Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal

Abstract

In Nepal, many rural households need access to public forest resources to complement private resources for food and livestock production. However, current forest policies are largely directed at environmental protection. The first part of this study identified the effect of current forest policy on livestock production using survey data from 259 households in three Nepal hill districts. The second part used a forestry-agriculture integrated model to examine alternative land use policies that could increase household livestock holdings and income while maintaining the environmental services of the community forest. The results show that current forest policies contributed to reductions in potential household livestock holdings by 34% for goats, 30% for cattle and 27% for buffalo. This exacerbated problems of farm fertility and food shortages in vulnerable and poor households. Modeling of alternative policy scenarios indicates that livestock holdings and income could both be increased for most households in communities practicing agroforestry while still maintaining environmental protection. The increase could be highest for the poorest households. Finally, the article discusses potential implications of new environmental policies on local food security and sustainability in the country.

Full text

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
1
Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy
Problems and Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal
1
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
2
, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen
Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract
In Nepal, many rural households need access to public forest resources to complement private
resources for food and livestock production. However, current forest policies are largely directed
at Environmental protection. The first part of this study identified the effect of current forest
policy on livestock production using survey data from 259 households in three Nepal hill
districts. The second part used a forestry-agriculture integrated model to examine alternative
land use policies that could increase household livestock holdings and income while maintaining
the environmental services of the community forest. The results show that current forest policies
contributed to reductions in potential household livestock holdings by 34% for goats, 30% for
cattle and 27% for buffalo. This exacerbated problems of farm fertility and food shortages in
vulnerable and poor households. Modeling of alternative policy scenarios indicates that livestock
holdings and income could both be increased for most households in communities practicing
agroforestry while still maintaining environmental protection. The increase could be highest for
the poorest households. Finally, the article discusses potential implications of new
environmental policies on local food security and sustainability in the country.
KEYWORDS: Policy, community forest, food security, household income, integrated model
1
This is a preprint of an article whose final and definitive form has been published in the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture [2011] [copyright Taylor & Francis]; Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture is available online at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ with the open URL of your article. You are allowed to use the article by following the terms and condition stated
on the website: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/copyright-author-rights.pdf
2
E-mail address correspondence to authors Bhubaneswor Dhakal, bhubaneswordhakal@gmail.com

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
2
INTRODUCTION
Livestock play an important role in local food security in developing countries. In addition to
providing food directly in the form of milk and meat, livestock also provide important services
such as power for ploughing and food transportation (Mahat et al., 1987). Farm manures are
often the sole means of soil fertilization in areas that are remote from roads, and where farmers
are unable to afford fertilizer (Pilbeam et al., 2000; Paudel, 1992; NPC, 2003). Livestock are
often the main source of income to purchase market goods including food, and they provide a
means of farming business diversification and a hedge against risk (Fafchamps and Shilpi,
2003). Livestock generally contribute a greater share of total household income for poorer
households compared to richer ones. Overall, livestock provide a hedge against starvation and
extreme poverty, particularly for isolated mountain communities (Riethmuller, 2003).
Public forests have special importance for livestock farming and livelihoods for mountain people
in Nepal. Historically, land areas demanding less labor for terracing and suitable for crop
production were privatized. Less productive and environmentally sensitive lands were managed
as public or communal property for production of multiple products and services (firewood,
fodder, pasture, timber, leaf litter, and other non-timber products). As a result, almost all Nepali
farmers have no private pastureland. Instead, the farmers graze livestock in forests, or tree limbs
are lopped during seasons of animal feed deficits (Graner, 1997; Ives and Messerli, 1989). In
addition, about 10 percent of Nepal‘s land area is alpine pasture. Farmers in high mountain
region feed livestock on alpine pasture during the summer season and, move the animal to lower
hill forests during the winter (Bhatta, 2002; Graner, 1997; Metz, 1994; Mahat et al., 1987). The
mobile herds would contribute to farm fertilization during the winter season. With this system,
households with marginal landholdings were able to manage their livestock and maintain food

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
3
security. These agro-ecological conditions have long motivated mountain people to maintain
some areas of public forest in every community.
A lot of changes have occurred in Nepal‘s forestry sector since the political change of the 1950s.
The government introduced the Private Forest Nationalization Act of 1956, which consolidated
forest management authority to government officers, leading to a complete breakdown in the
traditional management regime (Hobley, 1996). The political change also boosted public
infrastructure construction and urban development and increased demand for wood nationwide
(Hobley, 1996). The breakdown of the traditional management regime and growing demand for
wood led to large amounts of deforestation, which coincided with heavy rainfall, landslides and
flooding in lower areas including Bangladesh in the 1970s and 1980s (Ives and Messerli, 1989).
The mountain farming system, especially the livestock component, was identified as the main
culprit behind the degradation of mountain forests. Policy makers determined that, ―[t]he main
causes of forest degradation are overcutting of wood for fuel and heavy lopping of trees for
fodder‖ (Master Plan Main Report, 1988: p. 31).
Reforestation of community pastureland and ―reducing and controlling livestock numbers‖ to
levels manageable with farm resources were considered to be solutions to the problem (Master
Plan, 1988, p.148). The community forestry development program was implemented according
to the policy guidelines (Edmonds, 2003; Hobley, 1996). In principle, community forestry
transfers management responsibility to local communities, allowing them to make decisions
appropriate to the community and to capture the benefits of their decisions. In practice
afforestations occurred in community pasturelands. Livestock grazing and controlled forest
collection were restricted (Dhakal et al., 2005; Bhatta 2000). The government also introduced
the Forest Amendment Act in 1998 and a mandatory forest inventory introduced to regulate
forest uses and contribute to global environmental conservation, including global climate change

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
4
mitigation as directed by ―Sustainable Forestry‖ in Agenda 21. The policy has dictated
compulsory forest inventories and limited forest harvesting to less than 30% of mean annual
increment (MAI) for slow growing species and 60% of MAI for fast growing species
3
(Community Forestry Inventory Guidelines, 2000). A number of studies have shown that
community forestry policies have been successful in Nepal, including controlling the misuse of
public forests, restoration of forest cover and protection of some conservation species (Shrestha
et al., 2010; Adhikari et al., 2007; Gautam et al., 2002). The policy increased forest crown cover
but has suppressed understory growth of valuable plants used for fodder.
In practice though, the community forestry approach has had undesirable effects on incomes and
poverty alleviation. Moreover, a number of studies have reported that a policy focus on
environmental protection has led to an overstock and underutilization of community forest
resources (Khanal, 2002; Gautam et al., 2002). There have also been problems in terms of social
and economic development (Dhakal and Bhatta 2009; Thoms, 2008).
One particular effect of the environmental focus of forest policies is on local food security and
livelihoods where there are livestock-based food systems as in Nepal. The present situation is
that average private landholdings are less than 0.8 hectares per household. The bottom 47% of
land-owning households have a land area of 0.5 hectares or less, and 29% of farming households
are landless (CBS, 2003; UNDP, 2005). More than 60% of farming households have a food
deficit from their own land (CBS, 2003). Reduced subsidies and rising prices have severely
reduced the use of fertilizer (SDC-Helvetas, 2009; CBS, 2008; NRB, 2004; World Bank, 2004).
Imported livestock has been growing as illustrated in Appendix Table A1 for the period 1987/88
to 2002/3. Local food security issues have beenincreasing and starvation problems have become
3
At the time of this study the Government amended the Guidelines for Inventory of Community Forests (DOF, 2000) and
relaxed community forest harvest by a further 10% of MAI.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
5
worse in remote districts (FAO, 2008; Gautam, 2009) where the livestock economy and
transhumance practices have been severely affected by the conservation policies (Bhatta,2002).
The incidence of epidemic diseases and deaths
4
among poor and malnourished people has
increased in institutionally disadvantaged food deficit areas in recent years (Gautam, 2009). In
the process of the Tenth National Plan preparation, farmers who suffered from the conservation
policies demanded access to forestland grazing and fodder production (NPC, 2003). Instead of
responding to the demands of farmers, the government has followed even more stringent
environmental policies. For example, Nepal has been selected to participate in the first phase of
the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) project. Protected
area increased from 7% in 1988 to 20% in 2008 (CBS, 2008; Master plan, 1988) and included
many forests used by communities (Muller–Böker and Kolmar, 2000). At the Climate Change
Summit in Copenhagen in 2009 the Nepalese government declared the expansion of protected
areas from 20 to 25% of the national area in food-deficit and remote localities as a national
commitment to global climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation (Nepal
Monitor, 2009). Public forests have an increasingly important role in Nepal, yet the
environmental focus of current policies is limiting the ability of local forests to promote food
security, increase incomes and alleviate poverty.
The impact of tradeoffs between environmental conservation policies and community use of
forests is potentially more critical where farm animals are the engine of rural economies and
livelihoods. The severity of recently introduced environmental policies and programs on food
security and livelihoods is not well understood. While a number of studies have attempted to
study the impact of forest policy on food security, these studies often limit their scope to an
assessment of impacts on household livestock holdings (Adhikari et al., 2007; Dhakal et al.,
4
For example, over 450 people died and hundreds of people suffered from epidemic diarrhoea due to low quality food
distributed by the World Food program during July and August of 2009 (Gautam, 2009).

