What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom?: A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

Jennifer C. Birch; Ishana Thapa; Andrew Balmford; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; Stuart H M Butchart; Hum Gurung; Francine M R Hughes; Mark Mulligan; Bhopal Pandeya; Kelvin S H Peh; Alison J. Stattersfield; Matt Walpole; David H L Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

Jennifer C. Birch^*, Ishana Thapa, Andrew Balmford, Richard B. Bradbury, Claire Brown, Stuart H M Butchart, Hum Gurung, Francine M R Hughes, Mark Mulligan, Bhopal Pandeya, Kelvin S H Peh, Alison J. Stattersfield, Matt Walpole, David H L Thomas

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	118-127
Number of pages	10
Journal	Ecosystem Services
Volume	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005
Publication status	Published - 13 Apr 2014

Keywords

Beneficiaries
Biodiversity conservation
Community forestry
Equity
Livelihoods
Participatory management

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

Cite this

Birch, J. C., Thapa, I., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R. B., Brown, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Gurung, H., Hughes, F. M. R., Mulligan, M., Pandeya, B., Peh, K. S. H., Stattersfield, A. J., Walpole, M., & Thomas, D. H. L. (2014). What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 8, 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

@article{75a21ab651ac4e09bb16ce29263d7b8b,

title = "What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom?: A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal",

abstract = "In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area.",

keywords = "Beneficiaries, Biodiversity conservation, Community forestry, Equity, Livelihoods, Participatory management",

author = "Birch, {Jennifer C.} and Ishana Thapa and Andrew Balmford and Bradbury, {Richard B.} and Claire Brown and Butchart, {Stuart H M} and Hum Gurung and Hughes, {Francine M R} and Mark Mulligan and Bhopal Pandeya and Peh, {Kelvin S H} and Stattersfield, {Alison J.} and Matt Walpole and Thomas, {David H L}",

year = "2014",

month = apr,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

pages = "118--127",

journal = "Ecosystem Services",

issn = "2212-0416",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

Birch, JC, Thapa, I, Balmford, A, Bradbury, RB, Brown, C, Butchart, SHM, Gurung, H, Hughes, FMR, Mulligan, M , Pandeya, B, Peh, KSH, Stattersfield, AJ, Walpole, M & Thomas, DHL 2014, 'What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal', Ecosystem Services, vol. 8, pp. 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

TY - JOUR

T1 - What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom?

T2 - A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

AU - Birch, Jennifer C.

AU - Thapa, Ishana

AU - Balmford, Andrew

AU - Bradbury, Richard B.

AU - Brown, Claire

AU - Butchart, Stuart H M

AU - Gurung, Hum

AU - Hughes, Francine M R

AU - Mulligan, Mark

AU - Pandeya, Bhopal

AU - Peh, Kelvin S H

AU - Stattersfield, Alison J.

AU - Walpole, Matt

AU - Thomas, David H L

PY - 2014/4/13

Y1 - 2014/4/13

N2 - In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area.

AB - In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area.

KW - Beneficiaries

KW - Biodiversity conservation

KW - Community forestry

KW - Equity

KW - Livelihoods

KW - Participatory management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902276979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84902276979

SN - 2212-0416

VL - 8

SP - 118

EP - 127

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

ER -