The Dynamics of Forests, Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation Relationships – Implications

for Household Strategy

Thabbie ChilongoCentre for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD)

Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR)Bunda Campus

10 October 2014

The Dilemma

• Population: Over 13 millionPopulation density of 139/sq. kmGrowth rate: 2.8% p.a.Pressure on arable land and forests

• Policy DilemmaPopulation pressure vs Fuelwood Demand vs Sustainable

Forest ManagementNeed to study forest-reliant people

This Presentation…

• A synthesis of theories and empirical studies

• To explore the forest-livelihoods-poverty alleviation links and their impact on households’ choice of livelihood strategies.

Presentation Outline •Definitions of Key Terms and Concepts

2. Livelihoods-Environmental Framework

3. Forest-Poverty Link

4. Implications for Household Strategies and Policies

1. Context

5. Concluding Remarks

Dynamics, Forest

• Dynamics• Changes over time • Understanding what drives change, patterns of change,

etc.

• Forest• “Land with a tree canopy cover of more than 10% and

area of more than 0.5ha” (FAO).• Trees reaching minimum height of 5m• Includes woodlands and plantations.

Poverty Alleviation: Prevention, Reduction or

“Painkilling”?

Time

Poverty (e.g. income)

A

B

“Poverty Painkilling”

Poverty Reduction

Poverty Prevention

Poverty Line

Poverty Alleviation…

• In this presentation, poverty alleviation is loosely applied as an inclusive term, encompassing: • poverty reduction, • poverty prevention, and • “poverty painkilling”

More Contexts…

• This presentation focuses mostly on:• The role of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)• Developing country context

• Mostly Sub-Saharan Africa• Income/consumption as a measure of poverty• Forests sometimes discussed together with general

environmental frameworks

Dynamic Livelihoods-Environmental Framework

1. Livelihood Assets (Natural, physical, human, financial, social)

2. Conditioning Factors (markets, prices, institutions, productivity, seasonality, shocks)

3. Livelihood Activities or Strategies (set of activities)

4. Environmental Consequences and Livelihood Outcomes

Household Food/Livelihood Security Objective in Period 1

Natural Resources and Other Assets Available in Period 2

Source: Adapted from Reardon and Vosti (1995) ; Ellis (2000)

Poverty-Forest Link: Which Direction?

Forest Poverty

Other Factors

Forest-Poverty Links

• A. Forest Poverty Link• Poverty as endogenous [wrt forest]

• Why are forest-reliant people poor?• Are forests poverty traps?

• B. Poverty Forest Link• Poverty as exogenous [wrt forest]

• Why are poor people more reliant on forests?• Safety nets, income smoothing, gap filling• Use forests as employer of last resort

• Lack of viable alternatives

Forest as Employer of Last Resort: Model and the Dynamics

Households (#)

$

HF0 HF1HF2

EF0EF1EF2

EF = Equilibrium forest incomeHF = Households involved in forest activity

HH opportunity cost of labour

Average forest income

Source: Adapted from Angelsen and Wunder (2003) and Chilongo and Shively (2014)

Empirical Evidence: • Poverty Prevention & Painkilling

• Supplement current consumption and safety net• Evidence: Reardon and Vosti, 1995; Cavendish, 2002; Angelsen and

Wunder, 2003; Jumbe and Angelsen, 2007; Yemiru et al., 2010; Rija et al., 2011; Chilongo, 2014)

• My own thesis • Safety net and gap-filling roles questioned by Wunder et al. (2014)

• Poverty Reduction• Pathway out of poverty; relatively little evidence• Some exceptions: asset poor households do better than expected by

using forest resources: Dokken and Angelsen, 2014; Ainembabazi et al. 2013; Shackleton et al. 2007

• How may households better use forests to alleviate poverty?• Extract more forest products• Seek new markets (higher

prices)• Processing and value-adding

• Charcoal vs. firewood

• While these strategies may be individually (at household level) optimal, but are they sustainable or socially optimal?

Implications for household strategies

Overuse: Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968)

Overuse

Marginal Cost (opp.cost of labour)

Average IncomeMarginal Income

Market Solution

Optimal Solution

Forest Harvest

$

Concluding Remarks

1. Can Poverty Alleviation Reduce Forest Degradation?

• The links between poverty and forests are complex hence no “one-cup-fits-all” solutions to poverty and forest degradation problems.

• Reducing poverty can reduce forest degradation where poverty is driving extensification into forests.• However, reducing poverty will not necessarily reduce

forest degradation if households invest or shift to other forest degrading ventures, e.g. livestock, chainsaws (Reardon and Vosti, 1995)

2. Can Forest Conservation Help the Poor?

• It depends on:• The way forest conservation done• The context

• It can alleviate poverty, where for example, forest degradation is affecting livelihoods, e.g. • limiting large scale logging with few local benefits• protecting a river used for irrigation

• It can increase poverty, where the poor are denied access to forests they depend on for survival

3. If forests cannot reduce poverty, why bother?

• Understanding how household assets and conditioning factors are linked to poverty and household behaviour may help to reduce poverty and enhance resource base (incl. forest).• Policy can then target such revealed relationships to

come up with context-specific solutions.• This is where the livelihoods framework become handy.

4. Are we not asking too much from the forests?

• Forests already play many roles• Safety nets

• Seasonal gap filling (income smoothing)• Supporting regular consumption

• Expecting forests also to be a major pathway out of poverty is probably asking for too much!• Low value of NTFPs makes them less likely to become a

meaningful pathway out of poverty (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003).

Takk!

Thank you!

Zikomo!