Contribution of Broom Grass(Thysanolaena Maxima) of Leasehold Forests in Poverty Reduction, Jhirubas, Palpa, Nepal

1. Contribution of Broom Grass(Thysanolaena
Maxima) of Leasehold Forests in Poverty
Reduction
Jhirubas, Palpa
Nepal
NARAYAN DEV BHATTARAI
+977-9847430151
bhattraind@yahoo.com
4th August, 2017

2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Background
Statement of the Problem
Objectives
Significance
Scope and Limitations
Literature Review
Methodology
Results and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendations
References

3. Background
• Forests are the source of livelihoods of rural
people
• Deforestation and forest degradation is one of
the major environmental and poverty issues in
Nepal (NBSAP, 2014)

4. Objective of Leasehold Forestry Program(LFP)
 To reduce the poverty of local people
 To rehabilitate the degraded forests
Broom grass (Thysanolaena maxima) is multipurpose
species; its all parts are usable
That is why broom grass is widely planted in
leasehold forests of Nepal
Background contd…

5. Statement of the Problem
• GoN has been allocating resources continuously for
planting of broom grass in leasehold forests without
any financial analysis (i.e. NRs 5.41 millions is
proposed for fiscal year 072/73).
• More than 95% LHF areas ware covered by broom
grass in Jhirubas
• No studies had been conducted in Jhirubas, Palpa
to assess to what extent the broom grass
contribute to reduce poverty at household level

6. Research Questions
1. What are the benefits of broom grass plantation and
maize cultivation in leasehold forests of shifting
cultivation area?
2. What are the impacts in school education resulting
from broom grass plantation?
3. What are the perceptions of LFGs members
regarding contribution of broom grass?
4. How and to what extent broom grass plantation is
contributing to poverty reduction of LFG members?

7. Research Objectives
General Objective
• To analyze the financial aspects and contribution of broom
grass plantation in leasehold forests for poverty reduction.
Specific Objectives
• to analyze cost-benefit of broom grass plantation and maize
cultivation in LHF of shifting cultivation areas.
• to explore the impacts in school education resulting from
broom grass plantation.
• to analyze the perceptions of LFGs regarding contribution of
broom grass in their socio-economical sector.
• to assess the contribution of broom grass plantation in
poverty reduction

8. Significance
• Output of the study will be beneficial to policy makers,
LFGs, governmental official and other development
organizations
• The final report could be appropriate references for
livelihood planning and shifting cultivation area
management.
• Cost-benefit analysis of broom grass will be baseline to
compare with other species plantation in leasehold
forests

9. Scope and Limitations
Scope
• Financial assessment of broom grass plantation for
poverty reduction in LHF of shifting cultivation areas of
Jhirubas cluster
Limitations
Following were the limitations of the present study
One operational plan period completed 10 LFGs were
selected to study in Palpa
The present study was focused only on LHF of shifting
cultivation area

10. Literature Review

11. Literature Review
• Poverty –Per capita income less than absolute poverty line
NRs. 14,430 as per the rate of 2011 of Nepal (CBS, 2012)
• Approximately 11 percent of the total land area of Nepal is
appropriate for conversion into leasehold forests for the
twin purposes of addressing poverty and regenerating
degraded forests (Pandit, 2009).
• Leasehold forests' database
Handed over of degraded forests = 43,993.6 hectares
Beneficiaries = 76,482 poor HHs
LFGs formation of = 7,622 groups
in 39 districts up to July, 2016 ( DoF, 2016 -unpublished data).

12. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program
(TA-LFLP) in Jhirubas
• LFP had been implemented from 2010 to 2014
by TA-LFLP/FAO
• TA-LFLP supported for the plantation of
– 13,00,000 rhizome of Broom grass
– 2,40,000 other species
(DFO, 2014; Kafley and Bhattarai, 2014)

13. Study about LFP
FAO(2009) found 11 percent of the leasehold
member households had sufficient food after
five years of leasehold forest activities.
Mishra (2014) found average income increased by
12 percent due to the LHF programme.
Pandit (2009) found due to the LHF programme
poverty reduction by 11 percent.

14. Study about Broom Grass
Kafley and Bhattarai (2014) found that the project
(TA-LFLP) intervention has IRR of about 60% (broom-
panicle, stalks and grass, Cinnamomum zeylanicum,
Nepalese pepper, asparagus and goat)
Alam et. al.(2013) found that B/C ratio at 20% AIR
was 1.48, and IRR 69% at 0.50 ha experimental
plantation of broom grass.

