1. Agreeing on the concept of poverty and forestry in the context of the forestry- poverty nexus, and how to address it

 

There is nowadays a broad consensus about the multi-dimensional and dynamic character of poverty. Growth is therefore not the only route to poverty reduction, and aspects related to distribution of assets (e.g. land), vulnerability and human development are proving equally important. This is reflected in the generally-accepted definition of poverty given by the World Bank (2001a), i.e.

“Poverty is a pronounced deprivation of well-being related to lack of material income or consumption, low levels of education and health, vulnerability and exposure to risk, and voicelessness and powerlessness”. 

Forests being one amongst several possible sources of livelihood means for the poor, there is a need to envisage a broad definition of forestry in the context of its linkages with poverty, i.e. one that encompasses sources of forest products outside as well as inside forests. In doing so, the term 'forests' should be interpreted as referring to all forms of tree cover which poor people draw upon for forest outputs (Arnold, 2001). Therefore in this paper the terms ‘forests’ and ‘forest resources’ include trees outside forests, and in particular those included in agroforestry systems.

The definition of poverty given above underlines the fact that poverty is not only income and/or food based. This ‘welfare’ aspect of poverty has to be complemented by ‘asset’ poverty; which emphasises the importance of access to assets. Following this line of thinking, a current approach that attempts to go beyond income and food and to include multidimensional characteristics and causes is that of sustainable livelihoods (SL). [1]  A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living.  A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Carney, 1998). See Box 1.

 

Box 1: Sustainability Sustainability is important if progress in poverty reduction is to be lasting not fleeting.  Sustainability of livelihoods rests on several dimensions, including environmental, economic, social and institutional.  Livelihoods are sustainable when they: are resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses; are not dependent upon external support (or if they are,  this support should itself be economically and institutionally sustainable) maintain the long term productivity of natural resources; do not undermine the livelihoods of, or compromise the livelihood options open to others. Source: Ashby and Carney, 1999

 

But what are the assets that are the building blocks of livelihoods? The assets that are analysed are not only natural, physical and financial capital, but also social (kinship and networks) and what is termed human (nutritional levels and health) – See Box 2.

Box 2: The five forms of capital required for sustainable livelihoods

Natural capital:     Physical capital:     Financial capital:     Human capital:    Social capital:

natural resources such as land, forests, water, wildlife and pastures.   (a) privately-owned assets that can be used to increase labour and land productivity such as farm animals, tools, machinery;   (b) the publicly-owned economic infrastructure (e.g. roads, electricity supply) and social infrastructure (e.g. schools, hospitals). cash (income and savings) and readily convertible liquid capital. health, nutritional levels, educational standards and skills. the set of social relationships upon which people can draw to expand livelihood options. These include kinship, friendship, patron-client relations, reciprocal arrangements,    membership of formal groups, and membership of organisations which provide loans,   grants and other forms of insurance. Source: Carney, 1998

 

Sustainable livelihood approaches (SLAs) like the one presented above reflect the three currently accepted dimensions of poverty, i.e. subsistence needs (food, shelter, etc), income and vulnerability/powelessness. The latter dimension of poverty is strongly linked to the limited access of the poor to one or a combination of the livelihood capital assets defined in Box 2. This, in turn relates heavily on disparity in bargaining power amongst local stakeholders, with the poor often at a loss in that respect. Therefore, we tend to agree with Baumann (2001) that it would be useful to add a sixth capital asset to those mentioned in Box 2, i.e. political capital, in order to capture the key role played by power aspects in enhancing or reducing opportunities to improving security in relation to subsistence needs, increase income and lessen vulnerability. This in turn points to the importance of governance in addressing poverty issues, a subject that is discussed further in this paper (See Section 3).

The need to account for power differences and the political character of land and natural resource management explains the growing consensus amongst environment and development practitioners that one needs to move from participatory to negotiations approaches (Dubois and Lowore, 2000; Leeuwis, 2000, Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2001 and 2002, FAO 2002). However, the implications of such negotiation processes on disadvantaged groups are seldom critically examined, and several practitioners thus also suggest a strategic approach to negotiation, with an emphasis on power brokering, joint social learning and empowerment of weaker parties (Castellanet, 1999; Dubois and Lowore, 2000; Wollenberg et al, 2001; Jiggins and Röling, 2002; Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2002). 

In their present use, SLAs approach also often fail to take into consideration the importance of informal processes and structures. Yet, these are known to be crucial in the coping strategies of the poor (Silverman, 2000; New Scientist, 2002). One example of this relates to employment; with the proportion of informal to formal jobs in the wood industry sector being estimated to be at least 5-10:1[2] (ILO, 2002). As regards forest-based poverty reduction, it is important to make a distinction between the ‘subsistence’ informal sector and the large scale – often corporate informal sector, as the former is usually a key component of coping livelihood strategies of forest-dependent rural poor; while the latter has often overlooked and sometimes hampered them.