Tree management and household strategies in a changing rural economy: Beyond the use of direct incentives Yam Malla Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department, The University of Reading, UK 1999
Keywords: forests, forestry, forest products, trees, forestry policies, farmers, husbandry, rural economy, Nepal.
SUMMARY
Forests and tree resources provide important environmental benefits, of which soil conservation is only one. Forest and tree management are integral parts of rural livelihood strategies. They should receive more attention from policy- makers and planners and should not be obstructed by disincentives. This chapter discusses farmers’ responses to changes in the rural economy focusing on growing trees on private farm land. It argues that issues facing tree growing need to be viewed from the perspective of farmers’ overall economic goal and household strategies while considering a broader environment and socio- economic context. Farmers grow trees to meet their specific household needs which change as conditions evolve. They are influenced by factors such as availability of land and labour, types of trees available, techniques for, and risk involved in, growing them, as well as markets for both forest products and employment of family labour. Forestry interventions with the objective of stabilising and improving smallholders farming systems are more likely to succeed if they are based on an appropriate policy framework and provision that removes the constraints to tree growing than if they are based solely on direct incentives.
INTRODUCTION
Forestry projects often make provisions for diverse direct incentives (e.g. subsidies, grants, food for work, free inputs such as seedlings and fertilisers) as well as training and awareness raising to encourage farmers to plant trees. However, reports on the effectiveness of these measures have been mixed (Smith, 1994; Pretty and Shah, 1994; Arnold, 1995a).
There is little understanding of the role of trees in farming systems and the criteria that farmers use for managing trees (Arnold, 1991; 1995a). Studies in different parts of the world have documented farmers’ initiatives towards regenerating tree resources on their private farm land (Carter and Gilmour, 1989; Rusten, 1989; Chambers et al., 1989; Robinson, 1990; Gilmour and Nurse, 1991; Carter, 1992; Thapa, 1994; Arnold, 1995b; Dewees, 1995; Dewees and Saxena, 1995a, 1995b; Dove, 1995; Gilmour, 1995; Jodha, 1995; Scherr, 1995; Warner, 1995).
In Nepal, a whole array of developments and policy changes over a forty year period have created a more amenable environment for growing trees and supported a switch from labour intensive to labour extensive farming with important environmental side effects. This paper looks at farmers’ initiatives to grow trees in a changing rural economy and draws upon a case study of a Nepali hill district, Kabhre Palanchok (Malla, 1992) - generally referred to in short as Kabhre (Figure 1). People of Kabhre district have been experiencing a process of rapid transformation from a relatively closed subsistence agriculture-based economy to one that is more open and market oriented. It provides evidence of some major changes that have taken place in the district and describes how farmers have responded to them. It then attempts to determine factors that influence farmers’ decisions on tree growing, discusses policy implications and assesses the role of incentives in stimulating tree growing.
Figure 1 (location of study area and villages) here
The main objective of this chapter is to demonstrate that issues facing tree growing on farm land can not, and should not, be seen in isolation of farmers’ overall economic strategies. A narrow discussion on direct incentives, designed to support conservation-oriented activities in many projects, should be avoided. There is a need to view the issues in a broader environment and socio- economic context. It is just as important to consider household level where farmers make decisions on livelihood strategies. As the decision to grow trees involves an adjustment to the farmers’ resources, one needs to develop an understanding of ways in which farmers operate, respond to changes and adapt strategies.
The four areas selected for the study – Budhakhani, Chaubas, Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel – reflect differential access to various resources and opportunities. Budhakhani and Dhulikhel represent two extremes of a continuum, from a remote area with a near to subsistence economy largely based on agriculture and livestock production (Budhakhani), to an area substantially influenced by the market economy (Dhulikhel). Chaubas and Chhatrebanjh fall in the middle, perhaps the former more towards Budhakhani and the latter more towards Dhulikhel (Figure 1). The underlying assumption for choosing villages in different economic environments is that the role of the forest and trees in these areas would be quite different. Any planned intervention needs to account for this heterogeneity and incentives for growing trees may have quite different impacts depending on the setting. BACKGROUND
Government forestry policies and programmes
Following the forest nationalisation policy of 1957, the government introduced in 1978 a policy of community forestry with provisions for handing over forests to local communities for protection and management, including programmes for encouraging farmers to plant trees on their private land. The Master Plan for Forestry Sector (MPFS, 1989) has placed priority on community and private forestry programmes with some 47 percent of the total budget allocated to the sector. The policy has been assisted by bi-lateral and multi-lateral forestry projects, albeit in the middle hills region only. Here, an increasing area of forest and grazing lands has been converted into community forests. The conditions of these forests in some villages have improved, but the actual flow of benefits from the forests to local communities has been insignificant mainly because the emphasis has been placed on resource protection restricting utilisation (Malla, 1992; Branney et al., 1993; Jackson and Ingles, 1994). Also, within the community and private forestry programme, community forestry has received more support (Robinson and Joshi, 1993).
