An excellent extension presentation for students needs more context support material

1. India‟s Firewood Crisis
Re-examined
Klaas van „t Veld, Urvashi Narain, Shreekant Gupta,
Neetu Chopra, and Supriya Singh
IFPRI Brown-bag Seminar, Washington DC
May 31, 2006

2. Background
• In the early 1970s it was widely held that India would soon
face a severe firewood shortage.
• This, in turn, it was believed would lead to women
spending endless hours searching for firewood and settling
for poorer-quality biomass.
• Data from the early 1990s showed that while households
remained dependent on firewood they had not been forced
to switch to poor-quality biomass.
– Invasion of exotic plants such as Prosopis juliflora
– Farm Forestry project of the 1980s
• What has since happened to the firewood crisis?

4. Questions
• Have firewood shortages developed in rural India?
– Are households, especially women spending more time
collecting firewood from the commons in areas with
degraded forests?
– Are households substituting towards other fuels?
– What has been the role of JFM?
• We examine these questions using data from a
random sample of 539 households in 60 villages in
rural Jhabua covering the period June 2000 to May
2001.

5. Literature Review
Fuel Switching
• Rural household continue to be dependent on
firewood as their main source of fuel (1993-94 and
1999-2000 NSSO).
• Heltberg et al. (2000) find that households in rural
Rajasthan are not able to switch to private fuels
(firewood from private lands, agricultural residue,
and animal dung) in areas with degraded forests.
• Studies from Nepal (Amacher et al. (1993) and
Cooke (2000)) have reported fuel switching.

6. Literature Review
Time Allocation
• Number of studies point to the fact that women devote a
significant amount of time per day in firewood collection
but do not link time spent to the state of the local forests.
• Heltberg et al. (2000) find that households in rural
Rajasthan spend more time in firewood collection in
villages with degraded forests.
• Similarly, studies from Nepal (Kumar and Hotchkiss
(1988), Cooke (1998)) find that women devote more time
to collection in villages with degraded forests. Amacher et
al. (1996) find to the contrary---women spend less time
collecting resources in villages with degraded forests.
• All these studies use indirect and endogenous measures of
firewood availability.

7. Literature Review
JFM
• Surprisingly, very few studies have documented the impact
of JFM on the firewood crisis or household incomes.
• Existing studies offer conflicting views:
– Some contend that JFM has lead to an increase in firewood
collected by households (Pathan et al. (1990) and Banyopadhyay
and Shyamsundar (2006)).
– Others argue that, by placing restrictions on the amount of
firewood that can be collected and by emphasizing timber benefits
over firewood benefits, JFM has placed additional hardships on
women (Khare et al. (2000)).

8. Main Results
• Fewer women choose to collect firewood from
degraded village commons.
• These households are able to cope by switching to
agricultural crop residue and planting more
firewood trees on their lands and thereby
producing more private firewood.
• In villages with JFM projects and high biomass,
women and men are more likely to collect
firewood from the commons, although the
quantity collected is unchanged.

10. Jhabua
• Population is largely rural and largely tribal. 47% of the
population lives below the poverty line, and has low rates
of literacy.
• Agriculture, rain-fed, is the main occupation and employs
over 90% of the workforce.
• 54% of land area is classified as agricultural land, 19% as
forest land, and the rest as “degraded” land.
• Forest lands, traditionally managed by the state forest
department, are largely degraded. Households,
nonetheless, depend on these lands for firewood,
construction wood, fodder etc.

11. Jhabua and JFM
• JFM was initiated in Jhabua in 1992 on degraded
forest lands, and on well-stocked forests after
1995.
• In 1995, the World Bank initiated a large forestry
project in Madhya Pradesh that gave a
considerable boost to the state‟s JFM program.
• By mid-2000 about 38% of the state‟s total forest
area were being managed under JFM.

12. Jhabua and JFM (contd.)
• Number of studies have evaluated the strength and
weaknesses of institutions established under JFM.
– A case study by Sarin et al. (2003) of 13 villages in Bastar district
and Harda forest division revealed limited participation by villages
in JFM committees.
– Similar conclusions reached by two-year study of JFM in Dewas
district by University of Edinburgh and mid-term review of the
World Bank‟s forestry project.
• Few studies have quantified the impact that JFM has had
on the firewood crisis or household incomes.

13. Theoretical Model
• Household derives utility from the consumption of
a staple, fruit, and firewood.
• The household can either produce the stable, by
combining land and labor, or purchase it in the
market.
• Firewood can either be collected from the village
commons, produced privately from firewood trees
on own land, or bought in the market.
• Fruit can be produced privately from fruit trees or
bought in the market.

