Significant Contribution of Community Forests to Users’ Household Income in Far-West Mid-Hill of Nepal

Significant Contribution of Community Forests to Users’ Household Income in Far-West Mid-Hill of Nepal

Loading document ...
Page
of
Loading page ...

Author(s)

Author(s): Bhakta Raj Giri, Xie Yi, Pradeep Baral, Ramesh Bikram Bogati

Download Full PDF Read Complete Article

DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.1632 103 330 36-55 Volume 7 - Mar 2018

Abstract

The study was carried out in three Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) in Achham district of Nepal. This paper examines the benefits and costs incurred by three income class households (HHs) from Community Forest (CF) over a period of 10 years using semi-structured interviews with 212 randomly selected HHs and 3 sub-group discussions. The findings of the research reveal that the rich HHs derived the highest mean annual gross benefit (35.23%) followed by middle (32.47%) and poor (32.30%) income class HHs respectively. Likewise, rich HHs incurred the highest mean annual gross cost (49.82%) followed by middle (30.47%) and poor (19.71%) income class HHs respectively. Overall, benefits gained by the HHs was 17 times the cost incurred. While benefits from forest products constituted the highest share (97.26%) of benefits, conversely, forest product collection costs constituted the highest share (53.33%) of costs . The results of the research also suggest that rich HHs received the highest Net Present Value (US$ 2537.80) followed by poor (US$ 2504.11) and middle (US$ 2463.89) income class HHs over 10 years at 10% discount rate. The Benefit Cost Ratio for poor, middle and rich income class HHs was found to be 25.52, 16.32 and 11.14 respectively. Household level income from CF is significantly influenced by many bio-physical, economic and demographic variables. The analytical results suggested that education of HH head, distance to CF boundary from user’s home, age of HH head, and HH economic status were statistically significant and showed the negative linear relationship wth HH income from CF. On other hand, livestock unit and HH labor force were statistically significant as expected a priori and showed linear relationship with HH income from CF. Based on these findings, appropriate cost-benefit sharing mechanism were suggested with regular silvicultural operations to empower poor households in CF activities.

Keywords

Community Forest, Benefit, Cost, Benefit-Cost Ratio, Household Level, Wealth class, CF management, Mid-hill, Determinant of CF income

