Assessing the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods

- The case of -

Gill Shepherd, Fred Kafeero, Cornelius Kazoora, and Daniel Mueller June 2011

The r eason s f or th e r esear ch

1. FAO’s interest on this subject draws from its mandate to: - undertake 5-yearly global forest resource assess- ments (FRA) - supportdt deve lopmen t an did imp lemen ta tion o f enabling governance frameworks -support linka ges of national forest pro grams & PRSPs 2. FAO took a 3 -step process to get countries’ attention on the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods - a few intensive country-studies to make the case - with Bureaux of Statistics, the World Bank etc to seek to insert questions on cash & non-cash incomes - institutionalisation of data collection in the long term Analysing forest and poverty categories countidtry wide

• Daniel Mueller, from Humboldt University did preliminary overlays of FAO -FRA forest cover (dated 2000/2001) .....

• ...... with data on relative wealth and ppyoverty from Uganda’s 2002 Census.

Choosing a useful definition point for forest cover. a 10 % forest cover map makes the whole country seem forested (B). a 40% forest cover map gives tftoo few areas t o work kith with (E).

The choice is between 20% (C) and 30% (D)

Combining forest and poverty data

10% 20%

30% 40%

KITGUM/: Padwat

KITGUM/LAMWO: Palabek TC

KUMI: Kachaboi

KUMI: MASINDI: Ongino Kilanyi

MASINDI: Kyangamwoyo

KIBAALE: Kiryanga

KIBAALE: Paachwa

The forests-poverty toolkit

The forests-poverty toolkit was used to gather data on: • The contribution of forests to the livelihood incomes of men and women, and richer and poorer villagers

• The drivers of deforestation as people recalled them over the past 20-30 years

• Current forest governance problems and potential solutions to them

• differences in forest dependence between villages near to roads and markets, and villages far from them.

Preliminary results

Using • the Humboldt forests-and-poverty area classifications • village sample field data • 2010 data on the rural population in each district • rural per capita income figures for Uganda’s regions

The intention: • was to be able to calculate the extent to which rural people are drawing their livelihoods from forests • dollar-value of each of the main uses they make of ftforests Uganda classified by type of forest-and- poverty relationship Red HH; pink HL; turquoise LH; red/white stripes HH ex-war area; (NB dark blue LL - excluded; B/W stripes - no data)

National level data

Population. UBOS figures were used for 2010 population by district

Urban: rural population split Eastern and Western districts over 92% rural; Northern is 86% ; Central Region, the wealthiest, is 71% rural.

Regional rural per capita income • taking the IMF’s 2010 country-wide figure of $535 • Using UBOS regional urban and rural consumption expenditure figures and applying the rural differentials derived to the IMF figure.

Result Rural Central Region 111% of national average = $594 Rural Western Region 91% of national average = $487 Rural Eastern Region 79% of national average = $423 Rural Northern Region 46% of national average = $246

Recalculating per capita income

• Per capita income is calculated on the basis of cash from wages and + trade; sales of agricultural products, livestock and forest products; and direct consumption of farm products.

• It excludes directlyyg gathered and consumed/used forest products, - a key reason why forests have been undervalued world-wide. For ((g)ppwestern region) per capita income misses out 17% of annual income and should be not $487 but $570; For (western region) per capita income misses out 19% of annual income and should be not $487 but $580; For (eastern region) per capita income misses out 25% of annual income and should be not $423 but $503; For Kitgum/Lamwo district (northern region) per capita income misses out 16% of annual income and should be not $246 but $293 Per capita value of forest at District level

KibaaleAll Kibaale: per capita - Livelihood income Sources = $580; MasindiALL MASINDI: per capita livelihood income sources = $570; forest income = $128 (22%) p.a. forest income = $131 (23%) p.a.

5% 3% 3% 6% 5% 6% 19% 8% 9% Forest cash 17% Forest cash Forest non-cash Forest non-cash Agric cash Agric cash Agric non-cash Agric non-cash Livestock cash Livestock cash 28% Livestock non-cash 30% Livestock non-cash 29% Other Other 32%

Kitgum/LamwoALL KITGUM per - livelihoodcapita incomesourcest = $293; KumiALL per KUMI: capita livelihood income sources = $503;

forest income = $68 (23%) p.a. forest1% income0% = $191 (38%) p.a. 0% 7% 4% 13% Forest cashcash Forest cashcash 16% 24% 34% Forest non-cash Forest non-cash Agric cash Agric cash Agric non-cash 25% Agric non-cash Livestock cash Livestock cash Livestock non-cash Livestock non-cash Other Other 43% 33% The total value of forest to rural livelihoods, by product category, nationally

1200 million $ 1000

800 600 400

cash 200 non-cash 0

el ... s fu r d te o ge e a fo n er t m orda imb res c t o ilding f nd l medici u a Total $4019 mill . b eae ba er Cash $1137 mill. fibr h Non-cash $2,882 mill.

The total value of forests to rural livelih ood s at h ouseh old l evel

• Averaggpe per ca pita income rurall y in U ganda is $512 , and average household size is 5, so rural household income, on average, is $2,560. • Of thi s, 28 .4% - £727 - comes from f orest i ncome ($204 from cash and $523 from non-cash sources.) while the rest is largely agriculture and livestock income. • The contribution of different categories of forest product to household livelihoods is as follows: fuelwood - $283 house-building materials - $182 forest foods - $138 fibre (ropes, mats, bags) - $58 herbal medicine - $36 timber - $29

Makinggp comparison to the national fig ures

• Uganda Energy budget for 2011 will rise to $514 million. Energy from the forest is worth $1, 591 million - 3 times as much .

• Uganda spends $10.4 per head on health (focus on HIV/Aids, TB & malaria) and needs to spend $28/head on other disease burdens (Respiratory tract infections, malnutrition, child & maternal mortality). Yet every rural Ugandan gets $27-worth of protein, vitamins and minerals and $7–worth of herbal medicine annually from forests, all vital for complementing what government can provide, and greatly outranking its contribution in value.

• Hous ing in Ugan da: 46% ma de o f mu d an d po les; 51% ma de o f wood-fired bricks; 42% have thatched roofs (UBOS 2009-2010). $1billion of house-building materials are drawn from the forest annually by rural people, & $325 m of materials for rope, twine, mats & baskets.

what next

• FAO will proactively seek World Bank support in getting key questions on forest livelihoods into instruments (NHS) of central statistics offices

• strongly engage countries on tenure rights with management responsibilities for the poor

• Further strengthen socio-economic variables in FAO-led NFMAs;

• Work with others , speak with a common voice & influence perceptions of the role of forests in food security, health and poverty reduction strategies THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION