| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
POVERTY,
EQUITY AND RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: INSIGHTS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT
IN THE MID HILLS OF NEPAL
By Bhim Adhikari
Introduction
Community forestry (CF) is one of the major policy initiatives for the forestry
sector in the middle hills of Nepal built upon the principle of devolution of
power and authority to local communities. CF in Nepal can be justified on the
basis of immediate energy supply, fodder and litter benefits to local communities,
enhanced control over localised environmental degradation, important spin-off
effects in forestry-based farming system (Byron, 1991) and supporting livelihoods
of the poor. Devolution of forests has been underway in Nepal since 1990 under
which national forests are handed over to the local communities under community-based
property rights regime. For the last two decades, forest user groups (FUGs)
have proliferated throughout the country and concept of Nepal's CF program itself
has even been exported to different parts of the world (Nightingale, 2002).
However, despite this success, sustainable management of, and equitable access
to, CF have not been a universal result (Malla, 2000). Some recent studies indicated
that CF in the mid hills is not able to contribute significantly to the livelihoods
of very poor and marginalized sections of the community due to its failure to
take into account equity and distributional issues (Adhikari, 2002). This study,
therefore, intended to explore whether and how the CF program is actually helping
the rural poor households and environmental conservation and highlight additional
institutional measures that ensure equitable and sustainable forest management
in the mid hills of Nepal.
Research sites, method
and survey design
This study was undertaken
in two selected districts of the mid-hills where CF intervention has been implemented
for the last two decades. The middle hill region occupies the great central
belt of the Himalayan mountain system in Nepal where the country's origins and
character are mostly rooted and comprises about 30 percent of the whole area
of the country. In order to address the research questions posed in this study
a total of eight FUGs were selected in Kavre Palanchok and Sindhu Palanchowk
districts where the CF program has been implemented for the last two decades.
All user households were divided into three different income groups i.e. poor,
middle wealth and richer households. Primary data on household level variables
and use and management of CF was collected through a household survey of 309
households for a period of 4 months from September-December 2000. Economic analyses
were performed in terms of use of different forest products such as firewood,
tree fodder, cut grass, leaf litter, medicinal herbs and plants, timber and
some other direct and tangible benefits to estimate household level income from
CF.
Results
Analysis of household
level benefits from CF quantified the income from CF for three different income
groups. The analysis revealed that both annual gross and net income from CF
are higher for richer households than that for poorer ones. It reveals that
better off households are actually benefiting more from CF than poorer households,
contracticting what is usually claimed in common property literature. Poorer
farmers traditionally depended on local forests for firewood and other non-timber
forest products (NTFPs). However, with the formalization of property rights
access of poorer households to forests was reduced due to a restricted management
regime. Moreover, CF management plan are more oriented towards production of
timber and other intermediate forest products (tree fodder, cut grass, leaf
litter etc.) that serve the interests of wealthier households. While the subsistence
value of NTFPs has long been recognized, these resources did not feature in
forest management planning, and there has always been competition between national
needs and the local use of forest resources in Nepal and elsewhere (Falconer,
1990; Gautum and Devoe, 2002). Evidence has shown that in many cases the level
of extraction of forest products, particularly fuel wood, small wood and NTFPs
has been reduced following the establishment of CF. Changing the institutional
arrangements on common pool resources, therefore, may alter the direction of
incentives, which might decrease the access of poorer and marginalized households
to the local commons.
Equity aspects of community-based resource management are largely ignored since there is no compensation mechanism to the losers despite their cooperation and contribution to the improvement of resource base. I reconsider the issue of persistent socio-economic inequality in communities and argue that restricting the access of poor people through changes in property rights structure in common pool resources is likely to increase the level of poverty unless specific measures of compensatory transfer schemes are in place to safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable section of the community.
Conclusion and policy
implications
The results clearly
show differences in both gross and net income derived by households. FUG members
with big land holdings and ownership of livestock, benefit more from intermediate
forest products such as leaf litter for composting, fodder and grass products.
Compared to larger land and livestock holders, extraction of various intermediate
products by poorer households is little and restricted to certain products with
generally lower, and probably no benefits for landless households (see also
Richards et al., 1999 for similar sort of findings). There is a risk that CF
focuses on the long-term accumulation of timber and ecological services values
in order to meet the need of rural elites, whereas this might reduce opportunities
available for the poor. A highly protective silvicultural regime, of the sort
that is practiced in most CFs, is more likely to lead to early closure of forest,
which might reduce the harvest of NTFPs by the poorer households. While there
are many positive changes to protect the forest and local watersheds through
CF, an assessment of the benefits and costs faced by different income groups
provides an indication whether the existing benefits and costs sharing arrangement
is equitable. Though poor people would be more disadvantaged without common
property access to forests than the less poor, conservation measure that promotes
regulated or formal systems of forest management pose a dilemma.
One of the important implications of this study is that interventions seeking to reduce poverty in a forest dependent rural economy need to improve both productivity of forests and distribution systems. Since poor people do not get substantial benefits from agriculture related forest products, forest management policy needs to be directed at increasing alternative forest products, mainly NTFPs that play a significant role in supplying livelihood needs. Equally important is supporting and empowering FUGs in various aspects of CF management that especially focus on poorer forest-dependent communities in the mid hills so that their interests are adequately represented in forest planning and management decisions. Since this study could not compare pre and post impact of CF on household income, a further comparative study on this issue may help to understand complexity involved in poverty, inequality, forest dependency and sustainability of regulated forms of forest management.
References
Contact:
Bhim Adhikari
Environment Department
University of York
Heslington, York, YO10 5DD
United Kingdom
E-mail: bpa100@york.ac.uk