Is collaborative forest management in Nepal able to provide benefits to distantly located users?

Kumar, Rajesh; Dhakal, Arun; Khadayat, Madan S.; Ranabhat, Sunita

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.004

“…As the nearby users raise livestock (average of four to eight head of cattle per livestock-keeping household (HHs)) and require substantial amounts of forage, their priority is fodder and grasses. Likewise, as many users in the CFM system live 5-20 kilometres away from the forest area [48], they cannot collect daily use services such as fodder and grasses [33]. A study conducted in Tanzania reported contrasting findings [71], suggesting that most of provisional ES were utilized within one km radius of the forest, but in our case, many ES such as timber, poles and firewood are used up to 20 km away from the forests.…”

Section: Differences Among Different Sub-groups Of Community Forests mentioning

confidence: 74%

“…In the case of CFM, 50% of forest product revenue goes to the governments (40% to national government and 10% to the local government) but there is no such provision in CF [43,44]. CF users reside near forests (nearby users live adjacent to the forest area and distant users live almost two to three km from a forest) while under CFM, distant users reside over five km away [33]. As the nearby users raise livestock (average of four to eight head of cattle per livestock-keeping household (HHs)) and require substantial amounts of forage, their priority is fodder and grasses.…”

Section: Differences Among Different Sub-groups Of Community Forests mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The trend for adoption of these systems is increasing in developing countries (22% in 2006, 27% in 2010, and >30% in 2015) [30,32]. The CBFM system comprises different users of a forest, both living nearby and distant from the forest and with different socioeconomic backgrounds [33]. Their perceptions of the forest-based ES vary significantly according to their livelihood outcomes [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local Users and Other Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Identification and Prioritization of Ecosystem Services in Fragile Mountains: A Case Study of Chure Region of Nepal

Acharya

¹

,

Maraseni

²

,

Cockfield

³

2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest-based ecosystem services (ES) play a vital role in improving people’s livelihoods, the environment, and the economy. Prior studies have focused on technical aspects of economic valuation such as biophysical quantification through modeling and mapping, or monetary valuation, while little attention has been paid to the social dimensions. Taking case studies of two dominant community-based forest management systems (community forestry—CF and collaborative forestry—CFM) in the Chure region of Nepal, we investigate how local users and other stakeholders perceive the valuation of forest-based ecosystem services based on proximity (nearby vs. distant users), socio-economic class (rich vs. poor users), and forest management modalities (CF vs. CFM). We found that local users and other stakeholders in the Chure region identified a total of 42 forest-based ecosystem services: 16 provisioning, 15 regulating, and 11 cultural services. While all local users prioritised firewood, water quality improvement, and bequest values as the top three services, genetic resources, hazard protection, and hunting services were valued as having the lowest priority. The priorities placed on other services varied in many respects. For instance, rich users living near a CF showed a strong preference for fodder, grasses, and soil conservation services whereas users living far from forests prioritised timber, fresh water, and flood control services. In the case of CFM, rich users adjacent to forests preferred timber, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration services but those living far from forests chose timber, poles, and flood control as their top priorities. Differences in rankings also occurred among the regional managers, national experts, and forest users. The reasons for these differences and their policy implications are discussed, and ways of reaching consensus between the users are suggested.

show abstract

“…The results indicate the likelihood of adopting tree-based farming systems increases with the distance to forests. When farmers easily get their daily needs of fuelwood, fodder, timber and food fulfilled from the nearby forest, they are reluctant to tree planting on their farmland [52]. On the contrary, the distant farmers have to spend more time in the collection of these products from the forest and therefore they are inclined to tree planting on their farms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Adopts Agroforestry in a Subsistence Economy?

Dhakal¹,

Kumar²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land degradation is a critical issue globally putting our future generations at risk. The decrease in farm productivity over the years is evidence of land degradation severity in Nepal. Among the many strategies in place, agroforestry, which is an integrated tree-based farming, is widely recommended to address this productivity issue. This paper thoroughly examines what influences the choice of agroforestry adoption by farmers and what discourages the adoption. For this, a total of 288 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Two agroforestry practices were compared with conventional agriculture with the help of the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MNL) model. The likelihood of adoption was found to be influenced by gender; the male-headed households were more likely to adopt the tree-based farming practice. Having a source of off-farm income was positively associated with the adoption decision of farmers. Area of farmland was found being the major constraint to agroforestry adoption for smallholder farmers. Some other variables that affected positively included livestock herd size, provision of extension service, home-to-forest distance, farmers' group membership and awareness of farmers about environmental benefits of agroforestry. Irrigation was another adoption constraint that the study area farmers were faced with. The households with means of transport and with larger family (household) size were found to be reluctant towards agroforestry adoption. A collective farming practice could be a strategy to engage the smallholder farmers in agroforestry.

show abstract

“…The results indicate the likelihood of adopting tree-based farming systems increases with the distance to forests. When farmers easily get their daily needs of fuelwood, fodder, timber and food fulfilled from the nearby forest, they are reluctant to tree planting on their farmland (Rai et al, 2017). On the contrary, the distant farmers have to spend more time in the collection of these products from the forest and therefore they are inclined to tree planting on their farms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who adopts agroforestry in a subsistence economy?

Dhakal¹,

Rajesh²

Authorea

Self Cite

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land degradation is a critical issue globally putting our future generations at risk. The decrease in farm productivity over the years is evidence of land degradation severity in Nepal. Among the many strategies in place, agroforestry, which is an integrated tree-based farming, is widely recommended to address this productivity issue. This paper thoroughly examines what influences the choice of agroforestry adoption by farmers and what discourages the adoption. For this, a total of 288 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Two agroforestry practices were compared with conventional agriculture with the help of the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MNL) model. The likelihood of adoption was found to be influenced by gender; the male-headed households were more likely to adopt the tree-based farming practice. Having a source of off-farm income was positively associated with the adoption decision of farmers. Area of farmland was found being the major constraint to agroforestry adoption for smallholder farmers. Some other variables that affected positively included livestock herd size, provision of extension service, home-to-forest distance, farmers' group membership and awareness of farmers about environmental benefits of agroforestry. Irrigation was another adoption constraint that the study area farmers were faced with. The households with means of transport and with larger family (household) size were found to be reluctant towards agroforestry adoption. A collective farming practice could be a strategy to engage the smallholder farmers in agroforestry.

show abstract

Is collaborative forest management in Nepal able to provide benefits to distantly located users?

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Local Users and Other Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Identification and Prioritization of Ecosystem Services in Fragile Mountains: A Case Study of Chure Region of Nepal

Local Users and Other Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Identification and Prioritization of Ecosystem Services in Fragile Mountains: A Case Study of Chure Region of Nepal

Who Adopts Agroforestry in a Subsistence Economy?

Who adopts agroforestry in a subsistence economy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About