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
6
2005; Richards et al., 2003; Fox, 1993). From a development policy prospective the more
important question is whether it is possible to reconcile conservation objectives and food
security and income needs through alternative policies for community-based resource
management. Analysis of this broader question requires a framework that can incorporate the
interaction of community forest resources with local economies, and the effect of national forest
policies on community forest management.
One framework for studying the effect of alternative forestry policies on household income and
food security is a community welfare maximization model. A few studies have attempted to use
income maximization to study livestock-based households in Nepal; however, those studies were
based on the current policy of reducing use of forests and the subsequent availability of forage
resources (Das and Shivakoti, 2006; Hjortso et al., 2006; Thapa and Poudel, 2000). In addition,
these studies did not analyze community forests as a common property resource. The purpose of
this study is to overcome these gaps by developing a model of community welfare maximization
that incorporates common property resource allocation decisions and different policy constraints
on forest use and household livestock holdings.
The organization of the paper is as follows. A community economic model that integrates
agriculture, forestry and household economic heterogeneity factors is used to analyze policy for
managing public forest. Such models are rare in the research literature. A subsequent section
describes the analytical model. The study used both survey and secondary sources of data. Data
and collection methods are explained before the results section. This study developed and used a
problem-specific model to evaluate current and alternative policies. This study examined the
impact of current forest policy on household livestock holdings and evaluated alternative
policies to enhance food security and livelihoods. The results are presented in three parts: model

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
7
validation, effects of forest policies and alternative policies. Some of the results require
discussion before drawing conclusions and policy implications.
METHODS
An Economic Model of Community-Based Management
In Nepal typical rural households depend on the resources and opportunities available from their
own farms, markets (for buying or selling farm inputs, outputs and labor force) and common
property resources (Amacher et al., 1993; Mahat et al., 1987; Adhikari et al., 2004). Households
make production and consumption decisions based on the opportunity costs of labor and land
resources. Public forest resources complement private resources or substitute for goods produced
on private land, while goods in short supply can be purchased from markets. The extent of
access to public forest resources is dependent on government policies. The economy of a rural
community is composed of an aggregation of member households and common resources. In this
context, the community forestry management issue is essentially a resource allocation problem,
and different policy scenarios can be analyzed using a linear programming model. The focus of
this paper is on the effects of policies rather than the programming model, and therefore, only
the objective function and constraints are outlined here. Details regarding the household and
community forest models can be found in Appendix 2.
In the model the community is structured as Z different income or ‗well-being‘ groups with N
households in each group. In subsistence farming communities land is the most important means
of income, and self-sufficiency is an important determinant of household well-being. For
modelling simplification, the community households are grouped into three income groups, rich
(R), medium (M), and poor (P), based on sufficiency of household income from private

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
8
landholdings to meet basic needs
5
. In this study, poor households are defined as having
insufficient private land to meet basic needs, medium households as having sufficient land to
meet basic needs, and rich households as having a surplus of land to meet basic needs. The
relationship between the private landholdings of rich (apR), medium (apM) and poor (apP)
households is:

a
pP
 a
pM
 a
pR
For modelling purposes, each income group is assumed to have the same landholding. The
community forest is treated as another income group. It can use its resources (the community
forest) to produce goods for sale (to community members or externally), or it can lease land to
individuals to make their own production decisions over a particular area. Its labor endowment is
the sum of the compulsory labor contribution from individual community households. With this
structure, total community income (Y) is the sum of household incomes (yzn) and the community
forest income (yc).
][
1 1
c
Z
z
N
n
zn
yyY 

 
(Eq. 1)
The community objective is the maximization of community income subject to constraints on
area, labor availability, employment opportunities, the need to meet basic food, heating and
housing requirements, a restriction against making individual households worse off to maximize
community income and government policies on community forest use. The objective function
can be written as,
5
Key informants from the survey communities were asked to categorize households on a poverty scale. They used two main
criteria: production of food from private land and annual household cash income Members of most households engaged in low-
paid off-farm work within the country and overseas. Key informants said that the savings generated from off-farm
work were notably less than the savings generated from farmwork at home. In the survey, community household incomes were
strongly correlated with landholding size. Therefore, we classified the households based on food sufficiency from their own land.
However, off-farm income was included in the model when calculating total household income. Other studies
have also followed the criteria of landholding size to classify households (Gilbert and Banik, 2010).

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
9

MaxY  C
aj
X
znj

n
N

z
Z

j
J

n
N

z
Z

G
zni
(C
cj
X
j
)
j
J









Eq. (2)
The term Xj is a vector of decision variables, Caj is a coefficient matrix of decision variables for
private endowments and Ccj is a coefficient matrix of decision variables for community forest
endowments. The term G is the forest policy determined weight of community resources
contributing to the production function of household n of income group z. This shows that the
contribution of community forest to community income differs with government policy. The
objective function is subject to the following constraints. The total amount of private land type k
used in production system t by n households in z income groups cannot exceed the total amount
of private land available (ap). This condition permits share cropping or rental arrangements.
Similarly, the total amount of community land used cannot exceed the total amount of
community land type available in the (ac).

a
tkzn
p
 a
p
t 1
T

k 1
K

n 1
N

z1
Z


a
tkzn
c
 a
c
t 1
T

k 1
K

n 1
N

z1
Z

Government policy constraints are of two types. One type of policy restricts the area of a
particular land type k that can be used (G
1
k), and the other restricts the amount of harvest of an
output (G
2
i). In either case, G is a proportion that takes a value between 0 and 1.

0  G
k
1
,G
i
2
1
Labor allocated by any household to their own farm (Lf), leisure days (L0), community forest
activities (Lc), or outside employment (Lm) cannot exceed total labor available for that

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
10
household (L) plus hired labor (Lh). Employment opportunities are assumed to be limited to
what is available in the community from farmers employing labor, so that total off-farm
employment (Lmzn) cannot exceed local employment opportunities (Lhzn).
L
h
+ L = L
f
+ L
m
+ L
c
+ L
o

L
mzn
 
n=1
N

z= 1
Z

 L
hzn
 
n= 1
N

z= 1
Z

A household needs minimum amounts of particular outputs (di) to meet basic needs for food,
heating (firewood) and housing (timber). There is also a restriction against making individual
households worse off in terms of final income relative to initial income (y0 zn).

q
i
 d
i
zn
zn
yy
0

The general model in Eq. (3) was used to model the effects of different government policy
options. Government policy is reflected by changes in the value of particular variables or
constraints in the model. The constraints for each policy/management scenario are described
below.
A. Scenario A—Current Policy
Current government community forest policy is used as the base case. The community forest is
modelled as a separate production household in the community. In this case, community forest
lands are allocated entirely to timber production (G
1
k = 1.0 for timber and G
1
k = 0.0 for all
other land uses). The timber harvesting is constrained to an annual harvest of only 30% of MAI

