Introduction

Livelihood Impacts of Decentralised Forest Management: Empirical Evidence from

Sururu and Eburu Forests, Kenya

Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies

Jane Mutune, 2014

Introduction

• Globally 10-12% of the natural forests are officially managed with some degree of DFM

• Adopted in at least 21 sub-Saharan African countries promoting participatory approaches to natural resources management through PFM

Cont’

• In some of these cases, the changes in rights to manage forests seem to enable improved forest conservation whereas the picture appears more mixed with regards to livelihood impacts

• Yet, the evidence based on livelihood impacts of participatory forestry is geographically biased towards more studies from South Asia, notably Nepal and India.

Cont’

• But we cannot draw clear PFM livelihood impacts lessons from this states given the model of participatory forestry there differs from, among others, Kenya, as it is based on the village jurisdiction, as opposed to membership of an association.

Objective

• Specifically, the study sought to examine impact differences between CFA members and non-members residing within Sururu and Eburu forest areas.

Methodology • Initial scoping study• Livelihood calendars• Household mapping- KI for sampling list • Study involved household surveys- • 286 randomly selected households in Sururu& Eburu

interviewed • Pre-tested structured household level questionnaire • Key informant interviews• FGDs• Participants observations

Empirical Framework

• Lack baseline data hence use PSM • Compare CFA (treated) with NCFA (control)-

group• But with same socio-economic attributes• Socio-economic differences attributable to

PFM

Key findings

• PFM has both positive and negative livelihood impacts• In both sites CFA members higher total household,

beekeeping, tree nursery and forest income relative to what they would have received if they had not participated

• But Sururu members had more positive impact than Eburu

• More donor fund support in creating economic incentives for PFM

Key findings

• IGAs funded by donor institutions e.g. AWF-tree nursery; KCB, Imarisha Naivasha, GZDP-beekeeping

• but CFA members had exploited new livelihood potentials-dairy goat, seed and wildling collection

• PFM led to realization of more profitable livelihoods e.g. Bee keeping vs. Crop farming

• Improved livelihoods mainly experienced by the middle class

• CFA structure excludes the very rich and the poor HH

Key findings• Unlike NCFA members, CFA gain casual labour opportunities-

rehabilitation of forest • >2 million seedlings planted in Sururu beats- translates to

increased incomes and improved natural capital base• 79% CFA members had received training compared to 39% of NCFA

e.g. Value addition• 38% of CFA members interviewed attributed PFM to enhanced

physical assets- energy saving jikos, water tanks, energy saving jikos, boreholes and solar panels

• 28% attributed PFM enhanced financial capability-Table banking • Gender 45% of women in Sururu compared to 14% in Eburu

participate in PFM- (65% vs. 23%- public forest firewood)

Overall perception of CFA effect on household wellbeing by wealth class

CFA NCFANon-Poor (n=81)

Poor (n=7)

Non-Poor (n=160)

Poor (n=23)

Negative effect

2% 0% 4% 9%

No effect 12% 17% 63% 50%Positive effect

86% 83% 32% 40%

Cont’

• Employment opportunities- at least 10 scouts in Sururu

• CFA members and scout reinforce policing of the forest

• CFA members sensitive community on FA 2005; use of licences; poor access less than they would have done due to fear of financial sanctions

Cont’

• CFA rules not implemented; • CFA had no control over access to FR contrary

to their expectation on approved FMA• CFA not involved in DM yet forest laws and

enforcement affect rural livelihoods• FGDs, KII- claim KFS holding back power

Conclusion and recommendations• PFM can result to improved livelihood and thus can meet this part

of its objectives when properly institutionalised.• However, the gap is likely to widen btwn the poor and the non-

poor HHs• Direct PFM benefits are at participation level- but the interests of

the poor- most dependent on forest resources not well represented

• CFA IGA donor driven, need for action facilitate community to self sustainance

• thus is need to scale up PFM approaches to make CFA all-inclusive and to involve community not only in labour provision but also in DM

Forest Rehabilitation

Beekeeping and fish farming

Group tree nursery

ASANTE