Efficiency of timber production in community and private forestry in Nepal

• Published in: Environment and development economics Vol. 9; no. 4; pp. 539 - 561
• Main Authors: SAKURAI, TAKESHI, RAYAMAJHI, SANTOSH, POKHAREL, RIDISH K., OTSUKA, KEIJIRO
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.08.2004; Cambridage University Press
• Subjects: Agricultural management; Community; Community forestry; Comparative analysis; Costs; Deforestation; Developing countries; Development economics; Economies of scale; Efficiency; Environmental management; Forest management; Forest resources; Forest soils; Forestry; Hypotheses; Incentives; Labor force; LDCs; Mathematical models; Natural resources; Plantation forestry; Plantations; Private forests; Studies; Timber; Trees; Nepal
• ISSN: 1355-770X; 1469-4395
• DOI: 10.1017/S1355770X04001457

This study compares the management performance of timber production among three management systems in Nepal: private forestry, community forestry with collective management, and community forestry with centralized management. While collective management relies entirely on community labor for the whole management, centralized management uses community labor for the protection of forests and hired labor for silvicultural operations, for example weeding, pruning, and thinning. We found that collective community management is less costly for the protection of planted trees but allocates less labor for the management of trees than private management. We also found that centralized management of natural forests leads to higher revenue and profit than collective management. These findings support the hypothesis that, while collective management is more efficient than private management for the protection of trees due to effective mutual supervision, profit-seeking private management or centralized management is more efficient than collective management for silvicultural operations due to superior work incentives. This study, however, failed to compare efficiency of private and centralized management.