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
11
for hardwoods and mixed deciduous forests (G
2
i = 0.3), and 50 percent of MAI for pine forests
(G
2
i = 0.5). Byproducts, including firewood produced from offcuts or residuals, and fodder
harvested from understory species are produced for sale. The forest products are available at
subsidised prices for members of the group and full price for others. The income of the
community forest is modelled as a separate household as is current practice.
B. Scenario B—Unconstrained Community Use
The community forest is modelled as a separate production household in the community similar
to the base case, but with no policy constraints on land allocation for any product or the level of
harvest (G
1
k = 1.0 and G
2
i = 1.0). The land allocation for production of firewood, tree fodder or
timber and their harvest is based on maximizing income through sales of outputs. As is common
practice, community forest members can purchase community forest output at subsidized prices
fixed to meet household needs, and surplus products are sold outside the community at market
prices.
C. Scenario C—Unconstrained Lease
Similar to the Unconstrained Community case, there are no constraints on land use of the
community forest for firewood, tree fodder or timber or the level of harvest. However, in this
scenario the community forest can be leased to individual households under monitoring and
regulation of the community forest user group. This scenario allows households with surplus
labor to use community forests as if the land was under private management, effectively
increasing the land available to a household. Surplus labor is calculated in terms of households
using labor to work on their own private land resources first. The community earns a rental on
the area leased to households, and earns income from products from the land remaining in
community management. This model is different from the current leasehold forestry policy
model found in Nepal.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
12
Although the alternative policies in B and C are notionally unconstrained, the objective is to
maintain environmental benefits. Therefore, cereal production is constrained to private land, and
the only unconstrained activities allowed on community forests are some combination of fodder,
firewood and timber production based on agroforestry land use practices. Nepal has many
species of high value fodder trees and sophisticated agroforestry technologies (Thorne et al.,
1999; Ives and Messerli, 1989; Mahat et al., 1987). There are a number of agroforestry systems
that include livestock, but do not involve grazing. In some agroforestry models fodder trees are
mixed with understory pasture grass species, and the cut and carry method is used for fodder
supplies (Thorne et al., 1999; Paudel and Tiwari, 1992). Studies have also shown that less
intensive livestock grazing has little effect on soil erosion in the mountains (Gilmour et al.,
1986). An additional benefit of the agroforestry system is that farmers can use the egesta of
livestock mixed with soil to increase soil fertility instead of using chemical fertilizers (Pilbeam
et al., 2000). Before applying dung to the soil, some households also use it to produce bio-gas
for household energy purposes (Hjortso et al., 2006).
While one of the potential benefits of agroforestry is land stabilization and erosion control, this
is not considered to be a major item in this paper. A number of studies have pointed out that
natural disasters associated with rainfall, soil erosion and flooding are generally not associated
with traditional land use practices and are the outcome of natural processes (geophysical
movements and intense rains) that are beyond human control (Wobus et al., 2003; Gerrard and
Gardner, 2002; Merz et al., 2006; Ives and Messerli, 1989). The main environmental benefits of
the agroforestry land use model are a contribution to biodiversity conservation, carbon
sequestration and soil quality (Narain et al., 1997; Montagnini and Nair, 2004; McNeely and
Schroth, 2006). Therefore, local environmental services can be greater in agroforestry systems
than the current forestry production model (few dominant species and a log production focus). It

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
13
is assumed that forest user groups monitor mismanagement of forest resources in all policy
scenarios. As such, the alternatives represent an unconstrained agroforestry alternative that
maintains or enhances environmental benefits from forestry.
Data
This study uses information from household surveys, community forest user group (CFUG)
surveys and secondary sources. The primary data for households was collected from six CFUGs
in the Dolakha, Kavre and Nuwakot districts of the mid-hill region of Nepal. The first two
districts are called ‗pioneer‘ districts for community forest programs in Nepal and are the most
accessible districts for monitoring by donors and government agencies. The last district has a
low intensity of external support similar to many other districts in the country. The particular
CFUGs in each district were selected on the basis of representative forest condition, type of
forage-gathering practices, age of the CFUG, forest size and level of access to district forest
office services.
For the household survey households were randomly selected from household income group lists
in each CFUG. Income grouping is a common practice for evaluating community forestry in
Nepal. The grouping involves community people listing households who were considered to be
poor, average (medium) and high (rich) income in their communities. A range of criteria are
used for classifying income groups, however, the most common criterion is the level of food
sufficiency for a household (consumption versus production of food). A total of 259 farming
households were surveyed. The household survey was an interview with the female head of
household. The female head of household was selected because male heads had a high frequency
of seasonal migration out of the community for work, and generally provide less information
about farm and forest resource conditions. The enumerators were trained in household survey
techniques and had specific training for this survey.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
14
The household survey consisted of a structured questionnaire that had been pre-tested.
Respondents were asked a range of questions, including their holding of all types of private
lands (including sharecropping or leased land), their level of food sufficiency, family size,
household labor, livestock holdings, and firewood and timber collection from community
forests. Table 1 summarizes private landholdings, community forestland areas and the household
labor force. The average private household landholdings found in this survey were higher than
those found in Adhikari et al. (2004) who reported average landholdings of 0.15 ha, 0.51 ha and
1.28 ha for poor, medium and rich households respectively. However, the average landholding
size is similar to the Agricultural Sample Survey (2003), which reported 0.53 ha, 0.55 ha and
0.68 ha for Nuwakot, Kavre and Dolkha districts respectively (CBS, 2003). Labor force and
household size are similar to national standards (NPC, 2003). The sample is thus representative
of CFUGs generally in Nepal.
Table 1 near here
The respondents were also asked to report the number of livestock they were holding at the time
of the survey and to recall the number of livestock they held before commencement of the
community forestry program in their community. Households formed after the commencement
of the community forestry program reported only the existing number of livestock. Since
households keep different types of livestock that have different total digestible nutrient (TDN)
requirements, feed requirements were estimated using a standardized livestock unit. One mature
female buffalo, one cow, and one goat are 1.0, 0.7, and 0.2 livestock units respectively (Master
Plan, 1988). Two young (calf or kid) are calculated as an adult for each breed to standardize the
feed estimation. Data common to all households, such as yields, prices or labor productivity,
were collected from local market surveys, key informants, and secondary sources, including
FAO (2004, 2003), DOF (2000), Master Plan (1988), Kayastha et al. (2001), MacEvilly (2003),

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
15
Paudel (1992), and Paudel and Tiwari (1992). The full list of references for secondary data
sources can be provided upon request. For community forests, the study estimated fodder
production in an agroforestry system that consists of fodder trees as the principal crop and
grasses between the trees as a mixed crop. Fodder trees are predominantly used for fodder
production and for many years. Therefore, the timber potential for production from fodder trees
is not included in income maximization. However, firewood production available from the
annual lopping for fodder is included. The residual from timber harvest is used as firewood. The
outputs of the trees grown on private lands are added to the model as an intercrop component of
the farming system. Fodder is an input for livestock production and also an intermediate product
from fodder trees, grain by-products, biomass grown on terrace risers or bonds, and inter-tree
grasses. Livestock produced manure can be substituted for fertilizer costs in crop production.
Surplus grain is used as supplementary concentrated animal feed. Both manure and surplus grain
are converted into cash values and included in the model.
The first part of the results provide an estimation of the changes in livestock numbers following
commencement of the forestry program based on information from the survey. The results of the
linear programming model start with model validation, which shows how accurate the model is
at predicting the actual allocation of household and community resources. This is followed by
results of livestock numbers and changes in household income levels under different policy
scenarios.
RESULT
Effects of Current Community Forestry Policy on Livestock
This section presents the results of real changes of household livestock holdings with
commencement of the community forestry policy. The respondents were asked to estimate their

