The paper presents a framework to analyse and consider the nature and functions of different agencies in the forest environment and examines the relationship between these agencies and development of livelihood assets. A clear public dimension exists, justifying collective action and forestry investment. Benefits from forestry are diverse and varied and often highly site-specific. Standard blanket solutions are rarely applicable. The variety in products and services has distributional effects.
Trees are a slow growing investment, often owned by wealthier groups who can defer returns.
Yet this disregards regular incomes generated by the poorest groups from fuelwood and non-timber forest products. The following policy implications emerged concerning the effectiveness of the external change process. Support from the enabling framework is needed for process change at the frontline of the delivery agency and institutional change at the civil society level to be fully effective. There is need for wider involvement in the construction of, and better communication of the vision for change as it evolves. Conflict over objectives is inherent and should be tackled head on.