Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal

Abstract

Paragraph: 20Since the 1980's, decentralized forest management has been promoted as a way to enhance sustainable forest use and reduce rural poverty. Rural communities manage increasing amounts of the world's forests, yet rigorous evidence using large-N data on whether community-based forest management (CFM) can jointly reduce both deforestation and poverty remains scarce. We estimate impacts of CFM using a large 25 longitudinal dataset that integrates national-census-based poverty measures with highresolution forest cover change data, and near-complete information on Nepal's > 18,000 community forests. We compare changes in forest cover and poverty from 2000-2012 for sub-districts with presence or absence of CFM arrangements, but that are otherwise similar in terms of socioeconomic and biophysical baseline measures. Our 30 results indicate that CFM has, on average, contributed to significant net reductions in both poverty and deforestation across Nepal, and that CFM increases the likelihood of win-win outcomes. We also find that the estimated reduced deforestation impacts of community forests are lower where baseline poverty levels are high, and greater where community forests are larger and have existed longer. These results indicate that greater 35 benefits may result from longer-term investments and larger areas committed to community forest management, but that community forests established in poorer areas may require additional support to minimize tradeoffs between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. Main text: 40Forests are critical to sustainable development 1,2 . They regulate climate, sequester carbon, harbour biodiversity, and contribute to national incomes and local livelihoods 3 .Over the past four decades, governments and international organizations have promoted decentralized community-based forest management (CFM) to achieve sustainable forest use and reduce rural poverty 4 . In decentralized decision-making arrangements, 45 the primary responsibility for day-to-day management rests with forest-user communities. Ideally, this allows communities to make better use of their time and place-specific knowledge to promote more efficient, equitable, and sustainable multifunctional landscapes 5 .Local communities now legally manage approximately 13% of the world's 50 forests 6 . Debates about whether CFM truly reduces forest loss and alleviates poverty, nonetheless, continue 7,8 . Case studies from Latin America, Africa, and South Asia show that some CFM initiatives have improved forest and livelihood outcomes 9,10 , but that others have not achieved intended objectives 4,11 . The vast majority of existing studies have focused on limited sets of cases, and have used qualitative assessments of poverty 55 and livelihood outcomes that are difficult to compare across space and over time 7 .These studies have helped to identify how land tenure, local autonomy, and collective action may contribute to effective and equitable CFM, but have not tested whether CFM programs lead to net environmental and socioe...

Forest canopy resists plant invasions: a case study ofChromolaena odoratain sub-tropical Sal (Shorea robusta) forests of Nepal

“…The Community Forestry program in Nepal is exemplary in restoring degraded forests and has played a key role in increasing forest cover and averting deforestation in Nepal (Niraula et al 2013, Oldekop et al 2019). Local people have also observed that Chromolaena abundance has been suppressed with forest restoration and canopy closure.…”

Palm Oil and the Politics of Deforestation in Indonesia

“…Specifically, we contribute to the body of research focusing on the impact of local governments on forest conservation efforts, when private or political gains are at stake. (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006;Geist and Lambin, 2001;Ribot et al, 2006;Luttrell et al, 2014;Pailler, 2018;Sills et al, 2015;Cisneros et al, 2015;Oldekop et al, 2019). We contribute to this literature by providing the first causal identification of how political incentives interact with agricultural incentives.…”

Integrating biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services into operational plan of community forest in Nepal : status and gaps

“…After initiation of the community forests, degraded forests have been restored into green forests, almost throughout the country owing to significant participation of people in conservation, management and utilization of the forest (Oldekop et al, 2019). Forest Resources of Nepal (1987-1998 revealed that the deforestation rate was 2.3% in the hilly areas and 1.3% in the Terai regions of Nepal, accounting for the average national deforestation rate to be 1.7% per annum (DFRS, 1999).…”