Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Box 1.8
Identifying Opportunities for Getting
Poverty-Forest Linkages into Data-Collection
Systems: Example from Tanzania
To effectively integrate forest-poverty information into
PRSPs, it is useful to be familiar with the poverty analysis
process used in PRSPs (available in the Poverty Reduction
Strategies Sourcebook).
A variety of opportunities for including the contribution
of forests to livelihoods in current data
gathering may present themselves. In Tanzania, the
staff of the Ministry of Planning and Empowerment
were convinced by the toolkit-produced data
that forestry should be included in the Household
Budget Survey.
Source: PROFOR forthcoming b.
against the forest-dependent rural poor. A lack of understanding
of the scale and scope of forest dependence can
result in governments giving private companies and large
farmers preferential access to publicly owned forest
resources, conservation policies that deprive poor families
access to forest resources, or governments expropriating
villagers’ rights over local forests.
Communities often invest the income generated from
formal and informal uses of forest resources. Detailed
information on forest resource use and how it is invested
can provide insight into community priorities (for example,
in Busongo, Tanzania, communities used cash revenue
from forest resources, including gum and charcoal, to help
primary-age children access schools, and village forests
were used to construct staff housing and extra classrooms
for primary schools).
When proposing a forest-related action in a PRSP, it is
important to have a clear rationale for selecting the action
as a priority. Integration of forest issues into PRSPs will
require a quantitative causal link between forests and
poverty. It is therefore crucial to include important forest
environmental income sources in poverty assessments and
PRSPs.
SELECTED READINGS
CIFOR. Poverty Environment Network. http://www.cifor
.cgiar.org/pen/.
Hudson, J. 2005. “Forestry’s Contribution to Poverty Reduction
and Trends in Development Assistance. International
Forestry Review 7 (2):156–60.
Klugman, J. 2002. “Overview.” In J. Klugman, ed. A Sourcebook
for Poverty Reduction Strategies. Washington, DC:
World Bank. http://go.worldbank.org/TL225F9JC0.
Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, E. Sjaastad, and G. K. Berg. 2004.
“Counting on the Environment. Forest Incomes and the
Rural Poor.” Environmental Economics Series Paper No.
98, World Bank, Washington, DC.
REFERENCES CITED
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. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Klugman, J., ed. 2002. A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction
Strategies. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://go
.worldbank.org/3I8LYLXO80.
PROFOR. Forthcoming a. “Poverty-Forest Linkages
Toolkit.” PROFOR, World Bank, Washington, DC.
———. Forthcoming b. “Poverty Forest Linkages: Synthesis
Report and Case Studies.” PROFOR, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
CROSS-REFERENCED CHAPTERS AND NOTES
Note 6.1: Using National Forest Programs to Mainstream
Forest Issues
NOTE 1.1: MAINSTREAMING THE ROLE OF FORESTS IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION: MEASURING POVERTY-FOREST LINKAGES 29