Food and nutrition is the third link. Trees are a vital resource to rural dwellers for food, not only to feed them, but to trade as well, “for example in the Huacamayas forest in Ecuador, people use 212 plant species and 141 animal products” (World Conservation Union website, 2000). This is important in areas of desert or un-forested land as fruit and berries are otherwise unavailable, so the few trees in existence are invaluable. In forests and particularly rainforests, the range and variety and foods supplied by the trees is much more varied, and the trees also attract animals which locals can hunt and feed on also. This relationship is often dependant, meaning that without the tree resources local people would be unable to function, let alone maintain livelihoods. An example is the dependence of Pygmies in Central America on the rainforest for hunting and gathering food, especially the Mbuti and Baka Pygmies. Food security is an important issue in much of the developing world and rural livelihoods depend on such security.
Animal grazing is also an important relationship. Many rural livelihoods are dependant on livestock and tree resources can play a significant role in animal rearing. Essentially trees are a resource for animal fodder, for example tribes in southern Amazonian regions rely on leaf litter as the staple food for their livestock. Trees are also important for grazing as they provide shade and rubbing posts for pest control, for example shifting cultivation systems and Fulani pastoralists in rural parts of eastern and central Africa, roam in search of trees purely to maintain their cattle. Animals are frequently vital assets in rural livelihoods, as they provide food and animal products for the people as well as for trade, and they are a means of transport for livelihoods that require travel.
Tree resources are incredibly valuable for their biomass. Rural livelihoods and rural living need trees for their biomass, namely fuel wood. For example rural farmers in the Kissidougou area of Guinea use undergrowth, leaf litter and wood for energy. Also wood is the principal source of energy in India particularly for rural people (80%) and the urban poor, 203m³ fuel wood consumed each year (Hall et al, 1982:189).
Tree resources also have medicinal value, particularly rainforests, this is of importance as the health of the people directly affects their livelihoods. In his book “Earthly Goods”, Christopher Joyce describes his introduction to a medicinal plant in the Quichua Forests in Ecuador. The plant named ‘huanduj’ has the effect of putting you to sleep if you strip its bark and drink its water, resulting in a giddy drunk like state. Another example is 55% of forest products extracted in Kenya is for medicinal purposes, medicines that are often sold on to urban dwellers. “In the area around Arabuko Sokoke up to 108 forest species are regularly used for medicinal purposes” (Lukandu in Wass, 1995:59).
In areas of forest resources where commercial logging is being carried out, local villagers are sometimes employed in the logging process, from helping to cut down trees to loading lorries. Many rural Livelihoods in the Kakemege Forest, Kenya are supplemented by logging companies, villagers are often employed to help but at an exploitative wage rate.
There are also indirect relationships that exist between tree resources and rural livelihoods. One of these is the tree resource as a tourist attraction, although this only really concerns tropical rainforests, for example the development of walking/hiking trails and the contruction of lodges and facilities in the Aberdares, Shimba and Mount Kenya Forests. In parts of Southern America indigenous peoples have become reliant on income from tourists visiting rainforests, often as part of eco-holidays that are becoming increasingly popular with western tourists. Their income comes from selling rainforest products and handicrafts made from tree resources. Also some rainforest dwellers have their incomes supplemented by governments and conservation organisations as compensation for the use of rainforests as national parks and tourist resorts.
A second indirect relationship is the reliance on trees as soil stabilisers. Rural livelihoods frequently need trees to act as soil stabilisers as well as windbreaks in order to maintain agricultural crops and firm ground for their housing.
Negative relationships between rural livelihoods and tree resources also exist. The main problem is environmental degradation and losses of biodiversity e.g. 150 woody plants are believed to be under threat in the Simba Hills and Kakemega, Kenya (Wass 1995). The continued use of trees and other products of forests and rainforests in rural livelihoods and rural living has naturally lead to their depletion and a decline in the diversity of species. For example the presence of Fulani pastoralists in the tree parklands of the Zande people in the eastern area of the Central African Republic have had such effects. It is believed these pastoralists and their cattle have increased openings in the forest cover, decreased animal and plant biodiversity, degraded the hunting potential of the Zande and consequently the quality of their diet, and caused a loss of the traditional values of the Zande people. Also “Long-term hunting and trapping on the boundaries of Trans Mava have eliminated two species of larger antelope and even the commonest two species of duikers” (Wass, 1995:29). Another example, also in Kenya but in Kakamega, is the lack of wood eating termites as a result of deadwood collections by villagers – collection of deadwood and leaf litter may have negative effects on nutrient recycling within the forest ecosystem. Even where some western conservationists have interjected, there has been a loss of biodiversity, for example in Nepal forest management for sustainable livelihoods has encouraged the clearance of less resourceful plants to plant high value trees.
