Forest tenure reform and devolution are taking place around the world, especially in lower-income countries, primarily to support environmental and livelihood goals. However, whether forest devolution to communities results in improved forest collective action is not fully understood. In this paper, we assess the effect of Nepal’s formal Community Forestry (CF) Program on forest collective action and outcomes. We utilize data from a nationally representative random sample of 1300 households who manage and use 130 forests. By using covariate matching, we demonstrate a strong positive effect of the CF program on forest outcomes and more active forest collective action. Our results are generally robust to the presence of unobservable confounders and are consistent at the national level and across geographic and topographic regions, forest sizes, forest-managing population structures, and forest management durations.
AgrawalA.ChhatreA. (2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development, 34(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013
2.
AgrawalA.OstromE. (2008). Decentralization and community-based forestry: Learning from experience. In WebbL.ShivakotiG. P. (Eds.), Decentralization, forests and rural communities: Policy outcomes in south and Southeast Asia (pp. 44–67). Sage Publications.
BeukeboomH. J. J.van der LaanC.van KreveldA.AkwahG. (2010). Can community forestry contribute to livelihood improvement and biodiversity? Steps on how to improve community forestry programmes – lessons from work in 11 countries and communities. WWF Netherlands.
5.
BeyeneA. D.BluffstoneR.MekonnenA. (2016). Community forests, carbon sequestration and REDD+: Evidence from Ethiopia. Environment and Development Economics, 21(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x15000297
6.
BlackmanA.BluffstoneR. (2021). Decentralized forest management: Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence. World Development, 145(1), 105509. (Introduction to World Development Special Issue on Forest Governance Decentralization and Devolution). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105509
7.
BluffstoneR.BoscoloM.MolinaR. (2008). Does better common property forest management promote behavioral change? On-farm free planting in the Bolivian Andes. Environment and Development Economics, 13(2), 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x07004044
8.
BluffstoneR.SomanathanE.JhaP.LuintelH.BistaR.TomanM.PaudelN.AdhikariB. (2018). Does collective action sequester carbon? Evidence from the Nepal community forestry programme. World Development, 101, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.030
9.
BluffstoneR.YesufM.UeharaT.BushieB.DamiteD. (2015). Livestock and private tree holdings in rural Ethiopia: The effects of collective action institutions, tenure security and market access. Journal of Development Studies, 51(9), 1193–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1028533
10.
BottazoiP.CrespoD.SoriaH.DaoH.SerrudoM.BenavidesJ. P.SchwarzerS.RistS. (2014). Carbon sequestration in community forests: Trade-offs, multiple outcomes and institutional diversity in the Bolivian Amazon. Development and Change, 45(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12076
11.
ChandN.KerrG. N.BigsbyH. (2015). Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.001
ChhatreA.AgrawalA. (2008). Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36), 13286–13291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803399105
14.
CookeP.KöhlinG.HydeW. F. (2008). Fuelwood, forests and community management: Evidence from household studies. Environment and Development Economics, 13(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x0700397x
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (1999). Causal effects in non-experimental studies: Re-Evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(448), 1053–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669919
17.
Department of Forest Research and Survey [DFRS]. (2015). State of Nepal’s forests. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forest Research and Survey Forest.
18.
DiamondA.SekhonJ. S. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00318
FoxJ.SaksenaS.HurniK.Van Den HoekJ.SmithA. C.ChetriR.SharmaP. (2019). Mapping and understanding changes in tree cover in Nepal: 1992 to 2016. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 18(1), 1–11.
21.
GautamA. P.ShivakotiG. P. (2005). Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: Some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society & Natural Resources, 18(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590894534
22.
GautamA. P.ShivakotiG. P.WebbE. L. (2004). Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environmental Management, 33(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0031-4
23.
GautamA. P.WebbE. L.EiumnohA. (2002). GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 22(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0063:gaolul]2.0.co;2
GilmourD.MallaY.NurseM. (2004). Linkages between community forestry and poverty. Regional Community Forestry Center for Asia and the Pacific.
