1. PEN in Uganda CIFOR, March 2009
Pam Jagger, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

2. I. Context Tropical high forest Altitudes between 1000-1800 m.a.s.l.
1000; 700; 800 sq. kms
Villages (n=18)
Range: 43 to 244 (avg.=118)
Households (n=540)
Avg. hhd size 6.0
Variability:
Market access
Ethnic diversity
Migrant populations
Lake Albert

3. II. Household incomes sources
Avg.
% Subsistence
Crop
( ) 71
Business
( ) NA
Direct forest
(43 549) 88
Non-forest environmental
(47 791) 95
Wage
(85 551)
Forest derived
(75 544) 29
Other
(50 932)
Livestock
(28 159) 78
1 USD = 1817 UgShs.

4. III. Income sources and seasonality
Forest and env. product harvest inc. when crop production down (Q1/Q3)
Forests support a lot of current consumption – but with critical nutrition implications
Omit total.

5. IV. Key forest and environmental products
Direct Forest Income
Share of Total
Percent for subsistence use
Fuel wood
56.4
97.7
Poles
18.6
96.9
Forest Derived Income
Sawn wood
74.2
27.9
Charcoal
10.6
25.5
Non- forest Environmental Income
Wild vegetables
13.3
Thatching grass
10.7
99.5
How was pricing done:
Quarterly village level price surveys
Collection of conversion factor data so that average prices per standardized unit could be calculated
Collection of time use and average wage rate data on quarterly basis – but limited data on forest and environmental income harvesting

6. V. Income composition and poverty
Total Income
Forest Income
Share of Income from Forests 1
20 463
14.5 2
35 122
15.5 3
38 051
12.4 4
58 120
13.8 5
16.3
1 USD = 1817 UgShs.

7. VI. Other patterns
Only 2 percent of households reported using forests to cope with shocks
Most common coping mechanisms:
Spend savings (21.4%)
Do nothing (18.2 %)
Help from friends (15.1 %)
Pathway out of poverty?
The relatively wealthy who cut timber are better off – but no evidence of the poor lifted into higher quintiles
Market access
Hard to make sense of data - + and - correlations

8. VII. Policies and overall findings
Policy mechanisms to substantively increase forest-based income for the poor are few and a challenge to implement
Forest sector governance reform has had a negative effect on both forest cover and the share of forest income for the poorest households
Forest fragmentation has implications for what we call “forest income”
Most surprising – how forest income has increased for wealthy households in Budongo (partially due to price increases)