Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Increasing the Benefits from Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Forestry
and Ensuring their Operations do not Exacerbate Poverty
In view of the negative impacts of timber concessions and industrial plantations to local communities’
livelihoods and, at best, their minimal contribution to rural poverty alleviation in terms of local
employment creation and social services, there is a need to increase the benefits that local communities
can derive from large-scale corporate operations and ensure that their operations do not worsen poverty
of the affected communities.
There is a need to develop incentives to encourage state-owned and private companies to adopt voluntary
commitments to undertake activities that are socially responsible and environmentally sound, including
fair terms of employment, fair wages and benefits for the workers. Strategies that incorporate poverty
alleviation include making more lands available for community-company partnerships for outgrower
schemes and ensuring fair benefit-sharing, as well as planning community development programs with
local communities that are economically profitable and are addressing social development needs so
as to re-invest forestry revenue in long-term social and economic development in the affected areas.
Establishing grievance and monitoring mechanisms involving local governments, local communities
and civil society organizations with channels of communication with national government will help
address local conflicts for the mutual benefit of both companies and local communities.
Making Payments for Environmental Services and Carbon Payments Accrue
to the Local Communities
For PES and carbon payments to contribute to the welfare of the poor living in and near the forests,
related initiatives and activities must start from a recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to FPIC
as well as the rights of local communities to the forests, and allow greater community participation in
the planning, implementation and monitoring of the projects, including fund management. Strategies for
the protection of environmental services must not displace economic activities of local communities, but
provide support for the rebuilding of the resource base for local livelihood and environmental services
values, as well as provide viable alternative livelihood activities. There is a need for transparency and
greater accountability in the management of the funds from the PES or carbon payments with clear
agreements to ensure that more benefits will accrue to local communities and not to mediating parties.
Participation must look into better targeting of the participants to involve the community members who
are most in need and to ensure equity in benefit-sharing.
References
Adi, J. et. al. (2004). Communities transforming forestlands: Java, Indonesia. Asia Forest Network.
Adrianto, A. et. al. (2006). District governments and poverty alleviation in forest areas in Indonesia.
Governance Brief Number 2006. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago – AMAN). (2010).
Country technical notes on indigenous peoples’ issues – Indonesia. IFAD and AIPP (Draft).
Asia Forest Network. (2006). Small scale tree farming: Philippines learning visit to Indonesia. AFN.
Asian Development Bank. (2009). Asian development outlook 2009. Manila, Philippines: ADB.
Basnyat, B. (2008). Impact of predicted demographic changes on forests and forestry in the Asia and
Pacific to 2020. Rome, Italy: FAO Forest Economics and Policy Division.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). (2010a). Regulation of the president of the
republic of Indonesia number 5 of 2010 regarding the national medium-term development plan
(RPJMN) 2010-2014: Book 1- national priorities. BAPPENAS.
170