Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Angelsen and Wunder 2003; and Mallik 2000 as cited in
Scherr, White, and Kaimowitz 2004). A meta-review of 54
case studies that examined income from forest products in
rural areas of developing countries found that forest income
(ranging from US$0 to US$3,458 and averaging US$678 per
year, once adjusted for purchasing power parity) made up
one-fifth of household income of the population sampled
for the report (Vedeld and others 2004). Wild food, fodder
for animals, and fuelwood were the most important products
and accounted for approximately 70 percent of forest
income. Household forest income increased with increased
distance from markets, suggesting that forests are important
for communities with limited alternative income opportunities.
In some cases, forest environmental income had a
strong and significant equalizing effect on local income distribution
(Vedeld and others 2004).
It is also estimated that globally 17.4 million people (fulltime
equivalents) earn their livings from formal sector forestbased
employment (that is, enterprises with more than 20
employees) in forestry, wood industries, furniture, and pulp
and paper (Poschen and Lougren 2001, as cited in Scherr,
White, and Kaimowitz 2004). Poschen and Lougren estimate
that an additional 30–35 million are employed—most of
them in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia—in the
informal and subsistence forest-based sectors.
Types of reliance on forests. Forest uses by local
populations change through the transition from hunting
and gathering to sedentary agriculture, and vary with
households’ socioeconomic levels. Across this spectrum,
forests tend to become less dense and forest cover decreases
in association with growing population densities and higher
market demands, and in association with changing types of
forest use. There are, of course, exceptions to this trend.
Often, the proportion of overall household income from
certain forest products tends to decline as households move
from hunting and gathering to sedentary cultivation. This is
a reflection of more than just increased income opportunities
in agriculture and other domains; it is also indicative of
the decreased availability of types of forest resources that
were previously abundant. In other cases, the proportion of
a household’s income from the forest can continue to be
substantial when combined with agricultural activities, even
despite a decrease in high-value timber stocks in the region:
a seven-year study in the Brazilian state of Amapá showed
that when sawtimber, poles, and firewood are produced in a
management system that combines forestry and agriculture,
they can provide significant additional income for Amazonian
smallholders (Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 2001).
The growing importance of nonfarm rural activities as a
source of rural household income, and the significant share
of the nonfarm total accounted for by forest product activities,
make this one of the most important vehicles through
which the forest sector can contribute to poverty alleviation.
As sources of income, commercial forest product activities
have, in principle, the potential to help households move out
of poverty. However, as labor costs increase, many of these
low-value, labor-intensive activities are abandoned. Other
commercial products cease to be used as incomes increase
because they are “inferior goods” for which there are ready
substitutes, lowering their overall marketability. This generally
shifts forest use to more valuable forest products and
activities that gradually require more and more skill and capital
inputs. Thus, dependence on different forest products
will likely vary with socioeconomic levels: a dependence on
low-valued activities will decrease as poverty is lessened and
households move out of poverty, in favor of higher-valued
activities with greater returns.
Forests in rural poor’s asset portfolio. Natural assets,
such as forests, are of particular importance to the poor,
partly because of their lack of access to financial and physical
capital and formal forms of human capital, such as
education. As portfolio managers, the poor draw down some
forms of capital to convert to other forms; commonly, for
example, the poor temporarily draw down stocks of natural
capital (for example, harvesting fuelwood for sale) to invest
in their portfolio, recognizing the fungibility of assets.
Insistence on an unchanging “steady state” forest reserve
underplays forest dynamics and can limit the options open
to the poor. A flexible, comprehensive, and dynamic view of
natural assets and the whole portfolio is needed. Forest
products and outputs fulfill different functions for people at
different socioeconomic levels, and multiple goals and
strategies may be needed to reach different groups, even
those depending on the same forest.
Linkages between forest-based poverty alleviation and
rural livelihoods. Forest-based poverty alleviation cannot be
isolated from other aspects of livelihoods. The majority of those
who can benefit from forest products live outside forests; they
live in predominantly agricultural landscapes, and for many of
them the forest products they use come as much from the farm
as the forest. Reflecting this, forest-based poverty alleviation has
to be linked to other land uses, such as agriculture, grazing, and
agroforestry systems. On-farm tree-growing schemes have had
limited success so far; thus, new strategies of integrating
multiple land uses must be explored.
16 CHAPTER 1: FORESTS FOR POVERTY REDUCTION