Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle Hills of Nepal-ODI Rural Development Forestry Network Papers 26-Research reports and studies

This paper attempts to assess the livelihood impacts of community forestry based on Forest User Groups (FUGs) in the Middle hills of Nepal, using data from the Koshi hills region in the East. The general finding is that impacts are diverse both within and between FUGs, but have been generally positive, in terms of improved levels and security of forest product and benefit flows, various household incomegenerating opportunities, support for community infrastructure and development activities, and improved ‘social capital’ for collective planning and action. Nevertheless, impacts to date are below their potential, and the needs of rural households require more investigation to determine what further opportunities exist and how policy and extension agencies may offer specific needs-oriented support. INTRODUCTION This paper attempts the challenging task of assessing the livelihood impacts of the case-study FUGs. One key question is: impact compared to what? The livelihood impact must be contrasted with the alternative situation if the FUG had not been initiated. Most FUGs were formed to regulate overextraction, which was causing forest degradation, and so the alternative scenario is likely to have been degradation of the forest resource and consequently heavily reduced product supply. There is also a critical time-based element in this analysis. Degraded forests require some years of restricted use to become productive again, and this typically leads to an interim shortfall for the most forest-dependent households. Furthermore, FUGs have their own pace of institutional development and it may be some years before they are sufficiently cohesive to manage the forest effectively. This paper begins with introducing a conceptual framework for analysing livelihood impacts and then describes the livelihood patterns of forest users in the Middle hills. It goes on to detail the impact of community forestry on livelihoods, focusing on impacts on poor and marginalized groups. The final section presents conclusions and policy implications. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS OF THE LIVELIHOOD IMPACTS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY To date there has not been a direct and comprehensive study of livelihood impacts of community forestry across a large number of sites in Nepal, although several studies have been conducted in a modest way, in a small number of sites, in recent years. One helpful quantitative study was conducted by Maharjan (1998), who assessed the distribution of costs and benefits in a single FUG in Dhankuta district. His study highlighted the frequent equity problems of new forest management regimes, which can reduce the access of poorer households to essential forest products. He highlighted the importance of participation of marginalized groups in FUG planning, and also the opportunities for commercialization of forest product collection and processing. 1 This is the fifth in a series of five papers presenting the findings of a three-year research project (1997-2000) on ‘Community Forestry in Nepal: Sustainability and Impacts on Common and Private Property Resource Management’. An overview of the project methodology and study sites is provided in Springate-Baginski et al. (2003). Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1) July, 2003 Dev, O. P. et al n 65 In order to assess the impact of community forestry on forest users’ livelihoods, this study used a livelihood systems model. Carney (1998) presents a definition of livelihoods based on the work of Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway: “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Carney 1998, p. 4). A number of livelihood systems models have recently emerged that present household livelihood processes and functions. The model used in this paper has been developed by Soussan et al. (2001) (see Figure 1). Households build their livelihoods on the basis of their assets and available opportunities. Household 'livelihood assets' are augmented through 'entitlements' to locally available capital, such as tree and forest resources. Different households within the same locale have diverse levels of household assets. The poorest may have to rely simply on their own human capital and entitlement to common property. Households arrive at a 'livelihood strategy' on the basis of assets available, in view of opportunities arising, level of resource access, risk aversion and perceived benefits. On this basis they then engage in 'livelihood activities'. This model gives an understanding of households' livelihood processes, and allows one to ‘map’ the consequences of specific changes, including changes brought about through external interventions intended to improve people’s lives. Figure 1. Livelihood Systems Model (Soussan et al. 2001) R E S I L I E N C E / S E S I T I V I T Y Land Resource Base