ABSTRACT
What is the role of forests for rural livelihoods? Do they have the potential to enhance livelihoods and mitigate poverty? Some researchers are doubtful (see Wollenberg et al, 2001;Wunder, 2001; Sunderlin et al, 2003; Levang et al, 2005). However, a large number of people rely, to some extent, on the forest for subsistence or cash income (Byron and Arnold, 1999; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Levang et al, 2005). Forest dependency varies widely among and within communities, and the role of forest products is usually aimed at filling gaps and complementing other incomes than being the primary income source (Byron and Arnold, 1999; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). Several researchers state that the only way to use the forest to cushion poverty and to improve livelihoods is to convert forest capital into more profitable alternatives (Wunder, 2001; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Levang et al, 2005). The transferring of forest capital into more industrialized alternatives will therefore inevitably help poor forest-dwelling people. Possibly, in order to benefit rural livelihoods, a more commercialized and intensive use of forest resources needs to be accompanied by secure forest access and ownership, the removal of regulatory political barriers, the opening of market access and the strengthening of facilitating and supporting organizations, etc. (Lindsay, 1998; Balland and Platteau, 1999; Byron and Arnold, 1999; Steins and Edwards, 1999; Colfer and Wadley, 2001; Campbell et al, 2002; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Scherr et al, 2003). However, even if this is achieved, the poorest of the poor with low opportunity costs of labour and capital might not benefit from such development schemes and might continue relying on the possibilities of generating some income from the forest resource as well as harvesting subsistence products (Lindsay, 1998; Byron and Arnold, 1999; Wollenberg et al, 2001; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003).