The government has retained control over the forests of the Tarai plain in the south. Large tracts of forests in the country have been set aside as national parks and wildlife reserves. The government has also imposed a ban on the felling of some commercial tree species such as sal (Shorea robusta) and khayar (Acacia catechue). This policy extends also to private lands and represents a considerable disincentive to private investors.
Study area
Kabhre lies in Central Nepal, immediately to the east and south-east of the Kathmandu Valley. It consists of terrain and topography typical of the middle hills region with many hills and ridges ranging in elevations from 1,200 to over 3,000 metres above sea level. The district has a total population of around 370,000 people and covers an approximate area of 127,000 ha (CBS, 1987). Of the total area about 36,500 ha are estimated to be cultivated and 73,800 ha constitute forest or shrub land (LRMP, 1986).
The Mahabharat range divides the district virtually into two parts, separating the more accessible and populated areas of the north from the remoter and sparsely populated southern part. A major road, the Kodari highway, runs from Kathmandu through north-west Kabhre and the adjacent district of Sindhu Palchok to the Tibetan border. Some feeder roads, mainly fair weather, run off this main road. Most areas north of the Mahabharat range are within half a day’s walk from the main road, whereas those in the south may take up to two days walk. Agricultural and livestock production have dominated the local economy for decades, although this is changing, at least in areas with market access and off-farm employment opportunities. The land holding of an average household is less than one hectare. Most households have bari and khet, but some have only bari. In addition, some households have an area called kharbari as well as other non-cultivated inclusions such as odd corners, gullies, creeks and stream banks.
Livestock production activities involve the raising of cattle, buffaloes, goats, sheep, pigs and chickens. Livestock produces meats and milk for household consumption and sale, and supports agricultural production by providing manure and draught power for ploughing.
Forests and trees and other plant biomass form an integral part of the production system. Biomass is essential to animal husbandry as fodder and bedding materials. Mixed with animal excreta, it provides organic fertilisers for agricultural production. Trees constitute the main source of energy for the majority of rural households as well as wood for tools, farm implements and construction purposes.
EVIDENCE OF MAJOR CHANGES AND FARMERS’ RESPONSES
The material in this section is drawn from Malla (1992) and is divided into impact of the expanding market economy on agricultural production and household incomes, changing livestock numbers, composition and husbandry practices, increased restrictions on the use of public and/or common forests, emergence of forest and tree product using enterprises, and increases in trees on private farm land.
Impact of expanding market economy on agricultural production and household income
The construction of the Kodari highway in the 1960s linking Kabhre with the urban centres of the Kathmandu Valley and other adjacent districts increased considerably the mobility of people and commercial activities. In 1990, over 200 commercial enterprises operated in Dhulikhel and Chhatrebanjh alone, and some 75% were established only after 1975.
The commercial enterprises have placed great demands for specific farm produce (food grains, meat, milk, fruit etc.) and created new needs and wants. Cash became an important element of farmers’ household needs. Children’s education is receiving more attention and farmers need cash to pay for school fees, books and stationary.
Farmers have responded to the emerging demands by adjusting their livelihood strategies and use of resources. Both agricultural and livestock production activities are becoming more market oriented, and the traditional farming system is gradually breaking down.
Intensification of agricultural activities: Crop production has been intensified with increased use of agricultural technologies, especially inorganic fertilisers, generally in more accessible areas, although great quantities of manure are still used. The yields of rice, maize and wheat in Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel are reported to have increased several fold.
The rationale for raising livestock is changing from one of supporting agriculture (manure to maintain soil fertility and draught power) to that of generating income through the production of milk and meat for the market.
Increased involvement in off-farm cash earning activities: Due to small land holdings, farm incomes are not sufficient to meet all household needs. To diversify income sources, more family members have been engaged in off-farm activities such as construction work, brick making, carpet weaving, taxi and bus drive and so on. Most people are engaged as daily wage labourers, but some receive monthly salaries as professionals. In addition, a considerable number of people from Dhulikhel and Chhatrebanjh are government employees or work for development projects, private factories or local shops. Many people from Chaubas and Budhakhani go to places like Dhulikhel and Banepa to work as agricultural labourers during the agricultural peak seasons.
Changing patterns of household income: The off-farm income has started to play a key role in the household economy. The overall contribution of off-farm employment to the total income for an average household was about 50% and varied from 41%for Budhakhani to little over 53% for Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel (Table 1).
Table 1: Households accruing income from off-farm activities
I II III IV Combined
Total household number 436 419 579 1411 2845
Households with off-farm income 141 267 415 1058 1901 (No.)
