Down load Jane Mutune`s presentation.

Report
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
• Adopted in at least 21 sub-Saharan African
countries promoting participatory approaches
to natural resources management through
PFM
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.
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.
Objective
• Specifically, the study sought to examine
impact differences between CFA members and
non-members residing within Sururu and
Eburu forest areas.
Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Initial scoping study
Livelihood calendars
Household mapping- KI for sampling list
Study involved household surveys286 randomly selected households in Sururu& Eburu
interviewed
Pre-tested structured household level questionnaire
Key informant interviews
FGDs
Participants observations
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
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
Key findings
• IGAs funded by donor institutions e.g. AWF-tree
nursery; KCB, Imarisha Naivasha, GZDPbeekeeping
• 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
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)
Overall perception of CFA effect on
household wellbeing by wealth class
Negative
effect
No effect
Positive
effect
CFA
NCFA
Non-Poor Poor
Non-Poor Poor
(n=81)
(n=7)
(n=160) (n=23)
2%
0%
4%
9%
12%
86%
17%
83%
63%
32%
50%
40%
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
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
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 allinclusive and to involve community not only in labour
provision but also in DM
Forest Rehabilitation
Beekeeping and fish farming
Group tree nursery
ASANTE

similar documents