1 / 18

Charles Jumbe, PhD & Arild Angelsen, PhD Bunda College of Agriculture

Do the poor benefit from forest devolution policies? Evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Charles Jumbe, PhD & Arild Angelsen, PhD Bunda College of Agriculture Centre for Agricultural Research & Development P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe Malawi. Background.

maura
Download Presentation

Charles Jumbe, PhD & Arild Angelsen, PhD Bunda College of Agriculture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Do the poor benefit from forest devolution policies? Evidence from forest co-management in Malawi Charles Jumbe, PhD & Arild Angelsen, PhD Bunda College of Agriculture Centre for Agricultural Research & Development P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe Malawi

  2. Background • More than 90% of the 13 million people live in rural areas • Forests as a vital source of energy for cooking (5% with electricity) • Forests a source of income for people living within or adjacent to forests Women’s popular trade Men’s popular trade

  3. The Context • For many years forest policies were restrictive • Forest cover continue to decline • From 59% of total land (9.4 mn ha) in 1960s • to 47% in the 1980s • to 37% by mid 1990s • to 27% currently (FAO, 2005)

  4. Government’s response • National forestry policy (1996) • Forestry act (1997) • Key features • Removal of restrictions • Co-management of protected forest areas. • Emphasis on women’s participation in forest management

  5. Forest Co-management Program • Designed as an experiment in 1996 in two sites, Chimaliro & Liwonde/Machinga Forest Reserves (WB &DfID)

  6. Objectives of the Project • Improve forest management in return for increase access to forest products • Enhance contribution of forests to rural poverty reduction

  7. Key distinguishing feature

  8. Purpose of Evaluation • Evaluating program effectiveness in harnessing the contribution of forests to poverty reduction • Identifying households adversely affected by the program - designing appropriate interventions • Draw lessons for designing future programs

  9. Research Questions • Focus on vulnerable households- defined by participation, gender & poverty class • Does participation forest management address the plight of the poor as intended? • Who is capturing the rent >>> do the poor benefit?

  10. Analytical Framework • Theoretical model • Roy’s self-selection model (Roy, 1951) • Choice whether to participate based on utility • Comparison of utility of participation & non-participation • Econometric methods • Endogenous switching regression model –to estimate forest income • Selection bias correction • Propensity score matching • Measure net gains of participating in the program • Overall program impact (full sample & across the two, Chimaliro & Liwonde) • Impact on vulnerable household (women & poor households)

  11. Analytical framework (cont’d) • Decomposition Analyses • Estimate the extent of inequality in benefit sharing between groups of participants (Reimers, 1983) • Male-female income disparity • Poor-rich income disparity

  12. Data sources • Part I: Participatory Rural Appraisal:Context Analysis & basic data collection (e.g., household list, persipectives of the program • Part II: household survey: Random sampling of participants and non-participants • Sample: Total sample 404; Chimaliro 205 & 199 Liwonde 199

  13. What do raw data show-A synopsis?

  14. Results from Matching techniques (impact)

  15. Decomposition Results: Identifying Sources of inequality in benefit sharing

  16. Summary of key findings • Does participation in the program lead to better outcomes? • Overall, there are marginal benefits to participants • The program drastically reduce forest revenue for participants in Liwonde (23% share of forest income) • Forest income for female & low-income households is enhanced by participating in the program • Who captures the benefits of the program? • High-income & male participants!! • Discrimination against female participants. • Differences in endowments (e.g. education, experience, household assets) in favour of high-income participants

  17. Key lessons & implications for policy • Forest co-management is not a panacea for addressing poverty in different socioeconomic conditions 1. Sensitive to the short-term needs of the local people • Complimentary interventions to provide alternative livelihood sources (e.g., where forests have low economic value) 2. Discrimination can have adverse affects the disadvantage group Conclusion: FCM has the potential of enhancing rural incomes • Design gender & poverty-focussed devolution programs • Eliminate capture by the elite • Induce greater participation by vulnerable households • Increase the allocation to be shared by the community • 70% Government & 30% local community

  18. Charlesjumbe@yahoo.com • Land Economics . November 2006 . 82 (4): 562–581

More Related