26.
GilmourD. A. (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. In FAO forest paper 176. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.
27.
GilmourD. A.FisherR. J. (1991). Villagers, forests and forester: The philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Sahayogi Press.
28.
GilmourD. A.KingG. C.ApplegateG. B.MohnsB. (1990). Silviculture of plantation forest in central Nepal to maximise community benefits. Forest Ecology and Management, 32(2-4), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(90)90169-c
29.
HansenB. B. (2004). Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467), 609–618. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000647
30.
HeinrichC.MaffioliA.VázquezG. (2010). A primer for applying propensity-score matching impact-evaluation guidelines. Technical Note. Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved on August 17 2015 from. https://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35320229
31.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
32.
ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2008). Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 171(2), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2007.00527.x
33.
ImbensG. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023651
34.
JacksonW. J.TamrakarR. M.HuntS.ShepherdK. R. (1998). Land-use changes in two middle hills districts of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 18(3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/3674033
35.
KanelK.ShresthaK. (2001). Tropical secondary forests in Nepal and their importance to local people. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 13(4), 691–704.
LuintelH.BluffstoneR. A.SchellerR. M. (2018). The effects of the Nepal community forestry program on biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. PLoS One, 13(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199526
39.
LuintelH.BluffstoneR. A.SchellerR. M.AdhikariB. (2017). The effect of the Nepal community forestry program on equity in benefit sharing. The Journal of Environment & Development, 26(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496517707305
40.
MahalanobisP. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, 2(1), 49–55.
41.
MazurR. E.StakhanovO. V. (2008). Prospects for enhancing livelihoods, communities, and biodiversity in Africa through community-based forest management: A critical analysis. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 13(5), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701809700
42.
MekonnenA.BluffstoneR. (2018). Does community forest collective action promote private tree planting? Evidence from Ethiopia. International Business Research, 10(5), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n5p86
43.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MoFSC). (2000). Forest policy of Nepal 2000. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.
44.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MoFSC). (2013). Persistence and change: Review of 30 years of community forestry in Nepal. Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation.
45.
Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLJ). (1993). Forest act of Nepal. Ministry of Law and Justice.
46.
Ministry of Law and Justice (MOLJ). (1995). Forest regulation of Nepal. Ministry of Law and Justice.
47.
NagendraH.GokhaleY. (2008). Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environmental Management, 41(5), 719–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9073-y
PalmerC.MacgregorJ. (2009). Fuelwood scarcity, energy substitution, and rural livelihoods in Namibia. Environment and Development Economics, 14, 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08005007
PokharelB. K.BranneyP.NurseM.MallaY. B. (2007). Community forestry: Conserving forests, sustaining livelihoods and strengthening democracy. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 6(2), 8–19.
54.
PuriL.NubergI.OstendorfB.CedamonE. (2020). Locally perceived social and biophysical factors shaping the effective implementation of community forest management operations in Nepal. Small-Scale Forestry, 19(3), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09438-5
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
58.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
59.
RRI. (2018). At a crossroads: Consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. RRI.
60.
RubinD. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3/4), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020363010465
61.
RubinD. B.ThomasN. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52(1), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533160
62.
RustagiD.EngelS.KosfeldM. (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science, 330(6006), 961–965. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193649
63.
SekhonJ. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(7), 1–52. Retrieved on August 28 2015 from. https://sekhon.berkeley.edu/papers/MatchingJSS.pdf. Accessed 2014 Sep 15.
St. ClairP. C. (2016). Community forest management, gender and fuelwood collection in rural Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics, 24(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.03.002
66.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.540475
67.
World Bank. (1979). Nepal development performance and prospects. Report No. 2692-NEP. World Bank.
WunderS. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x08004282
70.
YadavN. P.DevO. P.Springate-BaginskiO.SoussanJ. (2003). Forest management and utilization under community forestry. The Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 3(1), 37–50.
