Robinson, E. J. Z.Lokina, Razack B.Albers, H. J.Ngeleza, N.2016-03-242016-03-242010http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1351During the last 30 years, the number of protected areas worldwide established to protect natural systems grew dramatically. Coinciding with that expansion, many government agencies and conservation NGOs advocate for combinations of development/livelihood policies and conservation policies attempt to address rural poverty while conserving forests (Naughton-Treves, et al., 2005). For example, WWF’s policy on forest and poverty states that “national and international forest policies and the conservation movement should address both the sustainable management of natural forests and rural poverty alleviation; one should never be addressed at the other’ s expense” (Gutman, 2001; p.9, para 1). The economics literature discussing policies aimed at conservation and poverty, such as Community-based Forest Management (CBFM), Joint Forest Management (JFM), and their predecessor Integrated ConservationDevelopment Projects (ICDPs), emphasizes their failure to create incentives for conservation by rural people (see Hughes and Flintan, 2001, for a literature review; Behera and Engel, 2006; Ghimire, 1994; Johannesen, and Skonhoft, 2005; Ligon and Narain, 1999; Muller and Albers, 2004; and Shyamsundar, 1996). Despite the lack of well-established mechanisms to induce conservation through poverty alleviation projects in and around parks, many parks have managers or NGOs implementing such projects,often with an emphasis on compensation for lost access to resources, poverty alleviation, and generating goodwill.enForest ProtectionPoverty Alleviation ProjectsNTFPscharcoal productionModelling Multiple ToolsgoalsactorsJournal Article