Social Forestry Reconsidered

This paper reviews the expectations for forestry’s contribution to rural development – and for its special contributions to the most disadvantaged, to women and the landless users of the forest commons. A growing literature challenges some of these expectations; in particular, certain expectations about cultural differences and physical stocks as explanatory factors for patterns of household behavior. This literature could also be used to support a call for sharper definitions of deforestation, improved indicators of the effects of forest resources on the rural poor, and improved design of forest policy interventions. Our paper reviews the literature, suggests some unifying themes, and identifies the critical issues that remain unanswered. The primary contention arising from this literature is that households follow systematic patterns of economic behavior in their consumption and production of forest resources, and that policy interventions in social forestry should be analyzed with regard to markets, policies, and institutions. Markets for forest resources generally exist in some form – although they may be thin. Successful forestry projects and policies require careful identification of the target populations and careful estimation of market and market-related effects on the household behavior of these populations. Institutional structures that assure secure rights for scarce forest resources are uniquely important in a forest enviornment often characterized by open access resources and weak government administration. Social and community forestry, improved stoves, improved strains of multi-purpose trees, and even private commercial forest operations can all improve local welfare, but only where scarcity is correctly identified and the appropriate institutions are in place. An increasing number of observations of afforestation from developing countries around the world is evidence that forestry activities do satisfy these conditions in selective important cases. The critical point for policy is to identify the characteristics of these successful cases that are predictive of other cases where new forestry activities can be welfare enhancing.

[1]  Clark S. Binkley,et al.  Institutional Ownership of US Timberland: History, Rationale, and Implications for Forest Management , 1996 .

[2]  R. Bluffstone,et al.  The Effect of Labor Market Performance on Deforestation in Developing Countries under Open Access: An Example from Rural Nepal , 1995 .

[3]  P. Berck.  The economics of timber: a renewable resource in the long run , 1979 .

[4]  Gershon Feder.  Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand , 1988 .

[5]  Ricardo Godoy,et al.  Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. , 1992 .

[6]  G. Libecap,et al.  Efficient markets and great lakes timber: A conservation issue reexamined , 1980 .

[7]  N. Ginsburg.  FROM COLONIALISM TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: GEOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON PATTERNS AND POLICIES , 1973 .

[8]  A. Mekonnen.  Rural Energy and Afforestation: Case studies from Ethiopia , 1998 .

[9]  G. Amacher,et al.  Applications of environmental accounting and the new household economics: new technical economic issues with a common theme in forestry. , 1996 .

[10]  O. Hofstad.  Woodland deforestation by charcoal supply to Dar es Salaam. , 1997 .

[11]  The Value of Social Forestry in Orissa, India , 1998 .

[12]  Theodore W. Schultz,et al.  Transforming Traditional Agriculture , 1964 .

[13]  S. Scherr.  Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: Patterns observed in Western Kenya , 1995 .

[14]  J. Uusivuori,et al.  Impacts of economic reforms on rural forestry in China , 2000 .

[15]  P. J. Idenburg,et al.  Colonial Policy and Practice; A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India , 1948, The Journal of Asian Studies.

[16]  R. Yin,et al.  Impacts of rural reforms: the case of the Chinese forest sector , 1997, Environment and Development Economics.

[17]  Priscilla A. Cooke,et al.  The effect of environmental good scarcity on own-farm labor allocation: the case of agricultural households in rural Nepal , 1998, Environment and Development Economics.

[18]  G. Amacher,et al.  Joint production and consumption in traditional households: Fuelwood and crop residues in two districts in Nepal , 1993 .

[19]  R. López.  The Tragedy of the Commons in Cote d'Ivoire Agriculture: Empirical Evidence and Implications for Evaluating Trade Policies , 1998 .

[20]  P. Samuelson.  Thunen at Two Hundred , 1983 .

[21]  P. Cooke.  Intrahousehold Labor Allocation Responses to Environmental Good Scarcity: A Case Study from the Hills of Nepal , 1998, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[22]  W. Hecox.  Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects , 1978 .

[23]  M. J. McGREGOR,et al.  THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOCIAL FORESTRY IN ORISSA, INDIA , 1991 .

[24]  K. Chomitz,et al.  An Economic Analysis of Woodfuel Management in the Sahel: The Case of Chad , 1997 .

[25]  R. Heltberg,et al.  Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. , 2000 .

[26]  G. Shively.  Economic policies and the environment: the case of tree planting on low-income farms in the Philippines , 1998, Environment and Development Economics.

[27]  P. Nair.  An introduction to agroforestry. , 1993 .

[28]  M. Rafiq,et al.  Local adoption of new forestry technologies: An example from Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province , 1993 .

[29]  G. Amacher,et al.  Nepali fuelwood production and consumption: Regional and household distinctions, substitution and successful intervention , 1999 .

[30]  P. Dewees.  Trees on Farms in Malawi: Private Investment, Public Policy and Farmer Choice , 1995 .

[31]  Joyotee Smith,et al.  Dynamics of secondary forests in slash-and-burn farming: interactions among land use types in the Peruvian Amazon , 1999 .

[32]  W. Hyde,et al.  Forest Charges and Trusts: Shared Benefits with Clear Responsibilities , 1997 .

[33]  T. Pinckney,et al.  Smallholder Wood Production and Population Pressure in East Africa: Evidence of an Environmental Kuznets Curve? , 1995 .

[34]  Robert T. Deacon,et al.  Deforestation and the Rule of Law in a Cross-Section of Countries , 1994 .

[35]  N. Saxena,et al.  Wood product markets as incentives for farmer tree growing. , 1997 .

[36]  G. Amacher,et al.  The adoption of consumption technologies under uncertainty: A case of improved stoves in Nepal , 1992 .

[37]  Peter A. Dewees,et al.  The Woodfuel Crisis Reconsidered: Observations on the Dynamics of Abundance and Scarcity , 1989 .

[38]  S. Stone.  Evolution of the Timber Industry Along an Aging Frontier: The Case of Paragominas (1990–1995) , 1998 .

[39]  Rupert Emerson,et al.  Netherlands India: A Study of Plural Economy , 1940 .

[40]  S. Migot-Adholla.  Indigenous land rights systems in sub-Saharan Africa : a constraint on productivity? , 1991 .

[41]  R. Johnson.  Multiple products, community forestry and contract design: The case of timber harvesting and resin tapping in Honduras. , 1998 .

[42]  K. Chomitz,et al.  Roads, land use, and deforestation : a spatial model applied to Belize , 1996 .