Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T08:35:26.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impacts of a community forestry program on forest conditions, management intensity and revenue generation in the Dang district of Nepal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2014

Narayan Raj Poudel ,
Nobuhiko Fuwa  and
Keijiro Otsuka
Narayan Raj Poudel
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. E-mail: mnkpoudel@yahoo.com
Nobuhiko Fuwa
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. E-mail: nfuwa@waseda.jp
Keijiro Otsuka
Affiliation:
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, 7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8677, Japan. Tel: +81-3-6439-6228. E-mail: Otsuka@grips.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing literature documents the positive impact of community management on non-timber forest conservation but not on the condition of timber forests, which require higher management intensity than do non-timber forests. Using ground-level data of the age composition of trees and the management activities of timber forests and applying a rigorous econometric technique to deal with the endogeneity of handing over forest use rights to the community, we find that a longer period of community management is associated with a higher density of pole-size trees, indicating that community management facilitates the rehabilitation of timber forests. We also find that population pressure leads to deforestation under state management but encourages forest management under community management.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 259 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adhikari, B., Williams, F., and Lovett, J. (2007), ‘Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal’, Forest Policy and Economics 9(5): 464–478.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, S. and Elbow, K. (2006), ‘Role of property rights in natural resource management, good governance and empowerment of the rural poor’, [Available at] http://usaidlandtenure.net/sites/default/files/USAID_Land_Tenure_Property_Rights_andNRM_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. and Chhatre, A. (2006), ‘Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya’, World Development 34(1): 149–166.Google Scholar
Angelsen, A. (1999), ‘Agricultural expansion and deforestation: modelling the impact of population, market forces and property rights’, Journal of Development Economics 58: 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J.D. and Pischke, J. (2009), Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baland, J., Bardhan, P., Das, S., and Mookherjee, D. (2010), ‘Forests to the people: decentralization and forest degradation in the Indian Himalayas’, World Development 38(11): 1642–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banjade, M.R., Paudel, N.S., Karki, R., Sunam, R., and Paudyal, B.R. (2011), ‘Putting timber in the hot seat: discourse, policy and contestations over timber in Nepal’, Discussion Paper No. 11:2, Forest Action Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, P., Pradhan, L., and Yadav, G. (2010), ‘Joint forest management in India: experiences of two decades’, Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 54(8): 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattarai, K. and Conway, D. (2008), ‘Evaluating land use dynamics and forest cover change in Nepal's Bara district (1973–2003)’, Human Ecology 36(1): 81–95.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, R.N. (2001), ‘Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal’, Ecological Economics 36(2): 341–353.Google Scholar
Dang District Forest Office (2009), ‘Yearly progress report of Dang district forest office, 2009’, Dang District Forest Office, Ghorahi, Dang.Google Scholar
Dhakal, B., Bigsby, H., and Cullen, R. (2012), ‘Socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies on heterogeneous agricultural households’, Environment and Resource Economics 53(1): 73–95.Google Scholar
Edmonds, E. (2002), ‘Government initiated community resource management and local extraction form Nepal forests’, Journal of Development Economics 68(1): 89–115.Google Scholar
Gautam, A.P. (2007), ‘Group size, heterogeneity and collective action outcomes: evidence from community forestry in Nepal’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14(6): 574–583.Google Scholar
Gautam, K.H. and Devoe, N.N. (2006), ‘Ecological and anthropogenic niches of Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn. f.) forest and prospects for multiple-product forest management – a review’, Forestry 79(1): 81–101.Google Scholar
Gautam, A.P., Shivakoti, G.P., and Webb, E.L. (2004), ‘A review of forest policies, institutions, and change in the resource condition in Nepal’, International Forestry Review 6(2): 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerald, J.G., Enzer, M.J., and Kusel, J. (2001), ‘Understanding community-based ecosystem management: an editorial synthesis’, Journal of Sustainable Forestry 12 (3–4): 1–23.Google Scholar
Gibbon, H. (1996), ‘Some thoughts on NUKCFP's CF Support Strategy’, NUKCFP (Nepal-UK Community Forest Project), Memo.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D.A. and Fisher, R.J. (1991), Villagers, Forests and Foresters: A Philosophy, Process and Practices of Community Forestry in Nepal, Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayami, Y. (2009), ‘Social capital, human capital and the community mechanism: toward a conceptual framework for economists’, Journal of Development Studies 45(1): 96–123.Google Scholar
Hobley, M. (1996), Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal, London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
Kanel, K.R. and Niraula, D.R. (2004), ‘Can rural livelihood be improved through community forestry?’, Banko Janakari 14(1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Khanal Chhetri, B.B., Lunda, J.F., and Nielsena, Ø.J. (2010), ‘Rural development potential of community forestry in Nepal’, [Available at] http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/events/montpellier/scientific-session/Presentations/Session%205/Khanal%20Chhetri%20and%20Jens%20Lund.pdf.Google Scholar
Kijima, Y., Sakurai, T., and Otsuka, K. (2000), ‘ Iriachi: collective vs. individualized management of community forests in post-war Japan’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 48(4): 867–881.Google Scholar
Kohlin, G. and Parks, P.J. (2001), ‘Spatial variability and disincentives to harvest: deforestation and fuelwood collection in South Asia’, Land Economics 77(2): 206–218.Google Scholar
Kumar, S. (2002), ‘Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkland, India’, World Development 30(5): 763–782.Google Scholar
Maskey, V., Gebremedhin, T.G., and Dalton, T.J. (2006), ‘Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal’, Journal of Forest Economics 11(4): 261–270.Google Scholar
Metz, J.J. (1991), ‘A reassessment of the causes and severity of Nepal's environmental crisis’, World Development 19(7): 805–820.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N. (1994), ‘Management of common property resources: limits to voluntary collective action’, Environmental and Resource Economics 4(6): 581–594.Google Scholar
Ojha, H., Persha, L., and Chhatre, A. (2009), ‘Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation for local livelihoods’, Discussion Paper No. 0913, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Otsuka, K. and Place, F. (2001), Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study of Agrarian Communities in Asia and Africa, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sakurai, T., Rayamajhi, S., Pokheral, R., and Otsuka, K. (2004), ‘Efficiency of timber production in community and private forestry in Nepal’, Environment and Development Economics 9(4): 539–561.Google Scholar
Sapkota, P. and Meilby, B. (2009), ‘Modeling the growth of shorea robusta using growth ring measurements’, Banko Janakari 19(2): 25–32.Google Scholar
Shrestha, K. and McManus, P. (2007), ‘The embeddedness of collective action in Nepalese community forestry’, Small Scale Forestry 6(3): 273–290.Google Scholar
Somanathan, E. (1991), ‘Deforestation, property rights and incentives in the Central Himalayas’, Economics and Political Weekly 26(1): 37–46.Google Scholar
Tachibana, T. and Adhikari, S. (2009), ‘Does community-based management improve natural resource condition? Evidence from the forests in Nepal’, Land Economics 85(1): 107–131.Google Scholar
Tachibana, T., Upadhyaya, H.K., Pokharel, R., Rayamajhi, S., and Otsuka, K. (2001), ‘Common property forest management in the Hill region of Nepal’, in Otsuka, K. and Palace, F. (eds), Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study of Agrarian Communities in Asia and Africa, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Thoms, C.A. (2008), ‘Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal’, Geoforum 39(3): 1452–1465.Google Scholar
World Bank (2009), ‘Forests sourcebook: practical guidance for sustaining forests in development cooperation’, Washington, DC: World Bank, [Available at] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6455.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Poudel Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Poudel Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 56.6 KB