Exploring the forest–poverty link: key concepts, issues and research implications

By A. Angelsen, Sven Wunder. 2003

704 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper provides a global review of the link from forests to poverty alleviation. Definitions are clarified and the key concepts and indicators related to livelihoods and policy reduction and prevention are explored--distinguishing between the analysis and the measurements of poverty. Reviewing the macro-level literature on the relationship between economic growth, inequality and poverty, the authors found that economic growth usually does trickle down to the poor and that poverty reduction without growth is in practice very difficult to achieve. The potentials and limitations of forests in regard to poverty allevition are canvassed and their possible roles as safety nets, poverty traps and pathways out of poverty are explored. The core discussion addresses how forests can contribute to poverty reduction, distinguishing three main benefit categories. Firstly, non-timber forest products serve subsistence needs, may have important gap filling or safety net functions. Secondly, timber has not traditionally been very pro-poor but the current trends of increased local ownership of natural forests, growing tree commercialisation and small scale wood processing could modify that picture. Thirdly, ecological service payments are emerging rapidly but it is uncertain how much the poor will benefit. In conclusion, this paper outlines ten promising research topics, within three broader fields: assessing current forest-based benefits to the poor; exploring emerging market opportunities; and evaluating cross-cutting institutional and extra-sectoral issues.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6416800126675f2b4459e0d3be885eb6ebbb6f5c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview (2005, methodology): “In this respect, it is important to recognize the inherent tensions between the conceptualization of poverty, which tends to require an appreciation of complexity, and the measurement of poverty, which requires simplification to be applicable in a useful way (Angelsen & Wunder, 2003, pp. 10–11).”
Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “Market-based instruments that make the continued provision of ES more profitable have become an active area of experimentation and learning over the past two decades (24–26), as purely regulatory approaches that exclude rural populations from forests have a negative impact by perpetuating forest-rel”
Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review (2014, background): “…disrupts livelihoods of forest community members by limiting their ability to exploit resources for productive purposes, whether by themselves or as hired labor (Agrawal and Benson, 2011; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Chomitz, 2007: Ch. 3; Edwards et al., 2011; Porras, 2010; Wunder, 2005).”
Poverty and resource dependence in rural India (2008, background): “In terms of the distinction drawn by Angelsen and Wunder (2003), such policies may do more than merely “alleviate” poverty, by keeping household incomes from dropping below subsistence.”
Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidence from Malawi’s Forest Co-Management Program (2006, background): “Forests support current consumption, provide an economic buffer, safety net, and a source of cash income to most poor households in rural areas (Byron and Arnold 1999;Campbell andLuckert 2002;Angelsen and Wunder 2003).”
Wealth differentiation in household use and trade in non-timber forest products in South Africa (2009, background): “…may sell NTFPs during times of need, middle to upper income households with access to capital, transport and markets and, with alternative fall-back options, can earn more from commercialisation as a primary livelihood activity ([Kepe, 2002], [AmbroseOji, 2003] and [Angelsen and Wunder, 2003]).”
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014, background): “Conceptual discussions of the role and potential contributions of forests to livelihoods include Angelsen and Wunder (2003), Belcher and Schreckenberg (2007), de Sherbinin et al. (2008), Shackleton, Shackleton, and Shanley (2011); and Sunderlin et al. (2005). Despite this growing literature, methodo”
Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape (2015, background): “…pathway: although forests and forest products may contribute to income that can support food security (Pimentel et al. 1997; Angelsen et al. 2014), most communities that live close to forests are poorer than those who live further away from forests (Angelsen and Wunder 2003; Sunderlin et al. 2008).”
From Subsistence to Safety Nets and Cash Income: Exploring the Diverse Values of Non-timber Forest Products for Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation (2011, background): “, assisting people to escape poverty or raise household incomes above the poverty line (Angelsen and Wunder 2003).”
Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households' resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study† (2015, background): “The greater significance and dependence on NTFPs of low-income communities (compared to high-income groups) is also apparent from the work of Falconer (1992), Cavendish (1997), Pimentel et al. (1997), Neumann and Hirsch (2000), and Angelsen and Wunder (2003).”
Who are forest-dependent people? A taxo nomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions (2016, background): “A long-running debate in the literature on forests and livelihoods asks whether forests act principally as a safety net or a poverty trap (Wunder, 2001; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Cronkleton et al., 2008; Sunderlin et al., 2008; Nkem et al., 2010).”