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, Bisping￾Schulte; 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