Households with off-farm income 32 64 72 75 67 (%)
Off-farm income as % of the total 41.0 53.5 49.3 53.3 49.9 household income Source: Adapted from Malla (1992)
I = Budhakhani, II = Chaubas, III = Chhatrebanjh, IV = Dhulikhel
Labour shortages for agricultural activities: Most off-farm employment opportunities exist in urban centres. Hence people are required to migrate out of their villages to work. As village wage rates are low, compared to those in the city, people find it less attractive to work as farm labourers. The number of children attending schools has increased, which means that even fewer family members are available for farm work, although many people who work in the cities return to their villages during peak agricultural seasons. The reactions to labour shortages are not uniform. Some households have switched to less labor demanding and higher value crops while others have reduced cultivating marginal and less productive lands.
Changes in the livestock number, composition and husbandry practices
Livestock numbers tend to decrease as an area is increasingly influenced by markets. The average livestock holding in Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel is less than half to that in Budhakhani. It is estimated that in the last 25 to 30 years, the overall population of livestock in the study area has declined by some 37%. In general, the population of all types of livestock has declined, but it is the cattle population, especially cows, that has declined most by 46%. Labour shortages and grazing restrictions are the main reasons for the reduction and changes in composition of the livestock population.
Livestock husbandry practices are also changing with stall-feeding becoming more common. In Dhulikhel, for example, 70% of the households surveyed reported a shift to stall-feeding. In Chhatrebanjh, 60% of the households surveyed maintain animals penned. Other households reduce the number of hours spent for grazing to only a couple of hours, compared to all day grazing twenty years ago. Besides, today people graze their animals around houses and nearby farm lands and not so much in forests. Even in Budhakhani where grazing in the forest is still common, the practice of stall-feeding is gradually being adopted. This change has significantly relieved the pressure on the remaining forest resources and allows for natural regeneration.
Increased restrictions on access to public/common forest and grazing land
Over the years the Forest Department has increased restrictions on the use of public/common forest and grazing lands. In some places, local communities have taken such initiatives themselves, in order to protect forests near their villages. One community in Chhatrebanjh has been protecting a forest since 1944. Some 16 forest patches were observed to be under active protection in 1990, and communities had developed specific rules to use other forests. Meanwhile, especially after the nationalisation of forests in 1957, the Forest Department has been gradually expanding its forest protection activities. It has established a number of forest offices in key places and posted forest rangers and guards. The primary task of the staff has been to protect the district’s forests and to issue forest products extraction permits to contractors, thereby generating revenue for the government, which has resulted in conflicts and, at times, direct confrontation between villagers and forestry officials.
Since 1978, forest and grazing lands in Chaubas, Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel were gradually converted into community forests and today forests are being protected by local communities. However, forest protection is stressed and use restricted. Tree felling for commercial purposes is restricted. Farmers even need permits to fell trees on private land and to transport them out of the district. Such regulatory mechanisms provide a severe disincentive for sustainable resource management in general, and the production of trees on private lands in particular.
Emerging forest and tree product using enterprises
Forest and tree product using enterprises have grown in numbers. The majority was established only in recent years despite of Forest Department’s discouragement of such initiatives. Most enterprises use wood as raw material (e.g., saw mills, furniture/carpentry), or as a source of energy (e.g., bakery, brick factories).
Some 500 people were directly employed by the enterprises in 1990. Similarly, hundreds of men and women are employed by contractors for harvesting trees, predominantly during the agricultural off-season. Due to the rapidly developing market for wood, demand in the area has skyrocketed. As the government has imposed restrictions for felling trees in government and community forests for commercial purposes, most is obtained from private tree growers. In 1990 alone, the wood using enterprises were estimated to have consumed some 4,600 m3 of wood. This has served as a crucial incentive to private tree growers who satisfy over three-fourth of the demand (see Malla, 1992 for a detailed analysis).
Increases in trees on private farm land
Some studies have reported significant increases in tree cover on private land in Kabhre and adjacent districts (Carter and Gilmour, 1989; Gilmour and Nurse, 1991). The expansion of urban centres and the rapid emergence of wood-based enterprises as well as the increased restrictions on the use of public/common forests have all contributed considerably to increase the value of forest and tree products. The mixture of disincentives and incentives have acted as "stick and carrots" motivating farmers to grow more trees on their private lands. Growing trees is now seen as an economic and lucrative activity. Most trees on the private land have regenerated naturally and were protected by farmers. Tree species grown by farmers in Budhakhani are more diverse than in Dhulikhel (Table 2), perhaps suggesting that as an area is more influenced by markets, people tend to focus on commercially valuable species. The number of fodder trees is higher in the remoter areas reflecting the need to maintain more livestock. The number of fruit trees increases as we go from Budhakhani to Dhulikhel, in response to market demands.
