Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
CIFOR scientist Terry Sunderland gave this presentation on 10 September 2012 at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, South Korea, during a side event hosted by CIFOR titled ‘Linking conservation and poverty, landscapes and livelihoods: what have we learnt so far?’.
Citation preview
THINKING beyond the canopy
Environmental incomesand rural livelihoods:
a global comparative analysis
The PEN TeamSide event: Linking conservation and poverty, landscapes and
livelihoods: what have we learnt so far?WCC Jeju
10th September 2012
THINKING beyond the canopy
Outline Introduction to the
Poverty and EnvironmentNetwork (PEN)
Research findings:• Forest/environmental
income &livelihoods/poverty
• Gender• Tenure• Deforestation
THINKING beyond the canopy
PEN is…
Large, tropics-wide collection of detailed & high-quality &comparable data by PhD students on the poverty-forest(environment) nexus, coordinated by CIFOR.
It is the most comprehensive analysis of poverty-forestlinkages undertaken to date.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Features of PEN Approach: a network
• PhD students: Long fieldwork &student enthusiasm
• Supported by senior resourcepersons
• Mutual benefits Capacity building
• Majority of partners fromdeveloping countries
State-of-the-art methods• Quality data – short recall• Comparable methods• Methods summarised in a 2011
book
THINKING beyond the canopy
PEN: the numbers..
25 countries 40+ PEN studies 239 households in the average study 364 villages or communities surveyed >8,000 households surveyed 40,950 household visits by PEN enumerators 2,313 data fields (variables) in the average study 294,150 questionnaire pages filled out and entered 456,546 data cells (numbers) in the average study 17,348,734 data cells in the PEN global data base!
THINKING beyond the canopy
The PEN data set
THINKING beyond the canopy
What is the contribution of forestsand other environmental resources
to rural livelihoods?
Two common hypothesesfrom the literature:1. Forest/environmental incomeis significant in rural livelihoods(and considerably undervalued)2. The poor rely more on forests:
• Open/easy access• Lack of other opportunities(low opp. cost of labour)
THINKING beyond the canopy
4.6 1.6
7.3
7.7
5.1 7.0
15.2
12.5 9.6
17.6 12.0
0 10 20 30
Share (%)
Other env.
Business
Other
Livestock
Wage
Forest
Cropping
Income shares by source, global
Subsistence Cash
THINKING beyond the canopy
15.3 7.5
13.0 8.3
11.5 8.9
10.0 9.5
9.1 9.9
0 5 10 15 20 25Forest income share (%)
Bottom 20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
Top 20%
Forest reliance by income quintile, global
Subsistence Cash
THINKING beyond the canopy
Inter-site variation
0.2
.4.6
Fo
rest
in
com
e s
ha
re
5 6 7 8 9Total income (log, USD PPP)
Fitted line Latin America Asia Africa
Forest reliance and income at site level
THINKING beyond the canopy
Gender Many of the claims often
made in the literature ongender and forest productsare based on case studies• It is unclear how
generalizable they actuallyare
We investigated whetherseveral commonly held viewson gender and forest use aresupported by the global PENdata using descriptive andregression analysis
THINKING beyond the canopy
Who collects forest products?
THINKING beyond the canopy
Summary of gender findings There is large regional variation in both the shares of
forest products collected by women Even after controlling for most of the factors discussed in
the literature as well as differences in level of marketintegration, women in Africa collect a much larger shareof forest products than women in Asia and Latin America
Many of the claims that come out of the gender andforest literature do not hold using the PEN global datasample
Men play a much more important and diverse role in thecontribution of forest products to rural livelihoods than isoften reported
THINKING beyond the canopy
Tenure: what questions?Who are the formal ownersof forests? (State; Community;Private)Who are the actual or defacto users of the forest?(State; Community; Private;and all permutations)If rules are enforced, howstrongly are then enforced?(High; Moderate; None)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Regional forest tenure distributions by formal owner
AfricaLatin AmericaAsia
THINKING beyond the canopy
Summary of tenure findings
Formal ownership categoryinfluences the intensity of useof forests (esp. open access)
Moderate enforcement has agreater effect than highenforcement for state(negative) and private(positive) forests
Full congruence betweenowners and users can havenegative effect on forestincome due to enforcement
THINKING beyond the canopy
Patterns of rural deforestation
THINKING beyond the canopy
Incidence of land clearing Incidence: 27% of HH’s, but highly
variable across sites. Mean areacleared = 1.3ha
Greater incidence of landclearance among:• Land rich HH’s (clear 55% more
land than landless poor)• Male-headed HH’s (gender may
be a mediating factor)• Younger HH’s• HH’s close to forest• HH’s that have suffered
“shocks”
THINKING beyond the canopy
Forest/env. income play a vital role in rural livelihoods• 1/5 of the household income from forests in our sample• Poor are more reliant
Failing to account for this contribution:• Gives a misleading picture of rural livelihoods• Overestimates poverty• Gender findings question perceived wisdom• Biases perspectives on pathways in and out of poverty:
Benefits of converting forest to cropland overestimated Tenure and property rights are crucialProhibiting access to wild product source extraction/
marketing may have significant rural welfare costs
Conclusions
THINKING beyond the canopy
Look out for…
Special Issue of WorldDevelopment including all of thePEN-related research findings
PENwebsite:http://www.cifor.org/pen/
THINKING beyond the canopy
www.cifor.org
