Potential Of Forest Resources To Alleviate Poverty And Unemployment In

advertisement
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
MaxY   CikXikxz
i 1 k 1 x 1 z 1
Subjectto
AsikxzXikxz  bs,
Yxz  Y 0 xz forall xz
r
n
 Y
xz
i 1 k 1
Xikxz  0
 dxzand
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?
Download