Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 65, Issue , 2016, Pages 69-78

  Lacuna Richman, Celeste ^a   Devkota, Bishnu P ^b   Richman, Mark A ^c  

^a Joensuun Seudun Kansalaisopisto   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^c FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Community forests; Focus groups; Governance; NAPA; Nepal; Priorities; REDD+

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; PUBLIC POLICY;

COMMUNITY FOREST; FOCUS GROUPS; GOVERNANCE; NAPA; NEPAL; PRIORITIES; REDD;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84960503872     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adhikari S., Kingi T., Ganesh S. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2014, 44:1-9. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.04.003.
2. Agrawal A. Studying the commons, governing common-pool resource outcomes: some concluding thoughts. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2014, 36:86-91. 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.012.
3. Agrawal A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 2001, 29(10):1649-1672. 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8.
4. Agrawal A., Angelsen A. Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options 2009, 201-212. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. A. Angelsen (Ed.).
5. Agrawal A., Gupta K. Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal's Terai. World Dev. 2005, 33(7):1101-1114. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009.
6. Andersson K., Benavides J.P., Leon R. Institutional diversity and local forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2013, 36:61-72. 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.009.
7. Arnold J.E.M. Devolution of control of common pool resources to local communities: Experiences in forestry. UNU/WIDER Project on Land Reform Revisited: Access to Land, Rural Poverty and Public Action, Conference Paper, April 26-28 Santiago, Chile 1998, (42 p).
8. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 1969, 35(4):216-224. 10.1080/01944366908977225.
9. Bahadur K.C.K. Linking physical, economic and institutional constraints of land use change and forest conservation in the hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2011, 13(8):603-613. 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.010.
10. Barrett C.B., Lee D.R. Institutional arrangements for rural reduction and resource conservation. World Dev. 2005, 33(2):193-197. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.008.
11. Cashore B. Legitimacy and the privation of environmental governance: how non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance 2002, 15(4):503-529. 10.1111/1468-0491.00199.
12. Charnley S., Poe M.R. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now?. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007, 36:301-336. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143.
13. Chhetri B.B.K., Lund J.F., Nielsen O.J. The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73:113-121. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.023.
14. Colfer C.J.P. Marginalized forest peoples' perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: an exploration. World Dev. 2011, 39(12):2147-2164. 10.1016/j.world.dev.2011.04.012.
15. Corbin J., Strauss A. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift fūr Soziologie 1990, 19(6):418-427. 10.1007/BF00988593.
16. Dahal G.R., Chapagain A. Community forestry in Nepal: Decentralized forest governance. Lessons from Forest Decentralization: Money, Justice and the Quest for Good Governance in Asia-Pacific 2008, 65-79. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. C.J.P. Colfer, G.R. Dahal, D. Capistrano (Eds.).
17. Devkota S.R. Is strong sustainability optional? An example from Nepal. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13(5):297-310. 10.1002/sd.255.
18. Dhakal M., Masuda M. Local pricing system of forest products and its relations to equitable benefit sharing and livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry program in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11(4):221-229. 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.004.
19. Featherman D.L., Haller A.O. The social psychological legacy of Otis Dudley Duncan. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 2007, 25(2):119-127. 10.1016/j.rssm.2007.05.004.
20. Fisher R.J. Institutional incompatibility in community forestry: The case of Nepal. Community Organizations and Government Bureaucracies in Social Forestry. Working Paper No 22, Environment and Policy Institute 1990, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. J. Fox, R.J. Fisher (Eds.).
21. Fox J., Bratamihardja M., Poedjorarardjo I. Social forestry planning: searching for a middle way. ODI Social Forestry Newsletter, Network Paper 10d 1990, London, United Kingdom, Social Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), (19 p).
22. Fung A., Wright E.O. Countervailing power in empowered participatory governance. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance 2003, 259-290. Verso, London, United Kingdom. A. Fung, E.O. Wright (Eds.).
23. Giri K., Ojha H.R. How Does Techno-Bureaucracy Impede Livelihood Innovations in Community Forestry? Forest Action Discussion Paper Series, Discussion Paper No. 11.4 2011, ForestAction Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 14 p.
24. Glaser B.G. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory 1978, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California, United States, (164 p).
25. Heinen J.T., Mehta J.N. Emerging issues in legal and procedural aspects of buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. The Journal of Environment & Development 2000, 9(1):45-67. 10.1177/107049650000900103.
26. Jessop B. Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. Participatory Governance in Multi-level Context: Concepts and Experience 2002, 33-56. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany. 10.1007/978-3-663-11005-7. H. Heinelt, P. Getimis, G. Kafkalas, R. Smith, E. Swyngedouw (Eds.).
27. Jordhus-Lier D., Haug M., Regmi H. Demand-driven governance: an analysis of the interventions of international aid agencies. NIBR Working Paper 2009: 118 2009, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), Oslo, Norway, (37 p).
28. Kankali Community Forest User Group Constitution (Second Amendment) of Kankali Community Forest User Group, Chainpur 1-9, Chitwan, Nepal 2007, 55 p.
29. Kankali Community Forest User Group Operational Plan (Second Amendment) of Kankali Community Forest User Group, Chainpur 1-9, Chitwan, Nepal 2007, (139 p).
30. Kanowski P.J., McDermott C.L., Cashore B.W. Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2010, 14(2):111-117. 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007.
31. Lund J.F., Baral K., Bhandari N.S., Chhetri B.B.K., Larsen H.O., Nielsen Ø.J., Puri L., Rutt R.L., Treue T. Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?. Forest Policy and Economics 2014, 38:119-125. 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.010.
