26.02.2013 Views

Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!