| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
Table
of contents
News 47/48 homepage
FORESTRY AND POVERTY REDUCTION: CAN WE LEAD THE WAY?
By William Street
Reducing deforestation and achieving poverty reduction for forest dependent people will require considerable international assistance. In the meantime, however, a sizeable exodus of public investment out of forestry continues. Conventional wisdom cites two reasons for the decline of public capital investment in forestry (specifically ODA assistance). First, the sector is too politicized creating a nowin zone for donors. Second, forest activities are perceived as poverty traps that do not lead to poverty reduction. In some situations, where money is shifted from forestry to other activities like agriculture, market forces are introduced or reinforced that contribute to deforestation and poverty.
While the forestry wars continue on various fronts, common ground has begun to emerge over the past few years. While still more a concept than a consensual management system, sustainable forest management (SFM) with its social, environmental, and economic foundations is making progress in providing conflicting parties with a blueprint for consensus. The social criteria of SFM are the least developed of the three components. These will need to be developed if SFM is to address the poverty trap concern and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The needs of forest dependent populations vary, ranging from those whose cultures are based on non-market economies to those either in transition to market based economies or those already in market based societies. These differences pose a challenge for those seeking to clarify SFM’s social criteria.
Forest dependent communities in partially industrialized market economies rarely possess the social structures required to cope with the powerful and frequently dehumanizing force of a market economy. For the majority of such residents the most common and sometimes only opportunity for income generation is through informal work During a recent study, almost twothirds of those surveyed said that they would accept formal work if it was available. Lacking formal employment, proper social protection, and the power to organize, these workers are generally condemned to poverty level incomes (according to a survey by Builders and Woodworkers International).
Yet, donor strategies to meet the MDGs generally seek to avoid conflict and in doing so fail to address the root causes of poverty. In their efforts to avoid the inevitable tensions of funding large-scale forestry projects, many donors instead support initiatives around small and medium sized forest based enterprises (SMFEs). Unfortunately, promoting informal work through these SMFE initiatives frequently compounds the risk and reality of poverty. Without the necessary support to engage with and participate in large-scale forestry activities, few poor communities have been able to withstand the devastating effects of a forced economic restructure or the arrival of a multinational corporation.
The avoidance of large-scale forest projects, because of the fear of bad press and the difficulties of enforcing social standards on privately funded projects, serves to reinforce the conventional perception of forestry as a poverty trap and a source of conflict. It is ironic that the inappropriate funding of other non-forest areas to avoid political fallout may be contributing to deforestation.
The way forward involves sharing power and sharing wealth. For non-market based communities, this requires a culturally sensitive approach and acknowledging the possibility that a market economy may never be appropriate. For communities that are already in a market economy the focus should be on empowerment with ongoing regulation and monitoring of the market. Without controls, through either soft law (e.g. forest certification) or enforceable public policy, wealth will remain in the hands of a small minority and conflict over the remaining spoils will continue.
SFM has an important role to play in the sharing of power and wealth but the social criteria must be addressed head on to insure success. Unlike environmental criteria which many capitalists seek to monetize, market, and profit from, the focus of social criteria tends to be the redistribution of wealth and income – running counter to the core principles of most market based systems. Similarly, efforts to re-distribute power will run counter to most political systems. The challenge presented by these dominant principles is not unique to forestry, what is unique is that SFM has been able to take up this challenge in some key locations.
The MDGs offer the forestry sector an opportunity to address social issues through the evolving SFM framework. The forestry sector should seek to integrate the MDGs, and especially poverty reduction, into SFM in a way that empowers workers and communities. The fact that most major forest certification schemes have already codified the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) core labor standards is a positive sign that empowerment can occur within SFM systems. The fear of being denied market access has even led some large scale forest enterprises to voluntarily adopt ILO conventions that are not yet codified in national legislation.
In many places, SFM is still far from a reality. But the growing consensus marks the beginning of some hopeful signs of change, especially in terms of poverty reduction. This will be measured against what happens when value-added forestry production corporations such as IKEA seek to minimize costs and maximize profits by disinvesting in countries where labor standards are upheld.
By incorporating social criteria (such as those outlined in the ILO’s core labor standards) into the entire chain of custody, forestry could take a leading role in tackling the root causes of global poverty and simultaneously demonstrating a realistic model of sustainable development. Likewise, integrating cultural concerns into SFM could replace the perception that forests are poverty traps, with an understanding that local populations can manage and thrive on their forest assets without the need for economic growth or even a market based economy.
The forestry sector is at a crossroads. It could fight to maintain its current position, with a set of imbalanced power relationships and unequal distribution of wealth. Alternatively, it could take up the challenge of leading global efforts to meet the MDGs and incorporating social criteria into SFM. Today, the choice is still ours. But if we fail to position ourselves wisely and respond to the world around us, this decision will be taken away from us and made elsewhere.
Contact information:
William Street
Woodworkers Department
IAMAW, AFL-CIO, CLC
Email: bstreet@iamaw.org
Further reading:
The nature of informal work in the wood and forestry sector: A survey of informal workers from developing countries. Builders and Woodworkers International, publication pending, 2006.