Table 2: Average land holding (ha) and trees (number and types) recorded in private land
I II III IV Mean
Total land (ha) 1.69 1.51 1.11 0.70 1.26
Bari 1.06 0.75 0.70 0.35 0.72
Khet 0.01 0.44 0.19 0.22 0.22
Other non-cultivated 0.62 0.32 0.22 0.13 0.32
inclusions *
Total number of trees 288 413 271 102 276
Fire wood & timber 110 235 ** 201 54 150
Fruit 1 5 24 25 14
Other 58 102 21 - 45
Trees per ha of bari 102 42 180 192 113
Source: Adapted from Malla (1992)
I = Budhakhani, II = Chaubas, III = Chhatrebanjh, IV = Dhulikhel
* This includes Kharbari (area set aside for production of thatch grass used for roofing and fodder for animals), odd corners, gullies, creeks and stream banks etc.
** A large number of these include pine trees obtained from a government nursery and planted on kharbari Growing trees on farm land is becoming more attractive to farmers not only because they can be sold but also because they are less labour demanding and can be produced with little capital investment. In Dhulikhel and Chhatrebanjh, more trees are grown on terraces, to the extent that some plots are no longer used for agricultural production. Competition between annual crops and trees is tolerated as income from the sale of trees outweighs the lost income from crops (Malla, 1992). The tree component of agroforestry makes it a profitable venture. It thus provides a powerful incentive for further integrating trees crops into the agricultural landscape.
Developments have been most favourable for absentee landowners who have moved to urban centres. They leave their bari fallow, for trees and grass to recover, and sell the naturally regenerated products once or twice a year.
Larger land holders appear to benefit more from the general incentives and the improved access to markets. There is a considerable difference in the number of trees grown by small and larger land holders (Table 3). These findings are similar to those of another study in the district (Malla and Fisher, 1987) and suggest that it is usually the better-off farmers who can take advantage of opportunities. They have frequently better access to markets and institutions and are thus able to profit more from incentives including fiscal measures and public investments.
Table 3: Average number of trees by land holding size
Land holding size I II III IV Mean
0.5 ha or less 31 10 46 56 43
(2) (5) (10) (12) (29)
0.51 - 1.5 ha 206 168 297 63 184
(11) (10) (8) (8) (37)
Over 1.5 ha 417 751 525 373 559
(11) (13) (8) (4) (36)
Total 288 413 271 102 276
(24) (28) (26) (24) (102)
Source: Adapted from Malla (1992) I = Budhakhani, II = Chaubas, III = Chhatrebanjh, IV = Dhulikhel
Figures in brackets are number of households.
What does all this mean? First, farm households derive more forest products, especially fire wood and fodder, from private lands (Table 4). Plant biomass forms the main source of fuel. Some two-third of the total fuel consumed is obtained from private sources and varies from 37% in Budhakhani to as much as 82% in Dhulikhel.
Similarly, due to smaller livestock numbers fodder requirements can be met from private sources. Fodder quantities for each livestock unit (LSU) have increased substantially and some 75% of the total feed is derived from private sources.
Table 4: Fuel and fodder consumption at household level and contribution of private sources
I II III IV Mean
Fuel for cooking & heating a. Total fuel used 7,620 6,450 5,840 6,180 6,570 (MJ/capita/annum) b. Fuel from plant biomass (% of a) 99 97 94 89 95 * c. Fuel from private sources (% of 37 70 88 82 65 a)
Feed for livestock ** a. Total feed (MJ/LSU/annum) *** 7,455 7,590 11,260 14,560 9,120 b. Feed from private sources (% of 64 74 92 84 77 a)
Source: Adapted from Malla (1992)
I = Budhakhani, II = Chaubas, III = Chhatrebanjh, IV = Dhulikhel
* Include fire wood, twigs, saw dust, crop residues (e.g. maize stalks and cobs, wheat sraw, grain husk, weeds, dung cakes)
** Include fresh grass and fodder, crop residues, flour, bran and oil cakes *** According to Hopkins (1983), minimum energy needed to maintenance only is 9,855 MJ per LSU per anum whereas the minimum energy needed for an ox to sustain a work is 19,675 per LSU per anum.
Second, despite an increased contribution to farmers’ fuel and fodder needs from private sources, the dependence on common forests is still substantial, especially by poorer households. For example, the poorest group of farmers with land holding 0.5 ha or less and total annual income less than Rs 3,321 obtain from common forest resources, 50% of the total fuel consumed and varies from 23% in Dhulikhel to as much as 82% in Budhakhani.
Thus, while the increased contribution of tree products from private lands have improved the overall supply of forest products and reduced the pressure on common lands, it appears that the better-off households have been able to take advantage of new opportunities more easily. More restrictions on the use of common forest lands as well as increased monetisation of forest products, especially firewood, which previously was available free, may worsen the situations of poorer households.