References

  1. ADB. (2013). Cost-benefit analysis for development: A practical guide. Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Asin Development Bank (ADB). Publication Stock No. TIM125320-2. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org
  2. Adhikari, B. (2002). Household characteristics and common property forest use: complementarities and contradictions. Journal of Forestry and Livelihoods, 2(1), 3–14.
  3. Adhikari, B. (2003a). Property rights and natural resources: Socio-economic heterogeneity and distributional implications of common property resource management. SANDEE, Kathmandu, NP.
  4. Adhikari, B. (2003b). What Determines Household Dependency on Community Forests? Empirical Evidence from Nepal. In Proceedings of XII World Forestry Congress. Quebec, Canada.
  5. Adhikari, B. (2005). Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics, 10(1), 7–31.
  6. Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 245–257.
  7. Adhikari, B., & Lovett, J. C. (2006). Transaction costs and community-based natural resource management in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(1), 5–15.
  8. Banjade, M. R., Timsina, N. P., Neupane, H. R., Bhandari, K., Bhattarai, T., & Rana, S. K. (2006). Transforming agency and structure for facilitating pro-poor governance in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 5(1), 22–33.
  9. Bartlett, A. G., & Malla, Y. B. (1992). Local forest management and forest policy in Nepal., 6, 99–116.
  10. Bhattarai, R. C. (2012). Economic impact of community forestry in Nepal: a case of mid-hill districts of Nepal. Economic Journal of Development Issues, 13, 75–96.
  11. Branney, P., & Yadav, K. P. (2009). Change in Community Forestry Condition and Management 1994-98. Analysis of information for the forest resource assessment study and socio-economic stydy of the Koshi hills. NUKCEP, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  12. Buncle, A., Daigneault, A., Holland, P., Fink, A., Hook, S., & Manley, M. (2013). Cost-benefit analysis for natural resource management in the Pacific. Suva, Fiji: Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Available at Www. Undp-Alm. Org/Sites/Default/Files/Downloads/Cost-Benefit_analysis_for_natural_resource_management_in_the_pacific-A_guide. Pdf (Accessed August 2015).
  13. CASA. (2007). CASA. (2007). Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology. Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA),Canberra, Australia.
  14. CBS, N. (2012). National population and housing census 2011. National Report.
  15. Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.
  16. Chhetri, R. B., & Pandey, T. R. (1994). User Group Forestry in the Far western Region of Nepal: A case study from Baitadi and Achham. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  17. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York., USA: John Willey & Sons Inc.
  18. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … Paruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253.
  19. Dahal, D. R. (1994). A review of FUG: case study from Western Nepal. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  20. Dahal, M. R. (2009). Externality Analysis of Community Forest Management. The Third Pole: Journal of Geography Education, 5(7), 62–69.
  21. Deshar, B. D. (2013). An overview of agricultural degradation in Nepal and its impact on economy and environment. Glob J Econ Social Develop, 3(1), 1–20.
  22. DevDFID, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O., & Soussan, J. (2003). Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 1(3), 64–77.
  23. DFO. (2017). Annual Monitoring Report of Community Forestry Development Program,. District Forest Office (DFO) Achham, Nepal.
  24. DFRS/FRA. (2015). State of Nepal’s Forest. Government of Nepal, Department of Forest Research and Survey.
  25. Dhungana, S. P., Pokharel, B. K., Bhattarai, B., & Ojha, H. (2007). Discourses on poverty reduction from forestry in Nepal: A shift from community to household approach (pp. 4–7). Presented at the international Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests: Tenure, Market and Policy Reforms, Bangkok.
  26. DOF. (2017). Community Forestry Bulletin. (Vol. 17). Department of Forests (DOF), CFD, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  27. DOF/CFD. (2014). Community Forestry Development Program Guideline. Community Forestry Division (CFD), Department of Forests (DoF), Babarmahal Kathmandu, Sigma Upset Press Lalitpur, Nepal. Retrieved from http://www.dof.gov.np
  28. Drèze, J., & Stern, N. (1987). The theory of cost-benefit analysis. In Handbook of public economics (Vol. 2, pp. 909–989). Elsevier.
  29. Gautam, A. P., Webb, E. L., Shivakoti, G. P., & Zoebisch, M. A. (2003). Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 99(1–3), 83–96.
  30. Ghimire, G. P. (2007). Contribution of Community Forestry in Community Development and Household Income: A case Study from Kavrepalanchowk District, Nepal. Master thesis,. Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Nepal.
  31. Gilmour, D., & Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests, and foresters: The philosophy, process, and practice of community forestry in Nepal.
  32. Gilmour, Don. (2003). Retrospective and prospective view of community forestry in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2(2), 5–7.
  33. Godoy, R., Lubowski, R., & Markandya, A. (1993). A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical forest products. Economic Botany, 47(3), 220–233.
  34. Graner, E. (1999). Forest Policies and Access to forests in Nepal: Winners and Losers. In Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal- Culture, Societies, Ecology and Development. SASON, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  35. Gunatilake, H. (1998). The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests: evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management, 53(3), 273–292.
  36. Harrison, M. (2010). Valuing the Future: the social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis.
