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