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 countries63 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 generating￾income 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. nities￾commu 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 ing￾Seek. 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 tries￾coun 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 munities￾com with work their to experience international their applied practitioners forestry community with contact direct been has Mozambique, India as countries such from personnel ment￾govern 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. ences￾experi share to Zimbabwe and Philippines the from leagues￾col with up linked have California in foresters Community they lessons The. countries – Asian mostly – other 28 of pants￾partici 300 the from learn to order in, Thailand in held, estry￾For Community Advancing on Conference International 2001 common the emphasize States United the to back brought .agreements collaborative effective and opment￾devel 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