A Review of the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A Review of the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Poverty Kate Schreckenberg, Cecila Luttrell, Catherine Moss, Liz Thassim Overseas Development Institute, London Prepared for the inception workshop of the project: Action Research
Overseas Development Institute, London Prepared for the inception workshop of the project: Action Research on Assessing and Enhancing the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on the livelihoods of the Rural Poor 2-6 May, 2005, Kentmere Club, Nairobi
– Review of researchable constraints in PFM
people’s livelihoods
– Tanzania proposal on role of forestry in rural livelihoods – led to interest to do similar work in other countries, incl. with CARE Nepal (2nd generation issues such as elite capture) – Kenya work as part of a new EC-funded project supporting PFM networking in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda
with a sustainable stream of net benefits greater than those obtained under a non-PFM situation?
generating activities)? If no, what are the key negative impacts of PFM and are there ways of minimising or reversing these?
frameworks have the potential to enhance the contributions of PFM to poverty alleviation?
manner both between communities and between households within communities? If not, are there means of ensuring a more equitable
– Websites – Journals – Personal contacts
– Discourse: general discussion of PFM – Meta studies: reviews of several cases of PFM – Methodological studies (both within forestry and other sectors) – 16 Case studies: reports of one or more specific cases of PFM (as defined by authors)
– The type of PFM they represented – Costs and benefits of the PFM to different stakeholders
– Poverty reduction, poverty alleviation – ‘The poor’ – Equity – Vulnerability – Safety-nets, poverty traps, stepping-stones – Pro-poor activities
Absolute poverty:
– subsistence below minimal living conditions – WB uses $1 per day per capita (MDGs aim to halve the number of people in absolute poverty by 2015) – National governments have own poverty level based on nutritional needs or basket of goods
Relative poverty:
– Compares lowest segment of population with highest – Defined with reference to a general standard of living or average wage
Degrees of poverty (Chronic Poverty Research Centre)
– The chronically poor
– The transitory poor
poverty
– The non-poor: always above the poverty line
up a category can be seen as ‘escaping poverty’
interventions, e.g. the chronic poor may be less able to take advantage of market opportunities
– Empowerment - strengthening rights, capabilities and governance – Security - reducing vulnerability to shock, and ability to cope with shock – Opportunity - ability to capture emerging [income generating]
what constitutes poverty
much they value goods and services
cash-dependent livelihoods
incomes, social welfare payments, access to social networks, etc
such as life expectancy, literacy, malnutrition
result, e.g. the cost of a minimum food basket
equally, or in the same way. Equity is concerned with an equitable distribution of costs and benefits.
and stresses and their ability to prevent, mitigate or cope with the
always poor.
– Stepping stone activities: help people move out of poverty – Safety-nets: activities people fall back on in times of need (not regular gap-filling activities) – Poverty-traps: low productivity activities serving limited markets, with little development potential
– Some combination of the above? – Activities targeted at the very poorest?
– Community forestry – Adaptive co-management (ACM) – Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) – Community involvement in forest management (CIFM) – Participatory Forest Management (PFM)
enable those people who have a direct stake in forest resources to be part of decision-making in some or all aspects of forest management, from managing resources to formulating and implementing institutional frameworks” [adapted from FAO]
– In order to see whether different types of PFM have different types of impacts
whole country or parts of the country, in others it is much more case- specific
– Ownership of the forest resource (e.g. state, private, community) – Decision-making in forest management – Access to subsistence products – Rights to generate income from forest products – Mechanism for exclusion of outsiders
– By the community (e.g. skills, management plans) – By outside agencies (e.g. capacity-building, technical help)
FINANCIAL CAPITAL
HUMAN CAPITAL
CFM Livelihoods Improvement Pathways
NATURAL CAPITAL
SOCIAL CAPITAL PHYSICAL CAPITAL CFM
CFM
CFM
+ technology (forestry)
CFM
processing
n v e s t m e n t i n e d u c a t i
, m e d , e t c
CFM
payments
Stakeholder Costs Benefits NGOs, dev’t projects, donors Support to the establishment of PFM Fulfilment of objectives to reduce poverty and maintain or improve forest condition National and state govts and inst’ns Support to the establishment of PFM Royalties and forest management carried out by Forest Users etc. Local govt bodies Support to the establishment of PFM
environment
from royalties or taxes Timber industry Loss of benefits as a result of changes in forest management Access to timber through partnerships with communities World citizens Gain in public environmental goods National and regional consumers of forest products/ services Changes in the price of forest products, e.g. for poor urban consumers Environmental benefits, e.g. improvements in water supply Local non-participants Loss of benefits as a result of exclusion from the forest
informal use of the forest
benefits
‘legitimate’]
– 11/16 FUGs received income benefits from sale of forest products and/or fees and fines – For individual hhds, main benefits were subsistence products and as support to agriculture (tools, pasture, leaf litter, land) – Employment (particularly in high value forest) – 6 cases of NTFP collection for sale – Income usually sporadic and rarely high
– Restrictions on use of forest during regeneration period and if rationed – Labour costs for guarding and forest operations – Time to attend meetings
– Forest land allocated to landless and female-headed hhds – Distribution of forest products according to need
– Inequitable outcomes in distribution of forest products, often due to exclusion of particular social groups from decision-making – Bidding systems for forest products favour richer hhds – Banning fuelwood sales hits poorest hardest – Granting of logging permits to more powerful operators
– Investment of FUG income in schools – Skills and training (but often limited to elite groups) – Opportunity cost of women’s time
– Positive impact on networks and relationships of trust in communities – FUGs act as a new forum for local decision-making – Improved relationships with other organisations – Disputes over ‘FUG’ membership leading to mistrust and disruption of communities
– Political strength, e.g. through FUG networks like FECOFUN – Inequity of access to political power, often restricted to men, elites, elderly, higher castes
– More sustainable stream of subsistence forest products and income generating activities reduce vulnerability – Development of small-scale forest enterprises can reduce vulnerability, but sometimes only seasonally unless hhds invest the incomes in other assets – In Scotland and Italy, PFM income buffers communities from shocks of social change
– Environmental damage to water courses (from elite timber logging) increases vulnerability of those who rely on irrigation – Banning fuelwood sales may put poor fuelwood sellers at risk
– PFM to counter degradation frequently has +ve environmental benefits but users tend to benefit more in terms of subsistence products rather than income-generating activities (but forest is low value to start with) – PFM driven by decentralisation and social justice concerns often result in more opportunities for income generation (but these cases are also in high value forest)
– Developed a simple typology of PFM – Developed a framework for analysing the impacts of PFM