Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Forest Policies on Heterogeneous Agricultural Households

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal B (2001) Participatory exclusion, community forestry, and gender: an analysis of South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10): 1623–1648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthon S, Lund JF, Helles F (2008) Targeting the poor: taxation of marketed forest products in developing countries. J For Econ 14: 197–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Aune J, Alemu A, Gautam K (2005) Carbon sequestration in rural communities: is it worth the effort?. J Sustain For 21(1): 69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Baland J, Platteau JP (1999) The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Dev 27(5): 773–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan P, Urdy C (1999) Development microeconomics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buongiorno J, Gilless J (2003) Decision methods for forest resource management. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • CentralBureauof Statistics (CBS): (2003) National sample census of agriculture Nepal, 2001/02. National Planning Commission, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhakal B, Bhatta B (2009) An institutional model to explain utilization problems of community forest products. Int J Soc For 2(2): 23–48

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  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 Jharkhand, India. World Development 30(5):763–782

    Google Scholar 

  • MacEvilly C (2003) Cereals. In: Caballero B, Trugo LC, Finglas PM (eds) Encyclopedia of food science and nutrition, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montagnini F, Nair P (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. J Agrofor Syst 61–62(1–3): 281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murshed S, Gates S (2005) Spatial–horizontal inequality and the maoist insurgency in Nepal. Rev Dev Econ 9(1): 121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor E, Adelman I (2003) Agricultural household models: genesis, evolutions, and extensions. Rev Econ House 1(1/2): 33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhubaneswor Dhakal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4

Keywords

Navigation