UBC Undergraduate Research

Forest utilization for poverty alleviation Merriman, Nicholas Apr 23, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52966-Merriman_Nicholas_FRST_497_2015.pdf [ 124.66kB ]
JSON: 52966-1.0075592.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0075592-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0075592-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0075592-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0075592-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0075592-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0075592-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

1           Forest Utilization for Poverty Alleviation   Nicholas Merriman Graduation Essay April 23, 2015                             2 Table of Contents   1. Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definitions of Poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3.1. Poverty & Inequality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Forest Utilization Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5  4.1. Non-Timber Forest Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   4.1.1. Safety Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5   4.1.2. Poverty Trap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6   4.1.3. Fuelwood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6  4.2. Timber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   4.2.1. Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   4.2.2. Pro-Poor Timber Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7   4.2.3. Direct and Indirect Local Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8  4.3. Environmental Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9   4.3.1. Carbon Sequestration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10   4.3.2. Biodiversity Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11   4.3.3. Hydrological Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11  4.4. Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14                3       1. Abstract  Poverty is an important global issue, with over 1.3 billion people currently living on less than one dollar a day. Many of these people are rural poor for whom forests provide their livelihoods. This essay examines the complex definitions of poverty and inequality. It then analyses various forest utilization methods and assesses their potential for poverty alleviation. Non-timber forest products, timber, environmental services, and tourism are all examined, and poverty alleviation potential has been found for all of these methods, along with a variety of challenges. This essay finds that forests have the potential to do even more than provide livelihoods, and in some cases local forests can be used to pull people out of poverty.   2. Introduction  By a recent estimate from the World Bank, there are currently over 1.3 billion people globally living in poverty. This estimate uses the World Bank standard to define poverty as living on less than one dollar a day (Deaton, 2010). The majority of these people live in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, and many of the poor are forest dwellers who live near and rely on forests to survive. This essay will explore the potential of forests to alleviate the poverty of local forest dwellers and rural poor.   3. Definitions of Poverty  Traditionally the definition of poverty has been focused on a lack of monetary wealth, however this classical definition remains the most narrow. As thinking progressed, so did the definition of the term poverty: it came to include many human needs such as nutrition, education, and health. This broader definition may more fully capture the idea of poverty but it is also more subjective and harder to quantify. In recent years, additional subjective ideas have been added to the definition such as freedom and choice (Angelsen, 2003).  It may be useful to think of poverty in these broad terms that more fully encompass the spectrum of human needs, while in practice it may be easier to quantify poverty using the more traditional aspect of wealth. Using the most simple, easiest to quantify aspects makes measurement and analysis easier. Which indicators of poverty are chosen to be used for any particular study or analysis depends on the scope and budget of the study.  4 Another set of important distinctions when discussing poverty is the differences between poverty alleviation, reduction, and prevention. Poverty prevention is the process of preventing the poor from becoming even worse off, or dropping below a set poverty line. Poverty reduction is the process of making people better off. In these cases people who live below a set poverty line are raised above it through economic gain. The term poverty alleviation is the most broad, and encompasses the previous two terms (Oberndorf, 2006).   3.1. Poverty & Inequality  The causes of poverty can be seen as either a lack of economic growth (absolute poverty) or an inequality in the distribution of growth (relative poverty). The term absolute poverty refers to a level of wealth lower than a set poverty line. In most cases it has been observed that at a country level, any economic growth will result in some of that growth trickling down to members of the population below the poverty line (Angelsen, 2003). This means that even if there is an uneven distribution of wealth, growing the wealth of the entire country is generally a good strategy for reducing poverty. This is true even if the growth is not focused on the poorest people.   Relative poverty instead compares the poorest members of a community against the average, or more well off members of that community. Using the metric of relative poverty, it is possible for the poorest people to become worse off relative to their neighbours even during time of economic growth as a whole. The inequality of wealth can actually be the more challenging of the two problems to solve, but there are some growth strategies that are generally considered pro poor. These include a focus on education, rural areas, and labour intensive projects.  