERMS OF DEFINITION pronounced a as defined be can Poverty of lack to related being-well of deprivation of levels low, consumption or income material exposure and vulnerability, health and education and, heard be to opportunity no, risk to poverty, Thus). 2001, Bank World (powerlessness successful the as defined be can alleviation This. being-well of deprivation the of lessening poverty and Forests alleviation alleviation poverty of types two specifies chapter the at seen as, resources forest with associated :are These. level household which in, mitigation or avoidance poverty• fill or net safety a as serve resources forest of source a providing by example for, gaps ;cash petty forest which in, elimination poverty• of out household the lift to help resources of source a as functioning by poverty asset, accumulation, investment, savings income in increases permanent and building .welfare and “alleviation poverty based-forest “term The resources forest which in situations covers thus ,poverty mitigate to or avoid to either used are to used are they which in situations and poverty based-Forest. poverty eliminate It. isolation in out carried be cannot alleviation in, uses land other to linked be to tends mixed and grazing, agriculture particular .growing tree and crop of systems forest preventing: alleviation poverty basedforest achieving of ways main three are There for necessary are they if shrinking from resources ;(“pie the protecting (“being-well maintaining redistributing and accessible forests making pie the dividing (“rents and resources forest of value the increasing and”); differently ,vital are All”). pie the enlarging (“production on depending, differently applied are they but .adopted strategies the and use forest the examining in, that recognized also is It to need a is there, relationship poverty-forest ,people disadvantaged of types all consider of or poverty of level their of irrespective .land to access have or landless are they whether of type and level the in differences small Even people forest how influence assets household and Coomes, Barham (resources local their use .(1999, Takasaki
STATE OF THE WORLDS FORESTS 2003 OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES IN and sustained use, on the other, can both support FOREST-BASED POVERTY ALLEVIATIoN poverty alleviation. A critical role for research is t Poverty often occurs in natural forests, although clarify where forest conservation and poverty not all forested areas are poor and not all poverty alleviation converge and where they diverge as is found in forested areas. Natural forests are home to human evolution, and human populations that have lived there for millennia Conversion of forests to agriculture are at a relatively low level of socio-economic Between 1700 and 1980. the worlds forest cover populations that colonize forested areas and seek agricultural land increased four and a half time new agricultural land are often relatively poor.(Richards, 1990). The driving forces of this Forests often serve as a last-resort employer for conversion were forest rent capture(use of economically marginalized people(owing, for unexploited economic opportunities), commercial example, to skewed land distribution in the interests behind the establishment of agricultural lowlands). In the course of history, forests have trade and the conversion of forest land to often served as a refuge for less powerful people agriculture Rural smallholders have also fleeing oppression, conflict and war. benefited from this process. The conversion of Hundreds of millions of people depend natural forests to agriculture-in other words, rests. It is hard to be specific about numbers exploitation of the soil nutrient-building function because such an assessment depends on how of forests- is probably their main contribution to dependence is defined(Byron and Arnold, 1999; poverty alleviation in terms of numbers, in that Calibre consultants and statistical Services hundreds of millions of people have probably Centre, 2000). Byron and Arnold (1999)identified benefited throughout history. Where smallholders three categories: forest dwellers, including are concerned. the conversion of natural forests hunter-gatherers and swidden cultivators can be either temporary, as with swidden systems, farmers living adjacent to forests, including permanent, as with sedentary agricult smallholders and the landless; and commercial Population increases in developing countries users, including artisans, traders, small and the increasing demand for land are among entrepreneurs and employees in forest industries. the forces propelling forest conversion. According An additional category is consumers of forest to FAO (1995) the area of agricultural land in products among the urban poor. developing countries, excluding China, will have Forests serve as a vital safety net for millions of to increase from 760 million to 850 million people around the world. Their role in hectares by 2010 to meet the demand for food eliminating poverty is not as well documented, Dyson(1996)and Evans(1998)claim that but probably concerns a smaller number potentially cultivable land is abundant and that (Wunder, 2001). Little is known of the extent to there is, in theory, no constraint in terms of which forests can alleviate poverty in developing supply. However, as Evans(1998)explains countries in the future. Much research needs to be "Much of the presently uncultivated area is done in order to shed light on this question. already used for grazing livestock or is of poorer ion summarizes basic information on quality, too remote or subdivided to be economic, the opportunities and obstacles for forest-based vulnerable to erosion, or cherished in its present poverty alleviation as regards five categories of state. The consequences of clearing all available forest use conversion of natural forests to cultivable land to meet demand are potentially products(NWFPs); payment for environmental for food will have to be met through more o agriculture; wood products; non-wood forest disastrous. Most future increases in the deman services; and employment and indirect benefits. It efficient use of existing agricultural land(Dyson, also notes that the destruction and removal of 1996; Rosegrant et aL., 2001). Some transitional forest cover, on the one hand, and its maintenance land-use options, such as complex agroforests
2003 FORESTS S’WORLD THE OF STATE 62 IN OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES ALLEVIATION POVERTY BASED-FOREST although, forests natural in occurs often Poverty poverty all not and poor are areas forested all not are forests Natural. areas forested in found is human and, evolution human to home millennia for there lived have that populations economic-socio of level low relatively a at are rural migrant, Moreover. development seek and areas forested colonize that populations .poor relatively often are land agricultural new for employer resort-last a as serve often Forests for, owing (people marginalized economically the in distribution land skewed to, example have forests, history of course the In). lowlands people powerful less for refuge a as served often .war and conflict, oppression fleeing on depend people of millions of Hundreds numbers about specific be to hard is It. forests how on depends assessment an such because ;1999, Arnold and Byron (defined is dependence Services Statistical and Consultants Calibre identified) 1999 (Arnold and Byron). 2000, Centre including, dwellers forest: categories three ;cultivators swidden and gatherers-hunter including, forests to adjacent living farmers commercial and; landless the and smallholders small, traders, artisans including, users .industries forest in employees and entrepreneurs forest of consumers is category additional An .poor urban the among products of millions for net safety vital a as serve Forests in role Their. world the around people ,documented well as not is poverty eliminating number smaller a concerns probably but to extent the of known is Little). 