"Is there a future role for forests and forestry in reducing poverty?"

APFC International Conference onThe future of forests in Asia and the Pacific:

Outlook for 2020Chiang Mai, Thailand 16 - 18 October 2007

Mark Sandiford - RECOFTC

RECOFTC is the only regional institution solely committed to the promotion of community-based management of forest resources in the Asia-Pacific region.

The current and future role of forests and forestry with respect to poverty reduction: What findings?

• Clear if imprecise scale of evidence that forests generate income and will do so in the future, but income generation is not poverty reduction.

• Under current ‘imperfect’ conditions forestry has very little potential to assist in socio-economic advancement of the poor in the region.

• Even under ‘perfect’ conditions forests and forestry of diminishing future importance and to maintain a mitigation rather than elimination role vs. poverty.

Misconceptions: Income generation vs. poverty reduction?Is it all about goods and services?

• Goods argument, again income generation often confused with poverty reduction. Undoubtedly forests generate income but by whom and for whom?

• Environmental services argument, even PES,not a priority or immediate option for the rural poor and unlikely ever to be so. An injustice to expect the marginalized to be guardians of SFM, climate, water etc.

What do we actually know of the current role of forests and forestry in poverty reduction?• Our current knowledge of the scale and manner in which forests

and forestry either mitigate or eliminate poverty is very poor.

• Confounded data and interpretations especially in those seeking to link poverty reduction with income generation.

• “As a result of the interviews carried out for the study and on the basis of the material collected, we have concluded that there are currently no reliable regional or global sources of data on FDP”

Important current trends in the Asia Pacific region: other sectors, beyond forests and forestry.

• Regional trend towards middle income status - with exceptions.

• Increasing importance of other sectors and decreasing relative importance of forestry in overall income generation and contribution to GDP.

• Increasing social mobility, reduced rural isolation, urbanization, greater monetization (with rare exceptions), increasing populations, land related issues.

Important current trends in the Asia Pacific region: the forests and forestry sector.• Rapidly declining size and quality of the natural forest estate -

plantations increasing but not pro-poor?• Greater blurring of the

forest/rural/urban interface - where do many ‘forest’ products (e.g. bamboo, rubber wood) actually come from?

• Forest policy/regulation tending towards decentralization and devolution of forest management. Whilst promising few examples of sound implementation at national level.

The formal forestry sector: what do we know and where are we going?

• Questionable data available. Regionally of low importance but in some countries high.

• Overall forestry in the formal sector, not a significant source of employment, income and poverty elimination even if current inequitable income flows were addressed.

• Likely to decline yet further.

Informal forestry sector: what do we know and where are we going?• 'Informal sector’ of greater relative importance than the

formal sector but riven with complex issues e.g. legality, corruption, conflict, equity, actual data, elite capture, unnecessary bureaucratic procedures, tenure and quality of resources handed to communities .

• Forestry modalities which focus on local/community based management still hold promise to maximize the future, if limited, potential of forests and forestry to reduce poverty.

The informal forestry sector: what promise for poverty reduction?

• Examples NTFPs, Outgrower schemes, CBNRM etc.• All show potential for increased income generation but very few

beyond local, pilot or project level and many examples where income distribution is inequitable i.e. only poverty mitigation.

• Proponents argue many of these examples are impacted by ‘imperfections’ in implementation or enabling environments - corruption, conflict, poor enforcement etc.

• However even in a perfect world unlikely to make a major difference to poverty.

Improvement of community infrastructure funded partially by FUGs in Nepal (1993/1996 to 2004)

Infrastructure Number of study FUGs

Quantity Contribution of FUGs Main beneficiari

esNepalese

rupees% of total

cost

Village trail 8 45km 226,000 50 All

Temple 1 One 65,000 85 All

School support 9 9 schools 527,001 25 Wealthy and some poor

Electricity 1 One village 300,000 30 Wealthy

Water supply 5 Five projects 214,000 35 All

Health facility 1 One building 310,000 20 All

Improvement of irrigation canal

5 20km 200,000 35 Wealthy

Source: Adapted from Dev and Adhikari (2007)

Fuelwood sources in Haraiya village (Nepal)

Sources 30 years ago 20 years ago 10 years ago 2005

Private forest 1.15 2.31 2.69 12.31

Collaborative forest management

0 0 0 0.77

Government forest 95.7 92.69 84.23 64.62

Communal plantation 0 0 0 0

Community forest 0 0 0 0

Purchase 3.08 5 13.08 22.31

Source: Bhatta et al. (2007)

Average daily income per person in PFC villages in West Bengal

Income sources (in US$ PPP)

Rich Medium rich Poor Poor landless

Forest0.04 0.21 0.20 0.19

Non-forest4.51 1.20 0.54 0.39

Total4.55 1.41 0.73 0.58

Note: Household size was assumed to be six people, which is likely to be an underestimate.

Likely prospects for the contribution of forests and forestry to poverty reduction by 2020

• Continued declining significance of forestry. Unrestricted mining of the remaining resource, replacement by financially more attractive land uses (e.g. agriculture, biofuels)

• Consequent declining allocation of government budgets and legislation, enforcement, social mobility, growing non-forest sectors. Continued elite capture and domination by forest departments and rules and regulations that do not provide an enabling environment.

• RESULT: Forestry becomes a non issue re poverty reduction. Forest estate declines yet further.

SCENARIO ONE: Business as Usual?

Likely prospects for the contribution of forests and forestry to poverty reduction by 2020

• Governments realize the limited relative potential, but absolute importance to the forest dependant poor and enact, implement and enforce pro-poor forestry in order to give options to the poor to move away from forest or forest dependant livelihoods.

• RESULT: Poor people find it easier to generate forest-based income although not necessarily enough to eliminate poverty. Increasing uptake of non-forest livelihood options. Forest estate remains questionable.

SCENARIO TWO: Reform?

Likely prospects for the contribution of forests and forestry to poverty reduction by 2020

• Drive to middle income status realized largely through influence of non-forest sectors. Environmental service function of forests takes precedence for urban populations. Government moves toward protection, restoration, rehabilitation, reforestation and protected areas.

• RESULT: Forest dependent poor realize alternative options to FD. Forestry becomes a non-issue re poverty reduction. Forest estate decline arrested.

SCENARIO THREE: Other Sectors Win the Day?

Likely prospects for the contribution of forests and forestry to poverty reduction by 2020

• The Scenarios 1 and 3 are not necessarily exclusive. But willingness by forest departments to reform? Presentation not an opportunity to drop forests and forestry from the poverty agenda but realism and intent is lacking.

• Honest reflection required by practitioners, advocates, governments and donors.

• Issues that keep forests and forestry from making meaningful contribution to poverty reduction are generic - beyond the sector and forestry is only one potential entry point.

Reflection

Thank You