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
16
livestock holdings before and after the formation of the CFUG. Figure 1 shows that average
livestock holdings were reduced by about 30 percent after the CFUG was formed. The forest
policy contributed to reductions in household livestock holdings by 34% for goats, 30% for
cattle and 27% for buffalo. The largest reduction was for high income households followed by
poor households, for all types of livestock. The reductions for the high income household group
were 41, 40, and 32% for goat, buffalo, and cow, respectively. The reductions for the poor
household income group were 36, 32, and 31% for goat, buffalo, and cow, respectively.
However, the percent impact on household income and food security could be higher for the
poor household group than the rich household group. Interestingly, the number of buffalo
increased in the medium household group. There could be many reasons for the variation in
reduction of the number of livestock holdings between household groups. Due to greater on-farm
production of livestock feed, the high income household group had the greatest number of
animals before commencing the forestry protection program (Adhikari et al., 2007; Mahat et al.,
1987). During critical seasons when the high income household group faced a deficit in farm
fodder, this household group had used forest fodder and pasture. The poor households had
smaller private landholdings and a greater reliance on community forest lands across all seasons.
They usually keep goats and cows (Graner, 1997). Those grazing and fodder supplies were not
available when grazing was restricted and grass was suppressed by forest after commencing
community forest protection (Adhikari et al., 2007; Dhakal et al., 2005). As a result, the rich and
poor household groups were affected the most.
Interestingly, the level of reduction in the user groups is related to forest characteristics which
vary with conservation practices. Forest policy seems to be an obvious factor causing the
reduction; however, there could be other contributing factors such as rural labor force dynamics.
In the study communities, the displacement of people associated with armed conflict was not
notable at the survey time. Overseas migrations were also few. However, many young people

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
17
migrated to urban areas seasonally. Here we also found variations in reductions between
livestock types. Households generally feed goats and cows by grazing on forest fodder, and
those animals have been affected the most by changes in community forest management.
National livestock statistics show that the reduction in the cattle population is accelerating (CBS,
2003). Buffaloes generally are fed on farm-produced feed and cereals which could be the reason
for this type to be least affected. The increase in buffalo numbers for the medium household
group was most likely associated with increased access to roads and markets for milk and feed
cereal in some study groups. The poor household group could not afford the market feed.
With an average decrease in livestock numbers of about 30%, there would be a 20 to 25%
reduction in farm manure supplies after handing over the forests to the communities. In some
groups the livestock numbers were reduced due to the forestry program in two phases: first,
through government managed plantation and protection, and then, through strict protection after
handing over the forest to a user group. This study examined the household livestock holding
reduction after the forest was handed over to local communities. The reduction of livestock had
occurred as forest plantation and protection started (Fox, 1993). The livestock holding status
before plantation could not be examined in this study. Therefore, the impact of community
forestry is much higher than recorded here. The total impact is likely to be the highest for poor
households, which are least able to purchase market-supplied fertilizer and food. In terms of
welfare, the impact could be enormously higher for households at the margin of food security
and for poor ones who already had insufficient resources for bare survival. The findings
presented here regarding decreasing household livestock holdings with the commencement of
forest conservation policies are similar to other studies (Adkikari et al., 2007; Bhatta, 2002; Fox,
1993). Similar results are reported in other forest-based livestock farming countries like India
and China (Cao et al., 2009; Hazari and Kumar, 2003). These results (Figure 1) confirm the
common perception that community forestry has had a negative impact on livestock holdings

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
18
and household incomes and set the stage for a study of alternative policies that can increase
livestock holdings and incomes.
Figure 1 is near here
Model Validation
The model developed to analyze the impacts of community forestry on household and
community income was validated using mean absolute relative error measures (Buongiorno et
al., 2003). The error is the percentage difference between predicted and actual data.
1
( )
t t
t
P A
E
n A



where E is the mean absolute error of n number of observations, Pt is the predicted quantity of
product t, and At is the actual quantity of product t. Table 2 shows the actual data, model
predictions, and E for livestock units in each CFUG.
Table 2 is about here
The results of the actual average livestock holdings are consistent with Adhikari et al. (2004)
who reported 2.02, 2.85, and 4.3 average livestock units for poor, medium, and rich household
income groups, respectively. A negative value for E in Table 4 means an overestimation, and a
positive value means an underestimation. The average errors of actual and predicted livestock
units are less than 10 percent within CFUGs and 34% within household income groups. The
distribution of errors of estimated livestock holdings for poor and high income households do
not appear to be random, which indicates that there could be some problem in the model. Errors
in the model results could arise from a number of factors. These include incomplete data which

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
19
do not adequately capture what is happening in communities, such as inter-household fodder
exchange, assumptions about resource management efficiency and livestock production in the
model, or resource use decisions that are not based on income maximization as assumed in the
model. The highest errors are encountered in the high-income group of the Khorthali user group
where many household members were involved in non-farm activities.
In terms of inter-household fodder exchange, there is only a small difference between total
actual and predicted livestock units within a CFUG, supporting the logic of inter-household
exchanges. A study by Das and Shivakoti (2006) also showed that households keep higher
livestock units than estimated from feed resources. In situations of low feed availability, poor
households are more likely to feed livestock less fodder and keep animals in poorer health
conditions than other households. Moreover, the overestimation for poor households could also
be associated with the feed requirement parameters. Due to the lack of local research on
livestock TDN requirements in Nepal, this study followed Indian livestock unit standards (Das
and Shivakoti, 2006). The Nepalese livestock sizes are relatively smaller than the Indian ones,
and this could also be a possible explanation for the difference in model results.
The model presented in this paper makes a simplifying assumption that limits employment
opportunities to what is available in the community. However, in developing countries a high
income household can invest more in human resource development and business than a poor
one, and then become involved in high-income off-farm employment (Ellis and Freeman, 2004).
As such, another reason for the underestimation of high income household livestock units could
be labor availability for keeping livestock. In cases where there is a family labor shortage it
could be more profitable for a rich household to sell fodder to other households than to hire
labor. This selling of fodder may lead to lower livestock holdings than the model prediction. The

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
20
validation result indicated that the findings need to be interpreted while accounting for these
possible errors in the model.
The validity of the model to predict household food production was tested by comparing food
production to the level of surplus or deficit based on the household food sufficiency category.
Table 3 shows average household values for food production and a surplus or deficit for the
household consumption requirement. Production used for seed is also modeled as consumption
because most of the farmers use seeds from their own farm. The food production level of the
poor household category in all user groups was lower than needed for household consumption.
The production levels of medium households are barely over the consumption requirement. The
production levels of rich households are remarkably higher than needed for household
consumption. The model predicted these results reasonably well within a small margin of error
for most of the groups. One of the prediction errors is surplus production for medium household
groups. The surplus was small and probably reflects a good harvest year and some error of
estimation. Another notable error is a greater surplus of food production for medium income
households than rich households in the Chapanigadi forest user group. The prediction error was
due to the fact that the rich household group has an extremely large family size. The result of the
validity test indicated that the model predicts reasonably well except for extreme cases.
Table 3 is about here
As a result of these validity tests, it is concluded that the model provides a reasonable
characterization of the production and consumption system of a CFUG in Nepal. As such, the
model will be useful in analyzing the effects of alternative policies affecting forest use and
management.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
21
Alternative Forest Policies and Livestock Holdings
Table 4 shows the estimated per household livestock holding units for three household income
groups under the different forest policy scenarios defined earlier (Scenarios A, B and C). The
results show that household livestock unit holdings increase for all household income groups
when forest policy constraints are relaxed (Scenarios B and C). Scenario C, which is the
unconstrained lease, results in the largest increase in livestock holdings. The largest increase in
livestock holdings is for poor households, increasing from an average of 2.1 livestock units in
the Base Case (Scenario A) to 4.4 livestock units in the unconstrained community use case
(Scenario B) and 4.5 livestock units in the community lease case (Scenario C). The impact of the
policy changes on livestock holdings varies between CFUGs. For example, in the Siddeswori
CFUG, there is no change for rich households, while in the Banshkharka CFUG, there is a big
increase in the livestock holdings of all households. Accounting for all households, the smallest
change was in the Suryamati CFUG.
Table 4 is near here
The results showed that the increases in livestock holding and household incomes are distinctly
higher for poor households. The private landholdings of these households were insufficient to
employ family labor and produce enough income for basic living. The underemployed labor
utilized the community resources, and increased both livestock holdings and household income.
Livestock production also increased farm manure production and contributes to food production.
On the other hand, the labor from high income households was already absorbed in private land
so that this household group could not reap much benefit from the community forestry policy
changes.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
22
The results also showed that variations in the increase of livestock holdings and household
incomes among forest user groups were associated with many factors such as forest species type,
family labor force, private land and forest sizes. For example, the impact of policy constraints
was high for hardwood forest. As a result, the lower number of livestock units reported in the
base case of Bashkhaka is associated with more area of broad leaf forest.
The relaxation of policy constraints increased household livestock number and income for the
highest in this group. The livestock increases are relatively higher in the unconstrained lease
scenario than the unconstrained community scenario. The demand for labor increased in the
community scenario due to the many transactions and coordination needed in the communal
production system. The lease scenario also allowed more flexibility for private land allocation
due to increased supplies of community forest resources. The household income increase of the
medium income household group was higher in the Banshkharka-like groups where private
landholdings are smaller and per household community forest sizes are relatively larger.
Livestock holding has a direct effect on household income levels.
Alternative Polices and Household Income
Table 5 shows per household incomes under the base case scenario. Poor households, except one
group, have insufficient income to meet basic survival. The basic income officially defined by
the National Planning Commission for a five-member family is NRs 33,626 for 2003 (NPC,
2003). This income level is based on the requirement for minimum calories and other basic non-
food items. Therefore, there is a great challenge to increase their income to meet their needs.
Table 5 is near here