2001, Wunder( developing in poverty alleviate can forests which be to needs research Much. future the in countries .question this on light shed to order in done on information basic summarizes section This based-forest for obstacles and opportunities the of categories five regards as alleviation poverty to forests natural of conversion: use forest forest wood-non; products wood; agriculture environmental for payment); NWFPs (products It. benefits indirect and employment and; services of removal and destruction the that notes also maintenance its and, hand one the on, cover forest support both can, other the on, use sustained and to is research for role critical A. alleviation poverty poverty and conservation forest where clarify as diverge they where and converge alleviation .goals policy agriculture to forests of Conversion cover forest s’world the, 1980 and 1700 Between of area the and, percent 19 by decreased times half a and four increased land agricultural this of forces driving The). 1990, Richards( of use (capture rent forest were conversion commercial), opportunities economic unexploited agricultural of establishment the behind interests to land forest of conversion the and trade also have smallholders Rural. agriculture of conversion The. process this from benefited ,words other in – agriculture to forests natural function building-nutrient soil the of exploitation to contribution main their probably is – forests of that in, numbers of terms in alleviation poverty probably have people of millions of hundreds smallholders Where. history throughout benefited forests natural of conversion the, concerned are ,systems swidden with as, temporary either be can .agriculture sedentary with as, permanent or countries developing in increases Population among are land for demand increasing the and According. conversion forest propelling forces the in land agricultural of area the), 1995 (FAO to have will, China excluding, countries developing million 850 to million 760 from increase to .food for demand the meet to 2010 by hectares that claim) 1998 (Evans and) 1996 (Dyson that and abundant is land cultivable potentially of terms in constraint no, theory in, is there :explains) 1998 (Evans as, However. supply is area uncultivated presently the of Much“ poorer of is or livestock grazing for used already ,economic be to subdivided or remote too, quality present its in cherished or, erosion to vulnerable available all clearing of consequences The.” state potentially are demand meet to land cultivable demand the in increases future Most. disastrous more through met be to have will food for ,Dyson (land agricultural existing of use efficient transitional Some). 2001., al et Rosegrant; 1996 ,agroforests complex as such, options use-land
PART II SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR tree crop plantations and scattered trees on Wood products farmland, can potentially assist with poverty Timber is by far the highest-value forest product alleviation while conserving forests. However, in most forests. In 1998, the export of industrial win-win opportunities are few, and trade-offs oundwood, sawnwood and wood-based panels must be made to prevent forests from om developing countries accounted for US$10.4 disappearing(Tomich et al., 2001; Lee, Ferraro billion(FAO, 2001a). This figure excludes and Barrett, 2001). woodfuel, pulp for paper, and paper and Local constraints on clearing large tracts of paperboard. It also considerably understates the forest for agriculture are that some forest land has total value of timber, because most timber by poor-quality soil or is in marginal, hilly or volume is traded within countries and not erosion-prone areas. In addition, permanent ternationally. )With so much wealth stored in clearing means losing the safety net and income- developing country forests, the question arises generating functions of forests. At the global level, to why little has gone towards alleviating the ossible checks on further forest clearing include poverty of people living in their midst. There are the consequences of a diminished capacity for two reasons carbon sequestration and the loss of habitat and First, both timber extraction from natural biological diversity. forests and tree growing have certain features that Community forestry in the United States: learning from developing countries Comm is an emerging movement in the Un foundation representatives and ex-Peace Corps workers have States and is drawing heavily on lessons learned in many applied their international experience totheir work with com- developing countries. munities in the United States most notable for local residents Tuckedintoforested mountains throughoutthe United States has been direct contact with community forestry practitioners are numerous small towns where residents struggle daily to from developing countries. Foresters, activists and govern- make a living. Poverty, unemployment, isolation and limited ment personnel from such countries as India, Mozambique capital are among thefeatures common to such forest commu- and China have visited community forestry projects in the nities. By the 1990s, their historical dependence on forest United States, offering insights and inspiration to local people resources had been sharply reduced by resource depletion, Community foresters in California have linked up with col- increased environmental protection and globalization. Seek- leagues from the Philippines and Zimbabwe to share experi- ingeconomic activities tofill the gap, somecommunitiesbegan ences Several people from the United States attended the to explore how they could create sustainable rural livelihoods 2001 Intemational Conferenceon Advancing Community For- based on forest stewardship rather than resource extraction. estry, held in Thailand, in order to learn from the 300 partici- They therefore cast about for models- and found them in pants of 28 other-mostly Asian-countries. The lessons they community forestry efforts in developing countries. brought back to the United States emphasize the common Community forestry, in which local residents share in the challenges of capacity building, forest microenterprise devel- decision-making, benefits, labour and expertise involved in opment and effective collaborative agreements managing localforests, has ahistory spanning decades in Asia, The United States community forestry movement is now Africa and Latin America. Practitioners fromdeveloping coun- growing and connecting with other efforts throughout th tries have been influential sources of new ideas for rural forest nation and across the world. Its strategies and successes owe communities in the United States. United States researchers, much to lessons learned from developing countries
