Découvrez les évènements passés et à venir dans le monde entier et en ligne, qu’ils soient organisés par le CIFOR-ICRAF ou auxquels participent nos chercheurs.

Jelajahi acara-acara mendatang dan yang telah lalu di lintas global dan daring, baik itu diselenggarakan oleh CIFOR-ICRAF atau dihadiri para peneliti kami.


CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

Levers for Alleviating Poverty in Forests and Tree-Based Systems

Export citation

An extensive set of policies, programmes, technologies and strategies have been implemented in the forest sector. Collectively, these ‘levers’ cover a diverse range of approaches, at a variety of scales and are governed by many different stakeholders. It is important for decision-makers to understand which levers might be most useful in achieving poverty alleviation. This chapter seeks to answer the question: which forest management policies, programmes, technologies and strategies have been effective at alleviating poverty? We studied 21 different rights-based, regulatory, market and supply chain, and forest and tree management levers for which we could identify a plausible theory of change of how implementation of that lever might alleviate poverty. For every lever we: define and describe the lever; describe the logic or theory of change by which the lever might plausibly be expected to alleviate poverty; summarise the available evidence showing how the lever has alleviated poverty; and discuss the variables that explain heterogeneity in outcomes. Overall, we found substantial, varied and context-dependent evidence of these levers being associated with mitigating poverty (i.e., by improving well-being). We found limited evidence of these levers being associated with reducing poverty (i.e., moving people out of poverty). Some of the strongest evidence for poverty reduction came from ecotourism, community forest management, agroforestry and, to a lesser extent, payments for ecosystem services (PES). A multitude of cases showing positive outcomes for poverty mitigation came from community forest management, forest producer organisations, small and medium forest enterprises, PES, and tree crop contract production. A combination of more rigorous and long-term research designs, along with examinations of the cost-effectiveness of different levers, would go a long way to contributing to the design of effective interventions for poverty alleviation.

Related publications