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
23
Table 6 shows the percentage change in average household income relative to the base case
under alternative policies. Similar to livestock changes, incomes increase for most income
groups in each CFUG. Poor households have the greatest increase in income, rising between 16
and 72% (average of 46%) under the unconstrained community use policy, and between 44 and
125% (average of 81%) under the unconstrained lease policy. The average income increase for
medium income households is 17% under the unconstrained community use policy, and 27%
under the unconstrained lease policy. For high-income households, incomes were only
marginally increased, and for two-thirds of the CFUGs there was effectively no change.
Table 6 is near here
The role of the policy factor was remarkable on livestock holdings and incomes. Under the base
case, forestland use was constrained to timber production and with limited harvesting at policy
dictated levels (30% mean annual increment for hardwood species and 60% for softwood
species). That resulted in lower numbers of livestock holdings and lower levels of incomes.
Under the unconstrained community and unconstrained lease scenarios the land use policy was
unconstrained for fodder tree-based agroforestry systems. The results from the agriculture and
forestry integrated model, developed using the income maximization principle, showed that
fodder production for livestock farming was the most profitable community forestland use. The
agroforestry system increased forage availability to feed livestock which contributed to
household income. Under the condition with relaxed policy constraints the increases in fodder
production also increased firewood supplies, which reduced land dedicated to firewood
production increasing land dedicated to fodder production. The income in the community
account decreased in the base case in all CFUGs except Banshkharka. This was due to the fact
that alternative policy scenarios allow communities to produce non-timber products, which
generate lower income in the community account but generate greater incomes for households.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
24
Current policy limits production to timber products, which fetch higher prices and result in more
income in the community account. However, the overall effect was an increase in total
community income with the alternative policies.
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
One of the objectives of this study was to investigate the impact of environmental conservation
policies on household livestock holdings. The results of a survey of a number of community
forest user groups in Nepal showed that livestock holdings have decreased since the introduction
of community forestry. The reason for the reduction in livestock numbers is the focus of current
forest policy on forest conservation leading to a reduction in forest grazing and forest fodder
supplies. This result implies that new stronger environmental conservation policies may lead to
worse food security in Nepal. The REDD project has a clearly stated aim of displacing animal
grazing and fodder collection in community forest areas to increase carbon sequestration and
storage (World Bank, 2008a; 2008b). The implication of those policies would be reduced
livestock numbers as the policies restrict livestock grazing and increase tree canopies
suppressing understory forage available for livestock. If the Nepalese government implements
the protected area expansion policy, as declared at the Copenhagen Submit of 2009, farmers‘
access to alpine pastureland (accounting for 10% of the national area) will almost cease. This, in
turn, has further implications for future food security in remote and institutionally disadvantaged
localities because cattle provide income for livelihoods, farm power for ploughing and manure
for fertilizer.
Environmental policies have affected Nepal‘s livestock supply countries (India and China). The
public lands traditionally used for livestock grazing are also getting forested at high rates (FAO,

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
25
2005). In many Indian rural communities the livestock populations are already affected by forest
conservation policies (Hazari and Kumar, 2003; Prasad et al., 2003) as is the situation in China
(Cao et al., 2009). In addition, the demand for livestock is increasing in these countries. All the
above factors are likely to contribute to higher future prices for livestock products and to further
reduce consumption of animal products, particularly for poor households in Nepal. Therefore,
the government and international agencies need to implement alternative forest policies that
provide livelihoods for poor people and maintain environmental quality.
Another objective of this paper was to investigate whether it is possible to improve food security
and increase incomes for poor people through alternative policies in community-based resource
management, while maintaining environmental outcomes. The study did this by investigating the
impact of current forest policy on livestock holdings in different household income groups in
CFUGs in Nepal using a linear-programming approach. Two alternative management policies
were examined, one representing an agroforestry model for community forests while
maintaining community (common) production, and the other representing a lease model where
community forest land is leased to individual households to manage like private land under
agroforestry systems. The results of the analysis of the impact of alternative policies shows that
livestock numbers and community income can be increased when the current forest policy is
changed from a timber orientation to an agroforestry land use system. Both policies increase
household livestock holdings and income, primarily for low and medium income households,
while still maintaining the required environmental outcomes. This in turn provides greater food
security. The unconstrained lease policy provides the greatest increase in income. The results
show that both government policies and global environment conservation policies can become
obstacles to increasing incomes and providing food sufficiency for rural households.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
26
This study did not evaluate the impact of payment for ecosystem services of local forests on
incomes and food security. That is a subject for future study. Future studies involving
community management of resources in a developing country context should focus on
evaluating environmental services outcomes under alternative agroforestry policies. The use of
sustainable agroforestry systems may give policy makers a greater range of alternatives for
meeting both economic development and environmental outcomes. As this paper also shows, the
impacts of agroforestry policies are potentially greatest for the most vulnerable, who have a
greater reliance on forest resources, and are thus potentially an important tool in combating rural
poverty.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
27
REFERENCES
Adhikari, B., F. Williams, & J. Lovett. 2007. Local benefits from community forests in the
middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (5): 464–478.
Adhikari, B., S. Di Falco1, & J. Lovett. 2004. Household characteristics and forest dependency:
evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics. 48(2):
245–257.
Amacher, G., W. Hyde & B. Joshee. 1993. Joint production and consumption in traditional
households: Fuelwood and crop residues in two districts in Nepal. Journal of Development
Studies 30 (1): 206–225.
Bardhan, P. & C. Urdy. 1999. Development Microeconomics. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Bhatta, B. 2002. Access and Equity Issues in Mountain Implications of Community Forestry
Program. Policy Analysis in Community Forestry Program. A Compendium of Research Papers.
Winrock International-Nepal Policy Analysis in Agriculture related Resource Management
(PAARRM) program. Kathmandu.
Buongiorno, J., S. Zhu D. Zhang J. Turner, & D. Tomberlin. 2003. The Global Forest Products
Model: Structure, Estimation, and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
28
Cao, S. X. Wang„ Y. Song, L. Chen, & Q. Feng. 2009. Impacts of the natural forest conservation
program on the livelihoods of residents of northwestern China: Perceptions of residents affected
by the program. Ecological Economics 69 (7): 1454–1462.
CBS. [Central Bureau of Statistics]. 2003. National Sample Census of Agriculture Nepal.
2001/02. Highlights. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS [Central Bureau of Statistics]. 2002. Statistical Yearbook Nepal. Kathmandu: Central
Bureau of Statistics.
CBS. 2008. Environmental Statistics of Nepal 2008. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of
Statistics.
Das, R. & G. Shivakoti. 2006. Livestock carrying capacity evaluation in an integrated farming
system: A case study from the mid-hills of Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 13 (3): 153–163.
Dhakal, B. & B. Bhatta. 2009. An institutional model to explain utilization problems of
community forest products. International Journal of Social Forestry 2(2): 122–135.
Dhakal, B., H. Bigsby, & R. Cullen. 2007. The link between community forestry policies, and
poverty and unemployment in rural Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 27 (1): 32–39.
Dhakal, B., H. Bigsby, & R. Cullen. 2005. Impacts of community forestry development on
livestock-based livelihood in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 4(2): 43–49.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
29
DOF, 2002. Community Forest Resource Inventory Guidelines, 2061, Community Forest
Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal. Department of National Park and Wildlife
Conservation (DNPWC), 2010. Protected area. http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected-areas.asp.
Accessed on 25 June 2010.
Edmonds, E. 2003. Development assistance and the construction of government– initiated
community institutions. Economic Development and Cultural Change 51(4): 897–930.
Ellis, F. & H. Freeman. 2004. Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African
countries. Journal of Development Studies 40(4): 1–30.
Fafchamps, M. & F. Shilpi. 2003. The spatial division of labour in Nepal. Journal of
Development Studies 39(6): 23–66.
FAO. 2008. Crop Prospects and Food Situation. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/
docrep/010/ai465e/ai465e00.htm
FAO. 2004. Food and Agricultural Indicators. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/compendium_2004/pdf/ESS_NEP.pdf
FAO. 2003. FAO Nutrient Response Database: FERTIBASE Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/nrdb/country.jsp?lang=en&what=&setting=&COUNTRY_ID=NEPAL&CROP_GR
OUP=CEREALS&CROP=ALL&ZONE=&SOILID=