63 SECTOR FOREST THE IN ISSUES CURRENT SELECTED II PART on trees scattered and plantations crop tree poverty with assist potentially can, farmland ,However. forests conserving while alleviation offs-trade and, few are opportunities win-win from forests prevent to made be must Ferraro, Lee; 2001., al et Tomich (disappearing .(2001, Barrett and of tracts large clearing on constraints Local has land forest some that are agriculture for forest or hilly, marginal in is or soil quality-poor permanent, addition In. areas prone-erosion ,level global the At. forests of functions generatingincome and net safety the losing means clearing include clearing forest further on checks possible for capacity diminished a of consequences the and habitat of loss the and sequestration carbon .diversity biological products Wood product forest value-highest the far by is Timber industrial of export the, 1998 In. forests most in panels based-wood and sawnwood, roundwood 4.10$US for accounted countries developing from excludes figure This). (2001a, FAO (billion and paper and, paper for pulp, woodfuel the understates considerably also It. paperboard by timber most because, timber of value total not and countries within traded is volume in stored wealth much so With.) internationally as arises question the, forests country developing the alleviating towards gone has little why to are There. midst their in living people of poverty .reasons two natural from extraction timber both, First that features certain have growing tree and forests United the in movement emerging an is forestry Community many in learned lessons on heavily drawing is and States .countries developing States United the throughout mountains forested into Tucked to daily struggle residents where towns small numerous are limited and isolation, unemployment, Poverty. living a make forest on dependence historical their, 1990s the By. nitiescommu forest such to common features the among are capital ,depletion resource by reduced sharply been had resources began communities some, gap the fill to activities economic ingSeek. globalization and protection environmental increased livelihoods rural sustainable create could they how explore to .extraction resource than rather stewardship forest on based in them found and – models for about cast therefore They .countries developing in efforts forestry community the in share residents local which in, forestry Community in involved expertise and labour, benefits, making-decision ,Asia in decades spanning history a has, forests local managing forest rural for ideas new of sources influential been have triescoun developing from Practitioners. America Latin and Africa ,researchers States United. States United the in communities have workers Corps Peace-ex and representatives foundation residents local for notable Most. States United the in munitiescom with work their to experience international their applied practitioners forestry community with contact direct been has Mozambique, India as countries such from personnel mentgovern and activists, Foresters. countries developing from the in projects forestry community visited have China and .people local to inspiration and insights offering, States United the attended States United the from people Several. encesexperi share to Zimbabwe and Philippines the from leaguescol with up linked have California in foresters Community they lessons The. countries – Asian mostly – other 28 of pantspartici 300 the from learn to order in, Thailand in held, estryFor Community Advancing on Conference International 2001 common the emphasize States United the to back brought .agreements collaborative effective and opmentdevel microenterprise forest, building capacity of challenges now is movement forestry community States United The the throughout efforts other with connecting and growing owe successes and strategies Its. world the across and nation .countries developing from learned lessons to much countries developing from learning: States United the in forestry Community
STATE OF THE WORLD'S FORESTs 2003 do not favour the poor. Although some Non-wood forest products production and processing of timber is on a small NWFPs provide a wide range of goods for scale and for local markets, much is capital-, domestic use and for the market, among which technology-and skill-intensive, tends to require are game, fruit, nuts, medicinal herbs, forage and large economies of scale and is aimed at thatch In contrast to timber. NWFPs tend to specialized consumer markets. Tree growing for require little or no capital and also to be available timber requires secure land tenure, and the poor in open-access or semi-open-access are often landless or have only informal control circumstances. The poor generally use various that they use. H extraction tends to be in inaccessible humid different activities. There is strong evidence that forests, whereas the poorest people are more the poorest people around the world are those numerous in dry forests. Tree growing requires a most engaged in extracting NWFPs. This then long-term, high-risk investment, while the poor raises the question of whether or not these require income in the short term and strive to products contribute positively to the livelihoods minimize risks. Nevertheless, many poor rural of the po families that own land in established agricultural From a positive perspective, NWFPs ca do plar viewed as a safety net. They are a source of Second, some poor people are excluded from emergency sustenance in times of hardship access to timber wealth precisely because the when c ops value of timber is so high and because they lack times of conflict or war, or when floods wash ower(see Peluso, 1992). In many countries, away homes. NWFPs tend to be seasonal or to fill forest tenure, laws and regulations were designed gaps, and are sometimes a form of savings, but on the one hand to ensure state control, with are rarely the primary source of household holders of timber concessions being granted income( Byron and Arnold, 1999: FAO, 2001b), privileged access, and on the other hand to avert although there are important exceptions. interference and counter-appropriation by the NWFPs can also be a poverty trap. Rural rural poor. Only in recent years has this begun to people rely on NWFPs because they are poor but it is also possible that they are poor because Two models of wood production-local they rely on NWFPs and economic activities for management of natural forests and tree growing which remuneration is low. Some characteristics by smallholders- can possibly alleviate poverty, of the forest environment and the NWFP but significant obstacles are attached to both. economy make it difficult or impossible for those Local management of natural forests is hampered who depend on them to rise out of poverty. weak and slow-changing institutions, rent Natural forests are often inferior production capture by local elites, inconsistent laws and environments with little infrastructure, high regulations and cumbersome bureaucracy. In transport costs because of remoteness, few addition, communities lack control of buyers and exploitive marketing chains. The net downstream activities, and much of the forest benefits of NWFPs are often too low to justify rent is captured by those involved in processing articulating property rights, and as a result there and marketing. Although the use of trees for is limited incentive to invest and increase yields subsistence, for example for fuelwood, is an In the few cases where NWFPs have high value important function, overexploitation is common the poor are often excluded from access( Dove, (e.g. Rathore, Singh and Singh, 1995; Schulte- 1993). Furthermore, a sustained increase in the Bisping, Bredemeier and Beese, 1999). While tree demand for NWFPs can lead to the collapse of growing by smallholders can potentially produce the resource base, intensive production on substantial income, it requires access and land plantations outside forests or the production of tenure security, which the poorest people tend not synthetics that are more competitive than to have NWFPs(Homma, 1992)
