IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2010124.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Cost and Benefit Analysis of the Community Forestry Project in Chumkiri District, Kampot Province, Cambodia

Author

Listed:
  • Kaylan Hou

    (CBNRM-Learning Institute)

  • Sothunvathanak Meas

    (CBNRM-Learning Institute)

  • Mared Im

    (CBNRM-Learning Institute)

  • Chanthy Ros

    (CBNRM-Learning Institute)

  • Han Keam

    (CBNRM-Learning Institute)

Abstract

Past experience with the forest management system of Cambodia has shown that the open-access forest scheme has contributed to the decline of timber and non-timber forest products collected from the forests. Authorities have responded by introducing a major program of Community Forestry (CF) in more than 237 CF areas covering 71,724 ha and involving 411,440 people. To assess if this scheme is worth supporting, an economic analysis of a CF managed forest is compared with alternative management schemes in Chumkiri district of Kampot province was carried out. The study examined three scenarios of CF management. In the first management option, the Conservation Option, only 389.5 ha out of 992 ha of forest was used for timber (12.3 m3/ha/yr) and non-timber product collection. The present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate was about USD 821,000 (Table A-2). This option could generate benefits of up to USD 6.30 million measured in terms of present value. The second option, the Exploitation Option, involved the exploitation of forest products with CF management. The present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate would be USD 1.16 million, and the present value of benefits would be about USD 5.01 million (Table A-3). The third option, which combined the Conservation and Exploitation Options, showed that the present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate would be nearly USD 1 million while the present value of benefits would be up to USD 5.92 million (Table A-4). Cost-Benefit Analysis was used to estimate the incremental net benefit of the three CF management options relative to the base case scenario (non-CF management). The study ranked the three options in terms of the incremental net benefit over the base case. The Conservation Option turned out to be the most economically viable, followed by the Combined Option, and lastly by the Exploitation Option. A Sensitivity Analysis showed that the Conservation Option ranked first even under the assumptions of higher price of timber and non-timber products, and different project duration and discount rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaylan Hou & Sothunvathanak Meas & Mared Im & Chanthy Ros & Han Keam, 2010. "A Cost and Benefit Analysis of the Community Forestry Project in Chumkiri District, Kampot Province, Cambodia," EEPSEA Research Report rr2010124, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Dec 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2010124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/2010-RR10-Kalyan.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Camille Bann, 1997. "An Economic Analysis of Tropical Forest Land Use Options, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia," EEPSEA Research Report rr1997112, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Nov 1997.
    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. Mai Van Nam & Nguyen Tan Nhan & Bui Van Trinh & Pham Le Thong, 2016. "Forest Management Systems in the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2016060, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Apr 2016.
    2. Rao, Nalini S. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Portela, Rosimeiry & Wang, Xuanwen, 2015. "Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 95-105.
    3. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Elena Ojea & Maria Loureiro, 2009. "Mapping of Forest Biodiversity Values: A Plural Perspective," Working Papers 2009.4, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Vera V. Yurak & Margarita N. Ignatyeva & Aleksey V. Dushin, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services in a region: A review of the international experience," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 79-103, December.
    5. Akpalu, Wisdom & Parks, Peter J., 2007. "Natural resource use conflict: gold mining in tropical rainforest in Ghana," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 55-72, February.
    6. K. S. Kavi Kumar & Lavanya Ravikanth Anneboina & Ramchandra Bhatta, 2016. "Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services in India: Macro Assessment," Working Papers id:11440, eSocialSciences.

    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:eep:report:rr2010124. 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: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.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.