0214-C1
Frits M.J. Ohler 1
The objectives of leasehold forestry as implemented through the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project in Nepal are to alleviate poverty and improve ecological conditions. Degraded forest is leased for 40 years to groups of poor households for their exclusive use. The impact of leasehold forestry on livelihoods and environment is presented, based on evidence from household surveys, group and site information data, site-specific impact assessment on vegetation and social development, and comparative studies of women with differing access to forest resources. In most sites there is rapid natural regeneration. Biodiversity increases. Vegetation cover increases from 32% in new sites to 90% after seven years. Fodder and forest products are harvested where little or none were produced before. Herd size increases, with a shift to stall-feeding, while in control households herd size decreases. Household food self-sufficiency increased by 16% over three years, but decreased by 4% in control households. The number of household members earning cash income increased by 24% over three years and declined by 4% in control households. Income sources diversify, including the sale of goats, milk and fodder. After five years, women save 2.5 hours per day in the collection of fodder. Causal linkages from intervention to effect to impact on livelihood are postulated. The potential of leasehold forestry to reduce poverty in and beyond Nepal is discussed. Four critical questions are answered: Does leasehold forestry result in larger herd sizes, increased grazing and degradation of the forest? Why give poor land to poor people? Does leasehold forestry worsen the plight of women? Why leasehold forestry when there is community forestry?
Nepal's community forestry program has had a significant positive environmental impact and communities have used the income generated to build public facilities ranging from schools to suspension bridges. However, equity remains problematic: many community forestry user groups are dominated by the local elite, while socially- and economically disadvantaged people's participation is often lacking, and poor households tend to benefit less than the relatively better off (Baral 1999, Malla 2000, Ojha and Bhattarai 2001, Shrestha 1996, Varughese 1999, Winrock International 1998, World Bank 1999).
The concept of leasehold forestry for poverty alleviation came into implementation in 1993, through the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project2 (HLFFDP), which had two objectives, to: alleviate poverty and improve the ecological conditions of the hills.
To achieve these objectives degraded forest is leased for 40 years (renewable) to groups of poor households as a resource base for their exclusive use. Between 1993 and 2001 some 7000 ha of degraded forest has been leased to about 1600 leasehold forestry groups consisting of more than 11000 poor families, who each received about 0.6 ha forest land. The Department of Forests has the main responsibility with regard to the leasing procedures, the Department of Livestock Services provides technical support concerning fodder and livestock development, the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal provides credit to leasehold farmers, and the Nepal Agricultural Research Council carries out applied research.
Several critical questions are often asked of leasehold forestry:
This paper sets out to answer these critical questions and to present the impact of leasehold forestry on livelihoods and environment. The analysis is based on evidence gathered, documented and reported upon by the HLFFDP project: household survey data 1994-99, in particular an analysis of the data of 1996 and 1999 of 147 project and control households (Thompson 2000); systematic group and site information data from a total of 1549 leasehold forestry groups collected in 2000 (Singh and Shrestha 2000); site specific impact assessment on vegetation and social development, comparing the situation in two sites between 1994/95 and 2000 (NFRI 2000 a&b); and comparative studies of women with differing access to forest resources, in which 57 women were interviewed (Douglas and Cameron 2000; Ghimire 2000).
The main selection criterion for leasehold forestry sites is the presence of a sizeable area of degraded forestland. Once the site is designated as leasehold forest and leasehold forestry groups are formed, grazing is stopped and pockets of grasses, legumes and trees are planted. There is great variety between the different leasehold sites (altitudes, slopes, soils, vegetation, remoteness, etc.), the results are therefore mixed. In most places there is rapid natural regeneration of herbs and grasses, followed at varying speeds by the natural regeneration of trees. Often trees regenerate from remaining stumps (coppice). In some sites leasehold forestry groups intensively manage and expand the area of planted fodder grasses and legumes, or develop fruit orchards. There are also cases where grazing could not be controlled, and little changes did occur. Overall, however, there has been an impressive rehabilitation of multi-layered more or less natural forest. Biodiversity increases, and in two sites the number of plant species increased by 57 and 86 percent between 1994 and 2000 (Figure 1). The ground vegetation is most species rich and changes a lot over time. Increased shading leads to an increase in the coverage of herbs at the expense of grasses, in particular coverage by Imperata cylindrica has been reported to decrease (NFRI 2000 a&b). The vegetative ground cover in new sites is on average only 32 percent, which increases to 50 percent after one full growing season, and gradually expands to an almost full coverage of 90 percent in seven year old sites (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Increase in plant species diversity in two leasehold forests (based on NFRI 2000 a&b; Ohler 2000).
Figure 2. Increase of vegetative ground cover of leasehold forests (based on Singh and Shrestha 2000).
With the regeneration of the vegetation, farmers have increasingly been able to harvest forest products where little or none was produced before. This is in particular the case for fodder, animal bedding material (foliage and leaf litter) and fuelwood. Household surveys indicate that the scarcity of animal feed significantly decreased, while the herd size slightly increased (Thompson 2000).
The number of goats a leasehold forestry household owns increases from an average of 3.9 to 4.4 heads over a three to five year period. Some of the poorest households did not own any livestock before they became leasehold forestry farmers, but the availability of fodder and access to credit enabled them to keep and feed goats. The ownership of large livestock (cattle and buffaloes) has remained stable, at about 3.4 heads per household, but there is a shift from unproductive cattle to higher value buffalo. Control households have seen a decrease in ownership of both large livestock and goats (Thompson 2000).
There is a shift to stall-feeding in leasehold forestry households. As many as 95 percent of leasehold forestry farmers claim they stall-feed goats (Douglas and Cameron 2000; Ghimire 2000), but these data probably reflect the early rainy season, when livestock are generally not allowed to roam freely. In other surveys 47 percent of leasehold forestry households reported an increased period of stall-feeding of goats, while control households showed a similar, but weaker trend, with 32 percent reporting an increase (Thompson 2000).
Households with about 0.9 ha or more of cultivated land have year-round food sufficiency from their own farm. Some 84 percent of the leasehold forestry households cultivate less than 0.76 ha and have less than 10 months of food security, while 63 percent cultivate less than 0.51 ha and have less than seven months food security. Surveys indicate that leasehold forestry households have increased the average period of food security from 7.8 months in 1996 to 8.4 months in 1999, while over the same period the average household size increased from 6.6 to 7.1 persons. This amounts to an overall 16 percent increase in person-months of food self-sufficiency per household. Non-leasehold households saw a four percent decrease in person-months of food self-sufficiency over the same period, as well as a decrease in the average household size from 6.5 persons in 1996 to 6.0 persons in 1999. Whereas six percent of leasehold households report that a household member who had previously migrated had returned, none of the control households reported such returns (Ohler 2000; Thompson 2000).
To cope with their food deficit and with other monetary needs, households somehow need to earn money. For most, casual work is the main coping strategy. The number of project household members earning cash income has increased by 24 percent over a three year period, while control households have seen a decline of four percent. Almost half the new cash earners are daughters and daughters-in-law, a trend that is missing in control households (Thompson 2000). Diversification of sources of cash income of the leasehold families is evident, though it is not easy to separate the effect of the project from other development activities. Data based on more than 1500 leasehold groups demonstrate the yearly increase in the percentage of households earning a cash income from the sale of goats, buffalo milk and fodder (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Leasehold forestry households income diversification (based on Ohler 2000; Sing and Shrestha 2000).
Women are responsible for livestock management and fodder collection, which is very time demanding and arduous. The time leasehold forestry women require to collect forest-based fodder decreased on average from 3.9 hours to 1.4 hours per day over five years, a difference of 2.5 hours per day (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Time women from leasehold forestry households need to collect fodder (based on Ohler 2000; Douglas and Cameron 2000; Ghimire 2000).
The increased availability of time makes it easier for women to attend meetings, participate in training, engage in income generating activities, and so on, which in turn strengthens their position within the household in terms of income and decision making. In leasehold households there has been a remarkable shift towards sharing of decision-making (Douglas and Cameron 2000; Ghimire 2000). This strengthening of the position of women in households is also due to the fact that the project has systematically included both husband and wife in training. In economic terms the disparity between male- and female-headed households has significantly decreased (Thompson 2000).
