Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Contribution of Community Forestry in Poverty Reduction: Case Study of Multiple Community Forests of Bajhang District, Nepal
Received date: 2019-08-30
Accepted date: 2019-09-30
Online published: 2019-12-09
Supported by
The Academician Workstation of Guiyang University, Guizhou Province([2019]5605)
The Regional First-class Discipline Construction of Guizhou Province to GYU([2017]85)
Provincial Key and Special Subject of Guizhou Province-Ecology(ZDXK[2015]11)
The Training Project for High-Level Innovative Talents in Guizhou Province(2016 [4020])
Copyright
In Nepal, nearly half of the total land is covered by forest, which holds a potentially important position in promoting rural livelihoods and in alleviating rural poverty. The rural landscape that encompasses an agrarian economy, a fragile ecology, and a complex and differentiated society is changing rapidly in Nepal today. Although poverty alleviation has been one of the top priorities for national development since 1976, poverty still remains widespread, persistent and it is also an acute problem in Nepal, where people are in a state of deprivation with regard to incomes, clothing, housing, healthcare, education, sanitary facilities and human rights. Thus, Nepal is considered as one of the poorest countries in South-Asia, with 25.2% people living below the poverty line. The objective of this study was to assess changes in poverty of forest users brought on by the community forestry program, in order to analyze the level of participation in community forestry management activities. For this study, Bajhang district was chosen as the study site, which is one of the poorest and most remote districts in the country of Nepal. Different Participatory Rural Appraisal methods such as face-to face interviews, focus group discussions and key informants’ interviews including secondary data were used to gather information. The findings showed that the forest users’ participation in meetings, discussion and other activities, like community forestry management or silvicultural operation related to community forestry, was high. The assessment found that 42.3%, 32.6% and 25.1% of respondents strongly agreed, agreed and were neutral, respectively, towards the idea that poverty reduction from community forests had occurred. The results showed almost all the respondents were depended upon agriculture and/or forest resources for their livelihoods. Different ecosystem services such as ethnomedicines, aesthetic value and ecotourism, control of soil erosion/land-slides, water recharge and soil fertility have increased due to the decomposition of leaf litter. This was apparent from the formulation of community forests. Poverty in rural areas of the country is still higher than in urban areas and the incidence of poverty is the highest in the Far western Province where this research was conducted, Therefore, the government, policy makers and other stakeholders should work hand-in-hand to effectively reduce the poverty that persists in Nepal.
Key words: community forests; poverty; Bajhang district; aesthetic value; ecotourism
Dhruba Bijaya G.C. , BHANDARI Jyoti , XU Zengrang , LI Can . Contribution of Community Forestry in Poverty Reduction: Case Study of Multiple Community Forests of Bajhang District, Nepal[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019 , 10(6) : 632 -640 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.06.008
Table 1 Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (n=262) |
Description | Frequency | Percentage | Description | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | Head of the family | ||||
<20 | 2 | 0.76 | Respondent | 180 | 68.7 |
20-40 | 144 | 54.97 | Father | 47 | 17.9 |
40-60 | 88 | 33.59 | Mother | 11 | 4.2 |
>60 | 28 | 10.68 | Husband | 24 | 9.2 |
Sex | Caste | ||||
Male | 192 | 73.30 | Brahmin | 30 | 11.5 |
Female | 70 | 26.70 | Chhetri | 139 | 53.1 |
Education | Disadvantaged groups (DAGs)# | 93 | 35.5 | ||
Primary | 22 | 8.4 | Wealth status | ||
Secondary | 17 | 6.5 | Rich | 4 | 1.5 |
High School | 38 | 14.5 | Middle | 24 | 9.2 |
University | 49 | 18.7 | Poor | 234 | 89.3 |
Literate | 37 | 14.1 | Family members | ||
Illiterate | 99 | 37.8 | <5 | 112 | 42.8 |
Occupation | 5-10 | 130 | 49.6 | ||
Farmer | 207 | 79 | 10-15 | 15 | 5.7 |
Housewife | 11 | 4.2 | >15 | 5 | 1.90 |
Shopkeeper | 4 | 1.5 | |||
Student | 26 | 9.9 | |||
Job holder | 14 | 5.3 |
#Disadvantaged Groups (DAGs) —It means those groups of people who are deprived of using the resources from the forest. |
Table 2 The characteristics of household resources, conditioning factors and livelihood strategies |
Major household resources/endowments | Conditioning/mediating factors | Livelihood strategies |
---|---|---|
Agricultural land • Labor power • Draught power (oxen) • Livestock • Farm implements • Common property Resources • Social capital • Stores (seeds, food crops, other reserves) | • Climate, especially rainfall condition • Institutional and organizational factors (governing access to key assets, inputs, credit services, technical support) • Population growth • Infrastructure (road, market, irrigation water) • Non-farm opportunities • Market signals: input/output prices • Human and livestock health • Pests and diseases • Socio-cultural factors (norms, values) • Human security, law and order | Livelihood adaptation: Use of • Farm management practices: soil and water conservation; use of improved seeds, organic, inorganic fertilizers, pest control and other yield increasing techniques • Crop choice and mix Livelihood diversification: • On-farm activities • Off-farm activities • Non-farm sources |
Table 3 Respondents’ perceptions about whether community forest has contributed to poverty reduction |
Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
---|---|---|---|---|
42.3% | 32.6% | 25.1% | - | - |
Table 4 Indicators of biodiversity and their frequency |
Indicators of biodiversity | Frequency |
---|---|
Plant richness/Vegetation abundance | Increasing/high |
Animal richness | Medium |
Soil fertility | Medium to low |
Topography | Highly uneven |
Water bodies | Available somewhere |
Timber extraction | Low |
Level of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) extraction | Medium |
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
DOF (Department of Forests). 2014. Community Forestry Program Development Guideline (Third Revision). Kathmandu, Nepal.
|
13 |
DOF (Department of Forests). 2018. Hamro Ban (Fiscal year 2016/17). Kathmandu, Nepal.
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
MOFSC (Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation). 2009. Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kathmandu, Nepal.
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
RRI. 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in Forest Tenure Reform since 2002. Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington DC.
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |