Abstract
Nepal has a long history of returning public forests to local people as part of its community forestry programme. In principle the community forestry programme is designed to address both environmental quality and poverty alleviation. However, concern has been expressed that forest policies emphasise environmental conservation, and that this has a detrimental impact on the use of community forests in rural Nepal where households require access to public forest products to sustain livelihoods. To study the effect of government policies on forest use, an economic model of a typical small community of economically heterogeneous households in Nepal was developed. The model incorporates a link between private agriculture and public forest resources, and uses this link to assess the socioeconomic impacts of forest policies on the use of public forests. Socioeconomic impacts were measured in terms of household income, employment and income inequality. The results show that some forest policies have a negative economic impact, and the impacts are more serious than those reported by other studies. This study shows that existing forest policies reduce household income and employment, and widen income inequalities within communities, compared to alternative policies. Certain forest policies even constrain the poorest households’ ability to meet survival needs. The findings indicate that the socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies may be underestimated in developing countries unless household economic heterogeneity and forestry’s contribution to production are accounted for. The study also demonstrates that alternative policies for managing common property resources would reduce income inequalities in rural Nepalese communities and lift incomes and employment to a level where even the poorest households could meet their basic needs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdelaziz FB, Martel JM, Mselmi A (2004) IMGD: an interactive method for multiobjective group decision aid. J Oper Res Soc 55: 464–474
Adhikari B, Falcol S, Lovett J (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48(2): 245–257
Adhikari B, Williams F, Lovett J (2007) Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ 9(5): 464–478
Agrawal B (2001) Participatory exclusion, community forestry, and gender: an analysis of South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10): 1623–1648
Alig RJ, Adams DM, McCarl BA (1998) Impacts of incorporating land exchanges between forestry and agriculture in sector models. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 30: 389–401
Amacher G, Hyde W, Joshee B (1993) Joint production and consumption in traditional households: fuelwood and crop residues in two districts in Nepal. J Dev Stud 30(1): 206–225
Anthon S, Lund JF, Helles F (2008) Targeting the poor: taxation of marketed forest products in developing countries. J For Econ 14: 197–224
Aune J, Alemu A, Gautam K (2005) Carbon sequestration in rural communities: is it worth the effort?. J Sustain For 21(1): 69–79
Baland J, Platteau JP (1999) The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Dev 27(5): 773–788
Bardhan P, Urdy C (1999) Development microeconomics. Oxford University Press, New York
Buongiorno J, Gilless J (2003) Decision methods for forest resource management. Academic Press, San Diego
CentralBureauof Statistics (CBS): (2003) National sample census of agriculture Nepal, 2001/02. National Planning Commission, Kathmandu
Das R, Shivakoti G (2006) Livestock carrying capacity evaluation in an integrated farming system: A case study from the mid-hills of Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(3): 153–163
Dhakal B (2009) Carbon liability, market price risk and social impacts of Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Programme. J For Live 8(1): 67–77
Dhakal B, Bhatta B (2009) An institutional model to explain utilization problems of community forest products. Int J Soc For 2(2): 23–48
Dhakal B, Bigsby H, Cullen R (2011) Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for small farmers in Nepal. J Sustain Agric 35(1): 86–115
DOF (2000) Guidelines for inventory of community forests. Ministry of forest and soil conservation. Department of Forest, Community and Private Forest Division Kathmandu, Nepal
FAO (2000) FRA 2000-forest resources of Nepal country profile. FAO http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?
FAO (2003) FAO nutrient response database: Fertibase. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/nrdb/country.jsp?lang=en&what=&setting=&COUNTRY_ID=NEPAL&CROP_GROUP=CEREALS&CROP=ALL&ZONE=&SOILID=
FAO (2004) Food and Agricultural indicators. http://www.fao.org/es/ess/compendium_2004/pdf/ESS_NEP.pdf
Graner E (1996) The Political Ecology of Community Forestry in Nepal. Saarbruken: Verlag fur Entwickungspolitik
Graner E (1997) The political ecology of community forestry in Nepal. Verlag fur Entwickungspolitik, Saarbruken
Hjortso C, Straede S, Helles F (2006) Applying multi-criteria decision-making to protected areas and buffer zone management: a case study in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. J For Econ 12(2): 91–108
Kayastha B, Pradhan S, Rasaily N, Dangal S, Arentz F (2001) Community forest product marketing options for timber and non-timber forest products 2001. Discussion paper. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Management Project. No-Frills Consultants
Karky BS, Skutsch M (2010) The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya. Ecol Econ 69: 666–667
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 Development 30(5):763–782
MacEvilly C (2003) Cereals. In: Caballero B, Trugo LC, Finglas PM (eds) Encyclopedia of food science and nutrition, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam
Maskey V, Gebremedhin TG, Dalton TJ (2006) Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. J For Econ 11(4): 261–270
Master Plan (1988) The Forestry Sector Master Plan. Ministry of Forest, Kathmandu
McNeely J, Schroth G (2006) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation—traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. J Biodivers Conserv 15(2): 549–554
Montagnini F, Nair P (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. J Agrofor Syst 61–62(1–3): 281–295
Murshed S, Gates S (2005) Spatial–horizontal inequality and the maoist insurgency in Nepal. Rev Dev Econ 9(1): 121–134
Narain PR, Singh N, Sindhwal NS, Joshie P (1997) Agroforestry for soil and water conservation in the western Himalayan Valley Region of India: runoff, soil and nutrient losses. J Agrofor Syst 39(2): 175–189
NPC (National Planning Commission) (2003) The tenth plan 2002–2007 (poverty reduction strategy paper). His Majesty’s Government. National Planning Commission, Kathmandu. Downloaded on 10 Dec 2003. http://www.npc.gov.np/tenthplan/docs/Formated10Plan_A4_size.doc
Oli KP (1987) On-farm research methodologies for livestock development at Pakhribas Agricultural Centre. PAC Working Paper 03/87. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Dhankuta
Paudel K (1992) Implication of forage and livestock production on soil fertility. In: Abington JB (eds) Sustainable livestock production in the mountain agro-ecosystem of Nepal. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation, Rome, pp 155–170
Paudel K, Tiwari B (1992) Fodder and forage production. In: Abington JB (eds) Sustainable livestock production in the mountain agro-ecosystem of Nepal. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation, Rome, pp 131–154
Shen Y, Liao X, Yin R (2009) Measuring the aggregate socioeconomic impacts of China’s natural forest protection program. In: Yin R (ed) An integrated assessment of China’s ecological restoration programs. Springer, Heidelberg
Shrestha K, McManus P (2007) The embeddedness of collective action in Nepalese community forestry. Small Scale For 6(3): 273–290
Stenberg LC, Siriwardana M (2007) Forest conservation in the Philippines: an economic assessment of selected policy responses using a computable general equilibrium model. For Policy Econ 9: 671–693
Strassburg B, Turner RK, Fisher B, Schaeffer R, Lovett A (2009) Reducing emissions from deforestation—the “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical simulations. Glob Environ Change 19: 265–278
Taylor E, Adelman I (2003) Agricultural household models: genesis, evolutions, and extensions. Rev Econ House 1(1/2): 33–58
Thoms CA (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
Varughese G, Ostrom E (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Dev 29(5): 747–765
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dhakal, B., Bigsby, H. & Cullen, R. Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Forest Policies on Heterogeneous Agricultural Households. Environ Resource Econ 53, 73–95 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4