Community forestry, as a grass root level participatory forestry with autonomous institutional arrangements, is considered as a programme heading for poverty reduction and local community development in Nepal. But gap exists in information on actual contribution of CF to user household income and expenditure of CFG fund as per the users’ necessities. This study explored the role of community forestry to support the household income of different socio-economic classes of users and in fulfillment of community necessities of development works. The study also analyzed the status of input and participation of different categories of users in CF activities.
The study was carried out in three CFUGs of Gorkha district. Based on the participatory wealth-ranking, user households were categorized into rich, middle and poor classes. Personal interviews from household survey, focus group discussions with groups of different household categories, key informants’ interviews, interviews with committee members and direct observation methods were adopted for data collection. For personal interview 92 households were selected purposively from three classes of households after wealth-ranking. Data related to the use of forest products, household income from various sources, household inputs and contribution in CF activities were collected from personal interview using questionnaire; other data related to income of CFUG from various sources, expenditure of CFUG fund and status of participation of users in group activities were collected from interview with committee members. Focus group discussions were organized to get information on local price of products and local wage rate; and necessities of development works to be addressed from CFUG fund. Office records, key informants interviews and direct observations were carried out to gather other necessary information.
Data were analyzed using MS Excel and SPSS soft wares. ANOVA and LSD were used to test the significant differences between rich, middle and poor households on contribution of CF to household income, total household income and input of users to CF activities. Lorenz curve and Gini coefficients were used to analyze the income inequality among sampled households and the role of CF income to reduce inequality. Descriptive statistics were employed to quantify the contribution of users, income from CF & other sources and income & expenditure of CFUGs. The results were illustrated in tables, figures and descriptive way.
Non-farm source is found as the major and largest source of income of households contributing 65.5% of total household income followed by agriculture income (16.9%), livestock income (10%), community forest income (4.2%) and other forest income (2.3%). Community forests support 12.3% of total household income to poor, 4.06% to middle and only 2.78% to rich class households. As there is huge difference in household income between three classes, the absolute income of CF to rich class households is the largest though it seems greater to the poor in percentage income terms. Participation of poor class households is found low in decision making activities but household input in other CF activities is the same to all classes. Share of household input in terms of annual household income is highest (10.6%) for poor class households and the lowest (2.4%) for rich class. CF income has more equalizing effect in the household income of poor class households. Income from the sale and subsidized use of timber is the highest (78%). About 74% of CFUG income is invested in public infrastructure; the higher percentage (22.2%) in motorable road construction; building & furniture (21.6%) and school support (13%). But user’s priority necessities are drinking water, motorable road, IGA to poor and others respectively. Awareness & capacity enhancement of users on CF management, institutional strengthening of executive committee and participation of poor users in decision making process are considered necessary to address the rational benefit of CF to poor households.
Post new comment