Rural livelihoods and tree resources are under threat as a result of urban livelihoods and exploitation by the developed world as well. The key quandary is that of deforestation, “many countries of the developing world do not have the forest resources that they used to” (Potter et al, 1999:269) “In the 1990s, the world’s forests declined at the rate of 17million ha per year. The rate of deforestation is excessive and threatens rural livelihoods in many countries” (www.iucn.org/info_and_news/
press/ammanforests.html). Many forests and rainforests in the developing world are being stripped of their valuable tree resources to meet high demands in the developing world. Such forests provide rich hard and soft woods that sell at high prices in the global north, such as mahogany, as well as wood for use as fuel and cheap timber. In the past logging has been an exploitative process, big companies taking advantages of the lack of the rules and regulations surrounding tree resources that exist in their own countries, as well as making use of cheap labour. Such exploitation has been going on for decades, depriving indigenous people of their rural livelihoods and their means for survival and causing many to migrate away from their traditional and historical settlements in search of new tree resources. “Deforestation continues at high rates in certain developing countries. As a result, communities are often deprived of valuable forest resources such as wood products, food and medicine” (DFID, 2000:16). More recently however, measures have been taken to slow deforestation and control the activities of logging and mining corporations, for sustainable forest harvesting. These include the replanting of trees and selective felling in order to preserve tree resources. It should be remembered that the relationship between rural livelihoods and deforestation is a circular one. That is rural livelihoods can cause deforestation, and deforestation can affect rural livelihoods.
Logging is not the only offender of deforestation, agriculture has become increasingly responsible for third world deforestation. Rising global population has meant, according to Malthusian thinking, a proportional increase in agricultural land due to rising demand for food. The problem is the lack of fertile, flat land suitable for agricultural production and so food producers and large commercial agricultural firms have turned to clearing trees to generate such conditions. “The World Bank asserts that (during the 1980s) new settlements for agriculture accounted for 60 per cent of tropical deforestation” (Barraclough & Ghimire, 2000:20). Since the late 19th century coffee has been an important agricultural export for Guatemala, in the 1950s and following the mechanisation and commercialisation of agriculture, large agro-export companies cleared areas of forest for coffee plantations. By 1990 only 40 per cent of Guatemala was forested, when originally it was almost totally covered. Economic growth also acted as a stimulant to agricultural expansion and consequently deforestation, e.g. throughout the 1940s 50s and 60s Brazil embarked on a series of investments for economic growth that included “hydroelectric projects, mining, industries, eucalyptus plantations, cattle-ranching and agro-export initiatives” (Barraclough & Ghimire, 2000:34) and resulted in rapid deforestation, particularly of the north east.
All the relationships between rural livelihoods and tree resources have different natures, and rural livelihood systems vary in nature too. In the book “Adaptable Livelihoods” Davies discusses the elements of rural livelihoods, describing five central components. The first is livelihood security, which incorporates the influencing factors on livelihoods and food security, such as external policies, community influence and tenure/entitlement. It also considers how livelihoods are carried out and maintained. The second is entitlement, which talks about the roles and responsibilities within rural households, and the entitlements of members within a rural community. Vulnerability, the third component deals with issues affecting the carrying out of livelihoods, such as deforestation, and the vulnerability of livelihoods such as agriculture to weather. The last two components resilience/sensitivity and diversity look at livelihood vulnerability in much more detail. These five components are essential not only to understanding livelihoods but understanding the relationships between rural livelihoods and tree resources. Many of the direct relationships described earlier are incredibly vulnerable, particularly the use of tree resources for biomass and food.
The vulnerability of many of the relationships between trees and livelihoods, and the negative aspects such as deforestation, land degradation and loss of biodiversity, all call out for measures to be taken to address them. This is where the idea of sustainable livelihoods comes in. The sustainability of the relationships is a key issue for agencies such as DFID (Department for International Development). If rural livelihoods depend on tree resources then these resources must be managed in a way that allows their continuous use in the present, and more importantly in the future. Trees are a renewable resource but the period of renewal is lengthy, therefore as a resource they must be managed sustainably to maintain livelihoods. DFID encourages management that involves participatory methods, holistic and realistic approaches and analysis, and continued research into alternatives. Only really since the 1992 Earth Summit has the idea of sustainability become a vital issue and since a number of projects and schemes have been set up to sustain tree resources, sustain rural livelihoods, and sustain the relationships between them. An example is the Community Forestry Project (NUICCFP) in Nepal. In 1993 legal authority was given to rural dwellers to manage forest areas in the hills of Nepal, as part of the New Nepal Forest Act. This gives them legal ownership of the trees and allows them to workout their own management strategies, set their own prices for forest products, and decide how income from surpluses is spent. It is believed that when the poor have ownership of a resource there is greater incentive for them to use it in a sustainable way.
In conclusion there are a series of direct and indirect relationships between tree resources and rural livelihoods, many of which are dependent and extremely vulnerable. Deforestation and biodiversity loss are consequences of both rural and urban livelihoods. In order to curb these and maintain tree resources for present and future use there is a need for sustainable approaches to the relationships, and sustainable management of trees as a resource.
Bibliography:
-
Ashley C and Carney D, Sustainable Livelihoods : Lessons from early experience, 1999, DFID, London
-
Barraclough S L and Ghimire K B, Agricultural Expansion and Tropical Deforestation, 2000, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London
-
Carney D, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, 1998, DFID London
-
Davies S, Adaptable Livelihoods, 1996, Macmillan Press Ltd, London
-
DFID; Achieving Sustainability – poverty elimination and the environment, 2000, DFID, London
-
Hall D O, Barnard G W and Moss P A, Biomass for energy in the developing countries, 1982, Pergamon Press, Oxford
-
Joyce C, Earthly Goods, 1994, Little, Brown & Company, Canada
-
Radclift M, Sustainability – Life Chances and Livelihoods, 2000, Routledge, London
-
Sedjo R A, Goetzi A and Moffat S O, Sustainability of Temperate Forests, 1998, Resources for the Future, Washington, USA
-
Wass P (ed), Kenya’s Indigenous Forests : Status, Management and Conservation, 1995, World Conservation Union Overseas Development Administration, UK