15. Methodology

16. Methodology
Research Design
• Observational research design –
to analyze cost-benefit of broom grass and maize cultivation.
to analyze the contribution of broom grass in poverty reduction
• Explorative research design –
for exploring the impacts on school education.
for exploring the perceptions of LFG towards broom grass.
Research Approach
– Qualitative
– Quantitative

17. Methodology contd….
Study Area
• The study area –10 LFGs at Jhirubas VDC, Palpa
• Location- 82 km east from district head quarter,
Tansen
• The VDC was the remotest, less educated and
the 3rd poorest VDC of Palpa (DDC, 2010)

18. Map of Study Area

19. Methodology contd….
Study Population
• 115 households from 10 LFGs
Sample Selection
• Stratified proportionate random sampling without
replacement
• The 10 LFGs formed 10 strata
– 6 HHs were selected from each LFGs having 12 HH
and
– 5 HHs were selected from each LFGs having 11 HH
(randomly)

20. Methodology contd….
Sample Size
• 55 HH respondents (47.82 %) of population for
household survey
• The respondents were
49 % (27)women and (28) 51% men
• 47.82% sampling intensity meets the criterion of
central limit theorem

21. Method of Data Collection
Primary Data Collection
Household Survey
• structured questionnaire(schedule)
(Measuring perception)
• Semi-structured questionnaire(schedule)
(Cost-income and HH income-expenditure)
• Quantitative manner with 55 respondents

22. Methodology contd….
Focus Group Discussion(FGD)
School students – group 1
Mother group members- group 2
Elite group(school mgt committee, school
teacher, cooperative members)- group 3
(Impact on school education)
Key Informants Interview(KII)
Altogether 9 key informants were interviewed
KII was used for 1)market study of broom
2) triangulation and verification.

23. Methodology contd….
Secondary Data Collection
• Operation Plan and livelihood improvement plan (OP
& LIP) of LFGs as a baseline data
• Marketing records of Leasehold cooperative Jhirubas,
• Records of LFGs (i.e. attendance of labor works,
income/expenditure registers,
grass and other forest products,
• The other sources of relevant secondary information,
existing records and publications

24. Methodology contd….
Data Analysis
• Classifying, grouping, tabulating and frequency
analysis in MS Excel
• Statistical tools-tables, charts, etc
• NPV, IRR, pay back period and B/C ratio calculation
• Descriptive analysis - for exploring impact in
school education resulting from broom grass
plantation

25. Methodology contd….
• Relative Importance Index (RII) in Likert scale
• Analysis in percentage of income for poverty
reduction
• Z-test - for significance of difference between
per capita income of LFG member with absolute
poverty line( 2015) of Nepal

26. Summary of Methodology and
Expected Outputs
Objectives Data
Collected
Source of
Information
Analysis Expected
output
To analyze
cost-benefit of
broom grass
plantation and
maize
cultivation in
LHFs
Per hectare
basis of each
LHF
(HH Survey)
Key
informant
interviews
Annual broom
and maize
production in
leasehold
forests(its
total cost and
income)
NPV, IRR,
C/B Ratio,
Payback
period
Identification
of beneficial
crops by
financial
analysis

27. Summary of Methodology and Expected Outputs
Objectives Data
Collected
Source of
Information
Analysis Expected output
To explore the
impact of broom
grass plantation in
school education
3 FGD
School student
Women group
Elite group
FGD
Key informant
interviews
Descriptive
analysis
Identification of
positive or negative
impacts in school
education
To analyze the
perceptions of local
poor regarding
contribution of
broom grass
Perception of
LFG member
towards
broom grass
HH survey, Relative
importance
index (RII) in
Likert scale
Identification of
contributing sector
and preferred species
To analyze the
contribution of
broom grass in
poverty reduction
Different
source of HH
level income
in 2010 and
2015
NLSS III and HH
level income
From HH survey
OP & LIP
Percentage
Z test
Identification of
contribution level in
poverty reduction
from broom grass

28. Result and Discussion

29. Financial analysis of Broom grass plantation
SN
Financial
analysis tools
Obtained only from
marketed products
(Broom and Stalks)
Obtained from all-
marketed and non
marketed products
(Broom, grass and
Stalks)
Remarks
1
Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) 20.89% 68.15%
2
Net Present
Value (NPV)
NRs 2,59,708.00 17,12,136.00
10
hectare's
3
Benefit Cost
(B/C) Ratio 1.21 2.58
4 Pay Back Years 3 2
(Field survey 2016)
Alam et al (2013) found from all products = 69% IRR and B/C ratio=1.48
Kafley and Bhattarai found from all product of broom grass, asparagus,
Nepalese peeper, dalchini and goat = 60% IRR