14. Theoretical Model (contd.)
• Household therefore divides its time
between collecting firewood from the
commons, producing the staple, or working
as a wage laborer.
• Households are assumed not to sell
firewood (only one household in our sample
sells firewood).

15. Theoretical Results
• So long as the household both collects and purchases
firewood, a decrease in firewood biomass:
– decreases the time spent collecting firewood.
– If the household engages in wage labor then the time spent in wage
employment increases.
– If the household does not engage in wage labor then the time spent
on the farm increases, amount of land allocated to agriculture
increases, and number of firewood and fruit trees planted privately
decreases.
• Upshot, there is no a priori reason to expect that decreased
firewood availability in the commons will necessarily
induce an increase in time spent collecting.

16. Empirical Analysis
• To examine the responses of households to
variations in forest biomass we estimate the
following equations:
– Time spent by the household as a whole, and men,
women, and children separately, in firewood collection
– The quantity of firewood (from commons, market, or
own lands), dung, and agricultural waste consumed by
the household
– Number of fruit and firewood trees owned by the
household

17. Empirical Strategy
• Censoring
– Tobit (assumes participation and outcome equations are
identical)
– Heckman Two-step (relies on arbitrary functional form
assumptions for identification if same set of regressions
are used)
– Two-part Model
• Seasonality
– Include seasonal dummies that both control for seasonal
variations and, to some extent, unobserved household-
specific effects
– Random effects not rejected by Hausman tests

18. Description of Independent
Variables
• Household Level
– Age of Head
– Education of Head
– Household Size
– Proportion of Women
– Proportion of Children
– Land and Farm Capital
– Animal Holdings

19. Description of Variables (contd.)
• Village Level
– Biomass Availability
– Presence of JFM (21 out of 60 villages)
– Seasonal Rainfall
– Distance to Markets
– Distance to Firewood Markets
– Seasonal, Relative Price of Firewood and Dung
– Relative Price of Agricultural Residue
– Relative Wage-rate for Low-skill Male Labor

20. Empirical Results
Seasonality
• Households are less likely to collect firewood in
the kharif season and more likely in the summer
season.
– Opportunity cost of labor
– Household prefer dry firewood
• Households are more likely to buy firewood in the
summer and less likely to use dung for fuel in the
summer season.
• Households use firewood stored in the summer
during the kharif season.

21. Empirical Results
Time Allocation
• Households, especially women, are more likely to collect
firewood from the commons in villages with higher
biomass availability.
• Increased opportunity cost of time spent in firewood
collection (distance to markets, level of education of head,
land and capital) also reduce the likelihood that households
will collect from the commons.
• As male wages increases women are more likely to collect
firewood from the commons.
• Women spend more time collecting firewood in villages
where firewood markets are further away.

22. Empirical Results
Fuel Use
• Households more likely to use private firewood and
agricultural waste in villages with degraded forests.
• Likelihood of use and amount used increase
– For private firewood in the number of fuel trees owned
– For agricultural waste in the amount of land cultivated
– For dung in the number of animals owned
• Amount of firewood purchased declines in the price of
firewood.
• Households with more educated heads are less likely to
collect firewood, but no more likely to collect private
firewood, or purchase firewood or use agricultural waste or
dung.

23. Empirical Results
Private Trees
• Likelihood of owning any private trees at all
increases in the amount of land and distance
to the nearest firewood market.
• More importantly, households in villages
with degraded forests are more likely to
grow firewood rather than fruit trees.

24. Empirical Results
JFM
• Presence of JFM project increases the likelihood
of collection in villages with higher biomass but
does not affect the time spent collecting a given
quantity.
– JFM villages may have higher fraction of firewood
trees
– JFM projects may make collection more legitimate
• Households are less reliant on dung for fuel in
JFM villages with high biomass.

25. Policy Implications
• The fact that households are responding to the
firewood shortage by altering the mix of trees on
their land implies a more robust, long-term
solution to forest degradation than short-term
solutions often provided by government-initiated
programs.
• JFM, another government-initiated program, is
however and so far having a positive impact on
firewood collection.

26. On-going Research
• Using Current Data Set
– Poverty and Environment: Relationship between
Household Incomes, Private Assets and Natural Assets
– Time Allocation in Water Collection, and Impact of
Watershed Management
– Livestock Economy
– Time Allocation Across Activities and Variations in
Biomass
• Panel Data Set (field work this summer)

27. Thank you.