Key causal linkages, from intervention to effects to impact on livelihood can now be postulated for leasehold forestry (Figure 5). The provision of secured access to degraded forest land, combined with training and input assistance, increases the availability of animal feed. Since collection of fodder is a time consuming activity for women in the household, the effect of increasing access and availability of fodder is to increase time available to women. This in turn allows women to undertake more socially and economically productive activities, including learning and income generating activities. As a result the household income increases, as well as the education and social status of women.
Figure 1: Interventions-effects-impacts linkages (based on Ohler 2000, and Thompson 2000).
Increased fodder availability makes it easier to convert from free grazing to stall-feeding. This reduces the pressure on the forest and vegetation, which leads to improved environmental conditions. Stall-feeding also increases the availability of manure, which in turn helps to maintain or improve soil fertility in the private land, leading to increased food production and food security.
Access to credit encourages households to change the composition of their livestock from local to improved animals and from cows to buffalo. These improved animals have a higher productivity, which makes it more rewarding to convert to stall-feeding. As a result, more livestock products are available, thus leading to an improved nutritional status and food security, as well as increased incomes.
If leasehold forestry for poverty alleviation will be limited to degraded forest, than the actual area of degraded forest determines the maximum extent of leasehold forestry. Yadav and Dhakal (2000) are of the opinion that there is sufficient degraded forest in the hills and mountains of Nepal to accommodate all the marginal households in these areas and conclude: "Even with the most conservative figures, if we leased out 0.5 million ha of such land to say 0.5 million households in the hills at the rate of 1 ha per household, this could turn out to be the most revolutionary land reform programme in the country [...] it would greatly improve the income levels of the poor, control soil erosion in mountain watersheds and significantly improve the ecology. This would have long-term positive impact on the conservation of natural resources and bio-diversity."
The adoption of the International Development Target of halving global poverty by the year 2015 has raised a critical question: what part can forests and forestry play in reducing poverty? (Warner 2000). Forests are important to the poor and food insecure because they are one of the most accessible productive resources available to them. Situations in which the poor engage in forest degradation to secure short-term income and food security call for policies that create viable and stable alternative mechanisms for obtaining income and food (Lipper 2000).
The leasehold forestry instrument as applied in Nepal clearly demonstrates its potential as such a stable alternative mechanism in both poverty reduction and the rehabilitation of degraded forest and land. Contrary to the community forestry instrument, leasehold forestry can be fine-tuned to specifically target the most resource poor households within rural communities. It can be used to increase their resource base and thereby contribute to more sustainable livelihoods. Leasehold forestry could play a significant role in poverty reduction in many parts of the world, but particularly in relatively densely populated mountainous parts of South and South-east Asia, where resource poor households live in close proximity to the forest. It would be particularly effective where the poor engage in forest degradation. The long-term secure tenure would lead to a change in management, which is often the key to forest regeneration and the rehabilitation of degraded land. It would result in a renewed, increasing and more sustainable flow of forest products and services, directly benefiting the poorest households.
We can now answers the four critical questions.
Leasehold forestry provides forest resources to the poorest households, some of which do not even possess any livestock. The availability of fodder enables many of these very poor households to engage in or intensify livestock rearing. This is accompanied by a shift to stall-feeding, and reducing, rather than increasing grazing pressure. Thus leasehold forestry has a positive impact on forest and environment. The increasing amount of manure collected at the farmstead as a result of stall-feeding helps to maintain soil fertility in the cropland.
Though the degraded forest handed over as leasehold forest to poor households may not be the best land, it is in fact the only land available. Lack of resources is the main problem of the poor. Leasehold forestry provides tenure to the degraded forest land in return for leaseholders' commitment to regenerate the forest resources. The tenure security through 40 years lease on the degraded holdings motivates the farmers to invest in land improvement with a long-term perspective.
