Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Presentation1.ppt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentation1.ppt

2,929

Published on

Leasehold forestry in poverty alleviation

Leasehold forestry in poverty alleviation

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,929
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
64
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Welcome
  • 2. Role of leasehold forestry in poverty alleviation: a case of Hadikhola VDC, Makwanpur District
    Advisory Committee
    N. P. Gupta (Chairman)
    S. N. Tiwary (Member)
    N. R. Devkota, PhD. (Member)
    Presenter
    Kanchan Joshi
    M. Sc. Ag. (Extension) 2006
    IAAS, Rampur, Chitwan
    “Kandaghari ka” kabuliyati ban
  • 3. Introduction
    Before mid 70s, people ignored in forest management
  • 4. Introduction (Contd.)
    Participatory forest management concept developed in 1978
    Community forestry policy formed (1978)
  • 5. Introduction (contd.)
    Government’s top priority CF
    Limited positive impact of CF in livelihood of poor
    CBLF Policy formulated in 1991, to address the poverty issues
    NPC declared LF as a priority program for poverty alleviation in hillsin 1998
  • 6. Concept of leasehold forestry (Contd.)
    Leasing degraded forestland to poor communities on 40-year lease basis
    Group of 5-10 people having  0.5 ha of private family land, and an annual income of US $ 45
    2nd highest priority in forest policy act
    DOF, DOLS, ADB/N, NARC and IFAD
    Implemented in 30 hill districts
  • 7. Statement of the problem
    - Poverty wide spread on hills
    - High dependency on forest products
    causing overexploitation
    - Equity & justice aspects ignored in CF
    - Lack of adequate information –new
    concept
  • 8. Rationale of the study
    Poverty alleviation,major issue for devt.
    Leasehold forestry– tool of poverty alleviation
    In LF, forest assets redistributed to poor
    Emphasis on fodder and livestock mgmt.
    HLFFDP focus on forage prod. to increase income by livestock
    Emphasis on women
    Deforestation affect them more
    Their involvement make devt. sustainable
  • 9. Research objectives
    Determine levels of HH income generation from HLFFDP,
    determine the relationship between HLFFDP, livestock raising and forage production activities,
    assess the status of poverty situation of the lessees',
    analyse the impact of HLFFDP on women's overall development (focusing on household decision-making),
    assess the role of HLFFDP in reducing work burden of men and women in line with livestock management, and
    identify problems and benefits of LF
  • 10. Map of Nepal-study area
    Study Area
  • 11. Map of study site
  • 12. Methodology
    Studysite:Hadikhola VDC, Makwanpur district
    Number of LFUGs (population):31 groups (204 HHs)
    Sample size:100 lessee + 37 non lessee = 137 respondents
    Sampling technique – purposive sampling
    Data collection procedures
    Secondary information
    PRA
    Household survey
    Data analysis
    simple descriptive statistics (mean/percentage),
    regression analysis, lorenz curve and Gini ratio
    Paired & independent sample mean test
  • 13. Major findings
    Socio-demographic characteristics
    Avg. family size– 6.51 (lessee) & 4.86 (non lessee)
    Major occupation –Agriculture (84.67 %)
    Major caste group – Brahmin and Chhetri
    Economically active population– 62.09 %
    Avg. land size – 0.49 ha (lessee), 0.40 ha (non lessee)
  • 14. Major findings (Contd.)
    Average income of the lessees increased
    Before project:NRs. 10,609.00
    After project:NRs. 46818.25**
    (t = -10.626, df = 99, ** = Significant at 1 % p-levels)
  • 15. Major findings (Contd.)
    However, income inequality do exist
    Gini coefficient = 0.39
    (where, 0=perfect equity, 1= max. inequality)
  • 16. Lorenz curve for distribution of gross income per HH of the lessees
  • 17. Major findings (Contd.)
    • Average Livestock Unit increased after project
    Table 3. Average livestock size of respondent HHs
    ** Highly significant at 1 percent p-levels (t-test)
    LSU= 1 (cow/bull)+ 1.5 (buffalo)+ 0.4 (goat/sheep)+ 0.6 (swine/pig)+ 0.2 (poultry)
  • 18. Major findings (contd.)
    Exotic forage species introduced
    Forage sufficiency increased (1%-96%)
    Stall feeding adopted (a/c to 92% respondents)
    Work burden reduced and time saved
    Avg. time saved in fodder collection – 4.083 hrs
  • 19. Major findings (contd.)
    Time reallocated in veg. farm and livestock rearing
    86 % reported increase in food sufficiency
    Different trainings given by HLFFDP
    Capacity enhanced, confidence built up
    Women empowered and decision making capacity increased – improving their quality of life
  • 20. Major findings (contd.)
    Table 6. Decision making process in access to and control over income of lessees in the study area
    Source: field survey, 2006
  • 21. Major findings (Contd.)
    Major problem in the LF
    - Illegal grazing (78.0 %)
    - Encroachment (53.0 %)
    - Land slide (34.0 %)
    - Flood (23.0 %)
  • 22. Flood and land slide affected leasehold forest land
  • 23. Major findings (Contd.)
    All respondents reported to be benefited by the HLFFDP
  • 24. Table 7. Benefits of leasehold forestry perceived by sampled lessee households.
  • 25. Conclusions
    Average income increased of lessees but inequality did exist
    Reduction in work burden, opening new scope for improving social & financial status of lessees due to save in timeE.g.: Livestock activities & commercial veg. cultivation increased
    Fodder easily available - preference shifted from cow to buffalo, buck to castrated male goat
  • 26. Conclusions (contd.)
    Food security improved due to project activities
    Women’s decision making capacity increased
    Hence, in overall poverty situation decreased.
  • 27. Recommendations
    Regularsupervision needed
    Special package program focusing to poorest HHs needed to improve their financial status (site specific)
    Lessees doubted about future access to and control over the forest produces, legal framework needed
    Should address difficulties in transfer and inheritance of leased land
  • 28. Recommendations (Contd.)
    Co-operative and micro-financial activity weak, need of improvement
    Govt. should harmonize leasehold concept in CF for sustainable forest mgmt. as forest access is important to others as well
  • 29. Thank You
    Advisory committee
    Funding agency – Winrock Nepal, DLGSP-UN Nepal
    Respondents
    Friends and ColleaguesRehabilitated leasehold site
    Line AgenciesSwami kokholsi, Hadikhola - 6

×