Potential Of Forest Resources To Alleviate Poverty And Unemployment In Rural Nepal Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, Ross Cullen Commerce Division, Lincoln University The Structure of this Presentation • Introduction of community forestry policy • Emerging social problems and Research objectives • Theoretical model, data and analytical methods • Evaluated policy scenarios • Results and conclusions Community Forestry (CF) Policy in Nepal Traditionally public forests were used for multipurpose: Firewood & charcoal fodder/pasture timber and other non-wood products Households with marginal landholdings had easy access to community resources to complement their private resources and to sustain their livelihoods. CF Policy in Nepal Cont’d….. Tree stocks decreased after private forests nationalization and Timber uses increased in public construction work Firewood use and livestock were blamed for deforestation. CF policy was introduced in mid 1970s to: halt deforestation, enrich forests, conserve environment and provide basic forest goods and services meet international interests “User Group” institutions introduced to involve local people Emerging Problems After the programme implementation: – Poor households and women disadvantaged – Decrease in people’s livelihoods in remote communities – Decrease in livestock numbers, food, and manure supplies – Increased food deficits and imports Parallel increases in: – Rural unemployment – Social unrest and armed conflict The purpose of this study • To examine potential of community forests to reduce rural unemployment and increase household income under alternative land use policies. Community Welfare Maximization Model r n m t MaxY CikXikxz i 1 k 1 x 1 z 1 Subjectto AsikxzXikxz bs, Yxz Y 0 xz forall xz r n Y xz i 1 k 1 Xikxz 0 dxzand Data Sources • Surveys: 259 households in 3 hilly districts of Nepal • Local markets survey • Key informant interviews in communities • Secondary data from FAO database, internet, and other literature Analytical Tool • Standard linear programming model • Mixed integer components • Simultaneous solving of group/community decision problem • Developed in Premium Solver Version 6 built into the MS Excel program • Validated model and found small errors Policy Options Evaluated • Current Policy: Only timber production, harvesting partial MAI (~>50%) & firewood and fodder from residuals • Unconstrained Community Management: Common management according to HH needs • Leasing: Leasing C.F. land according to HH needs Characteristics of Case Studies Forest User Groups Forest User Private Landholding Average Labour Area (Ha/HH) Community Force Consumers (unit/HH) Groups Poor Medium Rich Forest Area (Person HH HH HH (Ha /HH) /HH) Khorthali 0.40 1.06 2.03 0.35 3.4 4.6 Siddeswori 0.24 0.78 2.06 0.42 3.0 6.0 Chapanigadi 0.67 1.03 2.75 0.90 3.6 6.2 Banshkharka 0.46 0.76 1.08 0.83 3.1 4.9 Bidur 0.29 0.88 1.18 0.62 3.3 8.6 Surayamati 0.42 0.73 0.93 0.62 2.8 5.9 Current CF policy: Incomes of poor households are below survival needs Income/expences (NRs) 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Khorthali Poor HH Siddeswori Chapanigadi Banshkharka Medium HH Rich HH Bidur Basic Need Suryamati Unconstrained Community Managed CF: 1. Incomes increase for all HHs. 2. For poor HHs the incomes increase above survival needs Income/expences (NRs) 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Khorthali Poor HH Siddeswori Chapanigadi Banshkharka Medium HH Rich HH Bidur Basic Need Suryamati Lease CF policy: Incomes increase further for all HHs. Income/expences (NRs) 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Khorthali Poor HH Siddeswori Chapanigadi Banshkharka Medium HH Rich HH Bidur Basic Need Suryamati Unemployment Person Days Unemployment in the Current CF policy: 1. Common in all groups 2. Poor HHs, highest unemployment 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Khorthali Siddeswori Poor Chapanigadi Banshkharka M edium Rich Common Bidur Suryamati Community net Note: Negative signs means labour is hired (need more than household labour supply) Unconstrained Community Managed CF: 1. Unemployment cleared in most of the groups 2. Created employment for other communities Unemployment Person Days 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 Khorthali Siddeswori Poor Chapanigadi Medium Rich Banshkharka Common Bidur Suryamati Community net Note: Negative signs means labour is hired (need more than household labour supply) Unemployment Person Days Lease CF: 1. Unemployment cleared in most of the groups 2. Created employment for other communities 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 Khorthali Siddeswori Poor Chapanigadi Banshkharka M edium Rich Common Bidur Community net Suryamati Total Land Use Differences in the Policy Scenarios (%) Uses Current Food 50 Fodder 3 Firewood 2.5 Timber 43 98 Total Policy Unconstrained Community MGNT Lease 50 50 40 32 2 5 8 12 98 98 Conclusions • Resource supplies from farming land and community forestlands under current policies are insufficient to: - allow employment of many individuals in HHs, - meet the survival needs of poor households • Unconstrained use of community forests reduces rural unemployment and allows many more poor households to meet their basic needs. • Agroforestry model of land use is appropriate approach to poverty alleviation in rural Nepal. Thank You for your Attention Clarification, and Questions?