FACTORS INFLUENCING FARMERS’ DECISION ON TREE GROWING
A number of factors determine a farmer’s decisions on tree growing. Six major factors are considered here. They include: changing household needs, availability of tree seedlings and techniques to grow them, markets, labour resources, land and the important incentive of tree security.
Changing household needs
Traditionally the need to sustain agricultural production through maintaining soil fertility and to meet the households’ needs for timber and other non- timber products as well as cash were primary incentives to maintaining trees on the farm. The needs of farmers for forest products are rather location- specific. For example, in the more distant Budhakhani, agriculture is the dominant livelihood strategy. As livestock is critical to sustain agricultural production, fodder is a crucial forest product. However, the importance of specific forest products and the need for trees to provide environmental services to agriculture are changing, as alternatives and new opportunities emerge.
In the more accessible Dhulikhel and Chhatrebanjh where inorganic fertilisers are available, the need to maintain large numbers of livestock and fodder trees is decreasing. Similarly, some households in Dhulikhel reported that as they use gas and/or electricity for cooking and heating, there is no need for them to plant trees for fire wood for domestic use. However, they still grow trees for products demanded in the market. The main objective of tree growing has changed from supporting agriculture to generating cash, but trees continue to provide on- and off-site benefits.
Availability of tree species and techniques needed to grow them
Most species currently grown by farmers are indigenous, including alder or utis (Alnus nepalensis) and lapsi (Chorespondias axillaris), Chilaune (Schema wallichii). They are easy to grow as they regenerate naturally. In most cases, protecting regenerated seedlings is all that farmers need to do. Other species such as walnut (Juglans regia) and champ (Michelia champaca) have a much higher commercial timber value than utis and farmers would like to grow them on their land, but seedlings are not readily available.
Increasing gap between labour supply and demand
Due to severe labour shortages for agricultural tasks (especially during peak seasons), farmers have opted for less labour demanding land use options. Tree growing has been one such option. Some households in Chhatrebanjh and Dhulikhel have decided to grow or retain trees even on their fertile, productive farm land, mainly because it is more difficult to hire and supervise labourers for the more intensive cultivation of annual crops.
The problem of labour scarcity in the rural areas needs to be viewed in the context of wider labour markets in urban centres where returns to labour are much greater. In fact, as Dewees and Saxena (1995b) argue, in the absence of off-farm employment opportunities and markets for forest and tree products, tree growing could raise the incidence of unemployment. In this case intensifying agricultural activities would be more desirable.
Markets
Markets provide powerful incentives for tree growing. Improved market access for the farmers of Dhulikhel and Chhatrebanjh leaves them in a better economic position than their counterparts in Budhakhani and Chaubas. Not only do they find ready markets for forest products, but facilities needed for harvesting and transport are also available, usually through contractors. Without their involvement it would be very difficult if not impossible for many farmers to market forest products.
Market accessibility and transport facilities, while necessary, are not sufficient for all to stimulate commercial growing trees by all farmers. Small farmers need land to grow annual crops to satisfy their more immediate needs. Trees have a long gestation period, and even though they may produce higher long- term returns they do not satisfy the more immediate needs. Without alternative sources of income there is some conflict between growing trees and annual crops. If off-farm income can be generated then land can be taken out of annual production. In Dhulikhel, for example, many smaller farmers are growing trees on their farm lands. They are supported by the off-farm income while trees provide additional security and insurance for unexpected events, which is consistent to the arguments put forward by Chambers and Leach (1987).
Thus markets, or access to markets as an incentive for tree growing should be viewed in broad terms. Markets are not only places for the exchange and transactions. They provide employment and encourage the development of physical infrastructure, which stimulates changes in agricultural systems (cf. the link between off-farm employment and environmental conservation in Tiffen et al., 1994).
Guaranteed benefits and tree security
Although the farmers’ general tendency has been to grow trees that have a market price and help meet their household needs, they avert risks. For example, farmers of Dhulikhel and adjacent areas have been growing or protecting naturally occurring alder and lapsi as these two species have guaranteed markets. In Budhakhani on the other hand, farmers have been uprooting many naturally regenerated seedlings of alder and other species fearing depressed crop yields due to shade effects.
Despite an increasing demand for wood of sal and its skyrocketing price, farmers have resisted the temptation to grow sal, partly because they are slow- growing, but primarily because the government has provided an extreme disincentive by imposing a cutting ban. Some farmers of lowland Dhulikhel and the adjacent village, Panchkhal, even uprooted naturally regenerated sal seedlings on their land to avoid "trouble". Thus, use rights of planted trees and guaranteed benefits from the sale of products are critical incentives to which farmers respond directly and in sometimes extreme, although understandable, ways.
Land
Land is perhaps the most critical factor for tree growing. As shown above, the larger the land holding, the greater the number of trees grown. Small farmers can not benefit from tree growing on private land as much as larger landholders, and they continue to depend on common lands for such products as fire wood and fodder.
