Articles protection, and the power to organize, these workers are generally condemned to poverty level incomes (according to a survey by Builders and Woodworkers International).
forest certification) or enforceable public policy, wealth will remain in the hands of a small minority and conflict over the remaining spoils will continue.
Yet, donor strategies to meet the MDGs generally seek to avoid conflict and in doing so fail to address the root causes of poverty. In their efforts to avoid the inevitable tensions of funding large-scale forestry projects, many donors instead support initiatives around small and medium sized forest based enterprises (SMFEs). Unfortunately, promoting informal work through these SMFE initiatives frequently compounds the risk and reality of poverty. Without the necessary support to engage with and participate in large-scale forestry activities, few poor communities have been able to withstand the devastating effects of a forced economic restructure or the arrival of a multinational corporation.
SFM has an important role to play in the sharing of power and wealth but the social criteria must be addressed head on to insure success. Unlike environmental criteria which many capitalists seek to monetize, market, and profit from, the focus of social criteria tends to be the redistribution of wealth and income – running counter to the core principles of most market based systems. Similarly, efforts to re-distribute power will run counter to most political systems. The challenge presented by these dominant principles is not unique to forestry, what is unique is that SFM has been able to take up this challenge in some key locations.
The avoidance of large-scale forest projects, because of the fear of bad press and the difficulties of enforcing social standards on privately funded projects, serves to reinforce the conventional perception of forestry as a poverty trap and a source of conflict. It is ironic that the inappropriate funding of other non-forest areas to avoid political fallout may be contributing to deforestation. The way forward involves sharing power and sharing wealth. For non-market based communities, this requires a culturally sensitive approach and acknowledging the possibility that a market economy may never be appropriate. For communities that are already in a market economy the focus should be on empowerment with ongoing regulation and monitoring of the market. Without controls, through either soft law (e.g. 32
ETFRN News 47 - 48/07
The MDGs offer the forestry sector an opportunity to address social issues through the evolving SFM framework. The forestry sector should seek to integrate the MDGs, and especially poverty reduction, into SFM in a way that empowers workers and communities. The fact that most major forest certification schemes have already codified the International Labor OrganizationÂ’s (ILO) core labor standards is a positive sign that empowerment can occur within SFM systems. The fear of being denied market access has even led some large scale forest enterprises to voluntarily adopt ILO conventions that are not yet codified in national legislation. In many places, SFM is still far from a reality. But the growing consensus marks the beginning of some hopeful signs of change, especially in terms of poverty reduction. This will be measured against what happens when value-added forestry production