Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Frameworks, regulations, and encouragement are
needed to make natural resource markets work for the poor.
This requires responding to market failures and imperfect
competition and identifying new opportunities that allow
the poor to take advantage of their available assets. The collection
and sale of timber and nontimber forest products
are important for the poor. There is a need to look into their
value-added potential and improved marketing strategies.
Additionally, strategies need to ensure that the poor are not
negatively affected by increasing commercialization (see
note 1.5, Making Forests Work for the Forest-Dependent
Poor). Studies should also be undertaken to determine
whether growing urban domestic markets for forest products
have significantly benefited the poor.
Similarly, payment for environmental services, such as
carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, hydrological
benefits, and forest-based tourism, is a potentially important
source of revenue. It is important for the structure of
such payments to allow for benefits to flow to the poor as
well as for maintenance of services (see note 2.3, Innovative
Marketing Arrangements for Environmental Services).
There is a need to create and enhance the role of forestdependent
communities and households in SMFEs and to
foster forest partnerships between communities and the private
sector. This will require incentives, regulations, and
actions at the national level that facilitate these arrangements.
Technical support must be provided to communities,
and private entities must be required to look beyond
logging and the timber processing industry to the long-term
sustainability of forest resources (see chapter 2, Engaging
the Private Sector in Forest Sector Development).
To promote forest uses for poverty alleviation, forest
activities that primarily address biodiversity conservation
need to be refocused to take a balanced approach that
includes poverty alleviation. Conservation objectives for
forests of value to local people will need to be revised from
being predominantly protection oriented to encouraging
sustainable systems that produce livelihood benefits. The
increased recognition of Indigenous Peoples rights to their
land and natural resources should also be further enhanced
in biodiversity conservation activities (see note 1.3, Indigenous
Peoples and Forests).
National forest programs can provide a broad platform
with which to engage in a poverty reduction agenda by
working toward coherent sector policies—and forests need
to be integrated into a comprehensive rural development
strategy (see note 6.4, Assessing Cross-Sectoral Impacts: Use
of CEAs and SEAs). Such integration will be facilitated by
improved knowledge and understanding of the extent to
which the very large numbers of poor people living in or
near forests depend upon those forests for their livelihood—a
matter of significance to poverty alleviation outcomes
in general in some countries (see note 1.1, Mainstreaming
the Role of Forests in Poverty Alleviation:
Measuring Poverty-Forest Linkages). It is important to
gather information on whether the depletion of forest
resources has had a negative impact on poor people, and
whether the poor have been able to find alternatives to forest
safety nets and gap fillers (see also note 1.3 on the particular
risks and impacts to Indigenous Peoples). Equally
important is a comprehensive examination of how existing
World Bank data systems and records could be used to
improve knowledge about the forest dependency of people
dwelling in or near large natural forest resources in World
Bank client countries. This needs to be developed through
the appropriate networks of the World Bank in collaboration
with Country Departments.
SELECTED READINGS
Angelsen, A., and S. Wunder. 2003. “Exploring the Forest-
Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications.”
CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. Center for
International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Chomitz, K. M., P. Buys, G. De Luca, T. S. Thomas, and S.
Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2006. At Loggerheads? Agricultural
Expansion, Poverty Reduction and Environment in the
Tropical Forests. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sunderlin, W. D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi,
L. Santoso, and S. Wunder. 2005. “Livelihoods, Forests,
and Conservation in Developing Countries: An
Overview.” World Development 33 (9): 1383–1402.
Sunderlin, W. D., S. Dewi, and A. Puntodewo. 2006.“Forests,
Poverty, and Poverty Alleviation Policies.” Background
paper. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with
United Nations Development Programme, UNEP, and
World Bank. 2005. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of
the Poor—Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington,
DC: WRI.
REFERENCES CITED
Angelsen, A., and S. Wunder. 2003. “Exploring the Forest-
Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications.”
CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40, CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Arnold, J. E. M. 2001. “Forestry, Poverty and Aid.” CIFOR
Occasional Paper No. 33. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
CHAPTER 1: FORESTS FOR POVERTY REDUCTION 23