2003 FORESTS S’WORLD THE OF STATE 64 some Although. poor the favour not do small a on is timber of processing and production ,-capital is much, markets local for and scale require to tends, intensive-skill and- technology at aimed is and scale of economies large for growing Tree. markets consumer specialized poor the and, tenure land secure requires timber control informal only have or landless often are for timber value-High. use they that land the over humid inaccessible in be to tends extraction more are people poorest the whereas, forests a requires growing Tree. forests dry in numerous poor the while, investment risk-high, term-long to strive and term short the in income require rural poor many, Nevertheless. risks minimize agricultural established in land own that families .trees some plant do areas from excluded are people poor some, Second the because precisely wealth timber to access lack they because and high so is timber of value ,countries many In). 1992, Peluso see (power designed were regulations and laws, tenure forest with, control State ensure to hand one the on granted being concessions timber of holders avert to hand other the on and, access privileged the by appropriation-counter and interference to begun this has years recent in Only. poor rural .change local – production wood of models Two growing tree and forests natural of management ,poverty alleviate possibly can – smallholders by .both to attached are obstacles significant but hampered is forests natural of management Local rent, institutions changing-slow and weak by and laws inconsistent, élites local by capture In. bureaucracy cumbersome and regulations of control lack communities, addition forest the of much and, activities downstream processing in involved those by captured is rent for trees of use the Although. marketing and an is, fuelwood for example for, subsistence common is overexploitation, function important tree While). 1999, Beese and Bredemeier, BispingSchulte; 1995, Singh and Singh, Rathore. g.e( produce potentially can smallholders by growing land and access requires it, income substantial not tend people poorest the which, security tenure .have to products forest wood-Non for goods of range wide a provide NWFPs which among, market the for and use domestic and forage, herbs medicinal, nuts, fruit, game are to tend NWFPs, timber to contrast In. thatch available be to also and capital no or little require access-open-semi or access-open in various use generally poor The. circumstances among risk spread to able thus are and types that evidence strong is There. activities different those are world the around people poorest the then This. NWFPs extracting in engaged most these not or whether of question the raises livelihoods the to positively contribute products .poor the of be can NWFPs, perspective positive a From of source a are They. net safety a as viewed – hardship of times in sustenance emergency in, hit crises economic when, fail crops when wash floods when or, war or conflict of times fill to or seasonal be to tend NWFPs. homes away but, savings of form a sometimes are and, gaps household of source primary the rarely are ,(2001b, FAO; 1999, Arnold and Byron (income .exceptions important are there although Rural. trap poverty a be also can NWFPs ,poor are they because NWFPs on rely people because poor are they that possible also is it but for activities economic and NWFPs on rely they characteristics Some. low is remuneration which NWFP the and environment forest the of those for impossible or difficult it make economy .poverty of out rise to them on depend who production inferior often are forests Natural high, infrastructure little with environments few, remoteness of because costs transport net The. chains marketing exploitive and buyers justify to low too often are NWFPs of benefits there result a as and, rights property articulating .yields increase and invest to incentive limited is ,value high have NWFPs where cases few the In ,Dove (access from excluded often are poor the the in increase sustained a, Furthermore). 1993 of collapse the to lead can NWFPs for demand on production intensive, base resource the of production the or forests outside plantations than competitive more are that synthetics .(1992, Homma (NWFPs
PART II SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR 65 Forests provide a safety t young farmer in Burkina Faso picks food condiment The safety net and poverty-trap aspects of NWFPs are linked, inasmuch as the features that make them attractive to the poor also limit r generating increased income. The key issue is how to preserve the role of forests safety nets in locations where they are more than dead-end poverty traps and where other forms of social insurance cannot potential benefits are immense, the challenges to take their place implementing such schemes continue to be daunting Environmental services Carbon storage and sequestration schemes seek The ecological services of forests are relevant to to mitigate the contribution of forests to global poverty alleviation in two ways. First, forests warming, either by a reduction in forest provide direct benefits to people living in or degradation and deforestation or by reforestation, near them. Second, people living in or near or by some combination of the two. Thirty forest- forests that they own or manage can receive based carbon offset schemes have been developed nsfer payments for non-local services to date, but sceptics point to high transaction provided by them. costs and economies of scale that limit the Forest dwellers can benefit directly from involvement of the poor( Bass et aL, 2000; Smith et maintaining healthy forest ecosystems. For al., 2000). The Clean Development Mechanism of example, healthy forests can protect the the Kyoto Protocol must include safeguards to quantity and quality of water supplies(WRI, avert risks to local livelihoods and provide 2000)and maintain or enhance agricultural incentives for social benefits in forestry projects production by restoring soil fertility in (Smith and Scherr, 2002) agroforestry systems(Sanchez, Buresh and Since the 1970s, integrated conservation and Leakey, 1997). Forest biological diversity also development projects have aimed at protecting provides various ecological benefits, including forest habitats and biological diversity while germplasm for crop improvement. The direct improving livelihoods. Most have be een use of forest environmental services is related to unsuccessful, especially in terms of conservation overty avoidance/mitigation function of objectives(Wells and Brandon, 1992; Gilmour, 1994). The main problem is that the employment This section focuses on transfer payments, provided through such projects does not whereby off-site users pay forest dwellers to necessarily reduce the incentives or the means maintain the ecological services of particular for forest encroachment. In fact, such forests. These payments could potentially programmes may relax capital constraints and improve the livelihoods of forest dwellers enable farmers to convert more forests to help to eliminate poverty. However, while agriculture(Wunder, 2001). An alternative
65 SECTOR FOREST THE IN ISSUES CURRENT SELECTED II PART trap-poverty and net safety The ,linked are NWFPs of aspects make that features the as inasmuch limit also poor the to attractive them generating for potential their is issue key The. income increased as forests of role the preserve to how are they where locations in nets safety and traps poverty end-dead than more to challenges the, immense are benefits potential be to continue schemes such implementing .daunting seek schemes sequestration and storage Carbon global to forests of contribution the mitigate to forest in reduction a by either, warming ,reforestation by or deforestation and degradation developed been have schemes offset carbon basedforest Thirty. two the of combination some by or transaction high to point sceptics but, date to the limit that scale of economies and costs et Smith; 2000., al et Bass (poor the of involvement of Mechanism Development Clean The). 2000., al to safeguards include must Protocol Kyoto the provide and livelihoods local to risks avert projects forestry in benefits social for incentives .