Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Leasehold forestry in poverty alleviation

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment


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