Leaflet No. 24 The Republic of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Forest Department Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the Kayah State Dr. Chaw Chaw Sein, Staff Officer Dr. Thaung Naing Oo, Director Kyi Phyu Aung, Range Officer Forest Research Institute December, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS i Abstract ii 1 Introduction 1 2 Objectives 2 3 Literature Review 2 3.1 What do we mean by sustainable livelihoods? 2 3.2 Why are sustainable livelihoods important for conservation? 3 3.3 How do we identify locally appropriate livelihoods strategies? 3 4 Material and Method 5 4.1 Study Area 5 4.2 Data collection and analysis 6 5 Results and Discussion 6 5.1 Livelihood surveys in the Kayah Region 6 5.2 Causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the study area 12 6 Conclusions and Recommendation 15 7 Acknowledgements 17 8 References 18 ၊ ၊ ၊ ၊ ၁.၄% Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the Kayah State Dr. Chaw ChawSein, Staff Officer Dr. Thaung Naing Oo, Director Thein Saung, Staff Officer Kyi Phyu Aung , Range Officer Abstract About annual rate of 1.4% of the forest degradation and deforestation was occurred in Myanmar. There are many causes of deforestation and forest degradation. Especially in the hilly region like Kayah state, the main causes of forest degradation and deforestation are due to shifting cultivation. The present study reports different livelihood activities to settle their daily needs in the Kayah areas and the causes of forest degradation and deforestation. Consequently, alternative livelihood activities are also recommended in the study area. Key words: Forest degradation and deforestation, daily needs, alternative livelihoods, hilly region. Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the Kayah State 1. Introduction Myanmar is endowed with a rich diversity of habitat types arising largely from its unusual ecological diversity. About 42.92% of the country‟s total land area is still covered with natural forests. Myanmar has been protecting and conserving its diverse biological resources on a sustainable basis. Myanmar‟s forests are socially and economically significant to the country. As a matter of fact, over 70% of the country‟s total population is rural and dependent on forest resources for basic needs such as food, fodder, fuel, and shelter. Relative abundance of natural forests in the country is a reflection of the consistent exercise of sound forest management practices for years. Myanmar‟s forests have been affected by degradation, shifting cultivation, and conversion to commercial oil palm plantations (the latter is particularly relevant in the lowland forests of the Tanintharyi Region). Deforestation pressures include: i) fuelwood consumption (the principle source of energy); ii) unplanned and unrestricted agricultural expansion; iii) aquaculture (e.g. shrimp farming in the Delta region); iv) infrastructure development; and v) commercial clear cutting. Over the period 1989-1998, the annual deforestation rate in Myanmar has been estimated at 466,420 ha/annum. The central and/or more populated States and Regions show the highest losses of forest resources. According to the FRA 2015, it was observed that forest cover of Myanmar accounted for 151,421 square mile in 1990, 134,626 square mile in 2000, 128,653 square mile in 2005, 122,676 square mile in 2010 and 112,127 square mile in 2015. Accordingly, forest cover loss during 1990 and 2015 is shown in table (1). Table ( 1 ) Forest cover loss in Myanmar during 1990 and 2015 Year Annual forest loss (thousand ha) Annual forest loss (%) 1990-2000 -435.0 -1.2 2000-2010 -309.5 -0.9 2010-2015 -546.4 -1.8 Myanmar has a tropical monsoon climate. Rainfall is highly seasonal, being concentrated in the hot humid months of the southwest monsoon (May-October). In contrast, the northwest monsoon (December-March) is relatively cool and almost entirely dry. Tropical storms regularly develop in the Bay of Bengal between May and October, threatening the vulnerable, often unprotected coastline and the people living close by. Myanmar has a total coastline of nearly 3,000 km, extending about 1,900 km from 10° to 21° north of the equator and 93° to 97° east of Greenwich. Ranked 149 out of 169 on the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2010), Myanmar is the lowest ranked country in East and Southeast Asia and the only one classified as having a “low” level of human development. (http:// hdrstats. undp.org/en/ countries/profiles/MMR.html) Poor people generally depend more on forest ecosystem services and products for their livelihoods than wealthy people. The means by which a poor family gains an income and meets its basic needs are often met by multiple livelihood activities. For example, exploiting common property resources such as grazing land or forests can provide income, food, medicine, tools, fuel, fodder, construction materials, and so on. Poor people are therefore severely affected when the environment is degraded or their access to it restricted. This link between poverty and the environment has been recognized for some time. As a result of this dependency, any impact that forest degradation and deforestation has on natural systems threatens the livelihoods, food intake and health of poor people. The result is deforestation and forest degradation problem in the Kayah region. Therefore, it is necessary to review the different livelihood activities in the Kayah Region and to find out the alternative ways for improvement of their livelihood activities. 2. Objectives The study was conducted to achieve the following objectives: (a) To assess different livelihood activities. (b) To estimate the percentage of degradation and deforestation due to livelihood activities. (c) To recommend the alternative ways for the fulfillment of their livelihood activities. 3. Literature Review 3.1 What do we mean by sustainable livelihoods? “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.” (Scoones, 1998) This most widely used definition of sustainable livelihoods was first adopted in the late 1990s by agencies including the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2010) and Oxfam, amongst others. The accompanying conceptual framework illustrates that people‟s ability to access and use assets (including natural resources), and hence the activities and strategies they employ, are influenced by a wide range of policies, institutions and processes, including market and governance mechanisms, and social norms. If conservation organisations are to help local communities achieve truly sustainable livelihoods then we need to understand that livelihoods are diverse, complex and dynamic. They are the means by which people seek to achieve their life‟s goals. These goals are usually not solely about achieving increased income or even entirely about meeting the tangible basic human needs of food, shelter, physical health and security. Often of equal priority are other aspects of well-being, including having a sense of purpose and autonomy, and the fulfilment of socio- cultural and spiritual values. In many cases, people‟s livelihoods choices should be seen as “ways of living” not just “means of making a living”. This understanding helps us better appreciate why many people do not want to fundamentally change key aspects of their way of life even if incentivised to do so – and hence why many of the assumptions behind interventions to create „alternative‟ livelihoods are fundamentally flawed . 3.2 Why are sustainable livelihoods important for conservation? There are a number of reasons for conservationists to engage with sustainable livelihoods issues. The most commonly stated rationales include: “Conservation underpins sustainable livelihoods”: An „ecosystem based approach‟ relies on the premise that biodiversity provides ecosystem goods and systems that, if managed sustainably, can support people‟s livelihoods and well-being. “Sustainable livelihoods and good governance support conservation outcomes”: This assumes that support to sustainable livelihoods and participatory governance of natural resources can help relieve pressure on biodiversity by reducing unsustainable use. “Conservation hinders livelihoods and well-being”: This premise recognizes that conservation activities can reduce local access to natural resources or restrict how much of a say local people have in the management of those resources. There is therefore a moral imperative to „do no harm‟ and mitigate the costs of conservation by ensuring equitable sharing of any benefits from conservation related activities, as well as supporting people to utilize other livelihoods assets and to maximize potential benefits from the natural resources that they are able to access. “Poverty reduction hinders conservation”: In many contexts, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss is caused by increased affluence and consumer demand in developed as well as developing countries, together with economic growth policies that lead to an expansion of land under production for agricultural and other commodities.