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
30
Fox, J. 1993. Forest Resources in a Nepali village in 1980 and 1990: The positive influence of
population growth. Mountain Research and Development 13(1): 89–98.
Gautam, B. R. 2009. Question of accountability; A case of diarrhea outbreak of mid and far
West. Informal 28 (3): 4–8.
Gautam, A.; E. Webb, & A. Eiumnoh. 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.
Gerrard, J. & R. Gardner. 2002. Relationship between land-sliding and land use in the Likhu
Khola Drainage Basin, Middle Hills, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 22(1): 48–
55.
Gilbert, J. & N. Banik. 2010. Socioeconomic Impacts of Cross-Border Transport Infrastructure
Development in South Asia. ADBI Working Paper 211. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.adbi.org/ working-
paper/2010/04/14/3655.socioeconomic.transport.infrastructure/
Ghimire, S. 1992. The Role of Small Ruminants. In Edited by J.B. Abington. Sustainable
Livestock Production in the Mountain Agro-Ecosystem of Nepal. Pp. 77–110. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
Gilmour, D., M. Bonell, & D. Cassells. 1986. The effects of forestation on soil hydraulic
properties in the middle hills of Nepal: A preliminary assessment. Mountain Research and
Development 7(3): 239–249.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
31
Graner, E. 1997. The Political Ecology of Community Forestry in Nepal. Verlag fur
Entwickungspolitik. Saarbruken.
Hazari B. R, & A. Kumar. 2003. Caste, land and livestock holdings in India: An analysis.
International Forestry Review 5(4): 364–369.
Hausler, S. 1993. Community forestry: A critical assessment: The case of Nepal. The Ecologist
23(3): 84–91.
Hjortso, C., S. Straede, & F. Helles. 2006. Applying multi-criteria decision-making to protected
areas and buffer zone management: A case study in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Journal of Forest Economics 12(2): 91–108.
Hobley, M. 1996. Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal. Rural
Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute: London.
Ives, J. & B. Messerli. 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma Reconciling Development and
Conservation. The United Nations University and Routledge: London & New York.
Joshi, B. 1992. The Role of Large Ruminants. In Edited by J.B. Abington. Sustainable Livestock
Production in the Mountain Agro-Ecosystem of Nepal. Pp. 47–76. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nation: Rome.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
32
Kayastha, B., S. Pradhan., N. Rasaily, S. Dangal, & F. Arentz. 2001. Community Forest Product
Marketing Options for Timber and Non-timber Forest Products 2001. Discussion Paper. Nepal
Australia Community Forestry Management Project. No-Frills Consultants.
Khanal, K.P. 2002. Under utilisation in community forestry: A case study from Lalitpur district.
Banko Janakari (Journal of Forestry) 12(2): 26–32.
LRMP. 1986. Land Resource Mapping Project. Soil Report. Government of Nepal/Government
of Canada.
Mahat, T., D. Griffin, & K. Shepherd. 1987. Human impacts on some forests of the Middle Hills
of Nepal Part 3. Forests in the subsistence economy of Sindhu Palchok and Kavre Palanchok.
Mountain Research and Development 7(1): 53–70.
Master Plan. 1988. The Forestry Sector Master Plan. Ministry of Forest, Nepal: Kathmandu.
MacEvilly, C. 2003. Cereals. In Edited by Benjamin Caballero, Luiz C Trugo and Paul M
Finglas. Encyclopedia of Food Science and Nutrition. Second Edition. Amsterdam: Academic
Press.
McNeely, J. & G. Schroth. 2006. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation— traditional
practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation
15(2): 549–554.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
33
Merz, J., P.M. Dangol, M.P. Dhakal, B. S. Dongol, G. Nakarmi, & R. Weingartner. 2006.
Rainfall-runoff events in a middle mountain catchment of Nepal. Journal of Hydrology 331 (3–
4): 446–458.
Metz, J. 1994. Forest product use at an upper elevation village in Nepal. Environmental
Management 18 (3): 371–390.
MOA. 2004. Livestock Export and Import Statistics Database. Animal Quarantine Section.
Ministry of Agriculture, Kathmandu.
Montagnini, F. & P. Nair. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit
of agroforestry systems. Journal Agroforestry Systems 61–62(1–3): 281–295.
Muller-Böker, U. & M. Kolmar. 2000. Livelihood strategies and local perceptions of a new
nature conservation project in Nepal: The Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project. Mountain
Research and Development 20(4): 324–331.
Narain, P., R. Singh N. Sindhwal, & P. Joshie. 1997. Agroforestry for soil and water
conservation in the western Himalayan Valley Region of India: Runoff, soil and nutrient losses.
Journal Agroforestry Systems 39(2): 175–189.
Nepal Monitor. 2009. A call from the top of the world: Text of Mt. Everest Declaration 2009.
The National Online Journal on Media & Publication. http://www.
nepalmonitor.com/2009/12/a_call_from_the_top.html. Downloaded on 24
th
June 2010.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
34
NPC. 2003. The Tenth Plan 2002–2007 (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper). National Planning
Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal. Accessed in December 2005
http://www.npc.gov.np/tenthplan/.
NRB (Nepal Rastra Bank). Asian Development Bank and Nepal. Nepal Rastra Bank Research
Department, Kathmandu Nepal. Accessed May 2008 from
http://www.nrb.org.np/red/publication/Special_Publications–ADB%20&%20Nepal_(2004).pdf.
Paudel, K. 1992. Implication of Forage and Livestock production on Soil Fertility. In Edited by
J.B. Abington. Sustainable Livestock Production in the Mountain Agro-Ecosystem of Nepal. Pp.
155–170. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
Paudel, K. & B. Tiwari. 1992. Fodder and Forage Production. In Edited by J.B. Abington.
Sustainable Livestock Production in the Mountain Agro-Ecosystem of Nepal. Pp. 131–154. Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
Pilbeam, C., B. Tripathi D. Sherchan,. P. Gregory, & J. Gaunt. 2000. Nitrogen balances for
households in the mid-hills of Nepal. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 79(1): 61–72.
Prasad, V., K. Badarinath, H. Tsuruta, S. Sudo, S. Yonemura, J. Cardina, B. Stinner, R. Moore,
D. Stinner, & C. Hoy. 2003. Implications of land use changes on carbon dynamics and
sequestration—Evaluation from forestry datasets India. Environmentalist 23(2): 175–187.
Richards, M., M. Maharjan, & K. Kanel. 2003. Economics, poverty and transparency:
Measuring equity in forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 91–106.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
35
Riethmuller, P. 2003. The social impact of livestock: A developing country perspective. Animal
Science Journal 74: 245–254.
SDC–Helvetas. 2009. Promoting food self-sufficiency in the mid-hills of Nepal: Fertilisers or
farmyard manure? Mountain Forum Bulletin IX (1): 29–35.
Shrestha, U. B., B. B. Shrestha, & S. Shrestha. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in community
forests of Nepal: Rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2
(5): 98–104.
Taylor, E. & I. Adelman. 2003. Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, evolutions, and
extensions. Review of Economics of Household 1 (1/2): 33–58.
Thapa, G & P S. Poudel. 2000. Evaluation of livestock carrying capacity of land resources in the
hills of Nepal based on total digestive nutrient analysis. Journal of Agricultural Ecosystem and
Environment 78(4): 223–235.
Thoms, C. A. 2008. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local
livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39(3): 1452–
1465.
Thorne, P.J., D.B. Subba, D.H. Walker, B. Thapa, C.D. Wood, & F. L. Sinclair. 1999. The basis
of indigenous knowledge of tree fodder quality and its implications for improving the use of tree
fodder in developing countries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 81(1–2): 119–131.
UNDP. 2005. Nepal Millennium Goal. Progress Report 2005. Accessed March 2006
http://www.undp.org.np/publications/mdg.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
36
Wobus, C., K. Hodges, and K. Whipple. 2003. Has focused denudation sustained active
thrusting at the Himalayan topographic front? Geology 31(10): 861–864.
World Bank. 2008a. First Countries Named to Benefit from Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.
Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0„contentMDK:21846447~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:3442
4~theSitePK:4607,00.html.
World Bank. 2008b. Methodology for Estimating Reductions of GHG Emissions from Mosaic
Deforestation. Retrieved from
http://carbonfinance.org/Routercfm?Page=DocLib&CatalogID=41513.
World Bank. 2004. Mapping and Analysis of Agricultural Trade Liberalization in South Asia.
Retrieved from http://www.unescap.org/tid/projects/agrnego_sama.pdf.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
37
Table 1 Average Land Areas, Household (HH) Labour Force and Household Size
Forest User
Group
Private Landholding Area
(Ha/HH)
Community
Forest Area
(Ha /HH)
Labour Force
(Persons/HH)
Household
Size
(Persons/HH)
Poor
HH
Medium
HH
Rich HH
Khorthali
0.40
1.06
2.03
0.35
3.4
4.6
Siddeswori
0.24
0.78
2.06
0.42
3.0
6.0
Chapanigadi
0.67
1.03
2.75
0.90
3.6
6.2
Banshkharka
0.46
0.76
1.08
0.83
3.1
4.9
Bidur
0.29
0.88
1.18
0.62
3.3
8.6
Surayamati
0.42
0.73
0.93
0.62
2.8
5.9