(2002, Scherr and Smith( and conservation integrated, 1970s the Since protecting at aimed have projects development while diversity biological and habitats forest been have Most. livelihoods improving conservation of terms in especially, unsuccessful ,Gilmour; 1992, Brandon and Wells (objectives employment the that is problem main The). 1994 not does projects such through provided means the or incentives the reduce necessarily such, fact In. encroachment forest for and constraints capital relax may programmes to forests more convert to farmers enable alternative An). 2001, Wunder (agriculture a: net safety a provide Forests picks Faso Burkina in farmer young tree baobab a of leaves the a as use for), digitata Adansonia( condiment food FAIDUTTI. R/CFU000104/UNIT FORESTRY COMMUNITY FAO cannot insurance social of forms other where .place their take services Environmental to relevant are forests of services ecological The forests, First. ways two in alleviation poverty or in living people to benefits direct provide near or in living people, Second. them near receive can manage or own they that forests services local-non for payments transfer .them by provided from directly benefit can dwellers Forest For. ecosystems forest healthy maintaining the protect can forests healthy, example ,WRI (supplies water of quality and quantity agricultural enhance or maintain and) 2000 in fertility soil restoring by production and Buresh, Sanchez (systems agroforestry also diversity biological Forest). 1997, Leakey including, benefits ecological various provides direct The. improvement crop for germplasm to related is services environmental forest of use of function mitigation/avoidance poverty the .forests ,payments transfer on focuses section This to dwellers forest pay users site-off whereby particular of services ecological the maintain potentially could payments These. forests and dwellers forest of livelihoods the improve the while, However. poverty eliminate to help
STATE OF THE WORLDS FORESTS 2003 approach is to pay people directly for the making)and pulp and paper production, but as ecological services they protect, a tool that is excluding employees in government forest under rapid development. and people involved in the transpo of forest pro Latin America, to compensate upstream forest not employed by forest industry firms. A study owners for the protection of hydrological of six developing countries found that forest services. Examples include payments by based enterprises accounted for 13 to 35 percent hydroelectric plants, drinking-water consumers of all small-scale rural enterprise employment (FAO,1987) Costa Rica and Ecuador(Pagiola, 2001 )and tax benefits to forest-rich municipalities in Brazil Local multiplier effects. It is possible that forestry Grieg-Gran, 2000). The welfare implications of activities alleviate poverty through local these schemes are not yet known. Landell-Mills multiplier effects. For example, opening a forest and Porras(2002)state that the key hurdles concession and bringing in a logging workforce facing the poor in watershed protection schemes creates a demand for food, goods and services, as are their lack of bargaining power and their lack well as employment opportunities. Likewise, of to markets of a logging road While tourism companies benefit transport of logs, but also opens up access to disproportionately from forest-based tourism markets for other goods, potentially increasing schemes. there is evidence that even small local incomes. It can also give local people access absolute cash transfers per tourist from nature- to outside health and schooling services based tourism can benefit local people However, negative effects must also be significantly. Examples are the CAmPFIRE project considered, among which are reduced NWFP in Zimbabwe(Zimbabwe Trust, Department of production from logged-over forests, conflicts National Parks and Wildlife Management, and with logging companies and disruptions resulting CAMPFIRE Association, 1994), the Annapurna from the collapse of the economic boom after the Conservation Area Project in Nepal(Gurung and logging has ended Coursey, 1994), international ecotourism operations in Ecuador(Wunder, 1999)and Trickle-down effects. Not enough is known abou nationally controlled tourism in forest areas in the extent to which forestry contributes to poverty Brazil(Wunder, 2000) reduction through its impact on overall economic growth, or about whether cheaper forest products Employment and indirect benefits from increased market supplies improve the ery little is known about alleviating poverty economic status of urban consumers the through formal or informal forest sector contribution of the forest sector to gross domestic employment and through indirect benefits, such product(GDP)tends to be a small fraction in as local multiplier effects or trickle-down effects. most developing countries. It should be noted, As limited empirical evidence is available, the however, that the value-added figure for the present section lists only basic information about forest sector significantly underestimates the total these aspects inasmuch as a large share of forest products are not registered because they are used fo Employment In the late 1990s, there were subsistence and trade on local markets. moreover roughly 17.4 million employees in the formal low GDP contributions can also reflect the simple forest sector worldwide, and roughly 47 million fact that in many cases forest products are not if informal employment was also included(ILO, scarce and are therefore cheap(Simpson, 1999) 2001). Forest sector employment is understood Furthermore, although timber wealth often here as encompassing forestry (including represents only a small share of GDP, it tends to logging), wood industries (including furniture be important for economic development, as th
2003 FORESTS S’WORLD THE OF STATE 66 the for directly people pay to is approach is that tool a, protect they services ecological .development rapid under in mainly, schemes payment been have There forest upstream compensate to, America Latin hydrological of protection the for owners by payments include Examples. services consumers water-drinking, plants hydroelectric ,Colombia in systems irrigation of users and tax and) 2001, Pagiola (Ecuador and Rica Costa Brazil in municipalities rich-forest to benefits of implications welfare The). 2000, Gran-Grieg( Mills-Landell. known yet not are schemes these hurdles key the that state) 2002 (Porras and schemes protection watershed in poor the facing lack their and power bargaining of lack their are .markets to access of benefit companies tourism While tourism based-forest from disproportionately small even that evidence is there, schemes people local benefit can tourism basednature from tourist per transfers cash absolute project CAMPFIRE the are Examples. significantly of Department, Trust Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe in and, Management Wildlife and Parks National Annapurna the), 1994, Association CAMPFIRE and Gurung (Nepal in Project Area Conservation ecotourism international), 1994, Coursey and) 1999, Wunder (Ecuador in operations in areas forest in tourism controlled nationally .(2000, Wunder (Brazil benefits indirect and Employment poverty alleviating about known is little Very sector forest informal or formal through such, benefits indirect through and employment .effects down-trickle or effects multiplier local as the, available is evidence empirical limited As about information basic only lists section present .aspects these were there, 1990s late the In. Employment formal the in employees million 4.17 roughly million 47 roughly and, worldwide sector forest ,ILO (included also was employment informal if understood is employment sector Forest). 