Valuation Study

View Study Details

Cost Effectiveness of Community Forest Management

Attributes

Medium: Animals, Plants and/or Others

Country: Cambodia

Analytical Framework(s): Least Cost Concept

Study Date: 2007

Publication Date: 2010

Major Result(s)

Category Resource/Environmental Good KHR, million currency units
(2007)
KHR, million currency units
(2014)1
USD, million currency units
(2014)2
NPV Net Benefit Conservation Option: CF management scheme3 21,952.90 32,101.73 7.89
NPV Net Benefit Combined Option: CF management scheme 19,749.60 28,879.84 7.10
NPV Net Benefit Base case (Non-CF management scheme) 16,024.00 23,431.90 5.76
NPV Net Benefit Exploitation Option: CF management scheme 15,423.10 22,553.20 5.54
Incremental Net Benefit Conservation Option: CF management scheme 5,928.88 8,669.80 2.13
Incremental Net Benefit Combined Option: CF management scheme 3,725.58 5,447.92 1.34
Incremental Net Benefit Exploitation Option: CF management scheme -600.90 -878.70 -0.22

About the Inflation Adjustment: Prices in Cambodia (KHR) changed by 46.23% from 2007 to 2014 (aggregated from annual CPI data), so the study values were multiplied by 1.46 to express them in 2014 prices. The study values could be expressed in any desired year (for example, to 2026) by following the same inflation calculation and being sensitive to directional (forward/backward) aggregations using your own CPI/inflation data.

Study Note: The study focused on both the direct and indirect use values of the forest. Direct values comprised NTFPs, timber forest products, and wildlife collected from the CF and Non-CF areas. The indirect values of the forest included watershed management, soil erosion, and environmental values. The ETAP paper cited a survey showing reduced soil erosion in the CF area and soil erosion problems in the nonCF area, but nothing about soil erosion values. This raised the larger question of how to include and utilise indirect values and present them in a way relevant to this study.

Study Details

Reference: Kalyan Hou, Sothunvathanak Meas, Mared Im, Chanthy Ros, Han Keam. 2010. A Cost and Benefit Analysis of the Community Forestry Project in Chumkiri District, Kampot Province, Cambodia. EEPSEA Research Report, No. 2010-RR10.

Summary: Past experience with the forest management system of Cambodia has shown that the open-access forest scheme has contributed to the decline of timber and non-timber forest products collected from the forests. Authorities have responded by introducing a major program of Community Forestry (CF) in more than 237 CF areas covering 71,724 ha and involving 411,440 people. To assess if this scheme is worth supporting, an economic analysis of a CF managed forest is compared with alternative management schemes in Chumkiri district of Kampot province was carried out. The study examined three scenarios of CF management. In the first management option, the Conservation Option, only 389.5 ha out of 992 ha of forest was used for timber (12.3 m3 /ha/yr) and non-timber product collection. The present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate was about USD 821,000. This option could generate benefits of up to USD 6.30 million measured in terms of present value. The second option, the Exploitation Option, involved the exploitation of forest products with CF management. The present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate would be USD 1.16 million, and the present value of benefits would be about USD 5.01 million. The third option, which combined the Conservation and Exploitation Options, showed that the present value of total costs over a 30-year time period at a 10% discount rate would be nearly USD 1 million while the present value of benefits would be up to USD 5.92 million. Cost-Benefit Analysis was used to estimate the incremental net benefit of the three CF management options relative to the base case scenario (non-CF management). The study ranked the three options in terms of the incremental net benefit over the base case. The Conservation Option turned out to be the most economically viable, followed by the Combined Option, and lastly by the Exploitation Option. A Sensitivity Analysis showed that the Conservation Option ranked first even under the assumptions of higher price of timber and non-timber products, and different project duration and discount rates. One example of these CF areas in Cambodia is the CF project in Chumkiri, Kampot Province, which is supported by the Community Forestry Research Project (CFRP). This CF area was developed in early 2001 and covers 992 ha of degraded forest connected to a population of 633 households from three villages. CF rules and regulations were formulated and were recognized at the provincial level. Five committee members were selected from the three villages to lead and implement the CF activities. After more than 4 years of implementation, it is timely to assess whether or not CF had been a good approach for better forest management in the area in terms of its costs and benefits to the local community and to other key stakeholders. Hence, this research assessed the costs and benefits of the CF program. It also determined the factors that contributed to the optimisation of costs and benefits of the CF program.

Site Characteristics: The research was conducted in two communities: one where the primary focus was CF management and one without any CF management. The community under the CF initiative consisted of three villages: Prey Yav, Tbaeng Pok, and Damnark Snuol villages in Srae Knong commune. The community without CF (Non-CF) consisted of three villages: Thmei, Kandal and Damrei Koun villages in Chumpouvoan commune, and Chumkiri District, Kampot Province. The selected communities under both CF and Non-CF management had similar key biophysical and socio-economic characteristics. These similar characteristics included forest type, social structure, and income level. In the Non-CF community, the forest area was degraded, and people accessed forests outside their commune's forest area. This case was mirrored throughout the whole country.

Comments: Several components of use value were considered. However, the team could not address all of these immediately as it had limited time and resources available for the study.

List/Search