The evidence seems to be straightforward, leasehold forestry reduces the plight of women, especially through time saving in the collection of fodder and forest products. However, this evidence is based on interviews with women who have been for more than five years members of leasehold forestry groups. It is quite possible that in the initial stages, when there is as yet little or no fodder to harvest from the leasehold forest, but when physical presence is required to secure protection, the plight of women (and of men) does indeed temporarily increase.
Leasehold forestry is an effective poverty alleviation mechanism, which specifically targets the poorest section of the community, while community forestry tends to benefit the better off in the community more than the poorest households. This is not to say that leasehold forestry is better than community forestry, but rather that the concept and implementation of community forestry could be enriched by integrating leasehold forestry in a jointly implemented program.
Baral J.C., 1999. Government intervention and local processes in community forestry in the hills of Nepal. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, N.S.W. Australia.
Douglas, Z. and Cameron, J., 2000. The Effects of Differing Access to Forest Resource on the Livelihoods and Capital Assets of Poor Women in Kavre District, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal, FAO - Project Internal Document 7/2000, Technical Assistance to the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project (TA/HLFFDP).
Ghimire, K., 2000. The Effects of Differing Access to Forest Resource on the Livelihoods and Capital Assets of Poor Women in Makwanpur District, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal, FAO - Project Internal Document 11/2000, TA/HLFFDP.
Lipper, L., 2000: Forest degradation and food security. Unasylva 202, Vol. 51-2000/3: 24-31.
Malla, Y.B., 2000. Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unasylva 202, Vol. 51-2000/3: 37-45.
NFRI, 2000(a). Impact Assessment of the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project on Vegetation and Social Development in Bhagawatisthan Site. Bhagawatisthan (Kavrepalanchowk District). Kathmandu, Nepal Forest Resources and Institutions - Research Program (NFRI)/ FAO - Project Internal Document 12/2000, TA/HLFFDP.
NFRI, 2000(b). Impact Assessment of the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project on Vegetation and Social Development in Chitrepani Site. Churiamai VDC - Hetauda Municipality (Makwanpur District). Kathmandu, Nepal Forest Resources and Institutions - Research Program (NFRI)/ FAO - Project Internal Document 13/2000, TA/HLFFDP.
Ohler, F.M.J., 2000. The impact of leasehold forestry on livelihoods and environment. Field Document 3/2000. Kathmandu, Nepal, FAO - TA/HLFFDP.
Ojha, H.R. and Bhattarai, B., 2001. Understanding community perspectives of silvicultureal practices in the middle hills of Nepal. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 44: 55-61
Shrestha, K.B., 1996. Community forestry in Nepal - an overview of conflicts. ICIMOD, Mountain Natural Resources Discussion Paper 96/2.
Singh, B.K. and Shrestha, B.B., 2000. Status of leasehold groups and leasehold sites. Field Document 5/2000. Kathmandu, Nepal, FAO - TA/HLFFDP.
Thompson, R.H., 2000. Assesssment of the Impact of HLFFDP on Participating Households from the Household Survey data 1994-99. Kathmandu, Nepal, FAO - TA/HLFFDP.
Varughese, G., 1999. Villagers, bureaucrats and forests in Nepal: designing governance for a complex resource. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Indiana University, USA.
Warner, K., 2000. Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. Unasylva 202, Vol. 51-2000/3: 3-12.
Winrock International, 1998. Policy analysis of Nepal's Community Forestry Program, an unsolicited proposal submitted to the Ford Foundation Regional Office. Kathmandu, Nepal.
World Bank, 1999. Implementation completion report, Nepal, Hill Community Forestry Project. Washington, DC, USA (restricted distribution).
Yadav, R.P. and Dhakal, A., 2000. Leasehold forestry for poor, an innovative pro-poor programme in the hills of Nepal. Policy Outlook Series No. 6. HMG Ministry of Agriclture/Winrock International.
1 Natural Resources Management Officer, Investment Centre Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (former Chief Technical Advisor of the FAO - Technical Assistance to the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project in Nepal), FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. [email protected]
[email protected]
2 Funded by the Government of Nepal, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Government of the Netherlands, with technical assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).