In general, in the early stages of a development project, inequality tends to increase in the short term. This is due to some members of the community having assets or skills which allow them to invest early and earn more than an even share of the profits. In the long term however; more people acquire the necessary skills, demand for unskilled labour increases, and the higher income trickles down to the poor in secondary markets. In the medium to long term, these factors generally cause inequality to decrease (Angelsen, 2003).  Which of these two metrics is more important or relevant can vary. Among the poorest of the poor, people tend to value basic needs, such as food, and in these cases absolute poverty is the most important to reduce. When people are slightly better off, there can be a shift in values towards wanting to be as well off as their neighbors. In these cases, it is possible for people to more strongly desire a reduction of relative poverty.      5 4. Forest Utilization Options  Forests can supply local communities with a wide variety of goods and services which have the potential to both reduce and prevent poverty. Four primary categories of forest goods and services will be analysed: non-timber forest products, timber, environmental services, and tourism.   4.1. Non-Timber Forest Products  Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are the forest resources that primarily belong to the poorest of the poor. Some examples of NTFPs include: edible fruit, edible insects, construction materials and bushmeat (Shackleton, 2004). They can be seen as both a safety net which can be used to keep people alive, or a poverty trap which prevents people from rising out of poverty. There is some truth to both viewpoints.    4.1.1. Safety Net  First the role of NTFPs as a safety net will be examined. Millions of people depend on NTFPs for both subsistence and income. They can be utilized as either a primary or supplemental source of income, but for the very poorest they are often primarily used for subsistence rather than monetary gain (Angelsen, 2003). In these circumstances, NTFPs are used for food, shelter, and fire. They are used as a last resort to keep people alive.   For an example of this safety net function in action, imagine a community where crops are cultivated by local farmers and primarily used for food for the community. After harvest, there may be a relative abundance of food. At other times of the year however, these food crops may be in shortage and the poorest members of the community may end up with a lack of food for part of the year. During these times of need, NTFPs such as fruit growing in local forests can be harvested and used to supplement the nutritional needs of the most desperate community members (Shackleton, 2004). At other times, the source and timing of a lack of resources may be unpredictable such as political turmoil, drought, crop failure, or illness. During these times, forest resources can be utilized as a cushion, and have the real potential to keep people alive.  Despite their life saving potential, NTFPs are generally a last resort only utilized by the poorest citizens. NTFPs generally have a high labour opportunity cost. They take a long time to harvest relative to their market value. Because of this, only workers who have no better paying option harvest these resources. NTFPs usually come from public areas that everyone has access to. Any investment in their management and cultivation comes with no guarantee that whoever put the initial effort in will be able to reap the benefits. Because of this, most NTFPs are minimally managed (Angelsen, 2003).   6 4.1.2. Poverty Trap  There are valid points that NTFPs can also act as a poverty trap. They are generally labour intensive to harvest. They tend to originate from rural areas with limited transportation infrastructure, which makes accessing markets difficult. Even someone under the poverty line working full time harvesting NTFPs generally has difficulty making enough income to rise out of poverty.   Even in scenarios when there is an increase in demand or an increase in the market value of a particular NTFP, it is very difficult for the poor to reap these potential gains. Firstly, once the value of a particular NTFP increases, more powerful players become interested in it. People and corporations with more capital and resources often privatize previously communal harvesting areas and the poor are no longer able to harvest the NTFP. Another challenge is that even if a particular product sees a price increase in the markets where it is being sold, that extra money often does not go to the harvester. Because of remote locations, limited methods of transportation, and a lack of market knowledge among the poor, it is very easy for them to be taken advantage of in trades. Lastly, if a particular product becomes more profitable, it is now worth the labour opportunity cost of harvesting for more members of the community (Angelsen, 2003). In these cases, increased harvesting has the potential to become unsustainable. In the short term there may be economic gain, but in the long term the resource can potentially be used up and no longer available.   In this sense, NTFPs are successful for poverty prevention (they can save people from becoming worse off), but they are not a valid path for poverty reduction (increasing wealth and pulling people out of poverty).  4.1.3. Fuelwood  Wood is still the dominant source of energy for households in many developing countries. It is also an interesting resource because it tends to fall somewhere in between NTFPs and timber. Both fuelwood and charcoal both have low costs of entry, so they are good products for poor producers. Another issue with fuelwood is that as economies develop, the demand tends to diminish as people switch to using electricity and fossil fuels (Angelsen, 2003).  Fuelwood is also often associated with deforestation, which can be true, but there is also evidence that it can be harvested sustainably. Often fuelwood is harvested during conversion of land for agricultural purposes. In these cases the trees would have been cut down anyway. Another possibility is the investment of small landowners in planting their own trees. In this case, upon harvesting of the planted trees no net deforestation is occurring.      7 4.2. Timber   Timber is traditionally the largest source of economic value to be gained from forests. It has also largely been the domain of the rich, and has remained largely inaccessible to the poor. There are many challenges to be overcome for timber to become a primary tool in poverty alleviation, but there are also some promising pro-poor trends.   