Do the poor benefit from forest devolution policies?

Evidence from forest co-management in Malawi

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

Centre for Agricultural Research & Development P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe

Malawi

Background

Women’s popular trade

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

Men’s popular trade

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)

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

Forest Co-management Program Designed as an experiment in 1996 in two sites, Chimaliro &

Liwonde/Machinga Forest Reserves (WB &DfID)

Objectives of the ProjectImprove forest management in return for

increase access to forest products

Enhance contribution of forests to rural poverty reduction

Key distinguishing featureChimaliro Liwonde

Forest size (‘000 ha) 160 274

Co-area (ha) 210 1172

Resource state Dense Degraded

Forest Management governance

Good Not good

Degree of forest dependence

Low High

Ethnicity Homogeneous Heterogeneous

Forest product markets

Undeveloped Highly developed

Pressure on forests Low High

Poverty rate 45% 74%

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

Research Questions

Focus on vulnerable households- defined by participation, gender & poverty class

1. Does participation forest management address the plight of the poor as intended?

2. Who is capturing the rent >>> do the poor benefit?

Analytical FrameworkTheoretical 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)

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

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-participantsSample: Total sample 404; Chimaliro 205 & 199 Liwonde 199

What do raw data show-A synopsis? Sample P (MK) NP (MK) Differential(%)

Full sample 244.58 431.23 -43.28

Chimaliro 37.45 80.18 -53.29

Liwonde 442.80 815.41 -45.60

LOW-INCOME

Full sample 173.62 292.05 -40.55

Chimaliro 38.90 44.11 -5.21

Liwonde 318.86 570.56 -44.11

FEMALE

Full sample 223.55 210.21 +6.35

Chimaliro 35.68 43.11 -17.23

Liwonde 411.42 386.11 +6.56

Results from Matching techniques (impact)Results Income gain

(MK/household/month)% Change

Overall (Pooled) 16.82 - 18.02 +47-51%

Chimaliro (Site 1) 12.14 - 12.37 +90%

Liwonde (Site 2) -161.48 - 281.76 -(54)-(-68%)

Female-participants

15.59 - 29.36 +13-65%

Low-income 13.52 - 27.58 +35-68%

Decomposition Results: Identifying Sources of inequality in benefit sharing

Case Who benefits most from the program?

Source of inequality

Discrimination (Coefficients)

Endowment (Variables)

Male-female Male income: 16 % higher

100% -

Rich-Poor Rich: 23% higher 40% 60%

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

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

Charlesjumbe@yahoo.com

Land Economics . November 2006 . 82 (4): 562–581