کشاورزی در مقابل جنگل ها: تجارت کردن بین بخش کشاورزی و استخراج از محصولات جنگلی غیر تخته و الوار

A number of empirical studies on tropical forests have focused on the issues of agricultural development and deforestation. According to these studies, deforestation is assumed to be an increasing function of agricultural yields hence implying a negative external effect. Contrary, this article presents a case which explores the trade-off between agriculture and extraction of forest products. We measure the technical efficiency of agriculture in natural forest peripheries and test the results from forest resource extraction. The study findings show that non-timber forest product extraction is a decreasing function of agricultural efficiency, hence producing a positive externality in the conversion of forest resources. This study also determines the level of efficiency improvement necessary to compensate the current income generated by non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Improving agricultural efficiency in forest peripheries should be an integral component of forest conservation policy.

Globally, tropical forests are subject to high rates of degradation and deforestation, with current estimates indicating a loss of some 17 million ha, or more than 1% of the total forest area, per year (Byron and Arnold, 1999). Protection is one of the methods of assuring the continuation of tropical forests (see Hyde, 1980 for alternative ways of conserving natural forests). A fundamental problem for conservation and development programs is the lack of understanding about factors that govern the use of forest resources. Several studies have shown the diversity of resource use patterns across households living in forest margins (Browder, 1992 and Coomes and Barham, 1997). For example, while non-timber forest products (NTFPs) represent major sources of income for some households, others may rely primarily on agriculture for their livelihood. Thus, what factors influence household participation in NTFP extraction activities becomes a relevant question. Forest products are used by communities living in close proximity to forests, either as an economic mainstay or as a supplementary source of household income. NTFPs are used by rural communities as energy sources, food items, medicinal products, materials for household equipment, construction materials, as well as equipment and materials for agricultural activities. Due to excessive use, the productivity of the natural forest is at a critical stage (Byron and Arnold, 1999). Reducing extraction activities in tropical forests would enhance regeneration of plants and animals, thereby, maintaining forest ecosystems. Therefore, given the present status of tropical forests, reducing forest dependency is a viable approach for conserving bio-diversity. The extraction of plants and animals from the forest by rural populations may be less disturbing to conservation efforts than other forest activities such as logging. However there is evidence from some areas that even indigenous people far from markets can deplete forest goods (Godoy and Bawa, 1993) because population growth and/or technological change can lead people to deplete natural resources (Martin, 1994). As Homma (1992) highlighted, extraction may be a viable activity in areas with low population densities. In cases where communities are involved in management, forests are well conserved (Pagdee et al., 2006 and Klooster and Masera, 2000). Forest extraction is a time consuming activity hence dependency on forest resources can be reduced if households have alternate income sources to support life. Forest dependent households' primary income source often comes from forest products, agriculture or non-farm sources. For example, some indigenous communities living far from markets may be primarily dependent on forest gathering (Godoy and Bawa, 1993, Martin, 1994). On the other hand, households living in peripheral villages of the protected forests can be primarily dependent on agriculture and secondarily dependent on forest gatherings (Kahn, 1995, Caviglia and Khan, 2001, Coomes and Barham, 1997 and Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). In such a situation, high rates of forest dependency are driven, in part, by the effort of inefficient farmers to secure subsistence. Agricultural efficiency in forest peripheries is one aspect in which agricultural capacity and rural incomes can be enhanced.1 Technical efficiency of an individual farm is defined in terms of the ratio of the observed output to the corresponding frontier output, conditional on the levels of inputs used by that farm. In biological terms, some farms may have lower output because of poor agroecological conditions, but could be considered more efficient than farms which in spite of better conditions can only obtain slightly larger output. In view of the growing competition in the agricultural sector and high production costs, production efficiency will become an important determinant of rural farming. Developing and adopting a new production technology can improve production efficiency. In addition, farming can maintain its economic viability by improving the efficiency of existing operations with a given technology. In other words, total farm output can be increased without increasing total cost by making better use of available inputs and technology. Hence, improvements in agricultural efficiency decrease costs and ceteris paribus increase profits. Increasing agricultural efficiency has a diminishing effect on forest dependency in two ways, namely, an income effect and a labor supply effect.2 An increase in agricultural profitability can reduce forest dependency due to a large income effect. For instance, higher profits from farming, stemming from increased technical efficiency, will be an incentive for rural households to be more engaged in farming activities.3 From the rural labor market point of view, increased farm activities imply greater involvement of household labor in farming hence, decreasing the labor allocated to forest extraction. As farming becomes profitable, the opportunity cost of participating in extraction activities increases. Therefore the primary objective of this study is to see how efficiency of agricultural activities in forest peripheries alters forest related activities. More specifically, the study estimates a forest dependency function which is affected by the various socio-economic factors including agricultural efficiency. This study also determines the level of efficiency improvement necessary to compensate for the NTFPs gathered. This research provides an in depth investigation of technical efficiency for agriculture in forest peripheries and its effect on rural household dependency on forest resources. Technical efficiency is an important factor in determining the future of farming by households in forest peripheries. There is very little or no information on technical efficiency of agriculture in forest peripheries. Information generated by this study will be useful for households in terms of decision making regarding input use in farming and the allocation of household labor to farm and non-farm activities (including forest gathering). The efficiency analysis will also help identify sources of inefficiency and suggest factors that can increase agricultural efficiency. The remainder of the paper is organized into four sections. Section 2 reviews the literature on the role of forestry in farm households and weaves in literature on production efficiency to form the theoretical background for this study. The empirical model is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 presents the data and methodology used for the study. Section 5 analyzes and discusses model results. The last section presents conclusions and policy implications respectively.

The core theoretical question of this study is to assess how increased agricultural efficiency in forest peripheries would affect NTFP extraction. In order to answer this question, technical efficiency of agricultural farms in forest peripheries were estimated along with their potential for improving technical efficiency. The estimated mean farm efficiency ranges from 0.67 to 0.73 which implies the existence of technical inefficiency for agricultural farms in forest peripheries. Factors such as agricultural extension, formal education, and the nutritional status of households were found to have a statistically significant relationship with reducing technical inefficiency. In the forest dependency model, factors such as technical efficiency in agriculture, off-farm income, household wealth and the index of income diversification for most cases showed a negative and statistically significant relationship in reducing forest dependency. The negative and significant coefficient of technical efficiency implies the reduction of NTFP extraction with increasing farming efficiency. Additional revenue gained from improvements in technical efficiency can partially offset the reduction in income from extracted forest goods. Therefore, increasing technical efficiency in agriculture may lessen forest dependency to a certain degree. More specifically, the additional revenue gained from increased agricultural efficiency would sufficiently compensate the loss of forest income in the Kithulanahela and Bibilehela–Welanvita reserves. For the other two sites, agricultural improvement itself is not sufficient to totally compensate for forest income. This difference is partly due to either high forest income (Galagodabedda reserve) or low agricultural income (Dunhinda reserve). Technical efficiency improvement in agriculture is found to have a positive externality effect on the conservation of forests. Efficiency improvement in farming within forest margins should be considered as one of the policy options for protecting natural forests. This finding is of particular importance since tropical forests around the world are often surrounded by rural communities whose primary livelihood is dependent on agriculture. Despite some cultural and historical differences, forest gathering is largely considered as a secondary source of income for rural households. Rural livelihood development and poverty alleviation programs in many developing counties are focusing on improving agriculture and off-farm income (Gunatilake, 1998). Therefore, the results generated from this study are not confined to a particular geographical area rather it is useful for improving livelihood of forest based communities in tropical forest margins around the world.