Khanal Story

News – 1 – 2007

Forest dependency in the mountain communities of rural Nepal

By Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, bbkc@life.ku.dk

This year-long study involved 303 randomly selected households in 2 Village Development Committees (VDCs) in Gorkha District, Nepal: Simjung andGhyachchok. The VDCs, which are about 1 day’s walk from the nearest road, represent a typical Nepalese rural setting. The elevations of the VDCs range from 700 to 3000 m above sea level, and therefore the study area has large variations in forest types and agricultural potential. All households in the study area depend on forest products for cooking fuel, heating, house construction, animal fodder, wood for agricultural implements and, to some degree, traditional medicine. The major crops grown are rice, millet, maize, wheat and potatoes. Livestock include cattle, buffaloes, goats and sheep. Most of the forests near the settlements in Simjung are managed by communities, whereas in Ghyachchok, much of the forestland is under state control. The survey was completed in December 2008.

The study found that the average annual per capita income is 22 663 Nepalese rupees (US$294). The annual per capita income ranges from an average of 8498 rupees ($110) for those in the poorest 20% to an average of 44 402 rupees ($577) for the top 20%. Transfer income -; which includes remittances, wages, pensions, gifts and rent -; is the largest source of income, contributing on average 37% of the total. Combined forest and environmental income contribute on average 16% of total household income. In absolute terms, forest and environmental income increases with income level; in relative terms, however, the higher the income, the smaller the proportion derived from forest and environmental sources (Fig. 1). In the lowest income quintile, forest-;environmental income contributes an average of 29% of total household income, whereas it contributes only 11% for households in the highest income quintile. Results also show a significant seasonal variation in forest income. Seasonal harvesting of some important forest products such as green fuelwood and poles results in more forest income in the first two quarters (January-March and April-;June) than in the final two quarters (July-;September and October-;December).

On average, crops and livestock contribute 26% and 13% of total household income, respectively. Income from crops is the biggest contributor to total household income for the poorest 60% of households, whereas transfer income (primarily remittances) is the biggest contributor for the wealthiest 40%. Transfer income is thus the major determinant of a household’s income status. The study also indicates the importance of off-farm wages for poorer households, contributing an average of 20% of their total household income. Alcohol production and small village shops are the main sources of business income, but these provide only 2% of the total.

Sources of forest-;environmental income
Eighty per cent of the total forest-;environmental income comes from raw forest and environmental products; however, forest-derived income and forestry wages (generally cash and of importance mainly for the lowest-income earners) also constitute a significant share of this income source. The 3 main sources of direct forest-environmental income are grass for livestock grazing (35% of value), fuelwood (24%) and fodder from trees (18%). Other forest-environmental products include stones and sand, poles and timber for agricultural implements, leaf litter, materials for bedding and thatching, wild fruits, bamboo, fish and other small non-timber forest products.

Bamboo-based products are the predominate form of processed forest products in the area, contributing approximately 56% of the total income from this category. Timber furniture contributes around 20%. Other sources of income from processed forest products include charcoal, utensils and woven products, each contributing around 8% of total forest-derived income. This study documents the high dependency of poorer households on forest-;environmental income sources, even though, in absolute terms, wealthier households derive more income from these sources. It should be noted that the study accounts only for tangible forest-;environmental income and not for income from other environmental services. Therefore, the figures provided represent the lower limit of income derived from forest-environmental sources.
Annex

Table 1: Mean annual per capita income (NPR) by income source and income quintile (n=303)

Income source	Income quintiles										All households
	Lowest 20%		Second		Third		Fourth		Highest 20%
	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%
Forest-environmental	2445	28.8	3464	24.5	3492	17.8	3683	13.7	5111	11.5	3635	16.1
Crop	2777	32.7	4075	28.8	5996	30.6	7258	27.1	9132	20.6	5836	25.8
Livestock	478	5.6	1593	11.3	2693	13.8	4250	15.8	5926	13.3	2979	13.2
Off-farm wages	1727	20.3	1338	9.5	1051	5.4	1372	5.1	1475	3.3	1393	6.1
Own business	300	3.5	380	2.7	376	1.9	135	0.5	645	1.5	366	1.6
Transfer	772	9.1	3286	23.2	5969	30.5	10161	37.8	22114	49.8	8424	37.2
Total	8498	100	14137	100	19577	100.	26858	100	44402	100	22633	100

Table 2: Household forest-environmental sources

Income source	Annual income per capita (NPR)	Share of income (%)
Raw forest- environmental income	2894	79.6
Forest-derived income	384	10.6
Forestry wages	328	9.0
Forest services	28	0.8
Total	3634	100.0

Table 3 Household annual per capita raw forest-environmental income by income source (n=303)

* Included only as environmental income

Table 4: Household annual per capita forest derived income (NPR) by income source (n=303)

Processed forest products	Income per capita (NPR)	Share of income (%)
Wooden furniture	76	19.7
Bamboo products	215	55.7
Charcoal	30	8.0
Utensils	32	8.5
Juice and oil	1	0.3
Woven products	30	7.8
Total	384	100.0