2001 including (forestry encompassing as here furniture including (industries wood), logging as but, production paper and pulp and) making forest government in employees excluding ,transport the in involved people and services are who products forest of trade and marketing study A. firms industry forest by employed not percent 35 to 13 for accounted enterprises basedforest that found countries developing six of employment enterprise rural scale-small all of .(1987, FAO( forestry that possible is It. effects multiplier Local local through poverty alleviate activities forest a opening, example For. effects multiplier workforce logging a in bringing and concession as, services and goods, food for demand a creates ,Likewise. opportunities employment as well the enables only not road logging a of creation to access up opens also but, logs of transport increasing potentially, goods other for markets access people local give also can It. incomes local .services schooling and health outside to be also must effects negative, However NWFP reduced are which among, considered conflicts, forests over-logged from production resulting disruptions and companies logging with the after boom economic the of collapse the from .ended has logging about known is enough Not. effects down-Trickle poverty to contributes forestry which to extent the economic overall on impact its through reduction products forest cheaper whether about or, growth the improve supplies market increased from The. consumers urban of status economic domestic gross to sector forest the of contribution in fraction small a be to tends) GDP (product ,noted be should It. countries developing most the for figure added-value the that, however ,total the underestimates significantly sector forest are products forest of share large a as inasmuch for used are they because registered not ,Moreover. markets local on trade and subsistence simple the reflect also can contributions GDP low not are products forest cases many in that fact .(1999, Simpson (cheap therefore are and scarce often wealth timber although, Furthermore to tends it, GDP of share small a only represents the as, development economic for important be
PART II SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR capital from liquidated timber resources is used to democratization, anticorruption campaigns can establish economic activities outside the forest boost opportunities for the rural poor to obtain a sector arger share of forest we ENABLING CONDITIONS AND withdrawal of concession holders. In many STRATEGIES countries, after concession holders ha This section identifies recent developments and overharvested timber, they have not renewed presents strategies that may improve the potential their concessions. Their withdrawal presents ar of forests to alleviate poverty opportunity for forest communities to intercede and compete for access rights prior to the ng con maturing of marketable timber stems The following changing socio-economic, political and environmental conditions present Growing markets. Rapidly growing urban opportunities to enhance the role of forests in markets provic new ating poverty. However, they do smallholders, especially those living in peri-urban guarantee a positive outcome If forests are to areas, to market forest products. The increased serve effectively in this regard, conscious and scarcity of some forest products, such as dedicated efforts must be made fuelwood, makes it more profitable to grow them on-farm Decentralization Decentralization of authority and resource control is now occurring in many Market deregulation and liberalization. Market developing countries. This process increases deregulation and liberalization can favour forest although by no means guarantees-the possibility based poverty alleviation in two ways. First, it can greater local access to forest rents. In some ons disappointing cases, mechanisms to exclude the that prevent tree growing on farms. (In the past, poor have merely been reconfigured such tree growing has been more controlled than the growing of annual crops. )Second, it can lead Forest tenure changes. As a result of extensive to the reform of forestry marketing regulations redistribution of forest resources in developing that have tended to discriminate against small countries, 22 percent of the total forest area in producers. However, trade liberalization does not these countries is now owned by or reserved for always favour the interests of the poor, and communities and indigenous groups(Scherr, government monopolies can easily be replaced by White and Kaimowitz, 2002; White and Martin, private ones. Government intervention is 2002). Again, this does not guarantee that poverty therefore needed to protect vulnerable people will be alleviated, but may improve the chances. against negative effects( Mayers and Democratization The trend towards democratization in many developing countries New technology. Small portable sawmills with ally increases the bargaining power of lower capital requirements should favour a more rural communities vis-a-vis the State and large decentralized production system for sawnwood, enterprises. In Indonesia, for example, rural which should in principle make it easier to villagers are now freer to stake a claim to forest involve local entrepreneurs. Technological land and resources than they have been in the smaller-diameter trees and more species. Thisor changes in the plywood industry could increase the commercial value of the less Anticorruption campaigns. Corrupt practices in valuable forests over which local communities ne forest sector tend to work against the interests have, at least in the past, had control. However, of the poor(e. g. Hill, 2000). Together with there is a risk that technologies that make new
67 SECTOR FOREST THE IN ISSUES CURRENT SELECTED II PART to used is resources timber liquidated from capital forest the outside activities economic establish .sector AND CONDITIONS ENABLING STRATEGIES and developments recent identifies section This potential the improve may that strategies presents .poverty alleviate to forests of conditions Enabling political, economic-socio changing following The present conditions environmental and in forests of role the enhance to opportunities not do they, However. poverty alleviating to are forests If. outcome positive a guarantee and conscious, regard this in effectively serve .made be must efforts dedicated authority of Decentralization. Decentralization many in occurring now is control resource and – increases process This. countries developing possibility the – guarantees means no by although some In. rents forest to access local greater of the exclude to mechanisms, cases disappointing .reconfigured been merely have poor extensive of result a As. changes tenure Forest developing in resources forest of redistribution in area forest total the of percent 22, countries for reserved or by owned now is countries these ,Scherr (groups indigenous and communities ,Martin and White; 2002, Kaimowitz and White poverty that guarantee not does this, Again). 2002 .chances the improve may but, alleviated be will towards trend The. Democratization countries developing many in democratization of power bargaining the increases potentially large and State the vis-à-vis communities rural rural, example for, Indonesia In. enterprises forest to claim a stake to freer now are villagers the in been have they than resources and land .years 30 past in practices Corrupt. campaigns Anticorruption interests the against work to tend sector forest the with Together). 