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. Genuine2003 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 term￾long 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