IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id1643.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nepal's Community Forestry Funds:Do They Benifit the Poor?

Author

Listed:
  • Ridish K. Pokharel

Abstract

Funds generated through community forestry offer crucial and significant resources for rural in Nepal. This study examines forestry funds in 100 communities in three districts to assess how large they are and how they are utilized. The study finds that the income from community funds increases local development resources by about 25%. This income is invested in schools, temples, roads, and water reservoirs, which bodes well for rural development. However, there are some critical problems with the 'pro-poor programme’, an effort to reduce poverty through the resources generated from community forestry. The study finds that timber is subsidized and the subsidies accrue mainly to the non-poor. Furthermore, income spent on loans tends to favor the non-poor. Overall some 74% of the benefits of community forestry funds accrue to the non-poor while 26% accrue to the poor in rural communities in Nepal. The study concludes that two actions may increase the benefits accruing to the poor: a) allowing all households to have an equal share in timber that is harvested; and b) increasing the participation of poor and less advantaged members in the executive committees that manage forestry funds. [SANDEE]

Suggested Citation

  • Ridish K. Pokharel, 2008. "Nepal's Community Forestry Funds:Do They Benifit the Poor?," Working Papers id:1643, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:1643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document11192008320.6101343.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    3. Deepa Narayan, 2002. "Empowerment and Poverty Reduction : A Sourcebook," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15239.
    4. Galasso, Emanuela & Ravallion, Martin, 2005. "Decentralized targeting of an antipoverty program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 705-727, April.
    5. Bardhan, Pranab & Mookherjee, Dilip, 2005. "Decentralizing antipoverty program delivery in developing countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 675-704, April.
    6. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Pokharel, Ridish K. & Neupane, Prem Raj & Tiwari, Krishna Raj & Köhl, Michael, 2015. "Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: A case from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 75-84.
    3. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.

    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. Araujo, M. Caridad & Ferreira, Francisco H.G. & Lanjouw, Peter & Özler, Berk, 2008. "Local inequality and project choice: Theory and evidence from Ecuador," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1022-1046, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Baird, Sarah & McIntosh, Craig & Özler, Berk, 2013. "The regressive demands of demand-driven development," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 27-41.
    4. Park, Albert & Wang, Sangui, 2010. "Community-based development and poverty alleviation: An evaluation of China's poor village investment program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 790-799, October.
    5. Pan, Lei & Christiaensen, Luc, 2012. "Who is Vouching for the Input Voucher? Decentralized Targeting and Elite Capture in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1619-1633.
    6. Erwin Bulte & Andreas Kontoleon & John List & Ty Turley & Maarten Voors, 2024. "Chief for a Day: Elite Capture and Management Performance in a Field Experiment in Sierra Leone," Natural Field Experiments 00789, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Chikako Yamauchi, 2010. "Community-Based Targeting and Initial Local Conditions: Evidence from Indonesia's IDT Program," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 95-147, October.
    8. Haseeb, Muhammad & Vyborny, Kate, 2022. "Data, discretion and institutional capacity: Evidence from cash transfers in Pakistan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    9. Kilic,Talip & Whitney,Edward Matthew & Winters,Paul Conal & Kilic,Talip & Whitney,Edward Matthew & Winters,Paul Conal, 2013. "Decentralized beneficiary targeting in large-scale development programs : insights from the Malawi farm input subsidy program," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6713, The World Bank.
    10. 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.
    11. Hernandez-Trillo, Fausto, 2016. "Poverty Alleviation in Federal Systems: The Case of México," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 204-214.
    12. Maarten Voors & Ty Turley & Erwin Bulte & Andreas Kontoleon & John A. List, 2018. "Chief for a Day: Elite Capture and Management Performance in a Field Experiment in Sierra Leone," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5855-5876, December.
    13. Takashi Kurosaki, 2005. "Determinants of Collective Action under Devolution Initiatives: The Case of Citizen Community Boards in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 44(3), pages 253-269.
    14. Helen M. Haugh & Alka Talwar, 2016. "Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of Empowerment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 643-658, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Emilie Caldeira & Martial Foucault & Gregoire Rota-Graziosi, 2015. "Decentralization in Africa and the nature of local governments’ competition: evidence from Benin," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(6), pages 1048-1076, December.
    17. Deininger, Klaus W. & Liu, Yanyan, 2008. "Economic and Social Impacts of Self-Help Groups in India," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6482, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Stoeffler, Quentin & Mills, Bradford & del Ninno, Carlo, 2016. "Reaching the Poor: Cash Transfer Program Targeting in Cameroon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 244-263.
    19. Saguin, Kidjie, 2018. "Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven development: Lessons from participatory budgeting," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 220-232.
    20. Henderson, Heath & Follett, Lendie, 2022. "Targeting social safety net programs on human capabilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(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:ess:wpaper:id:1643. 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: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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.