2000, Hill. g.e (poor the of can campaigns anticorruption, democratization a obtain to poor rural the for opportunities boost .wealth forest of share larger many In. holders concession of Withdrawal have holders concession after, countries renewed not have they, timber overharvested an presents withdrawal Their. concessions their intercede to communities forest for opportunity the to prior rights access for compete and .stems timber marketable of maturing urban growing Rapidly. markets Growing for opportunities new provide markets urban-peri in living those especially, smallholders increased The. products forest market to, areas as such, products forest some of scarcity them grow to profitable more it makes, fuelwood .farm-on Market. liberalization and deregulation Market can it, First. ways two in alleviation poverty basedforest favour can liberalization and deregulation regulations of elimination the behind force a be ,past the In. (farms on growing tree prevent that than controlled more been has growing tree such lead can it, Second.) crops annual of growing the regulations marketing forestry of reform the to small against discriminate to tended have that not does liberalization trade, However. producers and, poor the of interests the favour always by replaced be easily can monopolies government is intervention Government. ones private people vulnerable protect to needed therefore and Mayers. J (effects negative against .(unpublished, Vermeulen. S with sawmills portable Small. technology New more a favour should requirements capital lower ,sawnwood for system production decentralized to easier it make principle in should which Technological. entrepreneurs local involve of use the allow industry plywood the in changes This. species more and trees diameter-smaller less the of value commercial the increase could communities local which over forests valuable ,However. control had, past the in least at, have new make that technologies that risk a is there
STATE OF THE WORLDS FORESTS 2003 d species commercially profitable fo 2001 ). In general, people should be allowed to logging will speed up deforestation. decide whether to plant or harvest trees on their own land. If management plans really are Growing global environmental threats. The cause portant external growing threats of global warming and greater they should be kept simple. In some cases, loss of biological diversity increase the likelihood regulations designed to exclude poor people are that developed countries will be willing to large enterprises I compensate forest dwellers in developing overharvested and exhausted high-value timber countries for such environmental services as rents. If local governments are inefficient or carbon sequestration and conservation corrupt, or if local elites monopolize the benefits, concessions the devolution of control over forest resources may not be advantageous to poor people Strategies However, with good governance, devolution can The following six strategies are among those that work in their favour. hold the most promise of contributing to poverty poverty Improvement in marketing arrangements. Forest market policies that subsidize or provide People-centred forestry. Improved use of forest privileged access to large-scale producers and resources to alleviate poverty requires, above all, processors must be eliminated, so as to move that forestry be people centred (FAO and DFID, towards a"level playing field"for marginal 2001; Warner, 2000). Operationally, this means producers(Scherr, White and Kaimowitz, 2002; that the poor in forested areas must have a much FAO and DFID, 2001). Other measures to redress greater say in determining their destinies and unfairness include: the elimination of tied credit livelihoods. Local people should be the main deals and minimum volume or area stakeholders where forests continue to be central requirements; the establishment of special to livelihoods, and meeting their needs on a sorting yards and services that provide sustainable basis should be the main objective of information on prices and markets; and the forest management(Warner, 2000). As explained ive involvement of local producers in policy by Peluso(1999),"peoples relations with others negotiations affecting forest markets(Scherr, are as important to understanding their use of the White and Kaimowitz, 2002).Intervention forest as are their direct forest management strategies must distinguish between people who activities". In view of the fact that conflicts tend to are involved in forest product activities because arise over access to forest resources, policies other income sources an nd those who should formally recognize that intervention is are responding to market opportunities(Arnold needed to defend the interests of those who are and Townson, 1998) Partnerships. Closer partnerships between Removal of tenure and regulatory restrictions. smallholders or communities and commercial A pro-poor forest use strategy requires the companies, as in the case of outgrower schemes, transfer(or return) of public forest land to local would be an important step forward. An control so that local people can enter into long. effective partnership between poor people an term business contracts(Scherr, White and the private sector needs to be based on each Kaimowitz, 2002). The elimination of excessive group's comparative advantages. The poor can regulations, as well as regulations that supply cheap labour and land, while companies discriminate against smallholder and artisan have easier access to capital, knowledge, roduction of and trade in forest products, technology and markets. Mayers(2000)and equally important(Scherr, White and Desmond and Race(2001)summarize lessons Kaimowitz, 2002; Arnold, 2001; FAO and DFID, learned from such arrangements. Genuine
2003 FORESTS S’WORLD THE OF STATE 68 for profitable commercially species and areas .deforestation up speed will logging The. threats environmental global Growing greater and warming global of threats growing likelihood the increase diversity biological of loss to willing be will countries developed that developing in dwellers forest compensate as services environmental such for countries conservation and sequestration carbon .concessions Strategies that those among are strategies six following The poverty to contributing of promise most the hold .alleviation forest of use Improved. forestry centred-People ,all above, requires poverty alleviate to resources ,DFID and FAO (centred people be forestry that means this, Operationally). 2000, Warner; 2001 much a have must areas forested in poor the that and destinies their determining in say greater main the be should people Local. livelihoods central be to continue forests where stakeholders a on needs their meeting and, livelihoods to of objective main the be should basis sustainable explained As). 2000, Warner (management forest others with relations s’people), “1999 (Peluso by the of use their understanding to important as are management forest direct their are as forest to tend conflicts that fact the of view In”. activities policies, resources forest to access over arise is intervention that recognize formally should are who those of interests the defend to needed .powerless .restrictions regulatory and tenure of Removal the requires strategy use forest poor-pro A local to land forest public of) return or (transfer and White, Scherr (contracts business termlong into enter can people local that so control excessive of elimination The). 2002, Kaimowitz that regulations as well as, regulations artisan and smallholder against discriminate is, products forest in trade and of production and White, Scherr (important equally ,DFID and FAO; 2001, Arnold; 2002, Kaimowitz to allowed be should people, general In). 