The other implication is related to the type and quality of land available for growing trees, and who has, or does not have access to land (land tenure). It is mostly the poor quality land such as bari, kharbari, gullies where trees are grown. Gullies and stream banks are unsuitable for growing annual crops anyway. Bari and kharbari are less productive, compared to khet, and are usually found on sloping lands, more prone to soil erosion and landslips. Perennial tree crops, grasses and legumes are more suited to this type of land than annual food crops.
The increasing demand for wood and the opportunity to grow trees on less productive, marginal land without having to invest much labour and capital, has increased the their value. For example, many wealthier households in Dhulikhel who are no longer actively engaged in farming have bought extensive tracks of marginal lands (including the previously underutilised gullies, creeks and stream banks) to grow trees. Also, previously the wealthier farmers often used tenants (mostly small landholders and the landless poor) to cultivate their bari on a share cropping basis. Such arrangements often created problems, leading, at times, to confrontations between landowners and tenants.
Today, landowners have choices and the opportunity to free themselves from the various land tenure problems. For example, several absentee landowners, especially in Chhatrebanjh have chosen to grow trees on their bari, instead of renting it out. As a result, such lands are no longer available to poorer households. In other words, the rapid marketisation of tree products reduces the access to land by the landless poor and small land holders, which can turn into a social problem, if no alternative employment exists.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT INTERVENTIONS
In Nepal, interventions to augment tree resources on private land are taking place at two levels, in parallel but isolated from each other. While individual farmers grow trees on their land according to their own needs and requirements, government officials and project planners in the forestry sector as well as representatives of non-government organisations and donor agencies are designing project activities - including incentives – with only little understanding of the rural economy, changing livelihood strategies and evolving farmers’ perspectives as well as a disregard for differences among villages. In other words, although forestry project documents often claim to have developed programmes and activities based on farmers’ problems and needs, in reality they hardly reflect the farmers’ real and diverse problems, needs and aspirations. As a result most project interventions have been unable to achieve their stated objectives and the provision of direct incentives has failed to stimulate tree growing by farmers.
The main shortcoming lies in the very way problems and solutions to forest and land degradation are perceived by policy makers and planners. The table in Annex 1 compares perspectives of policy makers and planners and farmers. Policy makers and planners tend to look at forests and trees as means to resource conservation. Farmers on the other hand consider their overall economic goals and strategies as well as the opportunities that the market can offer. They grow trees to meet their households’ specific needs which evolve as conditions change, and are usually governed by a variety of factors as discussed above.
Farmers have clear visions and goals, and actions are developed to reach the goals, compared to policy makers and planners who seem to lack a consistent vision. Consequently, their policies are vague, more protective and restrictive in nature. They adopt strategies that are inconsistent, at times contradicting each other. They design elaborate regulations, direct incentives and/or disincentives that have little if any potential for making a difference as the more powerful indirect incentives dictate developments in the rural landscape and economy.
Besides, what the government proposes to offer through projects is neither new nor attractive to farmers. Programmes promoting the integration of trees in farming systems are hardly an innovative concept for farmers. Moreover, protection and limited resource utilisation support only contemporary farming systems that meet subsistence needs. In other words, farmers are asked to remain part of the subsistence economy. However, farmers are more interested in programmes that help them move away from the subsistence agriculture- based economy to one which is based on a mixed income of both farm and off- farm activities. What is the incentive to remain a subsistence farmer, they ask.
The strategies and actions designed by policy makers and planners on one hand and farmers on the other differ radically and may not be compatible. This is reflected in the way in which representatives of both groups view markets for forest products and adopt strategies to respond to emerging demands. For policy makers and planners markets for forest products pose a problem with the inherent potential to accelerate deforestation. Accordingly, there is a need for discouraging the establishment of forest-based enterprises. Farmers, on the other hand, view markets as opportunities and part of the solutions to their problems. Hence they opt for strategies in response to market needs, i.e. they manage trees.
Finally, it is important to see tree management on private land in the context of forest and tree resources on both private as well as common lands. From the findings of the case study, it is evident that the dependence of farmers, especially the poorer small landholders on the commons remains quite substantial. Private forestry programmes alone may have little value, as such, to the landless poor, or near to landless farmers, unless they lead to the development of tree-based enterprises and create employment opportunities for them.
The current policy emphasis on forest protection and use restriction contributes little towards improving the economic condition of the poorer households and the conservation of forest resources, and undermines the demands of the rapidly growing market for forest products. This means that only the better-off private tree growers currently benefit from the opportunity provided by the market (Malla, 1992). For them use restriction turn out to be an incentive.
In conclusions, for forestry project interventions and incentives to make a significant impact on the sustainable management and utilisation of forest and tree resources, they will need to:
• consider not only the households’ subsistence needs for forest products, but also the needs of the rapidly developing forest-based enterprises; • take a balanced approach to the development and management of common forest and private tree resources in a way that they complement each other; and • ensure household food security.
