Does participatory forest management program lead to efficient forest resource use and improved rural livelihoods? Experiences from Mua-Livulezi Forest Reserve, Malawi

Abstract

This study evaluates the efficacy of Improved Forest Management for Sustainable Livelihoods Program (IFMSLP) in communities adjacent to Mua-Livulezi Forest Reserve, Malawi. The program is specifically aimed at alleviating poverty and enhance rural livelihoods through promoting greater community involvement in forest management while providing access and associated benefits. The study therefore evaluated the effect of the program on community organisation, forest access, forest use, product availability and commercialisation of forest products. The results show that despite the program putting in place strategies for the people to access different products for different uses; forest use is restricted mainly to subsistence use rather than cash income. The main forest product collected by the people for livelihood was firewood, mainly for cooking and heating. This is an indication that forests are an important natural capital for subsistence rather than cash income. Gender, location of the village, and distance to the nearest forest area were significant predictors of households' forest use. Introduction of the co-management program has not brought out the expected outcomes in areas of community organization, forest access, forest product availability and commercialisation of forest products. A multi-institutional approach is recommended to draw upon diverse talents and experiences from individual institutions both government and non-governmental in order to achieve meaningful social change.

Forest management and conservation before and after the introduction of village participatory land use plans in the Kilosa district REDD+ initiative, Tanzania

“…The observed permitted and non-permitted forest uses were also noted by Vatn et al (2013) in the same study area and by Senganimalunje et al (2015) in other conservation initiatives in Malawi. This further indicates that this strategy might be a good way of limiting forest use and achieve sustainable forest management and conservation under the REDD+ initiative.…”

“…As noted earlier, REDD+'s regulation of access to forests means that the forests are utilized based on the management plan. According to Senganimalunje, Chirwa, Babalola and Graham (2015), access to forest products could mean that the community are provided with various livelihood resources. However, they further noted that regulated access to forests resulted in negative 21 social changes to the community.…”

How trust influence social capital to support collective action in agroforestry development?

“…Collective action for the natural resource management shapes by individuals and its transformations within groups and individuals. It holds the greatest promise for the collective and sustainable governance of natural resources (Meilasari and Sugiana 2012) and individuals who can mitigate negative outcomes resulted from resource use that livelihoods depend on (Senganimalunje et al 2016). Agroforestry is intended to be an alternative for sustainable forest management, unfortunately collective action on developing agroforestry practices in both villages is still weak.…”

Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?

“…A study in Nepal [62] also indicated a similar tendency for men participation in forest protection. Furthermore, women mostly rely on various small products from the forest to support their livelihoods [87,88].…”