2001 their on trees harvest or plant to whether decide are really plans management If. land own ,benefits external important of because required ,cases some In. simple kept be should they are people poor exclude to designed regulations have enterprises large because, redundant timber value-high exhausted and overharvested or inefficient are governments local If. rents ,benefits the monopolize élites local if or, corrupt resources forest over control of devolution the .people poor to advantageous be not may can devolution, governance good with, However .favour their in work Forest. arrangements marketing in Improvement provide or subsidize that policies market and producers scale-large to access privileged move to as so, eliminated be must processors marginal for” field playing level “a towards ;2002, Kaimowitz and White, Scherr (producers redress to measures Other). 2001, DFID and FAO credit tied of elimination the: include unfairness area or volume minimum and deals special of establishment the; requirements provide that services and yards sorting the and; markets and prices on information policy in producers local of involvement active ,Scherr (markets forest affecting negotiations Intervention). 2002, Kaimowitz and White who people between distinguish must strategies because activities product forest in involved are who those and sources income other lack they Arnold (opportunities market to responding are .(1998, Townson and between partnerships Closer. Partnerships commercial and communities or smallholders ,schemes outgrower of case the in as, companies An. forward step important an be would and people poor between partnership effective each on based be to needs sector private the can poor The. advantages comparative s’group companies while, land and labour cheap supply ,knowledge, capital to access easier have and) 2000 (Mayers. markets and technology lessons summarize) 2001 (Race and Desmond Genuine. arrangements such from learned
PART II SELECTED CURRENT ISSUES IN THE FOREST SECTOR 69 partnerships facilitate secure contractual of contracts with smallholders make it difficult obligations between communities and to involve the poor in compensation agreements companies, in that communities receive an for the provision of environmental services adequate economic return and companies are Moreover, many poor people are unaware of assured a supply of wood. The bargaining these income-earning possibilities and have no power of individuals and communities is often advocate to act on their behalf. Since poor people weak,and producer associations and alternative control an increasing share of tropical forest market outlets strengthen their power. NGOs land, it is crucial to involve them if goals related have a crucial role to play in strengthening the to climate mitigation are to be achieved. One negotiating power of farm foresters and approach is to compensate governments for not producer associations by making the contract logging certain areas(conservation concessions process transparent and by assisting the flow of Another is to pay local people for not information. Government is also an important deforesting and for safeguarding biologically player, since an enabling environment is diverse forest on their land(conservation quired for effective partnerships to take root. easements). Under these arrangements, direct payments are made on the basis of the Redesign of transfer payments. The lack of monitored quality of the forest resource Setting secure land tenure and the high transaction costs aside of areas in this way is still in a pioneer The Role of Forests and Trees in Poverty Alleviation Cortevecchia, Italy, 4 to 7 September 2001 To explore further the ways in which forests and forestry car Cut the regulatory burden on the poor and make regula- contribute to the United Nations Millennium Developmet ion affordable Goals and the targets of the World Food Summit, FAO, with support from the United Kingdom Department for Inter- CAPTURING EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES Remove the barriers to market entry that brought together Base land-use decisions on the true value of forests tioners to identify ways in which forest policy, legislation and Ensure that markets for environmental services benefit prog can alleviate poverty. Discussions resulted in an action that identifies four main areas Support associations and financing for local forest busi- STRENGTHENING RIGHTS, CAPABILITIES AND WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP Support the decision-making power of the poor Simplify policies and support participatory processes Strengthen the forest rights of the poor and the means to Promote multisectoral learning and action claim them Enhance interagency collaboration Recognize the links between forestry and local governance Make NGOs and the private sector partners to reduce REDUCING VULNERABILITY Make safety nets, not poverty traps Further details are availablein the Internet Support tree planting outside forests forestry/fon/fonp/cfu/brod
69 SECTOR FOREST THE IN ISSUES CURRENT SELECTED II PART contractual secure facilitate partnerships and communities between obligations an receive communities that in, companies are companies and return economic adequate bargaining The. wood of supply a assured often is communities and individuals of power alternative and associations producer and, weak NGOs. power their strengthen outlets market the strengthening in play to role crucial a have and foresters farm of power negotiating contract the making by associations producer of flow the assisting by and transparent process important an also is Government. information is environment enabling an since, player .root take to partnerships effective for required of lack The. payments transfer of Redesign costs transaction high the and tenure land secure difficult it make smallholders with contracts of agreements compensation in poor the involve to .services environmental of provision the for of unaware are people poor many, Moreover no have and possibilities earning-income these people poor Since. behalf their on act to advocate forest tropical of share increasing an control related goals if them involve to crucial is it, land One. achieved be to are mitigation climate to not for governments compensate to is approach .(concessions conservation (areas certain logging not for people local pay to is Another biologically safeguarding for and deforesting conservation (land their on forest diverse direct, arrangements these Under). easements the of basis the on made are payments Setting. resource forest the of quality monitored pioneer a in still is way this in areas of aside can forestry and forests which in ways the further explore To Development Millennium’ Nations United the to contribute with, FAO, Summit Food World the of targets the and Goals and legislation, policy forest which in ways identify to tionerspracti and makers-policy 60 some together brought that rumfo international an convened), DFID (Development nationalInter for Department Kingdom United the from support an in resulted Discussions. poverty alleviate can programmes .areas main four identifies that action for agenda AND CAPABILITIES, RIGHTS STRENGTHENING GOVERNANCE poor the of power making-decision the Support• to means the and poor the of rights forest the Strengthen• them claim governance local and forestry between links the Recognize• VULNERABILITY REDUCING traps poverty not, nets safety Make• forests outside planting tree Support• affordable tionregula make and poor the on burden regulatory the Cut• OPPORTUNITIES EMERGING CAPTURING entry market to barriers the Remove• forests of value true the on decisions use-land Base• benefit services environmental for markets that Ensure• poor the nessesbusi forest local for financing and associations Support• PARTNERSHIP IN WORKING processes participatory support and policies Simplify• action and learning multisectoral Promote• collaboration interagency Enhance• reduce to partners sector private the and NGOs Make• poverty /org.fao.www at Internet the on available are details Further .stm.brochure/brochure/cfu/fonp/fon/forestry Alleviation Poverty in Trees and Forests of Role The 2001 September 7 to 4, Italy, Cortevecchia
