IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbnbda/v3y2021i2p85-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

STATUS AND BARRIERS OF COMMUNITY FOREST ENTERPRISES IN MID-HILLS: A CASE STUDY FROM THREE CFEs OF KASKI, PARBAT AND TANAHUN DISTRICTS

Author

Listed:
  • Anup Sharma

    (Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur, Chitwan)

  • Amrit Devkota

    (Institute of Forestry (IOF), TU, Pokhara campus, Pokhara)

Abstract

This research study examines financial status, policy and institutional barriers and possible intervention for effective functioning of Community Forest Enterprise (CFEs). The study was carried out in three CFEs: NamunaBanpale Community Forest Enterprise, PargatisilAllo Enterprise and Mountain Tanahun Community Bel and Fruit Processing Industry of the Kaski, Parbat and Tanahun districts with the objective of exploring current cost and revenue of CF enterprise, barrier faced by CFEs and identify possible interventions for effective functioning. Key informant interview and focus group discussion were carried out to collect required information. The data recorded were analysed by using Microsoft-Excel. The study revealed that the forestbased enterprise establishment by the initiative of community forest user group barely get success unless an external donor agency support their programs specially during establishing years. The study found that the establishment of enterprises provides income opportunities, improve living of poor family however, the income generated is significantly low compare to its investment. Among the enterprises, Bel enterprise was found to be functioning well compared to other two. The study also assessed that enterprise operated by a group reduces responsibility of each individual towards the enterprise which is higher when operated by single individual. There are no any incentives for community forest enterprise in the policy level, no any mechanism to regulate market, providing access to the market for the enterprise in the remote area, discounts in taxes. People involved in the enterprise were found slowly losing their interest and expectation from the enterprise as inefficient management of the enterprises to bring all members together. To minimize the declining interest of people in the enterprise and to incorporate them together in the enterprises the study found out the seasonal enterprise should extend and need to operate in regular base this would increase people participation as they don’t need to focus on other activities to make their living. Furthermore, the entrepreneurs of CFEs should aware about the market demand, marketing information, efficient and effective techniques, managerial techniques, and record keeping.

Suggested Citation

  • Anup Sharma & Amrit Devkota, 2021. "STATUS AND BARRIERS OF COMMUNITY FOREST ENTERPRISES IN MID-HILLS: A CASE STUDY FROM THREE CFEs OF KASKI, PARBAT AND TANAHUN DISTRICTS," Big Data In Agriculture (BDA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 85-93, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbnbda:v:3:y:2021:i:2:p:85-93
    DOI: 10.26480/bda.02.2021.85.93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bigdatainagriculture.com/download/1194/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/bda.02.2021.85.93?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ministry of Finance, Government of India,, 2016. "Economic Survey 2015-16," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199469284.
    2. Tieguhong, Julius Chupezi & Grouwels, Sophie & Ndoye, Ousseynou & Mala, Armand William & Fokou Sakam, Ignace & Useni, Marcel & Betti, Jean Lagarde, 2012. "Financial status of small and medium scale enterprises based on non-wood forest products (NWFP) in Central Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 112-119.
    3. Adhikari, Bhim, 2005. "Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 7-31, February.
    4. Bhoj Raj Pathak & Xie Yi & Radhika Bohara, 2017. "Community Based Forestry in Nepal: Status, Issues and Lessons Learned," International Journal of Sciences, Office ijSciences, vol. 6(03), pages 119-129, March.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Timothy Cadman & Tek Maraseni & Upama Ashish Koju & Anita Shrestha & Sikha Karki, 2023. "Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, February.
    4. 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).
    5. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    6. Ana Maria Santacreu & Michael Sposi & Jing Zhang, 2021. "What Determines State Heterogeneity in Response to US Tariff Changes?," Working Papers 2021-007, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, revised 08 Mar 2023.
    7. Bierkamp, Sina & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Grote, Ulrike, 2021. "Environmental income and remittances: Evidence from rural central highlands of Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Islam, Kazi Nazrul & Rahman, Mohammad Mahfuzur & Jashimuddin, Mohammed & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Islam, Kamrul & Faroque, Mohiuddin Al, 2019. "Analyzing multi-temporal satellite imagery and stakeholders' perceptions to have an insight into how forest co-management is changing the protected area landscapes in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 70-80.
    9. Muhammad Ahsan Rana & Muhammad Nadeem Malik, 2021. "Friendly Fire: Wheat Subsidy in Punjab, Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 60(2), pages 153-174.
    10. Muhammad Zada & Syed Jamal Shah & Cao Yukun & Tariq Rauf & Naveed Khan & Syed Asad Ali Shah, 2019. "Impact of Small-to-Medium Size Forest Enterprises on Rural Livelihood: Evidence from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Bocci, Corinne F. & Lupi, Frank & Sohngen, Brent, 2018. "Timber or Carbon? Evaluating forest conservation strategies through a discrete choice experiment conducted in northern Guatemala," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274011, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Bir Chhetri & Helle Larsen & Carsten Smith-Hall, 2015. "Environmental resources reduce income inequality and the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty in rural Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 513-530, June.
    13. Sirisha C. Naidu & Lyn Ossome, 2016. "Social Reproduction and the Agrarian Question of Women’s Labour in India," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 5(1), pages 50-76, April.
    14. Behera, Bhagirath & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Jeetendra, Aryal & Ali, Akhter, 2015. "Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 468-480.
    15. Opschoor, J.B., 2007. "Environment and Poverty," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18757, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    16. Grossman, Daniel & Khalil, Umair & Ray, Arijit, 2019. "Terrorism and early childhood health outcomes: Evidence from Pakistan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch & Edwin Muchapondwah, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 201388, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    18. Urvashi Narain & Shreekant Gupta & Klaas van ’t Veld, 2008. "Poverty and the Environment: Exploring the Relationship Between Household Incomes, Private Assets, and Natural Assets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 148-167.
    19. Domenico Buccella & Augustine Abakpa, 2023. "Induced vs. Voluntary Green Production: Which Is Better for Society?," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(1), pages 89-103.
    20. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    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:zib:zbnbda:v:3:y:2021:i:2:p:85-93. 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: Zibeline International Publishing The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Zibeline International Publishing to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://bigdatainagriculture.com .

    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.