30. Financial analysis of maize cultivation
SN
Financial
analysis
tools
Obtained only
from marketed
products (Maize)
Obtained from marketed
and non marketed
products
(Maize, grass and Stacks)
Remarks
1
NPV (NRs) Negative (-) 3,46,200
10
hectare's
2
B/C Ratio 0.66 1.00
(Field survey 2016)

31. Exploration of Impacts in School Education
Resulting from of Broom Grass Plantation
SN Activities Before 2010 2015 Remarks
1 Livestock herder 1 girl/boy from
each HH
0
2 Forage collection in
dry season
4 hrs + 1/2 hrs+
3 Fuel materials
collection
4 hrs + 1/2 hrs+
4 Solar/electricity 0 HH All HH
Average 48000 KG broom grass and 24000 KG stalks/hectare/HH production
Made fuel and grass surplus time saving of school girls/boys
reduction in drop out of school children Positive impact in school
education of children
(Focus Group Discussion 2016)

32. Perceptions of LFGs members regarding
contributing sector of broom Grass
SN Socio-economic
variables
Ranking of perception of LFGs in contribution
1 2 3 4 5 ΣN ΣW RII Rank
1 Contribution in food security 0 0 1 26 28 55 247 0.90 I
2
Contribution in school
education 0 1 13 19 22 55 227 0.83 II
3
Contribution in time saving
(forage & fuel collection) 0 4 13 15 23 55 222 0.81 III
4
Contribution in quantity
improvement
of Livestock 0 5 7 27 16 55 219 0.80 IV
5
Contribution in social
harmony 0 2 18 24 11 55 209 0.76 V
6
Contribution in family
cohesiveness 0 1 26 22 6 55 198 0.72 VI
7
Contribution in quality
improve of human life 0 14 19 20 2 55 175 0.64 VII
8
Contribution in physical
development 0 13 25 16 1 55 170 0.62 VIII
9 Contribution in ecotourism 0 17 23 13 2 55 165 0.60 IX
10
Contribution in crop
production improvement 4 14 29 8 0 55 151 0.55 X
(Field survey 2016)

33. perception of species selection preference in
leasehold forests
SN
Species selection priority of LFG
Species 1 2 3 4 5
ΣN ΣW RII Rank
1 Broom grass
(Thysanolaena maxima) 0 0 4 19 32 55 248 0.91 I
2
Napier
( Pennisetum purpureum) 1 3 14 15 22 55 219 0.79 II
3 Tej pat (Cinnamomum
zeylanicum) 6 7 16 12 14 55 186 0.68 III
4 Kimbu (Morus alba ) 3 12 17 11 13 56 187 0.67 IV
5
Dudhilo (Ficus species) 5 8 23 10 9 55 175 0.64 V
6
Stylo (Stylosanthes
guianensis) 8 10 19 12 6 55 163 0.59 VI
7
Maize (Zea mays ) 4 11 30 6 4 55 160 0.58 VII
8
Pirre (Symbopogan
species) 3 16 36 0 0 55 143 0.52 VIII
9 Chilaune (Schima wallichi) 9 18 21 7 0 55 136 0.49 IX
(Field survey 2016)

34. Contribution of Broom Grass Plantation in
Poverty Reduction
(All income of 2010 was compounded at 8.38% AIR to 2015)
Average Annual Household Level Income NRs (000)
Year Crop Livestock Wage
Local
Service
Foreign
Employment
IGA
(Zinger) Broom Remarks
2010
14.82
(16%)
7.24
(8%)
13.69
(5%)
7.50
(8% )
39.00
(42%
10.11
7%
0
0%
2015
14.93
(11%)
10.00
(8%)
7.22
(5%)
7.42
(6%)
34.73
(27%)
9.16
(7%)
46.22
(36%)
Change
0.11
(-5%)
2.76
(0%)
-6.48
(-10%)
-0.09
(-2%)
-4.28
(-15%)
-0.94
(-4%)
46.22
(36%)
(Baseline 2010 and Field survey 2016)

35. ………Contd
S.N Income source 2010 2015 Remarks
1 Foreign employment 10 No 9 No Decrease
2
Local service (Teacher &
Postal man ) 5 No 6 No Increase
3
Involve in Wage ( >15
days/years) 54 No 43 No Decrease
4
Involved HH in Crop
production 55 HH 55 HH Same
5
Involved HH in livestock
farming 55 HH 55 HH Same
6
Involved HH in IGA (zinger
production) 55 HH 55 HH Same
7
Involved HH in broom grass
plantation 0 HH 55 HH Increase
Change paradigm in incomes source from 2010 to 2015
(Baseline 2010 and Field survey 2016)

