Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet
Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet
Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Payments for Environmental Services and Carbon Payments<br />
The recent discussions on the role <strong>of</strong> forest in carbon sequestration are gaining interest in Nepal, but<br />
sustainability is a question as the contributions are from very few cases. It is believed that carbon<br />
forestry has the potential <strong>to</strong> generate funds for local people. A survey conducted in the mid- and highhills<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Himalayan region indicated that the mean carbon pool size <strong>of</strong> a community-managed forest<br />
(excluding litter, herbs, and shrubs) is 504.31 tC02 per ha (Karky et. al. 2009). This also includes soil<br />
organic carbon up <strong>to</strong> one meter depth. Of the <strong>to</strong>tal carbon, the mean annual increment rate <strong>of</strong> carbon<br />
capture was found <strong>to</strong> be 7.04 per ha (Karky et. al. 2009). An ICIMOD report (2010) shows that 16<br />
CFUGs in Kayarkhola watershed <strong>of</strong> Chitwan District received US$ 22,000 for their contribution <strong>to</strong><br />
reducing carbon emissions (REPUBLICA 2011).<br />
A study commissioned by the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Forest and Soil Conservation estimated the forest sec<strong>to</strong>r’s<br />
contribution <strong>to</strong> the GDP using both direct and indirect use values. The result revealed about 9.5%<br />
contribution from the direct use values. The direct use values are consumptive goods such as timber,<br />
fuelwood, grass/fodder/bedding materials, NWFPs, sand, and boulders. Non-use values, such as<br />
recreation, eco<strong>to</strong>urism, soil conservation and carbon sequestration, provide an estimated contribution<br />
<strong>to</strong> the national GDP <strong>of</strong> 27% (Acharya et. al. 2009).<br />
Case Studies<br />
Selection <strong>of</strong> Case Study Sites<br />
Three case study sites were selected for this study based on some criteria <strong>of</strong> poverty such as remoteness,<br />
poverty level, scarcity <strong>of</strong> food/land and water, low educational attainment, and health conditions.<br />
This report deals with the impacts <strong>of</strong> four initiatives in community forestry, leasehold forestry,<br />
conservation area forestry, and commercial forestry <strong>to</strong> poverty reduction from three districts, one<br />
each from terai, middle hills and high hills. Community forestry and commercial forestry (furniture<br />
enterprise) initiatives were selected for site 1, which is found in the Sewarkhola sub-watershed in<br />
Dang District. There are many furniture and sawmill industries in Dang District. Community forestry<br />
and leasehold forestry initiatives were selected for site 2 (within Sukekhola sub-watershed, Pyuthan<br />
District). Lastly, conservation area forest management (indigenous forest management) initiative was<br />
selected for site 3, which is located within the Lete sub-watershed in Mustang District.<br />
Table VII.6. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> case study sites<br />
Case study sites<br />
Basanta Hariyali Forest<br />
Users Group<br />
Location Sewarkhola sub-watershed,<br />
Dang (Inner Terai)<br />
<strong>Forestry</strong> initiative Community <strong>Forestry</strong> and<br />
commercial forestry<br />
(Furniture making)<br />
Jaspur community forest<br />
and Barahasthan<br />
leasehold forest<br />
Sukekhola sub-watershed,<br />
Pyuthan (Middle Hills)<br />
Community and Leasehold<br />
forestry<br />
Name <strong>of</strong> FUG Basanta Hariyali Jaspur CF and Barahasthan<br />
LF<br />
Lete conservation<br />
area forest<br />
Lete sub-watershed,<br />
Mustang (High Hills)<br />
Conservation area<br />
forestry (indigenous<br />
forest management)<br />
Lete conservation<br />
area forest<br />
Area coverage (ha) 276 280 150<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> households<br />
Start/Current 368/430 127/133 70/77<br />
Sample Households<br />
Male/Female<br />
Ethnic or caste<br />
composition<br />
Tharu, Brahmin, Chhetri and<br />
Dalit (BK, Priyar and Sarki)<br />
16/8 15/5 12/4<br />
Magar, Brahmin, Chhetri<br />
and Dalit (BK, Priyar and<br />
Sarki)<br />
Thakali, Gurung,<br />
Magar , Dalit (BK,<br />
Priyar and Sarki)<br />
HPI 36.8 221<br />
40 48.1<br />
Food sufficiency 9-12 months 6-9 months Less than 6 months<br />
Literacy rate (%) 76.8 60 52.1<br />
Forest types Broad leaf sub-tropical Sal Subtropical evergreen <strong>to</strong> Conifer and mixed