1. Poverty and VPAs Mary Hobley and Marlene Buchy 25 th April FLEGT week

2. UNDERSTANDING POVERTY AND FORESTS

3. 1.3 billion of the world’s poor dependent on forests for part or all of their livelihoods - 630 million agriculture-forest farmers, 430 million in forest communities, and 200 million indigenous forest dwellers High poverty concentrations overlap with forest areas Forests play three roles in poverty reduction: 1.Mitigate or avoid poverty (safety nets) 2.Low income gap fillers (limited other employment opportunities); and 3.Occasionally a pathway out of poverty Poverty reduction through forests - complicated, indirect, and socially and geographically different VPA effects also complicated Forests and the poor

4. Dimensions of povertyBuilding secure livelihoods Dimension 1 Human health, education, status, dignity Dimension 2 Economic income, decent work Dimension 3 Political empowerment, rights, voice Dimension 4 Protective insecurity, risk and vulnerability Source: OECD/DAC (2001:18) Poverty is multi-dimensional (not just income)

5. Secure local property rights & ability to use rights as collateral Local decision-making power over use of forests (respects different social/economic needs for forests) Capable civil society – engage, influence, check and hold to account policy-makers and decision-takers at all levels Access and control over benefits and decision-making authority over allocation of benefits (financial and products) Accountability of those who make decisions to those who are affected What are the conditions for poverty- reduction in forests?

6. Transparency in access to information and understanding of systems and rules – ensure fair and informed engagement Strong systems of monitoring and enforcement based on good initial poverty understanding to set frame for monitoring Financial, legal and policy support from state (including across land-uses – agriculture and other natural resource extractive industries) Fair access to justice and grievance mechanisms What are the conditions for poverty-reduction in forests?

7. HOW IS POVERTY BOUND INTO A VPA?

8. 1) Space for deliberation providing context for meaningful negotiation, representation and accountability 2) Building capacity for effective voice of poor and civil society to engage, influence and hold to account decision makers 3) Reassessing the ‘rules of the game’ policies, regulations and legislation 4) Access to livelihood assets and services building livelihood security for forest communities and Indigenous Peoples through improving rights, flows of timber revenues The four key ingredients in VPAs for poverty reduction

9. Building poverty into the VPA process and content Need for systematic attention to poverty effects from preparation to negotiation to implementation Monitoring systems based on ex-ante Poverty Impact Assessment (understanding from the beginning potential poverty effects) and Tracking change in four elements – changes in livelihood assets, voice, rules of game, and provision of representative and effective fora for negotiation and accountability

10. Ex-ante poverty impact assessment (PIA) to identify preventative measures Establish different stakeholder interests Deepen & broaden civil society representation Regulatory impact assessment – to identify areas affecting poor people’s livelihoods Strengthen stakeholder representation & capability (multi-level feedback mechanisms) Systematically review legislation (using ex- ante PIA) Identify alternative livelihoods where available – remove barriers to artisanal operations/market barriers Improve legal framework for revenue/tax regimes Build monitoring systems to track poverty effects Ensure civil society representation in legal reform discussions (particularly representation of poor people’s interests) Clarify forest/land tenure allocation processes Grievance mechanisms for forest dependent people Develop parallel programmes for : civil society capacity development at multiple levels Improve revenue tracking and local decision-making for resource allocation, including accountability mechanisms Support small-scale business development Alternative livelihood programme where major domestic restructuring PreparationNegotiation Full Implementation Systems development Ideas for building poverty understanding & action

11. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED SO FAR?

12. The process is political and framed by political stakes (not a project) Rebalances power between stakeholder groups Opens up & legitimates new political space for voices with no influence before The result requires negotiated stakeholder consensus (every voice is important) VPA process & content includes four elements for poverty reduction: political space, changing rules of the game, capable civil society (effective voice), securing livelihood assets and rights BUT Limits to what VPA can achieve on poverty outcomes – can prevent and mitigate based on good use of knowledge - essential to build baseline understanding of poverty context and effects What have we learned so far?

13. FLEGT VPA is also about poverty – not just about illegal logging or carbon benefits Poverty is more than income -VPAs can support all aspects of poverty reduction The VPA process offers opportunities to address poverty Poverty outcomes depend on quality of process and understanding  Who is involved around the table (what issues are presented, what analysis is available, whose voice is listened to)  The content of the VPA  Implementation and importance attached to poverty outcomes What more can FLEGT projects do to support the quality of the process and thus the quality of the outcome? Key conclusions

14. Why are VPAs exciting? Brings together the right ingredients for making a difference to poverty & security of forest people’s livelihoods First time in 25 years we have the right processes for change in forestry, a notoriously intransigent sector

15. THANK YOU For more information contact: mary@maryhobley.co.uk Buchy.marlene@googlemail.com Based on a study by Mary Hobley and Marlene Buchy (2011) “FLEGT and Poverty Alleviation: the role of VPAs” - commissioned by the European Forest Institute’s EU FLEGT Facility - funded by the European Union, the Governments of Finland, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and EFI. This presentation has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.