Forests and woodland still cover 35 percent of the world’s land area despite centuries of cutting trees. Forests contribute to biodiversity and are the ‘lungs of the earth’, natural capital sustaining the livelihoods of many. How does ethical trade and sustainable forestry affect forest livelihoods?

A paper by the Natural Resources Institute discusses some of the schemes that promote environmentally sustainable trade in forest products, focusing on concerns about their impact on forest dependent people including: hunters and gatherers, shifting cultivators, farming communities, and people whose livelihoods are based on commercial forest products.

Two types of ethical trade have been initiated in forest areas:

• forest certification that emphasises forest management and environmental issues
• fair trade in non-timber forest products (NTFPs), primarily concerned with human well-being, focusing on the organisation of producer groups and prices and trade structure - environmental criteria are not a priority for fair trade.

The viability of current schemes remains in question as does the external trade and policy environment. Findings suggests that schemes fail to understand the potential that ethical trade offers for improving livelihoods and prevent forest-dependent people from taking advantage of ethical trade opportunities. Consequently initiatives are likely to arbitrarily favour one group over another and exclude or negatively affect forest-dependent people in general. Furthermore, assessment criteria:

• focus on mechanisms required for high quality forest management rather than on the social or environmental impact on a particular forest area
• do not use participatory research techniques
• are based on international conventions and national laws rather than the specific livelihood systems of forest-dependent people.

Many local people are excluded from discussions on ethical criteria with the result that the initiatives may neither benefit nor reflect the ethical values and priorities of the people they are designed to benefit. Hurdles need to be overcome if ethical trading initiatives in the forest sector are to be of lasting value. The paper includes the following recommendations:

• Ethical initiatives must offer improved benefits to forest-dependent people compared to other forms of trade.
• NTFPs should be recognised as particularly important to the livelihoods of forest-dependent people as staple food, supplementary foodstuffs, occasional products traded by marginalised people as an activity of last resort.
• This diversity should be taken into account when developing ethical trade initiatives and assessing the impact of such initiatives on the poor.

Source(s):
‘Ethical trading initiatives and forest dependent people’ NRET Working Paper #2 by Anne Tallontire Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 22 May 2001

Further Information:
Anne Tallontire
Social and Economic Development Department
Natural Resources Institute
Chatham Maritime
Kent ME4 4TB
UK

Fax: +44 (0)1634 883865
Contact the contributor: A.M.Tallontire@greenwich.ac.uk

Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK

Other related links:
See Insights #36 'Richer or poorer? Achievements and challenges of ethical trade'

'WTO vs ethical trade: mutually inclusive or miles apart?'

'Good for the forest, good for business' from the WWF

FSC provides an incentive in the market place for responsible forestry and has several National Initiatives worldwide

CIFOR focuses on international forestry research

FAO addresses how to use trees, forests and related resources to improve people's conditions whilst ensuring that the resource is conserved

The Forest Conservation Programme promotes sustainable management of forests