A pan-tropical study on the role of forests and environmental income in rural livelihoods

1. The Poverty Environment Network (PEN):
A pan-tropical study on the role of forests &
environmental income in rural livelihoods
Nick Hogarth & Sven Wunder
‘Lessons from a Decade’s Research on Poverty:
Innovation, Engagement and Impact’
ESRC-DFID, 16 March 2016. Pretoria, S. Africa
www.cifor.org/pen

2. Why PEN? Poor understanding of the role
of forest & env. income in rural livelihoods
 Forests’ role in rural livelihoods has global significance
- est. 1 billion of the worlds’ extreme poor dependent of forest resources
for all or part of their livelihoods
 Rural people often derive a wide range of benefits
from forests & env.:
- Employment, health & wellbeing, energy/fuel, environmental services,
food security, products for subsistence use or sale (income)
 Lack of systematic data
- Multi-dimensional & informal nature makes it difficult to measure,
subsumed under agricultural data, or just ignored (hidden harvest)
- Mostly case studies
- lack of understanding about whether, & how, forests & trees can be
used to support rural development & poverty alleviation.

3. PEN field sites
24 countries, 33 partners, 58 sites, 360 villages, 8,000+
households. Data collected 2006-2010

4. PEN sample: A delicate balance
 Three criteria for site selection:
1. Within a tropical or sub-tropical developing region,
2. Some access to forests (0 < forest cover < 100%)
3. Smallholder landscapes
 Site selection was to some degree opportunistic
 Within sites: stratified village selection (along pre-defined
gradients), random household selection
 Broadly representative of smallholder-dominated tropical
and sub-tropical landscapes with moderate-to-good access
to natural forest resources.

5. PEN methods
 Standardized definitions & methods  comparable.
 All surveys covered a 12-month period
 Village surveys
- One at the start and one at the end
 Household surveys (annual & quarterly):
- One at the start and one at the end
- Short recall periods (1–3 months), data on demographics,
assets, all income sources (cash & subsistence), social capital
 Summarized in 2011 book (available
for free download from CIFOR website)
 Research tools are online:
www.cifor.org/pen

6.  The contribution of forest &
environmental income to
total household income
 Gender & forest reliance
 Tenure & forest income
 Forests as ‘safety nets’ &
‘gap-fillers’ in the face of
income, asset & labor shocks
 Forest clearing/deforestation
Results: 5 thematic global studies

7. • Forest & environmental income: Income from forest &
environmental resources is nearly as much as crops  ‘The
hidden harvest’
• Gender: Men generated at least as much forest income as
women do (with product variations).
• Shocks: Forests less important as “safety nets” than
portrayed in case-study literature (other shock responses key).
• Tenure: More income from state, rather than private or
community forests (absolutely and per-ha).
• Deforestation: Although often blamed, the poorest farmers
clear much less forest than smallholders from higher
socioeconomic brackets (investment)
Some myth-busting findings

8. 4.6 1.6
7.3
7.7
5.1 7.0
15.2
12.5 9.6
17.6 12.0
0 10 20 30
Share (%)
Other env.
Business
Other
Livestock
Wage
Forest
Cropping
Income shares by source, global
Subsistence Cash
22.1%
(28.3%)
The hidden harvest: Contribution of forest
& environmental income

9. 2.7 1.0
6.3
9.9
5.0 7.6
17.5
11.2 8.8
16.9 13.4
0 10 20 30
Share (%)
Other env.
Business
Other
Livestock
Wage
Forest
Cropping
Income shares by source, Asia
Subsistence Cash
5.0
6.8 2.3
9.2
10.6
5.8 6.1
13.3 8.1
21.8 11.4
0 10 20 30 40
Share (%)
Other
Other env.
Business
Wage
Livestock
Forest
Cropping
Income shares by source, Africa
Subsistence Cash
2.9 0.6
4.4
10.6
3.7 8.0
8.0 10.9
22.5
13.4 15.2
0 10 20 30
Share (%)
Other env.
Business
Other
Livestock
Cropping
Wage
Forest
Income shares by source, Larin America
Subsistence Cash
Variation of income shares by region

