Pro-poor programs financed through Nepal's community forestry funds: Does income matter?

Mountain Research and Development

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 67-74

  Pokharel, Ridish K ^a  

^a TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY   (Nepal)

Author keywords

CFUG expenditures; CFUG funds; Community forestry; Dalit households; Forest resources; Nepal; Pro poor programs

Indexed keywords

FOREST RESOURCE; HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT;

NEPAL;

EID: 72849133415     PISSN: 02764741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1659/mrd.996     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Acharya KP. 2003. Sustainability of support for community forestry in Nepal. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 13:247-260.
2. Acharya S, Yoshino E, Jimba M, Wakai S. 2007. Empowering rural women through a community development approach. Community Development Journal 42(1):34-46.
3. Adhikari B, Falco SD, Lovett JC. 2004. Households characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48:245-257.
4. Aryal TR. 2008. Elderly population of Nepal: Status and emerging issues. Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies 5(2):88-105.
5. Banjade MR, Luintel HS, Neupane HR. 2008. Action research experience on democratizing knowledge in community forestry in Nepal. In: Ojha HR, Timsina NP, Chhetri RB, Paudel KP, editors. Knowledge Systems and Natural Resources: Management, Policy and Institutions in Nepal. New Delhi, India: Cambridge University Press India, pp 110-134.
6. Bhattarai B, Dhungana SP. 2005. How Can Forests Better Serve the Poor? A Review of Documented Knowledge on Leasehold and Community Forestry in Nepal. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR [Center for International Forestry Research].
7. Brown D, Malla Y, Schreckenberg K, Springate-Baginski O. 2002. From supervising 'subjects' to supporting 'citizens': Recent development in community forestry in Asia and Africa. Natural Resource Perspectives No 75. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/ specialist/natural-resource-perspectives/75-community-forestryasia-and-africa. pdf; accessed on 26 February 2008.
8. DoF [Department of Forests]. 2008. Management Information System. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests.
9. Dongol CM, Hughey KFD, Bigsby HR. 2002. Capital formation and sustainable community forestry in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22(1):70-77.
10. Fomete T, Vermaat J. 2001. Community Forestry and Poverty Alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network. Network Paper 25h. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute.
11. Foster A, Rosenzweig M. 2003. Democratization, Decentralization and the Distribution of Local Public Goods in a Poor Rural Economy. Working Paper No 10. Cambridge, MA: BREAD [Bureau for Research in Economic Analysis of Development]. http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/papers/working/010.pdf; accessed on 28 January 2008.
12. Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL. 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. International Forestry Review 6(2):136-148.
13. Graner E. 1999. Forest policies and access to forests in Nepal: Winners and losers. In: Chhetri RB, Gurung OP, editors. Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Culture, Societies, Ecology, and Development. Kathmandu, Nepal: SASON [Sociological and Anthropological Society of Nepal], pp 212-224.
14. Kandel BR, Subedi R. 2004. Pro-poor community forestry: Some initiatives from the field. In: Kanel KR, Mathema P, Kandel B, Niraula DR, Sharma AR, Gautam M, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, 4-6 August 2004. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests, pp 229-237.
15. Kanel KR, Niraula DR. 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Jankari 14(1):19-26.
16. Koirala JN, Baral JC, Paudyal BR, Shahi BB. 2004. Pro-poor community forestry: An initiation in Kaki district. In: Kanel KR, Mathema P, Kandel B, Niraula DR, Sharma AR, Gautam M, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, 4-6 August 2004. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests, pp 245-249.
17. Kunwar KB. 2003. The Himalayan Poverty: Prosperity Through Rural Development [1st edition 2001]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Meena Prakashan.
18. Malla YB. 2000. Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihood and food security in Nepal. Unasylva 51(3):37-45.
19. Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney P. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forests and Livelihood 3(1):78-93.
20. NLSS [Nepal Living Standards Survey]. 2004. Statistical Report (Volume 2). Kathmandu, Nepal: His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics.
21. NPC [National Planning Commission]. 2002. Tenth Plan (2002-2007). Kathmandu, Nepal: His Majesty's Government of Nepal.
22. NPC [National Planning Commission]. 2007. Three Year Interim Plan: Approach Paper (2064/65-2066/67). Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal.
23. NORMS [Natural and Organisational Resources Management Services]. 2003. Social Structure, Livelihoods and the Management of Common Pool Resources in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, and Natural and Organisational Resources Management Services.
24. Olson M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and Theory Groups. New York: Schocken.
25. Pokharel Ridish K. 2008. Nepal's Community Forestry Funds: Do They Benefit the Poor? Working Paper No 31-108 Kathmandu, Nepal: SANDEE [South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics].