There is clearly a relationship between rural poverty and loss of forest cover and biodiversity in developing countries, yet there is much we do not yet understand about the cause-effect links between them.

There are understandable reasons for assuming a lockstep linkage between high rates of poverty and rapid deforestation. After all, some of the worst pockets of rural poverty in developing countries are sometimes found in areas of rapid deforestation. Poverty is one important contributor to deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Conversely, losing forest cover can endanger the livelihoods of people who depend on forest resources.

But the real world is far more complex. "We do not yet know in what ways and to what extent poverty alleviation and forest conservation are converging or diverging policy goals," CIFOR scientist William D. Sunderlin said. "I am proposing a simple model that analyzes success and failure in achieving poverty alleviation and forest conservation."

Sunderlin has used a four-way classification table to help better understand how human welfare improvement and natural forest protection are either consistent or inconsistent with each other. This conceptual device examines the conditions under which poverty alleviation and forest cover protection either succeed or fail in a given location by helping to identify the underlying conditions and policies that produce good outcomes. "It will also help us to make educated choices under sub-optimal conditions," Sunderlin said. "Common sense suggests we can't always assume there's a direct link between increased poverty and increased loss of forest cover, or between livelihood improvement and increased quality of forests." Often forests disappear not because people are poor or getting poorer, but rather because they are lifting themselves out of poverty and have greater means at their disposal and a stronger incentive to modify the landscape. In some cases, it is not increased poverty at the level of the household, but rather increased numbers of poor households that increase pressure on forests."

In Sunderlin's model, increased or reduced human well being is charted against increased or reduced forest cover quality, giving four outcomes: win-win; win-lose; lose-win; or lose-lose. New users can quickly understand this model, but real life conditions are never as simple as the model implies. Nevertheless, the model is useful. In developing countries there are clear examples of all four tendencies. "Broadly applied, we can use the model we can use the information to design better policies," Sunderlin said.

The win-win scenario is an often unrealized goal in developing countries. But there are important exceptions, such as the development of agroforestry systems in Peru and the successful regrowth of trees in pastoral systems in Tanzania and Kenya.

The win-lose result roughly represents the history of agricultural and rural development. Agricultural lands have expanded over time but often at the expense of natural forest cover and biodiversity. The transition from hunting and gathering to swidden agriculture and then to sedentary agriculture and pastoralism has often meant an increased consumption of natural resources - including forests - and increased level of income over time.

An example of a lose-win outcome is when war and conflict harms the farmer's well-being but helps to restore the forest.

The lose-lose situation - already well covered in the environmental literature - describes how poverty causes environmental degradation, and as the environment declines it can support fewer and fewer people.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency in research and policy development to focus on win-win and lose-lose outcomes, almost as if these are the only possible outcomes. Certainly, using knowledge about win-lose and lose-win outcomes is complex, but it can be extremely rewarding. Depending on the underlying circumstances, such outcomes are either unavoidable or remediable. But, according to Sunderlin, "Where some of these outcomes are unavoidable but changeable, improving the situation might require an approach of 'winning more and losing less'."

Further information: William Sunderlin at w.sunderlin@cgiar.org