A Review of the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Poverty

Transcription

1 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 on Assessing and Enhancing the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on the livelihoods of the Rural Poor 2-6 May, 2005, Kentmere Club, Nairobi

2 Aim of the presentation To present some background to the research project To inform the development of the research programme in each case study country, and the comparison between countries, by presenting the results of an international literature review on the impacts of participatory forest management (PFM) on poverty To discuss key terms and concepts

3 Presentation outline Why the interest in PFM and poverty? Project history and key research questions Methods of the literature review Key concepts: Poverty, equity, vulnerability Typology of PFM Framework for assessing the impacts of PFM Different types of stakeholders Different types of impact Effect of type of PFM on impacts Conclusion (and competition)

4 Why the interest in PFM and poverty? History of interest in PFM: Fuelwood crisis of the 1970s woodlots Social forestry in India Reforestation of degraded forest in Nepal JFM in India Conservation of tropical forest by indigenous people (reducing the cost to the state) Decentralisation, people s participation in their own affairs Forests as a source of improved rural livelihoods Current focus on poverty reduction (going beyond subsistence and increasing incomes)

5 Genesis of this project ODI: long history of work on people and forestry, including Rural Development Forestry Network Review of researchable constraints in PFM No clear definition of PFM No clear evidence of impacts of PFM either on the resource or on people s livelihoods CARE: Tanzania proposal on role of forestry in rural livelihoods led to interest to do similar work in other countries, incl. with CARE Nepal (2 nd generation issues such as elite capture) Kenya work as part of a new EC-funded project supporting PFM networking in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda Humboldt University/Vietnam: building on previous work in Dak Lak province to assess impact of different forms of forest land allocation

6 Project outline Two year project 4 countries: Kenya, Tanzania, Nepal and Vietnam Overarching component by ODI (Kate and Cecilia), and Humboldt (Thomas) for Vietnam Outputs at country and international level Funding for overarching component from Ford Foundation, one of several donors concerned about the poverty impact of the funds they have invested in community forestry over the years

7 Key research questions Can PFM contribute to poverty reduction by providing rural people with a sustainable stream of net benefits greater than those obtained under a non-pfm situation? If yes, how significant are the benefits (in relation to other incomegenerating activities)? If no, what are the key negative impacts of PFM and are there ways of minimising or reversing these? How do the impacts (both +ve and ve) on poverty of different forms of PFM compare? What changes in policy, institutions and legal frameworks have the potential to enhance the contributions of PFM to poverty alleviation? Are the costs and benefits of PFM distributed in an equitable manner both between communities and between households within communities? If not, are there means of ensuring a more equitable outcome?

8 Methods of the literature review Literature (English) sourced from: Websites Journals Personal contacts Over 100 papers read (published and citable grey lit): 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) Case studies analysed in two ways: The type of PFM they represented Costs and benefits of the PFM to different stakeholders

9 Key concepts: Poverty 1 Literature on PFM (and forestry in general) uses many terms that are not defined: Poverty reduction, poverty alleviation The poor Equity Vulnerability Safety-nets, poverty traps, stepping-stones Pro-poor activities We need a more differentiated understanding of these terms if we want to unpack the impacts of PFM on poverty Our definitions will determine the methods we choose for our analysis

10 Key concepts: Poverty 2 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 Always poor, consistently below poverty line Usually poor, are not poor in every period The transitory poor Fluctuating poor, are poor in some periods Occasionally poor, usually above the poverty line but have at least one period in poverty The non-poor: always above the poverty line These categories describe poverty in a dynamic way: households moving up a category can be seen as escaping poverty The distinction between categories is critical for designing appropriate interventions, e.g. the chronic poor may be less able to take advantage of market opportunities

11 Key concepts: Poverty 3 World Bank suggests that addressing poverty has 3 components: Empowerment - strengthening rights, capabilities and governance Security - reducing vulnerability to shock, and ability to cope with shock Opportunity - ability to capture emerging [income generating] opportunities This makes clear that the task can encompass both securing households against things getting worse, and enabling them to take advantage of opportunities for improvement Poverty reduction reduces number of people in poverty Poverty alleviation makes poverty easier to bear

12 Key concepts: Measuring poverty Objective approach: assumes there is a normative judgement on what constitutes poverty Subjective approach: emphasises people s preferences and how much they value goods and services Income-based measures: often quantitative, good for understanding cash-dependent livelihoods Basic needs measures: mostly quantitative, can include private incomes, social welfare payments, access to social networks, etc Human capability approach: measures poverty in terms of outcomes such as life expectancy, literacy, malnutrition Means indicators: measure the inputs required to achieve an end result, e.g. the cost of a minimum food basket Ends indicators: measure the ultimate outcomes, e.g. nutritional status. More commonly used as easier to measure.

13 Key concepts: equity, vulnerability, pro-poor Equity or equality: Equality treats everybody (regardless of need) equally, or in the same way. Equity is concerned with an equitable distribution of costs and benefits. Vulnerability is the degree of exposure of individuals/hhds to shocks and stresses and their ability to prevent, mitigate or cope with the event. Poor hhds may be vulnerable but vulnerable hhds are not always poor. Different types of activity in relation to poverty 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 What are pro-poor activities? Some combination of the above? Activities targeted at the very poorest?