4.2.1. Challenges  There are some fundamental aspects of timber management and harvesting that tend to make this resource inaccessible for the poor. The first of these is the high amount of capital required. Harvesting operations utilizing heavy machinery for logging can be very expensive. After logging, transportation of large timber to markets is another large expense which requires specialized vehicles. The poor do not have the resources to pay to have these initial harvesting steps carried out. Along with the needed ability to afford these harvesting technologies is a high level of skill needed to use them, and even the basic ability to access them (Oberndorf, 2006).   Next is the general requirement of stable and secure land tenure in order to profit from a timber investment. The poor tend to be either landless or easily driven out of their land by more powerful players (Angelsen, 2003). Because of insecure tenure for the poor, there is a very large risk of being unable to profit from the investment of tree planting when the time comes to harvest. Another challenge is that compared to the investment of planting agricultural crops and NTFPs, timber can only be used to make money and cannot be fallen back on for subsistence in times of need. The former products have the ability to be a safety net as discussed above, but timber does not share this benefit.  Tree growing is a long term investment where the return may not happen for decades. The needs of the poor are usually more immediate than this. With a large time span from investment to profit, and many sources of risk in between, there are often better forms of investment for the rural poor.   4.2.2. Pro-Poor Timber Trends  While there are many challenges for the poor when attempting to profit from timber, there are some aspects of timber production that favour the poor. For small landowners who own some farmland, tree planting can be a form of savings. Planting trees is an investment which will grow over time, and can be benefited from when needed. Once trees are growing, either in a natural forest or even a plantation such as the on-farm trees mentioned above, there tend to be some side benefits: secondary products such as NTFPs can potentially be harvested and even some agricultural crops can be grown in between the trees (Angelsen, 2003).   8 When the time comes that the trees are ready to harvest, another pro-poor aspect is that compared to agricultural crops, there is no set harvesting time. Harvest can be conducted when the money is most needed, and also when labour and harvesting resources are most easily available. It is possible to use this benefit of a variable harvest time to wait for low opportunity cost labour and even a higher market price, which allows flexibility and the power to make the most economic gains out of the investment.  New technologies for harvesting and processing have become both smaller and less expensive. These small portable sawmills can reduce the large amount of capital traditionally needed to profit from timber. Technological improvements also allow for smaller diameter timber and a larger variety of tree species to be used in value added products such as plywood. Traditionally, any land that has been set aside for community use has been low value land. As technology allows greater ease of harvest and higher profits to be made from smaller trees, the value of this land increases (Angelsen, 2003). What used to be considered worthless land may eventually have the potential for economic gain and poverty reduction due to a variety of increases in technology.   4.2.3. Direct and Indirect Local Benefits  Despite some promising pro-poor trends, timber is primarily the domain of the rich. Even when logging operations are carried out by larger companies, there are some ways in which the poor can still benefit.  The first form of gains for the poor are direct benefits. These benefits are directly related to the logging operations. The first of these is temporary employment for local unskilled workers who are often hired to work in logging camps (Oberndorf, 2006). The second direct benefit is compensation payments. Forestry companies will often pay small compensation payments to local communities living in the vicinity of new logging operations. Sometimes these payments are legally required, but often they are simply intended to build goodwill between the company and community. Compensation payments are however usually very small. Communities often have limited bargaining power, but if education about the value of the land and if communication between communities increases, this bargaining power could be increased. Compensation payments have a potential to become larger and give a more fair value back to poor communities.  The second form of gains from traditional logging operations are indirect benefits, not directly relating the the forest harvesting. The first of these is the building of roads. Logging companies often have to build new roads to access timber. Once harvesting is complete, the roads remain and can be very valuable to local communities for which their remote location is one of the many challenges keeping them in poverty. Roads can give access to health care, education, markets, and natural resources (Angelsen, 2003). These benefits persist long after logging has ended.  9 The second primary indirect benefit is a temporary increase of demand for local goods. Locally produced goods such as food, fuel, and lodging often experience a spike in demand while logging operations are in progress. This temporary cash flow can be a large injection of wealth into a community (Angelsen, 2003). The danger of this benefit is that the once logging concludes, this inflated demand will return to normal. If the gains have been saved and invested wisely, there is still potential for poverty reduction.   4.3. Environmental Services  Environmental services are essentially a trade between a service buyer and a service provider. Currently the main categories of services used in this way are: carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, hydrological services, and tourism. Service providers are generally small landowners, and service buyers are actors who benefit from the service downstream but don’t produce it themselves. Payments made to service providers are generally worth more than other uses for their land. These situations can be a win-win, benefiting both parties and reducing or preventing poverty.   