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 alternative65 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 based￾forest 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