  37. Hjortsø, C., Helles, F., Jacobsen, J. B., Kamelarczyk, K. B. F., & Moraes, R. (2006). A review of forest economics research in Bolivia. And No. Forest & Landscape Working Papers, (18–2006).
  38. K. C., A., Joshi, G. R., & Aryal, S. (2014). Opportunity cost, willingness to pay and cost benefit analysis of a community forest of Nepal. International Journal of Environment, 3(2), 108–124.
  39. Kanel, K., & Niraula, D. (2004). Can livelihood be improved from community forestry: preliminary evidences from Nepal. Banko Janakari, 14(1), 19–24.
  40. Kanel, K. R. (2004). Twenty-five years of Community Forestry: Contribution to Millennium Development Goals ‘. Presented at the Twenty-five Years of Community Forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry.
  41. Karky, B. S. (2008). The economics of reducing emissions from community managed forests in Nepal Himalaya.
  42. KC, A., Koirala, I., & Adhikari, N. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis of a community forest in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 34(3), 199–213.
  43. Lal, P., & Holland, P. (2010). Economics of Resource and Environmental Project Management in the Pacific. IUCN and SOPAC, Gland, Switzerland and Suva Fiji.
  44. Mahapatra, R. (2000). Community forest management: the Nepalese experience., 30–47.
  45. Maharjan, M., Dhakal, T., Thapa, S. K., Schreckenberg, K., & Luttrell, C. (2009). Improving the benefits to the poor from community forestry in the Churia region of Nepal. International Forestry Review, 11(2), 254–267.
  46. Maharjan, M. R. (1998). The flow and distribution of costs and benefits in the Chuliban Community Forest, Dhankuta District, Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Network, 23, 1–12.
  47. Malla, Y. B. (2001). Changing policies and the persistence of patron-client relations in Nepal: Stakeholders’ responses to changes in forest policies. Environmental History, 287–307.
  48. Malla, Y., Barnes, R., Paudel, K., Lawrence, A., Ojha, H., & Green, K. (2002). Common property forest resource management in Nepal: Developing monitoring systems for use at the local level.
  49. Malla, Yam B, Neupane, H. R., & Branney, P. J. (2003). Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 3(1), 78–92.
  50. MPFS. (1989). Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS), main Report and Executive Summary. His Mejesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation,Kathmandu.
  51. Neupane, H. (2003). Contested impact of community forestry on equity: Some evidence from Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2(2), 55–61.
  52. Nightingale, A. J. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood Vol, 2(1).
  53. NPC. (2017). 14th Three Year’s Interim Plan. Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), Kathmandu, Nepal.
  54. NPC. (2018). Nepal’s Multidimensional Poverty Index: Analysis Towards Action. Government of Nepal, National Planning coomission (NPC), Kathmndu, Nepal.
  55. Nyborg, K. (1996). Environmental Valuation, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Policy Making: A Survey. Statistics. Norway Research Department.
  56. Parajuli, R., Lamichhane, D., & Joshi, O. (2015). Does Nepal’s community forestry program improve the rural household economy? A cost–benefit analysis of community forestry user groups in Kaski and Syangja districts of Nepal. Journal of Forest Research, 20(6), 475–483.
  57. Pokharel, B. K., & Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and people’s livelihood: Benefiting the poor from community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 4(1), 19–29.
  58. Rai, R. K., Neupane, P., & Dhakal, A. (2016). Is the contribution of community forest users financially efficient? A household level benefit-cost analysis of community forest management in Nepal. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1).
  59. Rai, R. K., & Scarborough, H. (2013). Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X1200037X
  60. Rai, R. K., & Scarborough, H. (2015). Nonmarket valuation in developing countries: incorporating labour contributions in environmental benefits estimates. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(4), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12071
  61. Richards, M., Kanel, K., Maharjan, M., & Davies, J. (1999a). Towards participatory economic analysis by forest user groups in Nepal. ODI.
  62. Richards, M., Kanel, K., Maharjan, M., & Davies, J. (1999b). Towards participatory economic analysis by forest user groups in Nepal. ODI.
  63. Richards, M., Maharjan, M. R., & Kanel, K. (2003). Economics, poverty and transparency: measuring equity in forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 3(1), 91–106.
  64. Springate-Baginski, O., Soussan, J., Dev, O., Yadav, N., & Kiff, E. (1999). Community forestry in Nepal: Impacts on common property resource management.
  65. Timsina, N. (2002). Empowerment or marginalization: A debate in community forestry in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood Vol, 2, 1.
  66. Upreti, B. (2000). Contributions of Community Forestry in Rural Social Transformation: Some Observations From Nepa., 31–33.
  67. Vallejos, C., Cuèllar, R., Ayala, J., & Ramos, C. (1996). Estudio de valuación del bosque de Lomerío: memoria del taller realizado con representantes de las comunidades Las Trancas y Puesto Nuevo. BOLFOR, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
  68. Varughese, G. (1999). Villagers, bureaucrats, and forests in Nepal: Designing governance for a complex resource.
  69. Williams, R. (2015). Multicollinearity. University of Notre Dame.(Indiana, USA).

Cite this Article:

  • BibTex
  • RIS
  • APA
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Vancouver
  • Chicago

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Search Articles

Issue July 2019

Volume 8, July 2019


Table of Contents


Order Print Copy

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:


Submit your Paper