The interventions designed for stimulating tree growing on private farm lands should:
• consider farmers’ overall economic goals and strategies, accounting for their changing and expanding needs including cash income, • adopt strategies and actions that match with, and support, the farmers’ strategies and actions for tree growing, and • make provisions to remove the constraints of tree growing facing farmers.
This is a tall order and it should be clear that the provision of direct incentives may be little more than a drop in the bucket, as long as policy makers and planners pay only lip service to supporting livelihoods and powerful disincentives dwarf attempts to stimulate tree growing. A supportive and responsive policy to farmers’ needs together with appropriate institutional arrangements for policy implementation are more likely to provide effective and viable incentives, that benefit the environment as well as farm households, than the various forms of direct incentives, including subsidies, free seedlings and food for work. Annex 1: Perspective of the policy maker/planner and farmer on the problem of declining forest and tree resources, solutions and constraints, markets for forest products and the various actions undertaken by them to address the problem and need
POLICY MAKER/PLANNER FARMER
• Large number of • Changing/expanding people and household needs, limited livestock, pressure resource/means on forests • Cash - increasingly becoming Perceived • Depleting forest and an important element of tree resources, household needs Problem increasing soil • Subsistence oriented erosion, declining agriculture-based economy fertility of farm inadequate to meet the new land, poor crop and changing demands yield, all • Insecurity - fear for not to be contributing to able to cope with changes increasing poverty and other environmental problems. • Fear of disaster to happen and system collapsing
• Reduce pressure on • Diversify sources of income forests, impose for the household, move restrictions on their away to an economy based use on mixed farm and off-farm Perceived • Promote soil income/activities conservation • Improve the productivity of Solution measures farm land - increase overall • Orient forestry farm production level, programmes to beyond that needed for support farming household’s own consumption systems and to • Intensify agricultural and meeting the farmers livestock production subsistence needs activities • Plant trees on non- • Increase trees on private forested land, non-cultivated land; including private integrate trees with crops on land farm land • Increase the • Seek off-farm cash earning productivity of opportunities agricultural land; intensify agricultural and livestock production activities; integrate trees with crops on farms
• Inadequate • Inadequate household income capacity/strength of - limited options government • Lack of market, or transport departments for facilities, for surplus produce forest, soil and (for large land-holders in a water conservation remote village) Perceived • Little co-operation • Surplus production not from farmers and possible (for small farmers Constraint other public in with access to motor road) forest protection • Government and preventing land policy/programme more slides, soil erosion restrictive, less supportive etc. and less responsive to their • Farmers - generally needs (e.g. more hardship, "ignorant" of the especially to small farmers, importance of through imposed restrictions forests and trees in on forest use) soil and water conservation and environment protection, and therefore use forests/trees indiscriminately.
View on • A problem. • An opportunity: creates off- Market • May further farm jobs and accelerate the • Market for farm produce and process of tree forest/tree products Forest- cutting and • Incentive for growing trees based deforestation of enterprise existing forests Annex 1 contd....
POLICY MAKER/PLANNER FARMER
• Allocate more • Use improved resources (budget) to technologies: HYVs, increase the number chemical fertilisers of staff and strengthen etc. the capacity of • In areas nearby motor government’s road, produce departments for commodity that has forest, soil and water market demands conservation. (fruit, vegetables, • Employ more milk, meat, fire wood, extension staff to timber etc.) "teach" and "change • Seek off-farm cash the attitude of earning activities to farmers" and to supplement farm "motivate" them to income take up conservation • Migrate to urban practices centres where • Provide training to employment improve their opportunities exist. technical knowledge • Adopt strategy to cope and capacity for with the resultant managing forests and shortage of labour in Action/strategy for skills needed to the household for "motivate" farmers to agricultural activity adopt conservation • Rationalise the use of practices household labour and • Promote through mass other resources i.e. media (radio, news o abandon crops that papers, posters etc.) have low market the importance of value and need forests and trees for greater labour life and for input; environment o stop growing food protection crops on marginal, • Seek more foreign aid less productive in support of these agriculture land actions, and formulate and grow trees on projects with them for products provisions for that have demands incentives (e.g. free in the market; distribution of o use part of the seedlings, support cash earned to village development buy food; initiatives such as o keep few and drinking water better animals schemes, school etc.) for milk and • Restrict forest uses for meat for the subsistence needs only market, and for • Allocate more area for manure; national park and o use part of the wildlife reserves and cash income to employ army to buy inorganic protect them fertilisers; • Promote community o stall-feed and private forestry livestock using programmes (this has, feed from to date, been limited private land to middle hills region, (crop residues, and oriented to local grass and subsistence needs) legumes, • Discourage initiation grain). of forest-based o use income for enterprises a better living • Ban cutting of (e.g. buy new commercially clothes, important tree species furniture, (Acacia, Shorea spp) roofing including those on materials for private farm land. house etc.), to pay debt, or for weddings and so on. o Invest for future security (e.g. buy better agricultural land, piece of land in urban centre for a house, send children to better school). REFERENCES
Arnold, J. E. M. 1991. Community forestry: ten years in review. Community Forestry Note 7. Food and Agriculture Organisations, Rome.
