Rural development potential of Community Forestry in Nepal

B. B. K. Chhetri, J.F. Lund and Ø. J. Nielsen B. B. K. Chhetri, J.F. Lund and Ø. J. Nielsen March 2010March 2010

Introduction: Nepal, forests and poverty

• Population: 25.8 million (2006)

• 31% people live below the poverty line

• Total land area: 147,181 sq.km (~14.7 million ha)

a) Himalayan region (35%)b) Hill region (42%)c) Terai region (23%)

• Forest area (’000 ha): 4268 (29 %)• Shrub land (’000 ha): 560 (10.6%)

Source: CBS ( 2005)

Community Forestry in Nepal

• World leader in CF

• 30 years of experience in CF management

• Over 15,000 groups managing 1.2 million Ha of forest land, involving about 8 million people

• Forest condition is claimed improving at least in the hills.

• Social mobilization and income generation for rural development

Rationale..

• The significance and potential of CF fund in local community development is poorly documented.

• The trend of CF income and expenditure pattern over time is not explored.

Research questions

What is the real rural development potential of community forestry in Nepal – as evaluated by CFUG income levels and expenditure patterns?

What structural and governance related factors affect the rural development potential of community forestry in Nepal?

Area: 3,610 Sq km

•Climate: sub-tropical to alpine

•Altitude: 228 m to 8,163 m

•Annual average rainfall: 1,492 mm

•One municpality and 66 VDCs

•Population 288,134 (in 2001)and literacy rate: Around 60%

•404 CFUGs managing 18,765 ha of forest land (2008)

Study area: Gorkha District

Data• Data collected from

minutes, bills, vouchers, operational plans etc of 41 randomlyrandomly selected CFUGs of Gorkha District, Nepal.

• The selected CFUGs

vary widely in terms of their size, age, market accessibility, forest types and condition, size and sources of common funds etc.

Two models: one for income and the other for expenditure

General form of income model is

ittmi

l

l

m

mtlilmtki

k

kktji

j

jjti XXXXY εββββ ++++= ∑∑∑∑

= ===

))(()()(1 1

2

110

itutui

z

z

u

uztzizustsi

s

sstji

j

jjti XXXXY εµµβµβδβ +−−+−++= ∑∑∑∑

= ===

))(()()(1 1

2

110

ulmskjj µβµββδ ∑++= )(2

The transformed model:

Econometric models:

Where, the partial effect of different independent variables is estimated by

Result: Average annual income and expenditure

Annual average income and expenditure pattern per CFUG in different income category groups

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

poor middle rich

Ann

ual i

ncom

e (,

000

Rs)

Income Expenditure

• Age of CFUGs ranges from 4 to 18 years -472 observations

• Group Size ranges from 14 to 552 and the average is 102

• Average annual cash income per group:

Rs 25,141 (=US$326)• Average annual

expenditure per group: Rs 18,094 (=US$235)

Result: Income sources of CFUGs

Wood income• Timber inside • Green fuelwood• Dry fuelwood • Timber outside

Users support• Membership fee• Penalty• Cash support• Labor support

Income decomposition by category

Wood 54.8%

DFO and Donor1.8%

Non-wood0.5%

Others3.7%

User 39.2%

Result: overall expenditure

Community development (47.4%)• School, road, electricity,

community buildings, temple community dev. Scholarship and others.

Forest conservation (44.6%)• Watcher, silvicultural

activities, plantation and training.

Office administration (8%)• stationary, meeting

assembly cost, travel, ranger visit, FECOFUN fee, and others.

Result: Income model output

-2.43-26.65**-2.43-26.65**-2.43-26.65**Distance

1.310.550.050.090.270.52Silviculture

5.3384.47***5.3384.47***5.3384.47***

Group

1.27211.261.0669.641.1074.52Area_nsp

2.36141.21**2.44115.00**1.7475.93*Area_sp

-0.17-19.741.89381.34*1.83706.04*Age

z-valueCoef.z-valueCoef.z-valueCoef.

Model III: Area_25Model II: Area_50Model I: Area_75Independent variables

* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

Dependent variable: CFUGs income (Rs)

Result: investment model output

-2.20-0.037**-2.20-0.037**-2.20-0.037**Infrastructure

-0.25-0.008-0.25-0.008-0.25-0.008Eth_het

1.260.0031.260.0031.260.003Edu_ch

-2.02-0.042**-2.02-0.042**-2.02-0.042**Ward

-0.85-0.014-0.64-0.0101.810.026*Audit

1.820.007*1.540.006-1.60-0.006Ec_meet

-2.48-0.059**-2.48-0.059**-2.48-0.059**Woman_p

-0.32-0.004-0.030.0003.150.035***Dalit_r

-2.51-0.027**-2.83-0.029***-6.54-0.051***Monitoring (,0000)

8.290.062***8.260.061***7.910.058***Income (,0000)

1.200.0031.120.002-0.130.000Age

z-valueCoef.z-valueCoef.z-valueCoef.

Model III:Income_25Model II:Income_50Model I:Income_75Independent variables

* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

Dependent variable: Investment of CF income in community development relative to total investment

Conclusion

• The income and expenditure distributions are highly

skewed towards a few well off CFUGs

• CFUG income is dependent on Sal or Chir Pine areas,

group size, and market access.

• Income, Dalit representation in executive committee,

and audits of accounts appear to have a positive

influence on rural development whereas the effect of

paid watchers and administrative heterogeneity is

negative.• The optimal CFUG size might be larger than what has

been promoted in the past.

Thank You!!!!!