32. Mansbridge J. The role of the state in governing the commons. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2014, 36:8-10. 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.006.
33. Markussen T. Property rights, productivity, and common property resources: insights from rural Cambodia. World Dev. 2008, 36(11):2277-2296. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.04.008.
34. Mayntz R. Governing failure and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm. Modern Governance 1989, 9-20. Sage, London, United Kingdom. J. Koolman (Ed.).
35. McDougall C.L., Leeuwis C., Bhattarai T., Maharjan M.R., Jiggins J. Engaging women and the poor: adaptive collaborative governance of community forests in Nepal. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 30(4):569-585. 10.1007/s10460-013-9434-x.
36. Ojha H.R., Banjade M.R., Sunam R.K., Bhattarai B., Jana S., Goutam K.R., Dhungana S. Can authority change through deliberative politics? Lessons from the four decades of participatory forest policy reform in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2014, 46:1-9. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.04.005.
37. Ojha H.R., Cameron J., Kumar C. Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11(5-6):365-374. 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.003.
38. Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325(5939):419-422. 10.1126/science.1172133.
39. Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, United States, (355 p).
40. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., Platais G. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev. 2005, 33(2):237-253. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011.
41. Pandit R., Bevilacqua E. Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2011, 13(5):345-352. 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.009.
42. Paudel D. In search of alternatives: pro-poor entrepreneurship in community forestry. The Journal of Development Studies 2012, 48(11):1649-1664. 10.1080/00220388.2012.716152.
43. Paudel N.S., Vedeld P.O., Khatri D.B. Prospects and challenges of tenure and forest governance reform in the context of REDD+ initiatives in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2015, 52:1-8. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.009.
44. Pokharel R.K. Factors influencing the management regime of Nepal's community forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 2012, 17:13-17. 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.002.
45. Pokharel R.K., Neupane P.R., Tiwari K.R., Kohl M. Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: a case from Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2015, 58:75-84. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.006.
46. Poudel B.C. Sustainable resource utilization and governance in community forests: reflection from mountains of Nepal. Conference Paper, Presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of International Association for the Study of Common Property, 19-23 June 2006, Ubud, Bali, Indonesia 2006, (27 p).
47. Pravat P.S., Humphreys D. Using a multilevel approach to analyse the case of forest conflicts in the Terai, Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2013, 33:47-55. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.013.
48. Ribot J.C., Agrawal A., Larson A.M. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 2006, 34(11):1864-1866. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020.
49. Ribot J., Peluso N. A theory of access. Rural. Sociol. 2003, 68(2):153-181. 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.
50. Ruben R., Pender J. Rural diversity and heterogeneity in less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting. Food Policy 2004, 29(4):303-320. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.004.
51. Rutt R.L., Chhetri B.B.K., Pokharel R., Rayamajhi S., Tiwari K., Treue T. The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 2014, 60:50-61. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.005.
52. Sanderson S. Poverty and conservation: the new century's "peasant question?". World Dev. 2005, 33(2):323-332. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.016.
53. Schnackenberg A., Tomlinson E. Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. J. Manag. 2014, (Advance online publication) (27 p). 10.1177/0149206314525202.
54. Shrestha S., Karky B.S., Karki S. Case study report: REDD+ pilot project in community forests in three watersheds of Nepal. Forests 2014, 5(10):2425-2439. 10.3390/f5102425.
55. Smadjo J. Belonging, protected areas, and participatory management: the case of Kaziranga National Park (Assam) and of the Misings' Shifting Territory. The Politics of Belonging in the Himalayas: Local Attachments and Boundary Dynamics 2011, 246-272. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India. 10.4135/9788132107729. J. Pfaff-Czarnecka, G. Toffin (Eds.).
56. Sørensen E., Torfing J. Theoretical approaches to governance network failure. Theories of Democratic Network Governance 2008, 95-110. Palgrave Macmillan, London, United Kingdom. E. Sørensen, J. Torfing (Eds.).
57. Sunam R.K., Paudel N.S., Paudel G. Community forestry and the threat of recentralization in Nepal: contesting the bureaucratic hegemony in policy process. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 2013, 26(12):1407-1421. 10.1080/08941920.2013.799725.
58. Sundari Community Forest User Group Constitution (Second Amendment) of Sundari Community Forest User Group, Amrapuri, Nawalparasi, Nepal 2008, (37 p).
59. Sundari Community Forest User Group Operational Plan (Second Amendment) of Sundari Community Forest User Group, Amrapuri, Nawalparasi, Nepal 2008, (87 p).
60. Sunderlin W.D., Angelsen A., Belcher B., Burgers P., Nasi R., Santoso L., Wunder S. Livelihoods, forests and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev. 2005, 33(9):1383-1402. 10.1016/j. worlddev.2004.10.004.
61. Straede S., Nebel G., Rijal A. Structure and floristic composition of community forests and their compatibility with villagers' traditional needs for forest products. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11(3):487-508. 10.1023/A:1014808600514.
62. Wunder S. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests - what scope for synergies?. World Dev. 2001, 29(11):1817-1833. 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5.
63. Wurtz-Kanounikoff S., Angelsen A. Global and national REDD+ architecture: linking institutions and actions. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options 2009, 13-24. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. A. Angelsen (Ed.).
64. Yadav B.D., Bigsby H., McDonald I. How can poor and disadvantages households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?. Forest Policy and Economics 2015, 52:27-38. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.010.