There are some general challenges associated with these types of deals. Firstly, the service buyer must believe that the action they are paying for will actually cause the benefit they want (Angelsen, 2003). The services being bargained over are all products of complex environmental interactions. Causal effects are very difficult to prove, so the buyer must have some faith that the management action undertaken by the service provider will result in the desired result.   Next, once the deal is done and the payment has been made, it must be effective. The desired service must be successfully achieved. This means that monitoring and compliance may be important to ensure that the service provider is conducting the agreed upon management action. From the perspective of the service provider, there is also a challenge at this stage. As mentioned before, management plans and final outcomes are very difficult to link causally (Angelsen, 2003). Even if care and expertise has been involved with the development of the management plan, there is still a chance that the desired service will not be the result.   Lastly, for a buyer to be willing to pay for the conservation of forests, whether it be for water quality or carbon sequestration, there needs to be a realistic threat that this portion of forest was previously in danger. If the forest is already too remote to harvest, didn’t have enough timber value to harvest, or was already protected under law, the buyer would have no incentive to pay for the services this forest  is providing.    4.3.1. Carbon Sequestration  Carbon sequestration is one of the most common environmental services and the market for carbon storage is currently the largest compared to other environmental forest 10 services.  As trees grow, they take carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into biomass. Forests have the ability to pull a large amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in a solid form as wood (Victor, 2004). This is why the service is called carbon sequestration or carbon storage.   How payment for carbon sequestration generally works is that firstly many companies are emitting carbon into Earth's atmosphere primarily through the use of fossil fuel as energy. When companies are emitting too much carbon - often more than they are permitted to by law - they have the option to pay a service provider to store carbon for them, usually in the form of trees.  On the side of the service provider, there are two general strategies for storing carbon. The first is afforestation, or the planting of new trees. This strategy is fairly straightforward, as the additional carbon storage is fairly easy to see and quantify. The one disagreement with afforestation is whether natural regeneration is sufficient to be paid for carbon storage, or whether manual planting must be conducted. This is important because natural regeneration is a much easier process, especially for the rural poor (Angelsen, 2003).  The second strategy for storing carbon is the avoidance of deforestation in an area that otherwise would be cleared. This type of carbon storage is more complex, as it must be proven to the service buyer that the area actually was in threat of being cleared. A realistic baseline scenario needs to be established that models what would have been done with the land and how much carbon that scenario would have released. The conservation scenario can then be examined, and additionality can be determined. Additionality is a measure of how much more carbon than a realistic baseline is actually being stored (Victor, 2004). The amount that can be demonstrated as additionality is the amount of carbon that the service provider will pay for.  The carbon market is already large and well established. For the poor in remote areas with limited market access, there are some challenges. For a service buyer, it does not matter where the carbon is stored globally, so whichever service provider can provide the best price has an advantage. Large scale carbon storage projects in countries with more resources can drive the prices down, making them too low for carbon storage to be a feasible land use option for the poor. However, even if the poor only have access to a small market share of the carbon market, the entire market is so large that even this small share has the potential to reduce poverty (Angelsen, 2003). Lastly, conservation of forests for carbon is a challenging management option for the poor, because it can compete with other forest uses such as NTFPs, safety nets, agriculture, and subsistence.    4.3.2. Biodiversity Conservation  The conservation of forested land for the sake of protecting plant and animal species is another type of environmental service. To make the conservation of biodiversity a tradable environmental service, one option is direct monetary compensation similar to the system used 11 for carbon. Parties interested in conservation have two main options, to pay the government or to pay smallholders directly (Wunder, 2005).  In the first case, service buyers pay the government to conserve forests on crown land. If these lands would otherwise be logged, generally logging companies would pay the government a fee called logging concessions. This fee would give the logging company the right to harvest trees from that land. Buyers interested in conservation would be directly competing for land with these logging companies. Conservation concessions could be paid to the government in order to agree to preserve a given portion of land rather than allowing it to be harvested (Angelsen, 2003). The value of these conservation concessions would need to meet or exceed traditional logging concessions for this to be worthwhile to the government.  Payment can also be made from service buyers directly to small landowners. This scenario is more complex, but would have a greater direct contribution to poverty reduction. The complexity in this scenario comes from a large number of smallholders which would all need to be bargained with, and who tend to have weak claims on their land (Landell-Mills, 2002). Also, compared to the remote forests to be logged in the previous scenario, this land would likely be converted for agriculture if not conserved. The agricultural and subsistence importance to locals may make it more valuable and require greater compensation.  