IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nzar10/96833.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Small forests, big ambitions and a hard reality - Community Forestry in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Rai, Chandra
  • Bigsby, Hugh R.
  • MacDonald, Ian

Abstract

Community forestry in Nepal is intended to reduce poverty by sustainable management of forests. Timber is one of the most high-value forest products, especially in the case of Sal (Shorea robusta) forests in the Terai region of Nepal. Despite having several advantages, including high value forests on fertile land, connection with transportation networks, and being close to regional markets, community forests in the Terai region produce little or no timber from their Sal forests. This research looks at what is affecting the production of Sal timber from community forests. Three aspects of community forest user groups (CFUG) are examined using institutional economics, transaction cost economics and micro-economics. First, the scale of CFUG operations is examined in terms of their ability to profitably carry out logging and organise market sales. Second, the capacity of CFUGs to carry out logging in terms of internal physical and human resources, and property rights is examined. Finally, barriers to vertical integration with the market in terms of contracting and cooperation with other CFUGs are investigated. To answer these questions, data was collected from 85 CFUGs and interviews were carried out with 39 key respondents from CFUGs, government agencies, and private firms. The results show that the size of the forest was not an issue for harvesting and marketing logs. However, the organisational capacity of CFUGs was found to be weak because of a lack of financial resources, limited property rights over timber, control over decisions by the District Forest Office, policy constraints, and corruption. In terms of vertical integration, a lack of legal rights to enter into contracts, a high degree of uncertainty about policy and property rights, small and irregular amounts timber harvest, and the interpretation of CFUG rules by the District Forest Office were found to be barriers for the formation of long-term contracts between CFUGs and private firms, and of cooperative developments between CFUGs.

Suggested Citation

  • Rai, Chandra & Bigsby, Hugh R. & MacDonald, Ian, 2010. "Small forests, big ambitions and a hard reality - Community Forestry in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96833, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar10:96833
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.96833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/96833/files/2010_9_small%20forests%20big%20ambition%20and%20hard%20reality.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.96833?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. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    2. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
    3. Behera, Bhagirath & Engel, Stefanie, 2006. "Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 350-362, June.
    4. Misra, Dinesh & Kant, Shashi, 2004. "Production analysis of collaborative forest management using an example of joint forest management from Gujarat, India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 301-320, June.
    5. Staal, Steven & Delgado, Christopher & Nicholson, Charles, 1997. "Smallholder dairying under transactions costs in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 779-794, May.
    6. Zhang, Y., 2001. "Economics of transaction costs saving forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-204, February.
    7. Antinori, Camille & Bray, David Barton, 2005. "Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial Firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Andrew Dorward, 2001. "The Effects of Transaction Costs, Power and Risk on Contractual Arrangements: A Conceptual Framework for Quantitative Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 59-73, May.
    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. Carias Vega, Dora & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "Transaction costs and the organization of CFEs: Experiences from ejidos in Quintana Roo, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-8.

    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 R., "undated". "Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96827, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. 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.
    3. Bhagirath Behera & Pulak Mishra, 2018. "Democratic Local Institutions for Sustainable Management and Use of Minor Irrigation Systems: Experience of Pani Panchayats in Odisha, India," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    5. Behera, Bhagirath, 2009. "Explaining the performance of state-community joint forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 177-185, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Coulibaly-Lingani, Pascaline & Savadogo, Patrice & Tigabu, Mulualem & Oden, Per-Christer, 2011. "Factors influencing people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 292-302, April.
    8. Schultz, Bill, 2020. "Resource management and joint-planning in fragmented societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    9. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    10. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & Jan Pokrivcak, 2018. "The impact of producer organisations on farm performance: A case study of large farms in Slovakia," JRC Research Reports JRC108059, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2004. "In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about collective action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 215-232, December.
    12. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Alexander Pfaff, 2013. "On the Endogeneity of Resource Co-management: Theory and Evidence from Indonesia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 308-329.
    13. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    14. Bryan, Elizabeth & Behrman, Julia A., 2013. "Community–based adaptation to climate change: A theoretical framework, overview of key issues and discussion of gender differentiated priorities and participation," CAPRi working papers 109, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.
    16. Beitl, Christine M., 2014. "Adding Environment to the Collective Action Problem: Individuals, Civil Society, and the Mangrove-Fishery Commons in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 93-107.
    17. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    18. 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.
    19. María G. Lira & James P. Robson & Daniel J. Klooster, 2022. "Commons, global markets and small-scale family enterprises: the case of mezcal production in Oaxaca, Mexico," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 937-952, September.
    20. Frederike Klümper & Insa Theesfeld, 2017. "The Land–Water–Food Nexus: Expanding the Social–Ecological System Framework to Link Land and Water Governance," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, July.

    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:ags:nzar10:96833. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nzareea.html .

    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.