Poverty reduction from forestry in Nepal A shift from community to household approach

1
Poverty reduction from forestry in NepalA shift
from community to household approach?

• Sindhu P. Dhungana
• Bharat K. Pokharel
• Basundhar Bhatarai
• Hemant Ojha

2
Background

• 'State to community' approach a pancea for
  poverty reduction?
• CBFM's Contribution to GDP/MGDs glorified
• But
• Focus on average impacts on community at large
• Have ignored livelihood justice/equity at
  household level

3
Poverty in Nepal

• Average poverty () Gap Ratio (RichPoorest)
• 1996 42 0.34
• 2004 31 0.41

4
Forestry's Contribution to GDP and MDGs is it
Substantial?

• Contribution to GDP
• Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988) 15
• Targets significant incrase by 2011
• But
• Forestry's share in GDP calculated in 2006 lt3
• Could be (?) three reasons
• Non-agriculture sector grown
• Active forest management lacking
• Inaccurate accounting of GDP
• GDP approach insufficient for the ultra-poor

5
Direct Contribution to MDGs

• Goal 1(eradicate poverty)
• Goal 2 (achieve universal primary education)
• Goal 3 (promotes gender equality and empower
  women)
• Goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability)
• CF regarded a major contributor but no
  significant outcomes so far

6
Nepal's CBFMs with pro-poor elements
7
Two modalities adopting HH Approach
8
Household approach

• Applies to forests handed over to community
• common property regime as opposed to private,
  state or open access property
• Overall property rights lie in community
• Pays special attention to livelihood needs of
  individual households
• Poorest of the poor get highest priority
• Hypothesizes equal treatment in unequal
  well-being society exacerbates poverty
• Household need fulfilled by group decisions

9
Pro-poor Leasehold forestry

• Identification of the poor
• HH with lt 0.5 ha of landholding or income
  ltUS100/year
• Identificaion of degraded forests
• forest land with lt20 crown cover
• Hand-over to a group, approx. 10 households and
  approx. 10 ha
• Post-formation project supports

10
Limitation of pro-poor leasehold forestry (LHF)

• Degraded forests approx. 10
• People below poverty line 31 mostly forest
  dependent
• Legal priority of CF over LHF
• Some of the 10 already handed over as CF
• Productivity of 'degraded' forests
• Pro-poor activities in other modalities necessary

11
Why CF is appropriate for poverty reduction?

• Livelihood improvement a 'well-acknowledged'
  second generation issue
• Easier access of users to rights and resources Vs
  other modalities
• Wide coverage
• Progress CF 1.2 M ha 1.6 M HH
• approx. LHF 15,000 ha, approx. 17,000HH
• Dense and resourceful forests
• still underutilized
• Deliberative discourses, negotiation practical
• general assemblies, meetings, informal
  discussions, monitorings, civil society
  engagement 'right-based voices'

12
Pro-poor initiatives in CF

• CF Land allocation
• handing over a patch of forest to the poorest
  households for exclusive use rights
• 'leasehold within community forests' concept
• Pro-poor enterprises and micro-finance
• Priority to the poorest for employment,interest
  free credits
• Household-community partnership
• Group and household level plans
• Contractual agreement between 'group' and
  'ultra-poor households' for representation in
  executive committee, land allocation etc

13
Enabling factors for household approach

• Role of critical civil societies
• e.g. FECOFUN, HIMAWANTI Nepal, NEFUG,
  ForestAction
• Learning-oriented forestry projects
• e.g.DFID's Livelihood and Forestry Project, Nepal
  Swiss Community Forestry Project, SNV
• On-going social inclusion movements
• Dwindling feudal production relations

14
Challenges to Household Approach

• High transaction costs
• Recentralizing tendency of the govmt.
• Inadequate policy/legal frameworks
• Conceptual issues
• CF not originally meant for poverty reduction
• Multi-faceted nature of poverty trap
• Methodological issues
• Communication with poor households
• Elite capture

15
Conclusions/Learnings

• Three scenarios
• Positive impact noticed only at landscape level,
  groups as 'protectionist' of the forests (both
  groups and households are insensitive and passive
  for poverty reduction through forestry)
• Impacts on poverty at household level seen but
  sustainability questionable (due to less
  empowered poor, irresponsive leadership and
  service providers)
• Positive impacts on poverty reduction, appeared
  to be sustainable. Responsive leadership, poor
  sensitive enough to know their 'right not to be
  poor' and empowered

16

• Thank You

17
Acknowledgement

• The paper is mostly based on CIFOR-IFAD funded
  study entitled " How can Forests Better Serve the
  Poor Review of Documented Knowledge on Leasehold
  and Community Forestry in Nepal".