Forest Degradation and Economic Growth in Nepal, 2003–2010

Abstract

We investigate the relation between economic growth, household firewood collection and forest conditions in Nepal between 2003 and 2010. Co-movements in these are examined at the household and village levels, combining satellite imagery and household (Nepal Living Standard Measurement Survey) data. Projections of the impact of economic growth based on Engel curves turn out to be highly inaccurate: forest conditions remained stable despite considerable growth in household consumption and income. Firewood collections at the village level remained stable, as effects of demographic growth were offset by substantial reductions in per-household collections. Households substituted firewood by alternative energy sources, particularly when livestock and farm based occupations declined in importance. Engel curve specifications which include household productive assets (a proxy for occupational patterns) provide more accurate predictions. Hence structural changes accompanying economic growth play an important role in offsetting adverse environmental consequences of growth.

Why firewood? Exploring the co-benefits, socio-ecological interactions and indigenous knowledge surrounding cooking practice in rural Nepal

“…Previous research has attempted to identify determinants of clean energy adoption [32][33][34][35], explore fuel choice behaviour [36][37][38] or explain cooking as a social practice [39,40].…”

“…However, these studies typically present MCS as a solution by pointing out the deficiencies in TCP. These studies have shown that households near firewood sources are more likely to use TCP and that more impoverished families are more likely to use solid fuels, such as firewood or cowdung [38] and that a combination of factors, such as occupation and income, affect cooking practice [37]. If we assume that deprived households rely on TCP, then we may also assume that adopting MCS is a panacea to their deprivation.…”

“…Energy Research & Social Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101932 (accepted manuscript)loss of traditional cuisine, as some foods that are more difficult to cook on MCS may disappear (Table4 row(2) and Table A2). MCS programmes typically target improved efficiency, environmental benefits and reaching scale as quickly as possible, with much less consideration of cultural diversity and socio-cultural practices.Although MCS is intended to reduce environmental degradation[37,90], positive socioecological interactions could be eroded via several channels, such as community forests and agroforestry (Table4rows(4,7&10)). Previous studies have shown that people attempt to conserve, or better manage, forests if they directly benefit from them[91].…”

L'accès à l’électricité: une solution pour réduire la déforestation en Afrique?

“…Les études macroéconomiques (Tanner & Johnston, 2017) et microéconomiques (Gomez & Silveira, 2010; Grogan & Sadanand, 2013; Gurung, Ghimeray, & Hassan, 2012) dans les pays en développement ont démontré que l'accès à l’électricité dans les ménages ruraux modifie considérablement les incitations à collecter les combustibles ligneux. Baland, Bardhan, Das, Mookherjee, et Sarkar (2010) et Baland, Libois, et Mookherjee (2018) ont montré que, lorsque les sources d’énergie propre telles que l’électricité sont disponibles, les ménages les substituent facilement au bois de chauffage, ce qui réduit la déforestation.…”

The dilemma of NGOs and participatory conservation

“…The increased yields that set these processes in motion may have origins from changes in technology, but also from the knowledge that farmers accumulate about specific plots of land, since they would abandon their less-productive fields. The lands abandoned by farmers have the potential to become places that provide enhanced environmental services and face an increase in forest cover (Walker, 1993;Mather & Needle, 1998;Waggoner & Ausubel, 2001;Matson & Vitousek, 2006;Borlaug, 2007;Pascual & Martinez-Espineira, 2009;Baland, Libois, & Mookherjee, 2018). On the contrary, if demand is sufficiently elastic, the increase in supply does not lead to a price decline and the overall incentive for higher production by using more land remains in place (Rudel et al, 2009).…”