14 PFM typology 1: why do we need one? What s in a name? Community forestry Adaptive co-management (ACM) Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) Community involvement in forest management (CIFM) Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Participatory forestry refers to processes and mechanisms that 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] Why do we need to categorise the type of PFM? In order to see whether different types of PFM have different types of impacts In some countries, the same model of PFM is applied across the whole country or parts of the country, in others it is much more casespecific

15 PFM typology 2: key elements Objective and motivation for PFM Extent and development of PFM programme Ownership/Rights 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 Type and value of the resource Inputs required to establish the partnership By the community (e.g. skills, management plans) By outside agencies (e.g. capacity-building, technical help) Organisation of the community

16 Framework for analysing impacts 1: Sustainable rural livelihoods [CIFOR, Jharkhand] CFM Livelihoods Improvement Pathways CFM -Training HUMAN CAPITAL CFM -Group building SOCIAL CAPITAL - Skills - Capacity -Investment in education, med, etc - Protection - management CFM -Roads -Lift irrigation -Education + Med facilities -Community buildings PHYSICAL CAPITAL -Improve storage, processing FINANCIAL CAPITAL CFM -Forest labour payments - Irrigation -Direct Consumption -Sales -Collective revenue NATURAL CAPITAL CFM -Extension -Planting material -Management planning + technology (forestry)

17 Framework for analysing impacts 2 We started with the SRL framework but added: Political capital More discussion of risks and vulnerability Discussion of costs, benefits and equity for every stakeholder group Greater focus on non-participants in PFM

18 Framework for analysing impacts 3: Non participant stakeholders 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 Support to the Royalties and forest management govts and inst ns Local govt bodies Timber industry establishment of PFM Support to the establishment of PFM Loss of benefits as a result of changes in forest management carried out by Forest Users etc. o Improvements in the forest environment o Reduction in poverty o Increased sources of revenue from royalties or taxes 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 o o o Benefits derived from illegal or informal use of the forest Infrastructural and other benefits Environmental benefits

19 Framework for analysing impacts 4: formal forest users Terminology used in our framework: A Forest User Group (FUG) is established by a PFM programme and has a clearly defined membership (usually households rather than individuals). There may be costs and benefits to the FUG as a whole. FUG members Forest Users are formal users of the forest, where no FUG is defined (e.g. individual users in Vietnam or Honduras) [NB. Formal does not always mean legitimate ]

20 Framework for analysing impacts 5: impacts within FUGs Type of impact Benefits Costs Equity Economic (financial) Physical Natural Human Social Political Risk and vulnerability

21 Impacts of PFM on Forest Users 1: economic benefits and costs Economic benefits 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 Economic costs Restrictions on use of forest during regeneration period and if rationed Labour costs for guarding and forest operations Time to attend meetings Equity of economic costs and benefits Forest land allocated to landless and female-headed hhds Distribution of forest products according to need Inequity of economic costs and benefits 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

22 Impacts of PFM on Forest Users 2: Physical and natural benefits and costs Physical benefits and costs FUG income used for community infrastructure (lighting, schools) Such infrastructure usually of potential benefit to all FUG members (and some non-members) BUT decision-making can be elite-dominated Assets (e.g. roads) may be damaged by timber extraction Natural benefits and costs Improvement in forest condition and water courses More sustainable supply of forest products (may be a cost to present generation, or may be source of revenue in form of payments for env tal services)

23 Impacts of PFM on Forest Users 3: Human, social and political benefits and costs Human benefits and costs Investment of FUG income in schools Skills and training (but often limited to elite groups) Opportunity cost of women s time Social benefits and costs 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 benefits and costs Political strength, e.g. through FUG networks like FECOFUN Inequity of access to political power, often restricted to men, elites, elderly, higher castes

24 Impacts of PFM on Forest Users 3: Risks and vulnerability Impact of PFM on vulnerability and security is rarely stated explicitly Positive benefits can often be inferred: 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 BUT vulnerability can also be increased 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

25 Effect of PFM type on impacts Too few cases reviewed so far to identify any single factor that determines the impact of PFM Often get interaction of two or more factors, e.g. objective and motivation for PFM/forest type 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) Even within the same type of PFM, the quality of implementation is frequently very important

26 Conclusions Based on a limited set of case studies, we have: Developed a simple typology of PFM Developed a framework for analysing the impacts of PFM PFM often does more than simply sustain or legalise the non-pfm situation But in some cases an imbalance of allocation of costs and benefits means that benefits for poorest hhds are marginal (or even negative) In general, evidence about impacts of PFM on poverty are not differentiated enough to draw conclusions about how the type of PFM affects impacts

27 Competition Good name or acronym for the overall project Action Research on Assessing and Enhancing the Impact of Participatory Forest Management on the livelihoods of the Rural Poor