36. ………Contd
S.N Descriptions 2010 2015 Remarks
1 HH with surplus money 15 HH
(27%)
45 HH
(82%)
Increase
2 Average annual HH saving
(NRs)
942 27,604 Increase
Change paradigm in household saving from 2010-2015
(Baseline 2010 and Field survey 2016)
(All income of 2010 was compounded at 8.38% AIR to 2015)

37. ………Contd
Change paradigm in Per capita income from 2010-2015
(Field survey 2016)
S.N Descriptions 2010 2015
Remarks
1
Average family income NRs 92,350 NRs 129,670
2 Per capita income (PCI) NRs 16,880 NRs 23,360
3 Average family income
with out broom grass
NRs 92,350 NRs 83,450
4 PCI without broom grass NRs 16,880 NRs 15,256
5 Average family income
only from broom grass
NRs 0 NRs 46,220
6 PCI only from broom
grass
NRs 0 NRs 8,450 Family
size 5.47
(Baseline 2010 and Field survey 2016)
(All income of 2010 was compounded at 8.38% AIR to 2015)

38. ………Contd
Absolute poverty line in PCI of Nepal = NRs 19,909
(Compounded to 2015 from 2011)
Per capita income (PCI) of LFG = NRs 18,880 (100% below than
poverty line) in 2010 (Compounded to 2015 from 2010)
Per capita income (PCI) of LFG = NRs 23,360 (100% above than
poverty line) in 2015
PCI only from broom grass =NRs 8,450 (42% of NRs 19,909)
PCI of LFG members of Jhirubas at 2015 was significantly
greater than absolute poverty line of Nepal (after z test)

39. Conclusion and Recommendation

40. Conclusion
• Broom grass plantation in leasehold forests of sifting
cultivation areas was beneficial even without adding the
social and environmental benefits as well as than maize
cultivation.
• Broom grass plantation had positive impact in school
education.
• Broom grass plantation made food security in Jhirubas.
• Broom grass was most preferred species in Jhirubas.
• Income of broom grass (42% contribution) supported to
reduce 100 percent poverty of LFG members.

41. Recommendation
Recommendation to LFGs members
• Plantation of the broom grass in their private/ marginal lands
and selling after broom making for increasing their income.
Recommendation to Government and I/NGOs
• Coordination with pulp and paper factory is crucial for selling the
wastage stalks of broom grass.
• Establishment of forage cake making factory.
Recommendation for further study
• Causal comparative research can be conducted for establishing
the relationship between per hectare broom grass production by
per household to quality improvement of school education of
children.
• A study can be carried out about quantification of income from
payment for environment service of broom grass plantation.

42. References
• Alam. M. J, Ali, M.R, Sarmin1 N.S, Miah M.M.U, & Shahjahan M., (2013). Existing marketing
system and economic analysis of Broom grass. Journal of agro-forestry and
Environment. 7 (1): 81-84, 2013, Chittagaun, Bangladesh.
• CBS, (2012). National Living Standard Survey 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS), National Planning Commission; Nepal.
• DDC,(2010). District Development Profile of Palpa District. District Development Committee:
Tansen, Palpa.
• DFO, (2014). Annual Progress Report. District Forest Office ,Palpa.
• Kafley, G.P., (2011). An Overview of Shifting Cultivation with Reference to Nepal. FAO - Project
Internal Document, Technical Assistance to Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program
(TA-LFLP).
• Kafley G. P. & Bhattarai, N. D., (2014). Potentials of Leasehold Forestry for Poverty Alleviation:
An analysis of piloting area; Workshop Proceedings of Regional Workshop on Pro-poor
Leasehold Forestry, Kathmandu, June 2014.
• FAO, (2009). HARMONIZING THE POTENTIALS OF LEASEHOLD FORESTRY: PROMOTING RURAL
LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITY; PROCEEDINGS OF THIRD NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON
LEASEHOLD FORESTRY ,Kathmandu, 12-13 MAY 2009
• Mishra,G.K.,(2014). Leasehold Forestry Impact on Income Poverty Alleviation in Nepal; Workshop
Proceedings of Regional Workshop on Pro-poor Leasehold Forestry, Kathmandu, June 2014.
• NBSAP, (2014). Threats to Biodiversity in Nepal: Government of Nepal, National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC).
• Paudel,R.B.,(2016). Rastriya Pusaskar Jiddaka Ti kshyanharu. Hamro Kalpabriksha, Barsa 26,
Anka 298: Department of Forest
• Pandit, B.H., (2009). Effectiveness of Leasehold Forestry to Poverty Reduction. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Department of Forests.
FAO/TCP/NEP/3102 Working Document, Kathmandu, Nepal