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
38
Table 2 Comparison of Actual and Predicted Livestock Holdings (Livestock Units per household)
User Group
Poor Household
Medium Household
High Household
Average All
Households
Actual
Predicted
E
(%)
Actual
Predicted
E
(%)
Actual
Predicted
E
(%)
E
(%)
Khorthali
2.1
1.3
38
4.2
2.4
43
1.6
4.6
-191
-5
Siddeswori
2.7
2.1
23
3.8
3.5
6
3.8
5.2
-38
-5
Chapanigadi
2.7
2.5
8
3.7
2.5
33
5.6
7.4
-31
-2
BanshKharka
2.1
1.3
37
2.5
2.5
0
2.7
3.3
-23
2
Bidur
2.2
1.8
18
3.1
3.7
-21
3.6
4.1
-14
-8
Suryamati
3.4
3.4
0
3.5
3.6
-5
3.9
2.8
28
9
Average
2.6
2.1
17
3.2
2.9
11
3.3
4.4
-33
-3
Note: Negative E means over-prediction, positive E means under-prediction

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
39
Figure 1 Change in Livestock Numbers by Household after Community Forestry Introduction
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Poor Medium High Income Community
average
Livestock decrease (%)
Cow Buffalo Goat

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
40
Table 3 Estimated Average Food Production Surplus or Deficit by Household Types
User
group
House
hold type
Own food
production
(Mega
calories)
Need for
consumption
& seed(Mega
calories)
Surplus
(deficit)
(Mega
calories)
Per capita
surplus (deficit)
(Mega calories)
Surplus
(deficit)
percent
Khorthal
i
Poor
2620
3128
(508)
(139)
(27)
Medium
6948
4289
2659
532
20
Rich
13593
4817
8776
1563
18
Siddesw
ori
Poor
3397
4694
(1296)
(236)
(18)
Medium
7886
4675
3211
584
18
Rich
17730
5147
12584
2097
17
Chapani
gadi
Poor
4167
4325
(158)
(31)
(20)
Medium
6638
4074
2563
540
21
Rich
14553
10293
4260
355
8
BanshK
harka
Poor
3629
4491
(861)
(165)
(19)
Medium
5629
4254
1375
277
20
Rich
8627
3860
4767
1059
22
Bidur
Poor
3539
6228
(2689)
(370)
(14)
Medium
10203
8310
1893
194
10
Rich
12585
9703
2882
253
9
Suryama
ti
Poor
4410
4889
(479)
(84)
(18)
Medium
7220
5337
1883
303
16
Rich
8409
5147
3263
544
17
Note; This study showed that 44 percent people have food deficit. The family size of the food deficit
households is generally larger.

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
41
Table 4 Average Household Livestock Holdings under Different Policy Scenarios (Livestock Units)
Income
Group
Policy
Scenario
Khor
thali
Sidde
swori
Chapani
gadi
Bansh
Kharka
Bidur
Surya
mati
Average
Poor
House
holds
Base case
1.3
2.1
2.5
1.3
1.8
3.4
2.1
Unconstrained
Community
2.4
4.6
5.7
4.0
5.0
4.6
4.4
Unconstrained
Lease
3.0
4.6
5.8
4.0
5.1
4.7
4.5
Medium
House
holds
Base case
2.4
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.7
3.6
3.0
Unconstrained
Community
3.3
3.6
3.4
5.0
5.0
3.8
4.0
Unconstrained
Lease
3.9
3.7
3.4
5.2
5.0
3.9
4.2
Rich
House
holds
Base case
4.6
5.2
7.4
3.3
4.1
2.8
4.6
Unconstrained
Community
5.3
5.1
7.5
5.8
4.1
2.8
5.1
Unconstrained
Lease
5.7
5.1
7.5
6.0
4.2
2.8
5.2

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
42
Table 5 Base Case Household and Community Incomes (Rs/HH)
CFUG
Poor
(Rs/HH)
Medium
(Rs/HH)
High
(Rs/HH)
Common
(Rs/HH)
Total
Community
Khorthali
15541
39081
76966
8292
139880
Siddeswori
29454
53886
102797
10557
196693
Chapanigadi
30745
43181
118041
25904
217870
Banshkharka
20408
35169
52867
7250
115693
Bidur
22379
68908
83717
12384
187389
Suryamati
35701
50110
54367
21143
161320

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
43
Table 6 Percentage Change in average Household Income, Community Forest Income and Total
Community Income from the Base Case under Alternative Policies
CFUG
Policy
Poor
HH
Medium
HH
Rich
HH
Community
forest
Total
Community
Khorthali
Community
49
18
7
-41
12
Lease
64
26
13
-66
18
Sideswori
Community
16
2
0
-34
1
Lease
54
8
0
-70
7
Chapanigadi
Community
49
16
1
-51
5
Lease
88
17
9
-73
12
Banshkharka
Community
72
41
28
97
44
Lease
110
70
47
29
64
Bidur
Community
66
11
0
-12
11
Lease
125
24
5
-55
22
Suryamati
Community
26
11
0
-49
3
Lease
44
17
0
-83
3

