IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v38y2014icp119-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?

Author

Listed:
  • Lund, Jens Friis
  • Baral, Keshab
  • Bhandari, Nirmala Singh
  • Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal
  • Larsen, Helle Overgaard
  • Nielsen, Øystein Juul
  • Puri, Lila
  • Rutt, Rebecca Leigh
  • Treue, Thorsten

Abstract

This paper is concerned with who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests. The objectives of the study are two-fold; to document who benefits from community forestry user groups' (CFUG) financing of investments in public services and infrastructure and pro-poor initiatives and to explore whether biases against certain groups in investments coincide with biases in their participation in decision-making. The paper is based upon data on taxation income and revenue expenditures of 45 community-forest user groups (CFUG) and on data from 1111 CFUG member households on socio-economic status and participation in and perceptions of CFUG management. The results indicate an overall bias against poor and Dalit households in terms of access to CFUG funded public infrastructure. This overall picture conceals important variation; including that poor CFUG members have a higher likelihood of obtaining CFUG financed pro-poor loans than more well-off groups. However, members of the CFUG executive committees have an even higher likelihood of obtaining loans. Results also show that most CFUG members are knowledgeable about CFUG finances, but that they generally express dissatisfaction with the level of transparency about CFUG finances and decision-making processes. Further, poor and Dalit households are generally less knowledgeable on and participate less in CFUG management than other groups, and are less well represented on the CFUG executive committees. Thus, overall, the distribution of benefits from taxation of forest products in community forestry remains unequal, and the disadvantaged groups are poorly placed to claim a larger share of the benefits. Accordingly, the evidence presented in the paper exemplifies how participatory policies are framed by existing inequalities and social hierarchies, but also how such policies may modify these structures through affirmative strategies, such as the policy on pro-poor activities of CFUGs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lund, Jens Friis & Baral, Keshab & Bhandari, Nirmala Singh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Treue, Thorsten, 2014. "Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 119-125.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:119-125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113000786
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iversen, Vegard & Chhetry, Birka & Francis, Paul & Gurung, Madhu & Kafle, Ghanendra & Pain, Adam & Seeley, Janet, 2006. "High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 93-107, June.
    2. Adhikari, Bhim & Di Falco, Salvatore & Lovett, Jon C., 2004. "Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 245-257, February.
    3. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    4. Chakraborty, Rabindra Nath, 2001. "Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 341-353, February.
    5. Pokharel, Ridish K., 2012. "Factors influencing the management regime of Nepal's community forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 13-17.
    6. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Lund, Jens Friis & Nielsen, Øystein Juul, 2012. "The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 113-121.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    2. Eve Bohnett & Sanju Lamichhane & Yanjing Tracy Liu & Scott Yabiku & Digambar Singh Dahal & Siraj Mammo & Kossi Fandjinou & Bilal Ahmad & Li An, 2023. "The Implications of Community Forest Income on Social and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Lacuna-Richman, Celeste & Devkota, Bishnu P. & Richman, Mark A., 2016. "Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 69-78.
    4. Satyal, Poshendra & Corbera, Esteve & Dawson, Neil & Dhungana, Hari & Maskey, Gyanu, 2020. "Justice-related impacts and social differentiation dynamics in Nepal's REDD+ projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    5. Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Pokharel, Ridish & Rayamajhi, Santosh & Tiwari, Krishna & Treue, Thorsten, 2015. "The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 50-61.
    6. Oli, Bishwa Nath & Treue, Thorsten & Smith-Hall, Carsten, 2016. "The relative importance of community forests, government forests, and private forests for household-level incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 155-163.
    7. Baral, Sony & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Baral, Himlal & Vacik, Harald, 2019. "Investments in different taxonomies of goods: What should Nepal's community forest user groups prioritize?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-32.
    8. Chomba, Susan & Treue, Thorsten & Sinclair, Fergus, 2015. "The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 37-46.
    9. Beeju Poudyal & Suraj Upadhaya & Suman Acharya & Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, 2021. "Assessing Socio-Economic Factors Affecting the Implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Mechanism," World, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Puspa K.C. Bhandari & Prabin Bhusal & Ganesh Paudel & Chiranjibi P. Upadhyaya & Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, 2019. "Importance of Community Forestry Funds for Rural Development in Nepal," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, May.
    11. Toft, Maja Nastasia Juul & Adeyeye, Yemi & Lund, Jens Friis, 2015. "The use and usefulness of inventory-based management planning to forest management: Evidence from community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 35-49.
    12. Moktan, Mani Ram & Norbu, Lungten & Choden, Kunzang, 2016. "Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study from Tshapey and Zariphensum in Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 149-157.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh, 2015. "Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 172-179.
    2. Dhakal, Maheshwar & Masuda, Misa, 2009. "Local pricing system of forest products and its relations to equitable benefit sharing and livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry program in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 221-229, July.
    3. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    4. St. Clair, Priscilla Cooke, 2016. "Community forest management, gender and fuelwood collection in rural Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 52-71.
    5. Lacuna-Richman, Celeste & Devkota, Bishnu P. & Richman, Mark A., 2016. "Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 69-78.
    6. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Bulte, Erwin, 2021. "Internal versus top-down monitoring in community resource management: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 111-131.
    8. Sullivan, Abigail, 2022. "Bridging the divide between rural and urban community-based forestry: A bibliometric review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    10. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    11. Meilby, Henrik & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Byg, Anja & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rayamajhi, Santosh, 2014. "Are Forest Incomes Sustainable? Firewood and Timber Extraction and Productivity in Community Managed Forests in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 113-124.
    12. Paudel, Jayash & Crago, Christine L., 2017. "Fertilizer Subsidy and Agricultural Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258464, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Sapkota, Prativa & Keenan, Rodney J. & Ojha, Hemant R., 2018. "Community institutions, social marginalization and the adaptive capacity: A case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-64.
    14. Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt & Treue, Thorsten, 2012. "Hunting for the Benefits of Joint Forest Management in the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot: Effects on Bushmeat Hunters and Wildlife in the Udzungwa Mountains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1224-1239.
    15. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Johnsen, Fred Hakon & Konoshima, Masashi & Yoshimoto, Atsushi, 2013. "Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 6-13.
    16. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive based conservation: Evidence from Kenyan community forest associations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    17. Baral, Sony & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Baral, Himlal & Vacik, Harald, 2019. "Investments in different taxonomies of goods: What should Nepal's community forest user groups prioritize?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-32.
    18. Dey, Anamika & Singh, Gurdeep & Gupta, Anil K., 2018. "Women and Climate Stress: Role Reversal from Beneficiaries to Expert Participants," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 336-359.
    19. Ojha, Hemant & Persha, Lauren & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2009. "Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation for local livelihoods," IFPRI discussion papers 913, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Bengi Akbulut, 2012. "Community-Based Resource Management in Turkey: ‘Je Participe, Tu Participes, Il Participe… Ils Profitent’," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(5), pages 1133-1158, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:119-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.