10. 24.2 8.8
19.5 9.8
17.1 10.5
14.9 11.0
12.7 11.8
0 10 20 30 40
Env. income share(%)
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
Env. reliance by income quintile, global
Subsistence Cash
15.3 7.5
13.0 8.3
11.5 8.9
10.0 9.5
9.1 9.9
0 5 10 15 20 25
Forest income share (%)
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
Forest reliance by income quintile, global
Subsistence Cash
Forest and environmental income
shares by socioeconomic status
The poorest households are most reliant on forest & env.
income, & on subsistence

11. Forest and environmental income
shares by product type
Forest income (%) Other environmental
income (%)
Food 20.9 39.6
Fuel 37.2 21.8
Structural and
fiber
33.3 15.5
Medicines,
resins and dyes
5.1 5.8
Other 3.5 17.3 (fodder)
Total 100 100

12. Outputs & impacts: Dissemination
Free download online: www.cifor.org/pen +
World Development (open access)

13. • Digital uptake pathways: Monitoring & evaluating download
data from PEN papers from the World Development Special
Issue.
Outcomes & impact pathways

14. Research tools: freely available for download from the PEN
website for ~ 8 years (>16,000 downloads).
 PEN questionnaires available in 8 languages
 The PEN Technical Guidelines
 Data entry & data cleaning tools, code list
Dissemination: Sharing research tools &
data
PEN Global dataset: freely available for download from the
PEN website for ~ 2 years

15. Impact pathways
Academia & researchers
benefiting from global synthesis results and new, comprehensive environment-poverty
data that shed light on broader rural livelihood relationships.
Donors & multilaterals
in forestry and conservation receiving a better understanding of local development-
conservation synergies and trade-offs, thus informing their investments.
Policy-makers
at the national &/or local level, gaining both a more realistic view on the pro-poor role of
forests and research-based suggestions for strategic policy interventions.
Central Bureaus of Statistics, World Bank, UN-FAO:
refining national household-survey design to strengthen the collection of forest and
environmental income.
PhD students & local partners:
enhancing their capacity in data collection, analysis and research methodologies.

16. Example: Outcomes & impact pathways
Helping World Bank & national statistical bureaus
engaged in Living Standard Measurement Study
surveys (LSMS) to improve forest & env. income data
collection:
 Joint project with UN-FAO, World Bank, PROFOR, IFRI to
develop forestry module for LSMS national household surveys.
 CIFOR pilot testing new forestry module in Indonesia
(+Tanzania, Nepal)
 Contribute to WB report for Paris UNFCCC COP on climate
change and poverty

17.  Forest & environmental income plays a vital
role in rural livelihoods
 But, the poor are relatively more reliant
• Subsistence uses
• Products from non-forest environments
 A diversity of forest–livelihoods situations
• A poverty driven forest reliance: lack of assets and
opportunities
• An opportunity driven forest reliance: valuable cash
product & those that benefit relatively rich
Conclusions

18.  Failing to account for this contribution:
• Gives a misleading picture of rural livelihoods
• Overestimates poverty and inequality
• Biases perspectives on pathways in and out of poverty:
- Benefits of converting forest to cropland overestimated
- Households that specialize in forest-env. income lose out
from large-scale conversion of wildlands
- Limiting access to wild product harvesting/marketing has
negative welfare effects
Conclusions continued
 Household use of forest & env. resources is
important in large-scale development:
• Least Developed Countries, Green Economy transitions,
Sustainable Development Goals, etc.

19.  The ‘PEN model’:
• Cost effective
• Good quality data (PhD students incentive to do good work)
• Big network: local links & local impacts, as well as regional & global
level applications
Lessons for poverty research
 Centralized & standardized methods
• Replicable & comparable results for scaling up
 Sharing methods & data
• Publicly available methods & data allow for continuation
 Donor support beyond the science is essential
• For dissemination, enhancing outputs & impacts, pursuing impact
pathways, maximizing benefits for public goods

20. www.cifor.org/pen
nicholas_hogarth@yahoo.com