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
44
Appendixes
Table A1 Changes in livestock trade (head) between 1987/88 and 2002/3
Breed
Source
Country
Livestock Imports in
Fiscal Year
Annual
change in
trade (%)
from
1987/88
1987/88
2001/2002
Buffalo
India
Import
130000
215528
5
Export
82070
10315
-6
Net
import
47930
205213
23
Cattle*
India
Import
-
18940
-
Export
73894
1538
-7
Net
import
-
17402
-
Goat
India
Import
130,938
393179
14
Export
117036
36866
-5
Tibet
Import
5084
**
-
Net
import
21,451
356313
112
Sheep
India
Import
18691
28476
4
Export
10260
7310
-2
Tibet
Import
22363
103887**
26
Net
import
30794
125053
22
Note: * Data for cattle exports to Tibet are not officially recorded and are estimated at about 2000 head. **Data for sheep and goat imports
from Tibet in 2001/2 were not separated. Source: MOA 2004, Ghimire 1992 and Joshi 1992

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
45
APPENDIX B
Household Resource and Production System
Agriculture and forestry production systems can produce more than one product at a time
(Amacher et al., 1993; Mahat et al., 1987). Like other linear programming-based studies (e.g.,
Das and Shivakoti, 2006), it is assumed that the marginal product is constant. Land is defined as
k different categories, in this case upland, lowland, sharecropping, grassland, and forest. Land
available to a household includes land that is owned by a household and land that is held under
sharecropping. Each land category has distinct properties in terms of production systems for
different outputs. Output of any good i under production system t on land type k is a function of
yield per unit area (Ritk) and the area of land type k allocated to a particular production system
by a household (atk). Products may be a single output from a production system or by-products.
The outputs range from cereal and livestock to forest products. Total output of any particular
good by a household (qi) is then a function of how much land of various types the household
allocates to different production systems.

 

K
k
T
t
tkitki
aRq
1 1
).(
Eq. (A.1)
The land areas used under different production systems for a particular land type cannot be
greater than the endowment of that land type (Eq. A.2). Both output and land use are subject to non-
negativity restrictions (q
i
and a
tk
 0).

a
tk
 a
k
t 1
T

(Eq A.2)
One of the uses of land and labor can be livestock farming. Fodder, grasses and crop by-products
can be used as feed for livestock. Because of differences in nutritional values of products, feed
production is standardized into total digestible nutrients per unit of output i (λi). Farmers can

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
46
also use purchased feed supplements (ξ ). The total digestible nutrients requirement for each
livestock type u (λu) is different. Therefore, the number of livestock units of type u (θu) that can
be farmed is a function of the locally produced feed allocated to that livestock type (qiu) and its
nutritional value, purchased supplements and the nutritional requirements of that livestock type,


u
 q
iu

i


i
I








u
Eq (A.3)
In a subsistence agricultural household, household labor contributes to production from the
perspective of entrepreneur, manager and laborer (Taylor and Adelman, 2003; Bardhan and
Urdy, 1999). Labor supply can come from the household, or be hired from outside. Household
labor requirements for a particular output will be either a function of the area of land type k
allocated to a particular production system t by a household (atk) and labor hours required per
unit area (ha tk), or a function of output (qi) and harvest productivity for that good (hv i). Total
household labor required on the farm (Lf) is then the sum of area-based labor requirements and
volume-based labor requirements,

L
f
 (h
a
tk
 a
tk
) 
t 1
T

k1
K

(h
v
i
 q
i
)
i1
I

Eq. (A.4)
The amount of hired labor (Lh) required is a function of total available family labor days (L),
labor required on the farm (Lf), leisure days (L0), days spent working off the farm (Lm), and
days contributed to community forestry (Lc).
L
h
= L - L
f
- L
m
- L
c
- L
o
Eq. (A.5)
In some cases, purchased inputs may be required by a household for a particular output. These
may be a function either of the area under production or the quantity of output. Area-related
costs depend on the input cost per unit area of land type k allocated to a particular use t by a
household (Stk) and the area allocated to that use (atk). When input costs are related to output
then the cost depends on the costs per unit output for that good (Si) and amount of output (qi) in

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
47
land type k. Similar to the labor case the production inputs that are purchased are accounted for
as costs. Total purchased input
cost for output i (_i) is then,



K
k
ikikikik
K
k
i
SaSq
11
)()(
Eq. (A.6)
Net income from producing output (D) is the difference between revenue and costs. All
household output is valued at the farm gate price of that output (Pi s) irrespective of whether it is
consumed by the household or is surplus to household needs and is sold. For simplification, only
labor that is hired (Lh) is accounted for as a cash cost. Hired labor is paid a daily wage rate (w).
The household also needs to pay rent (δk) for sharecropping and leasing community forest of
land type k (ak L). The rent could be a positive cashflow for households who lease land to others
for sharecropping.

D  P
i
s
q
i
 
i
 
 L
h
w
i1
I

 a
k
L

k
k 1
K

Eq (A.7)
Net household income (y) includes net income from producing output (D), external income from
providing labor (Lm) to the labor market and earning a wage rate (w). It is assumed that a
household will either earn outside income (Lm) or employ outside labor (Lh), but will not do
both. A household‘s consumption of goods comes from its own production and from market
purchases. When needed, a household can buy products (qi m) at the market price (Pi m), where
Pi s < Pi m and the difference between Pi s and Pi m is market transaction costs and
intermediaries‘ profits. When available, a household may also buy products from the community
forest, qi c, usually at a special community price (Pi c).

y  D  L
m
w  (P
i
m
q
i
m
)
i1
I

 (P
i
c
q
i
c
)
i1
I

Eq (A.8)

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
48
Total community income (Y) is the sum of all N household incomes (yn) and community forest
income (yc).

Y  [ y
n
n 1
N

 y
c
]
_
Policy and Community Forest Management
To a large extent, the community forest can be treated as another household in the community,
and its income can be calculated the same as for any other household (e.g., Eq A.8 and
accompanying equations). There are, however, some important differences. The production
systems of community forestlands are generally similar to private land, except that no cereal
production occurs since this requires clearing land of forest and possibly terracing. The
community forest has two output markets instead of one, since some of the output can be sold to
member households at the special community price (Pi c), and the remainder sold at farm gate
prices (Pi s). The labor supply for the community forest comes from mandatory labor
contributions from member households mentioned previously (Lc), and from hired labor. The
main difference between production on community forest and private land is that government
and community policies affect what kinds of production take place and how that production
occurs. In particular, while communities in principle have control over the use of their forests,
the government enforces restrictions on use to meet national or international policy objectives
(e.g., meeting climate change commitments, reducing erosion). In one common policy, a
proportion of community forest of land type k may be restricted from any use (G
1
k). Depending
on the policy, G
1
k can range from 0 (no restrictions) to 1 (all community forest land of type k
restricted from use). Another common policy is for the government to constrain production
levels below maximum output (G
2
i). An example of this is the policy of restricting timber
harvest to a proportion of the mean annual increment of the forest (MAI). Under normal forestry
practices, sustainable management means harvesting an annual volume equal to the MAI. The

Citation: Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Hugh Bigsby, and Ross Cullen. Forests for Food Security and Livelihood Sustainability: Policy Problems and
Opportunities for Small Farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35:86–115 (2011)
49
value of G
2
i can range from 0 (no restriction on harvesting the MAI) to 1 (no harvesting). These
policies mean that Eq. A1 needs to be modified for the effect of policies on community forest
outputs (qc i).

q
i
c
 R
itk
G
i
2
 
t 1
T

k1
K

a
tk
 G
k
1
 
Eq. (A 9)
The government policy can allow the community to manage the community forest on a lease
basis to individual households. In this case the household manages the community forest land it
leases like private land, subject to constraints on certain types of production. In return, the
community receives a rental payment. This is similar to Eq A.7 for a household.