1 / 22

Introduction

Livelihood Impacts of Decentralised Forest Management: Empirical Evidence from Sururu and Eburu Forests, Kenya Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies Jane Mutune, 2014. Introduction. Globally 10-12% of the natural forests are officially managed with some degree of DFM

raven-weaver
Télécharger la présentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Livelihood Impacts of Decentralised Forest Management: Empirical Evidence from Sururu and Eburu Forests, KenyaWangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental StudiesJane Mutune, 2014

  2. Introduction • Globally 10-12% of the natural forests are officially managed with some degree of DFM • Adopted in at least 21 sub-Saharan African countries promoting participatory approaches to natural resources management through PFM

  3. Cont’ • In some of these cases, the changes in rights to manage forests seem to enable improved forest conservation whereas the picture appears more mixed with regards to livelihood impacts • Yet, the evidence based on livelihood impacts of participatory forestry is geographically biased towards more studies from South Asia, notably Nepal and India.

  4. Cont’ • But we cannot draw clear PFM livelihood impacts lessons from this states given the model of participatory forestry there differs from, among others, Kenya, as it is based on the village jurisdiction, as opposed to membership of an association.

  5. Objective • Specifically, the study sought to examine impact differences between CFA members and non-members residing within Sururu and Eburu forest areas.

  6. Methodology • Initial scoping study • Livelihood calendars • Household mapping- KI for sampling list • Study involved household surveys- • 286 randomly selected households in Sururu& Eburu interviewed • Pre-tested structured household level questionnaire • Key informant interviews • FGDs • Participants observations

  7. Empirical Framework • Lack baseline data hence use PSM • Compare CFA (treated) with NCFA (control)-group • But with same socio-economic attributes • Socio-economic differences attributable to PFM

  8. Key findings • PFM has both positive and negative livelihood impacts • In both sites CFA members higher total household, beekeeping, tree nursery and forest income relative to what they would have received if they had not participated • But Sururu members had more positive impact than Eburu • More donor fund support in creating economic incentives for PFM

  9. Key findings • IGAs funded by donor institutions e.g. AWF-tree nursery; KCB, ImarishaNaivasha, GZDP-beekeeping • but CFA members had exploited new livelihood potentials-dairy goat, seed and wildling collection • PFM led to realization of more profitable livelihoods e.g. Bee keeping vs. Crop farming • Improved livelihoods mainly experienced by the middle class • CFA structure excludes the very rich and the poor HH

  10. Key findings • Unlike NCFA members, CFA gain casual labour opportunities- rehabilitation of forest • >2 million seedlings planted in Sururu beats- translates to increased incomes and improved natural capital base • 79% CFA members had received training compared to 39% of NCFA e.g. Value addition • 38% of CFA members interviewed attributed PFM to enhanced physical assets- energy saving jikos, water tanks, energy saving jikos, boreholes and solar panels • 28% attributed PFM enhanced financial capability-Table banking • Gender 45% of women in Sururu compared to 14% in Eburu participate in PFM- (65% vs. 23%- public forest firewood)

  11. Overall perception of CFA effect on household wellbeing by wealth class

  12. Cont’ • Employment opportunities- at least 10 scouts in Sururu • CFA members and scout reinforce policing of the forest • CFA members sensitive community on FA 2005; use of licences; poor access less than they would have done due to fear of financial sanctions

  13. Cont’ • CFA rules not implemented; • CFA had no control over access to FR contrary to their expectation on approved FMA • CFA not involved in DM yet forest laws and enforcement affect rural livelihoods • FGDs, KII- claim KFS holding back power

  14. Conclusion and recommendations • PFM can result to improved livelihood and thus can meet this part of its objectives when properly institutionalised. • However, the gap is likely to widen btwn the poor and the non-poor HHs • Direct PFM benefits are at participation level- but the interests of the poor- most dependent on forest resources not well represented • CFA IGA donor driven, need for action facilitate community to self sustainance • thus is need to scale up PFM approaches to make CFA all-inclusive and to involve community not only in labour provision but also in DM

  15. Forest Rehabilitation

  16. Beekeeping and fish farming

  17. Group tree nursery

  18. ASANTE

More Related