Forests across the world are known for accommodating communities in terms of securing their subsistent livelihoods thus addressing the issue of poverty to some extent; and hence generate a debate whether or not the dependence of these communities over forest resources cost heavily on the environment and conservation. Forests resources directly contribute to the livelihood of 90 percent of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty and indirectly support the natural environment that nourishes agriculture and the food supplies of nearly half the population of the developing world. In Pakistan, NWFP is the poorest province with a rural poverty estimate of 44.3 percent. Fortunately it contains 40 percent of the natural forests of Pakistan. Hence the forest policies of Pakistan and especially those of NWFP have a direct impact on local livelihoods. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. Understanding the interface between local livelihood and state policies is of vital importance for developing sustainable local natural resource management. State policies and regional and international institutions impact sustainable livelihood practices and strategies of local communities and institutions developed by them, though informally, due to national economic priorities, market forces and processes of globalisation/global changes. On the other hand, these institutionally shaped livelihood strategies have an impact on the sustainability of resource use. Taken together, policies and institutions form the context within which the individuals and households construct and adapt livelihood strategies. They determine the freedom with which the people have to transform their assets into livelihood outcomes.

In most of the developing countries including Pakistan, policies and institutions generally tend to discriminate against those who have few assets (social as well as economic) and are disadvantageously poor people. Forest policies and laws enacted from time to time to implement these policies are not an exception to this general rule. Such discriminatory policies and institutions not only exclude the marginalized groups such as women and children, but also lead to unsustainable natural resources management. Due to few choices available, the poor are forced to adopt short-term survival strategies and unsustainable natural resources management practices.

To utilize the potential of forests in poverty alleviation, forest policies of many countries as well as international lending institutes are being revised to be more of a "policy on forestry for rural development and poverty alleviation". In a way, forestry has become an instrument instead of an object of policy. This new trend in shaping forest policies has a potential to maintain a balance among four pillars of sustainable development and secure sustainable livelihood. Pakistan is also attempting to adopt this trend with the financial assistance of some international development agencies as well as with a loan from Asian Development Bank (ADB). The initial loan period was lapsed last year without any significant achievement and ADB had to extend the NWFP forest sector project by another year. Thus forestry sector in Pakistan makes an interesting case study to assess the role of environmental policies in fostering sustainable development and poverty alleviation.

The forests in Pakistan have four important functions: protection of natural environment, regulation of atmospheric conditions, production of goods and to ensure a sustainable livelihood of people who are directly or indirectly dependent on it through agriculture, animal husbandry, and logging etc. In this context, we have to maintain a balance between sustainable production and sustainable consumption of the forests. However we are unable to strike the right balance neither are able to conserve our forests, nor to secure the livelihood of forest dwellers.

Pakistan's forest policies are tied to its British colonial past. At the time of independence, the policies, procedures, and structures that administered the new nation's forests were largely left intact. The first forest policy of independent Pakistan was declared in 1955; it was revised and updated in 1962, 1975, 1980, and in 1988 as well as in 1991 as part of the National Agricultural Policy. Analysing the consequences of forest policies adopted till 1992, the Forestry Sector Master Plan (FSMP) 1993 found that while the policing powers of the Forest Departments, exercised through restrictions on the use of forests, helped to conserve them, public apathy towards forests also developed as a consequence. People's participation in plantation and management of forests was not given sufficient attention and social and cultural aspects of forest management were ignored. In fact it was indirectly admitted in this analysis that policy initiatives cannot achieve their objectives unless and until the sustainable livelihood of stakeholders is not taken care of.

