Published Date
Abstract
While the Nepalese Community Forestry (CF) program is a highly prioritized development program with potential social, economic, and environmental benefits, its effect on the rural household economy has not been well examined. Using the cost–benefit analysis, this study examines the impact of the CF program on the household economy of forest users in the mid-hills region of Nepal. Both direct and indirect benefits and costs accrued by three wealth-ranked users were considered while calculating net present values. Results revealed that net benefits of the program were greater in rich households than in poor forest user households across a 50-year period. The poor households realized less direct and indirect benefits, yet they paid highest indirect costs incurred from the CF program. The CF program in Nepal requires prompt policy revisions to ensure cost-effective mechanisms to improve net income of poor households participating in the CF program.
References
For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-015-0501-6
First online:
Title
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
- Author
Abstract
While the Nepalese Community Forestry (CF) program is a highly prioritized development program with potential social, economic, and environmental benefits, its effect on the rural household economy has not been well examined. Using the cost–benefit analysis, this study examines the impact of the CF program on the household economy of forest users in the mid-hills region of Nepal. Both direct and indirect benefits and costs accrued by three wealth-ranked users were considered while calculating net present values. Results revealed that net benefits of the program were greater in rich households than in poor forest user households across a 50-year period. The poor households realized less direct and indirect benefits, yet they paid highest indirect costs incurred from the CF program. The CF program in Nepal requires prompt policy revisions to ensure cost-effective mechanisms to improve net income of poor households participating in the CF program.
References
- Adhikari B (2003) Property rights and natural resources: socio-economic heterogeneity and distributional implications of common property resource management. Working paper No.1–03, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Kathmandu
- Adhikari B, Williams F, Lovett JC (2007) Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. For Pol Econ 9:464–478CrossRef
- Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (2012) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor
- Beauchamp E, Ingram V (2011) Impacts of community forests on livelihoods in Cameron: lessons from two case studies. Int For Rev 13:1–15
- Bhattarai RC (2011) Economic impact of community forestry in Nepal: a case of mid-hill districts of Nepal. Econ J Dev Issues 13 &14(1–2):75–96
- Bluffstone R, Robinson R (2012) REDD+ and community controlled forests in low income countries: any hope for a linkage? A paper prepared for presentation at the annual world bank conference on land and poverty. The World Bank, Washington
- Dahal MR (2006) Benefit–cost analysis of community forest and its distributional impact on rural poor. Econ J Nepal 29:93–107CrossRef
- Dahal GR, Chapagain A (2008) Community forestry in Nepal: decentralized forest governance. In: Colfer CJP, Dahal GR, Capistrano D (eds) Lessons from forest decentralization: money, justice and the quest for good governance in Asia–Pacific. Earthscan, London, pp 67–81
- Dev OP, Yadav NP, Springate-Baginski O, Soussan J (2003) Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. J For Liveli 3(1):64–77
- Gautam A (2009) Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. Intern J Soc For 2(2):101–122
- Harrison S (2010) Valuing the future: the social discount rate in cost–benefit analysis, visiting research paper. Productivity Commission, Canberra
- Harrison S, Suh J (2004) Progress and prospects of community forestry in developing and developed countries. Small Scale For Econ Manag Pol 3:287–302
- Kandel BR, Subedi R (2004) Pro-poor community forestry: some initiatives from the field. In: Kanel KR, Mathema P, Kandel BR, Niraula DR, Sharma AR, Gautam M (eds) Proceedings of the fourth national workshop on community forestry, Twenty-five years of community forestry, Kathmandu, pp 229–237
- Kanel KR (2004) Twenty five years of community forestry: contribution to millennium development goals. Fourth national workshop on community forestry. Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu
