Community Forestry Impacts on Local Livelihoods: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis in Mindon Township, Magway Region, Myanmar

Author(s): Phyu Phyu Thinn, Yi Xie, Giuseppe T. Cirella, Aung Si Thu Thein

Community forests in Myanmar serve as vital resources for fulfilling local residents’ fundamental needs. This study aims to evaluate the influence of community forestry on the livelihoods of these residents, employing panel data and a difference-in-differences methodology. Central to this evaluation are the important roles played by management committees, which oversee Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). CFUG members are encouraged to engage in silvicultural activities within designated forest management areas, prioritizing them over plantation initiatives to meet set objectives. The prohibition of shifting cultivations post-establishment has led to a decline in agricultural income and its share. However, CFUGs have leveraged community forests for cattle pasturing and intensified livestock breeding, thereby positively impacting livestock-related income and its share. The establishment of community forests has also resulted in increased availability of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), although strategies related to forestry livelihood and annual income remain largely unaffected. CFUG members have been able to independently collect abundant NTFPs from community forests due to implemented conservation measures. Consequently, community forests have effectively secured critical resources such as firewood and bamboo for local subsistence needs, albeit with restrictions on commercial usage. To further enhance the effectiveness of community forestry initiatives, it is recommended that the Myanmar Forest Department invests in additional training, and extension services, and strengthens collaboration with management committees to foster greater willingness and participation among CFUGs. Moreover, exploring opportunities for commercializing community forest products holds promise for long-term improvements in the livelihoods of local residents.

Community Rules, Difference-In-Differences Approach, Forest Management Practices, Livelihood Strategies, Local Economy, Management Committees, Sustainable Development

1. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, 2015;
2. Forzieri, G.; Dakos, V.; McDowell, N.G.; Ramdane, A.; Cescatti, A. Emerging Signals of Declining Forest Resilience Under Climate Change. Nature 2022, 608, 534–539, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04959-9.
3. Kogo, B.K.; Kumar, L.; Koech, R. Forest Cover Dynamics and Underlying Driving Forces Affecting Ecosystem Services in Western Kenya. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 2019, 14, 75–83, doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2019.02.007.
4. FAO The States of the World’s Forests; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, 2018;
5. Aminah; Krah, C.Y.; Perdinan Forest Fires and Management Efforts in Indonesia: A Review. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 504, 012013, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/504/1/012013.
6. Hosonuma, N.; Herold, M.; Sy, V.D.; Fries, R.S.D.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L.; Angelsen, A.; Romijn, E. An Assessment of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Drivers in Developing Countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044009, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009.
7. Duguma, L.A.; Atela, J.; Minang, P.A.; Ayana, A.N.; Gizachew, B.; Nzyoka, J.M.; Bernard, F. Deforestation and Forest Degradation as an Environmental Behavior: Unpacking Realities Shaping Community Actions. Land 2019, 8, 26, doi:10.3390/land8020026.
8. Kim, M.; Xie, Y.; Cirella, G.T. Sustainable Transformative Economy: Community-Based Ecotourism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4977, doi:10.3390/su11184977.
9. Prummel, R.H. An Anthropological View on Human Capacity Building for Community-Based Ecotourism in Cambodia; Vrije Universiteit: Amsterdam, 2010.
10. Zeppel, H. Indigenous Ecotourism : Sustainable Development and Management; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2006; ISBN 1-84593-125-4.
11. Li, X.; Cirella, G.T.; Wen, Y.; Xie, Y. Farmers’ Intentions to Lease Forestland: Evidence from Rural China. Land 2020, 9, 78, doi:10.3390/land9030078.
12. Edwards, D.P.; Cerullo, G.R.; Chomba, S.; Worthington, T.A.; Balmford, A.P.; Chazdon, R.L.; Harrison, R.D. Upscaling Tropical Restoration to Deliver Environmental Benefits and Socially Equitable Outcomes. Current Biology 2021, 31, R1326–R1341, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.058.
13. He, H.S.; Gustafson, E.J.; Lischke, H. Modeling Forest Landscapes in a Changing Climate: Theory and Application. Landscape Ecology 2017, 32, 1299–1305, doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0529-4.
14. Lélé, S.M. Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Development 1991, 19, 607–621, doi:10.1016/0305-750X(91)90197-P.
15. Cirella, G.T.; Zerbe, S. Index of Sustainable Functionality: Application in Urat Front Banner. In Sustainable water management and wetland restoration in settlements of continental-arid Central Asia; Cirella, G.T., Zerbe, S., Eds.; Bozen University Press: Bozen, 2014; pp. 137–155 ISBN 978-88-6046-069-1.
16. Cirella, G.; Tao, L. The Index of Sustainable Functionality: An Application for Measuring Sustainability. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology 2009, 3, 268–274, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1330369.
17. Communities, Livelihoods, and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia; Tyler, S., Ed.; ITDG Publishing: Ottawa, 2006; ISBN 978-1-85339-638-0.
18. Behera, B. Explaining the Performance of State–Community Joint Forest Management in India. Ecological Economics 2009, 69, 177–185, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.015.
19. FAO Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, 2016.
20. Cronkleton, P.; Bray, D.B.; Medina, G. Community Forest Management and the Emergence of Multi-Scale Governance Institutions: Lessons for REDD+ Development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2011, 2, 451–473, doi:10.3390/f2020451.
21. FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Ii: Myanmar Forestry Outlook Study; Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2009/07; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Bangkok, 2009.
22. Oo, K. Impact of Community Forest Establishment: A Case Study of Nyaung Shwe Township, Southern Shan State, Myanmar; Asian Institute of Technology: Bangkok, 2006.
23. Naing, A.K. Socio-Economic Impact of Private Forestry Plantation on Local People in Yedashe Township, East-Bago Yoma Region, Myanmar; Asian Institute of Technology: Bangkok, 2014.
24. Khaung, Y. A Comparative Study of Socioeconomic Conditions and Livelihood Strategies of Community Forest User Group and Non-Community Forest User Group in the Mangrove Forests of Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar; Asian Institute of Technology: Bangkok, 2015.
25. Forest Department Community Forestry Instructions; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Myanmar: Naypyitaw, 2019.
26. Foppes, J.; Aung, M.; Soe, P. Market Research and Enterprise Development for Community Forestry in Myanmar Available online: https://landportal.org/es/library/resources/obl72028/market-research-and-enterprise-development-community-forestry-myanmar (accessed on 25 April 2024).
27. Hlaing, Z.C.; Kamiyama, C.; Saito, O. Interaction Between Rural People’s Basic Needs and Forest Products: A Case Study of the Katha District of Myanmar. International Journal of Forestry Research 2017, 2017, e2105012, doi:10.1155/2017/2105012.
28. World Bank Accessing the Opportunities for Scaling up Community Forestry and Community Forestry Enterprises in Myanmar; World Bank: Washington, DC, 2019.
29. Gbedomon, R.C.; Floquet, A.; Mongbo, R.; Salako, V.K.; Fandohan, A.B.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Glèlè Kakaї, R. Socio-Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Community Based Forest Management: A Case Study from Tobé-Kpobidon Forest in Benin, Western Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 2016, 64, 46–55.
30. Oli, B.N.; Treue, T.; Smith-Hall, C. The Relative Importance of Community Forests, Government Forests, and Private Forests for Household-Level Incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2016, 70, 155–163, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.026.
31. Paul, C. Contribution of Agroforestry Activities to the Financial, Socioeconomic and Environmental Sustainability of a Carbon Sink Project in the Province of Kinshasa; University of London: London, 2011.
32. Paudel, J. Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption. Ecological Economics 2018, 147, 62–73, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.003.
33. Yandav, N.P.; Dev, O.P.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Soussan, J. Forest Management and Utilization Under Community Forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2003, 3, 37–50.
34. Günter, S.; Weber, M.; Stimm, B.; Mosandl, R. Linking Tropical Silviculture to Sustainable Forest Management. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 2012, 66, 25–39, doi:10.19182/bft2012.314.a20487.
35. Oli, B.N.; Treue, T. Determinants of Participation in Community Forestry in Nepal. The International Forestry Review 2015, 17, 311–325.
36. Latterini, F.; Mederski, P.S.; Jaeger, D.; Venanzi, R.; Tavankar, F.; Picchio, R. The Influence of Various Silvicultural Treatments and Forest Operations on Tree Species Biodiversity. Curr Forestry Rep 2023, 9, 59–71, doi:10.1007/s40725-023-00179-0.
37. Lodin, I.; Brukas, V. Ideal Vs Real Forest Management: Challenges in Promoting Production-Oriented Silvicultural Ideals Among Small-Scale Forest Owners in Southern Sweden. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104931, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104931.
38. Ojha, H.R. Silviculture in Community Forestry: Conceptual and Practical Issues Emerging from the Middle Hills of Nepal. Banko Janakari 2001, 11, 20–23, doi:10.3126/banko.v11i1.17587.
39. Poudel, N.R.; Fuwa, N.; Otsuka, K. The Impacts of a Community Forestry Program on Forest Conditions, Management Intensity and Revenue Generation in the Dang District of Nepal. Environment and Development Economics 2015, 20, 259–281.
40. Zhou, B.; Zhang, C.; Song, H.; Wang, Q. How Does Emission Trading Reduce China’s Carbon Intensity? An Exploration Using a Decomposition and Difference-in-Differences Approach. Science of The Total Environment 2019, 676, 514–523, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.303.
41. Ayhan, H.O.; Işiksal, S. Memory Recall Errors in Retrospective Surveys: A Reverse Record Check Study. Qual Quant 2005, 38, 475–493, doi:10.1007/s11135-005-2643-7.
42. Clarke, P.M.; Fiebig, D.G.; Gerdtham, U.-G. Optimal Recall Length in Survey Design. Journal of Health Economics 2008, 27, 1275–1284, doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.012.
43. Ashenfelter, O.; Card, D. Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1985, 67, 648–660.
44. Cavendish, W. Quantitative Methods for Estimating the Economic Value of Resource Use to Rural Households. In Uncovering the Hidden Harvest; Routledge: London, 2001 ISBN 978-1-84977-361-4.
45. Pandit, R.; Bevilacqua, E. Forest Users and Environmental Impacts of Community Forestry in the Hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 2011, 13, 345–352, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.009.
46. Dev, O.P.; Yadav, N.P.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Soussan, J. Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2003, 3, 64–77.
47. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Shyamsundar, P. Fuelwood Consumption and Participation in Community Forestry in India; Policy Research Working Papers; The World Bank: New York, 2004.