Under NWFP forest sector project, the institutional reform process was initiated and a new forest policy was introduced in 1999, whereas at federal level a national forest policy is under preparation. However, It is widely believed that most forest policies, have viewed people as the prime threat to the forests, and have attempted to exclude groups other than government from decision-making. This approach does not only affect the sustainability of the livelihood strategies of the local people, but also increases the vulnerability of the marginalized sections of the communities. It ultimately leads to unsustainable management of natural resources and forest depletion. Thus in practice, forest resources were made inaccessible for the poor and marginalized sections of the communities, whereas the influential along with members of the timbre mafia consumed these resources at their own sweet will. This dichotomy created the feelings of lack of ownership among the marginalized sections not only adding to their miseries but also encouraged them to adapt unfair means to meet their fair requirements of forest resources.

It is a proven fact that none of the policy initiatives, or the policy itself can be successful and effective without a legal cover. For decades, the only reference point for dealing with new problems in the forestry sector had been the 1927 Forest Act. The Forests Act 1927, along with the NWFP Hazara Forest Act 1936 is punitive in nature and does not provide any incentives for compliance with its provisions. Moreover non-involvement of stakeholders in management has fostered apathy, even dissatisfaction. The things have not changed in the recently promulgated NWFP Forest Ordinance (2002), which is as punitive in nature as were the previous laws. For instance this ordinance designates forest department staff a uniform force bearing arms and also enhances their police powers, which go against the intent of the forest policy that enshrines the principles of participatory social forestry. Similarly the discretionary powers of forest officers to revoke a community-based organization (CBO)/Joint Forest Management Committee (JFMC) agreement as suggested in this ordinance would result in uncertainty and insecurity among different JFMCs/CBOs. Moreover, provision of existing laws relating to resource access and tenure, particularly the reserved/protected/guzara/ forest system and recognition and exercise of private rights in such forests, have been retained. This is against the recommendations of "National Conservation Strategy", "Forestry Sector Master Plan", and forest policies of the Punjab and NWFP.

One could conclude from the review of the forestry sector in Pakistan that for any development effort to be pro-poor, good governance is a must. Unfortunately, we (like other developing countries) lack good governance as well as the political will to change the status quo. Although during the formulation of new policies, the consultation with a group of experts has become a common practice during recent past, yet the consultation process (if any) remains confined to the folds of professional circles. Thus the policies become strong on technical consideration but lack the required flexibility to make them work in real life situation presenting multiple sets of actors and factors. Consequently, the stakeholders often find themselves in a situation where state policies either do not support or have harmful effects on their livelihood strategies. It is in this scenario that policies do not meet the expectations of the people who in turn are forced to utilise the natural resources unsustainably to secure their livelihoods. Consequently neither the developmental nor the conservational objectives are met with. Forestry Sector Project in NWFP is an example of one of these situations. The project completed its actual tenure of six years in 2002. However, despite its ambitious aims and radical goals there is no let up either in the miseries of the stakeholders, or in the depleting forest stocks.

There is a dire need of putting the people at the centre of development. The focus on the people is equally important at higher levels while considering the realisation of the objectives such as poverty reduction, economic reform and sustainable development. At a practical level, this means before formulating and implementing a policy the policy makers should:

· start with an analysis of the people's livelihood and how these have been changing over time.
· involve the people and respect their views.
· focus on impact of the proposed policy and institutional arrangements on the people/households and the dimensions of poverty they define.
· have enough flexibility in their proposed interventions to promote the agenda of the poor (a key step is political participation by poor people themselves).
· work to support the people to achieve their own livelihood goals, though taking into account considerations regarding sustainability.

Sustainable livelihood would be secured only if policies work with the people in a way that they congruent with their current livelihood strategies, social environment and ability to adapt. "People - rather than the resources they use or governments that serve them - are the priority concern". Adhering to this principle would not only ensure provision of sustainable livelihood but would also enhance involvement of all sections of society in sustainable natural resources management. In this context, it should be realized that generation of income and employment is as important as generating government revenue alone and forestry should be an instrument of sustainable forest management policy rather than its objectives, otherwise the poor would remain mired in poverty pushing us into a spiral of over exploitation in the wake of all forest policy failures.