Another method of compensation, instead of direct compensation, is to incentivise biodiversity friendly agricultural methods for smallholders. In this case, small scale farmers would be encouraged to use environmentally friendly farming practises in return for a certification and access to markets where they would be paid a premium.   4.3.3. Hydrological Services  Hydrology, or the distribution and quality of water, is another environmental service that is carried out by forests. When compared to deforested land, forests are generally thought to increase water quality and decrease erosion. Other benefits such as increased runoff and regulated flow are also possible, but these can depend on site specific factors and also depend on the land use scenario that is being compared to the conservation scenario (Angelsen, 2003).  There are many possible service buyers of hydrological benefits. These are all downstream stakeholders who benefit from water which originates in forested watersheds. Potential service buyers include consumers of drinking water and irrigation water, hydroelectric power generators, and fisheries. As for payment, hydrological services are often grouped together with biodiversity services. This does make sense as the two services generally require the same forest management technique which is the conservation of existing forest. Dedicated hydrological payment is an area that has the potential to advance. One great benefit of hydrological services compared to carbon storage is that if a particular buyer in interested in the water quality of a watershed where the forests are owned by small landowners, the buyer must 12 pay these landowners for their services rather than paying to store carbon on the other side of the world (Angelsen, 2003).   4.4. Tourism  Tourism and ecotourism are fields which can provide a variety of direct benefits to the local poor (Ashley, 2000). These activities are becoming increasingly popular, and forested areas have a lot to offer in this regard. Fragmented sections of forest close to infrastructure and transportation are ideal for tourism due to their relatively easy access.   The local poor benefit from direct payments from tourism companies to communities in exchange for allowing access to local forests. In these cases, the community may have some weak land ownership. There is also a set of financial benefits directly brought to the community by the tourists. Goods and services like food, lodging, souvenirs, and local guides can bring a substantial amount of money directly into communities and have a positive impact on poverty reduction (Ashley, 2000).  There are still some challenges regarding the use of tourism for poverty reduction. First, in many of these remote areas there is also political instability. If political unrest causes an area to be perceived as dangerous for foreigners, tourism will sharply decline. If this occurs, there is little that local communities can do to fix the problem. Also, the majority of tourism money does tend to go to larger tourism companies, but even if only a small portion goes to the poor it can still have a large effect on poverty reduction (Angelsen, 2003).   5. Conclusion  Poverty is a global issue with over 1.3 billion people living on less than one dollar a day (Deaton, 2010). For many of the rural poor, forests represent their livelihoods. But forests have the potential to do even more: they have the potential to lift people out of poverty.   For each forest utilization option there are challenges and there are possibilities. Non-timber forest products have the real power to save lives and feed the poorest of the poor in times of need. Unfortunately, NTFPs have been unable to be used to substantially improve people’s wellbeing and pull people out of poverty.  Timber is the largest source of economic gain available and has traditionally been the domain of the rich. There are many factors that prevent the poor from participating in and profiting from timber harvesting. These include: lack of skills and capital, access to markets, and insecure land tenure. There are however some recent trends such as technological advancement, which may give the poor more economic gain from timber in the future and there are also a variety of indirect and trickle down benefits from timber harvesting.   13 Environmental services are a promising and relatively new way for small landowners to gain compensation for their forested land. These environmental benefits such as carbon storage and biodiversity conservation are also global benefits and a gain for everyone involved. Tourism, and the emerging market of eco-tourism is another promising utilization option for forests, with a whole set of direct monetary benefits going to local poor communities.  Overall, there are many ways in which forests have the potential to prevent and reduce poverty. Each method is complex and presents many challenges, but also has the potential to do a lot of good.                                    14 References   Angelsen, Arild, and Sven Wunder. "Exploring the forest—poverty link." CIFOR occasional paper 40 (2003): 1-20.  Ashley, Caroline, Charlotte Boyd, and Harold Goodwin. "Pro-poor tourism: Putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda." (2000).  Deaton, Angus. "Price indexes, inequality, and the measurement of world poverty." The American Economic Review 100.1 (2010): i-34.  Landell-Mills, Natasha, and Ina T. Porras. Silver bullet or fools' gold?: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2002.  Oberndorf, R., et al. "A Cut for the Poor." Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the Poor. Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. 2006.  Shackleton, Charlie, and Sheona Shackleton. "The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa." South African Journal of Science 100.11 & 12 (2004): p-658.  Victor, David F., and Joshua C. House. "A new currency: Climate change and carbon credits." Harvard International Review 26.2 (2004): 56.  Wunder, Sven. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Vol. 42. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR, 2005.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items