Arnold, J. E. M. 1995. Overview - framing the issues. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Arnold, J. E. M. 1995. Retrospects and prospects. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Branney, P, King, G. C. and Malla, Y. B. 1993. Mid-term evaluation of Nepal’s hill community forestry project, World Bank, Washington DC.
Carter, A. S. and Gilmour D. A. 1989. Tree cover increases on private farm land in central Nepal. Mountain Research and Development Vol. 9. pp 381-91
Carter, C. E. 1992. Private tree cultivation in part of Dolakha district, Nepal: a case study. Paper presented at the Institute of Rural Management Workshop on socio-economic aspects of tree growing by farmers in South Asia at Anand (India). March 1991.
CBS 1987. Population monograph of Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.
Chambers, R. and Leach, M. (1987) Trees to meet contingencies: savings and security for the rural poor. Discussion Paper 228. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex. Brighton.
Chambers, R. Saxena, N. C. and Shah, T. (1989) To the hands of the poor: water and trees. Westview Press.Boulder.
Dewees, P. A. 1995. Farmer responses to tree scarcity: the case of woodfuel. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Dewees, P. A. and Saxena, N. C. 1995a. Wood product markets as incentives for farmer tree planting. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Dewees, P. A. and Saxena, N. C. 1995b. Tree planting and household land and labour allocation: case studies from Kenya and India. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Dove, M. R. 1995. The shift of tree cover from forests to farms in Pakistan: a long and broad view. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Gilmour, D. A. 1995. Rearranging trees in the landscape in the middle hills region. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Gilmour, D. A. and Nurse, M. C. 1991. Farmers’ initiatives in increasing tree cover in central Nepal. Mountain Research and Development. Mountain Research and Development, Vol 11, No 4. pp 329-337.
Hopkins, N. 1983. The fodder situation in the hills of eastern Nepal. APROSC Occasional Papers: 2. Agricultural Projects Services Centre, Kathmandu.
Jackson, W. J. and Ingles, A. W. 1994. Developing rural communities and conserving the biodiversity if Nepal’s forests through community forestry. In proceedings of a seminar on Community Development and Conservation of Forest Biodiversity through Community Forestry. Regional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC), Bangkok. pp 115-135
Jodha, N. S. 1995. Trends in tree management in arid land use in western Rajasthan. In J. E. M Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
LRMP 1986. Land utilisation report. Land Resource Mapping Project. Kathmandu.
Malla, Y. B. 1992. The changing role of the forest resources in the hills of Nepal. The Australian National University (unpublished PhD thesis).
Malla, Y. B. and Fisher, R. J. 1987. Planting trees on private farm land: aspects of equity. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project, Kathmandu.
MPFS 1989. Master plan for forestry sector (MPFS), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
NPC 1989. Household income required to meet the basic needs. National Planning Commission, Singha Darbar, Kathmandu. Pretty, J. N. and Shah, P. 1994. Soil and water conservation in the twentieth century: a history of coercion and control. Research Series No. 1, 1994. Rural History Centre, the University of Reading, Reading
Robinson, P. J. 1990. Some resutls of the Dolakha Private tree survey. In proceedings of the Third Working Group Meeting on Fodder trees, forest fodder and leaf-litter. Occasional Paper 2/90. Forest Research and Information Centre, Kathmandu.
Robinson, P. J. and Joshi, M. R. (1993) Private forestry: needs and opportunities. Banko Janakari. Vol. 4, No. 1 pp 103-108.
Rusten, E. P. 1989. An investigation of indigenous knowledge system and management practices of tree fodder resources in the middle hills of central Nepal. Unpublished PhD thesis. Mechigan State University.
Scherr, S. J. 1995. Meeting household needs: farmer tree-growing strategies in western Kenya. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Smith, A. 1994. Incentives in community forestry projects: a help or a hindrance. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 17c. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Thapa, B. 1994. Farmers’ ecological about the management and use of farm land tree fodder resources in the middle hills of eastern Nepal. PhD thesis. University of Wales, Bangor.
Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. and Gichuki, F., 1994. More people, less erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Wiley. Chichester, UK.
Warner, K. 1995. Patterns of tree growing by farmers in Eastern Africa. In J. E. M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (eds.) Tree management in farmer strategies: responses to agricultural intensification. Oxford University Press. Oxford.