- Kanel KR, Niraula R (2004) Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through CF? Banko Janakari 14(1):19–26
- Khan NA (2001) Social forestry versus social reality: patronage and community-based forestry in Bangladesh. Gatekeeper Series no. 99. International Institute of Environment and Development. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/6353IIED.pdf
- Khanal Chhetri BB, Johnsen FH, Konoshima M, Yoshimoto A (2013) Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management. For Pol Econ 30:6–13CrossRef
- Kumar S (2002) Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Dev 30:763–782CrossRef
- Lamichhane D, Parajuli R (2014) How good is the governance status in community forestry? A case study from midhills in Nepal. J Ecosyst 2014:1–7CrossRef
- Maharjan MR (1998) The flow and distribution of costs and benefits in the Chuliban community forest, Dhankuta district, Nepal. RDFN paper 23e. Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/271.pdf
- Maraseni TN, Neupane PR, Lopez-Casero F, Cadman T (2014) An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community forests in Nepal. J Environ Manag 136:37–46CrossRef
- Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C, Yufanyi C, Sallar M, Aurenhammer H, Rotchanaphatharawit R, Krott M (2012) Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For Pol Econ 14:1–5CrossRef
- MFSC (1989) Master plan for the forestry sector of Nepal. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu
- Molians JR (1998) The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capital on local-level collective action. World Dev 26:413–431CrossRef
- Neupane S, Shrestha KK (2012) Sustainable forest governance in a changing climate: impacts of REDD program on the livelihood of poor communities in Nepalese community forestry. OIDA Int J Sustain Dev 4(1):71–82
- Pandit R, Bevilacqua E (2011) Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For Pol Econ 13:345–352CrossRef
- Parajuli R, Pokharel RK, Lamichhane D (2010) Social discrimination in community forestry: socio-economic and gender perspectives. Banko Janakari 20(2):26–33. doi:10.3126/banko.v20i2.4799
- Pokharel BK, Nurse M (2004) Forests and people’s livelihood: benefitting the poor from community forestry. J For Liveli 4(1):19–29
- Pokharel RK, Tiwari KR (2013) Good governance assessment in Nepal’s community forestry. J Sustain For 32:549–564CrossRef
- Poudel M, Thwaites R, Race D, Dahal GR (2014) REDD+ and community forestry: implications for local communities and forest management—a case study from Nepal. Int For Rev 16:39–54
- Pulhin JM, Inoue M (2008) Dynamics of devolution process in the management of the Philippine forests. Int J Soc For 1(1):1–26
- Qayum A (1978) Social cost–benefit analysis. The Hapi Press, Oregon
- RECOFTC (2007) Sharing the wealth, improving the distribution of benefits and costs from community forestry: policy and legal frameworks. Synthesis of discussions at the second community forestry forum, Bangkok, Thailand, RECOFTC. FAO and SNV, Bangkok
- RECOFTC (2013) Community forestry in Asia and the Pacific: pathway to inclusive development. RECOFTC—-The Center for People and Forests, Bangkok
- Richards M, Kanel K, Maharjan M, Davies J (1999) Towards participatory economic analysis by forest user groups in Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, London
- Singh BK, Chapagain, DP (2006) Trends in forest ownership, forest resources tenure and institutional arrangements: are they contributing to better forest management and poverty reduction? Understanding the forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. FAO publications. ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j8167e/j8167e06.pdf
- Suh J (2012) The past and future of community-based forest management in the Philippines. Philipp Stud Hist Ethnogr Viewp 60:489–511. doi:10.1353/phs.2012.0038 CrossRef
- Thoms CA (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39:1452–1465CrossRef
- Tietenberg T (2006) Environmental and natural resource economics, 7th edn. Pearson Education Inc, New York
- Tiwari S (2002) Access, exclusion and equity issues in community management forests: an analysis of status of CFs in mid-hills of Nepal. Winrock International, Kathmandu
- Tyler GT (1979) Poverty income distribution and the analysis of agricultural projects. Int Lab Rev 118(4):459–472
- World Bank (2002) Forestry strategy and appendices. World Bank, Washington
For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-015-0501-6
No comments:
Post a Comment