Forest conservation and poverty reduction” highlighted in the December 2005 IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter:

Savingsbanks” safety nets or poverty traps? What do forests and forestproducts really mean to the rural poor? There is little evidence thatforests are actually capable of lifting people out of poverty on theirown. So are forests” and non-timber forest products in particular”better characterized as poverty traps? We don't think so. If ruralpeople who depend on forests tend to be locked into poverty this ismore because of institutional and political structures that perpetuateexisting inequalities” rather than any inherent characteristics offorest products themselves.

On the other hand” forestconservation has a mixed record in poverty reduction. In some cases”protected forest areas have provided new economic options that improvepoor people's livelihoods but in many others they have resulted inrestricted access to forest resources that further deprive the mostdisenfranchised” offering little or nothing by way of compensation.This issue of arborvitae takes a balanced yet critical look at bothsides of the forests-poverty story and debate. Several authors alsoidentify creative solutions and key policy changes that are required toenable forests and forest conservation to play a bigger part in povertyreduction.

Conservationists need to do more than simply lamentthe weakening of the environmental commitments and momentum of theearly 1990s and the fact that donors have redirected resources fromsaving forests to lifting people out of poverty. We should not shy awayfrom pointing out that current development strategies tend to favoururban areas and bypass large numbers of forest-dependent rural poor. Weshould use our knowledge of biophysical systems and how people use themto identify poverty-reducing linkages within our forest conservationwork. Finally” we should be explicit that sometimes strict protectionis the only viable option to conserve biodiversity but that this has tobe accompanied by fair and equitable compensation that improvesdevelopment opportunities for affected communities and individuals.

Forsure” conservation and poverty reduction are not always compatible” andwin-win situations are rare. Yet” the more open we are about thesetrade-offs and the more practical solutions we can offer” the betterplaced we will be to ensure that the conservation and sustainable useof forests is mainstreamed into the delivery of current globaldevelopment priorities.

(Stewart Maginnis” IUCN and Mark Aldrich” WWF)