IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v111y2020ics1389934119300607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social inclusion and deliberation in response to REDD+ in Nepal’s community forestry

Author

Listed:
  • Devkota, Bishnu Prasad

Abstract

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries is an emerging policy instrument with potential for sustainable use of forest resources and livelihoods, and improved forest governance. This study explores how REDD+through the principle of social inclusion enhances deliberation of the less powerful and disadvantaged users and stipulates responsiveness in local leaders of community forests. The study is based on in-depth interviews conducted with the users of two community forests in Nepal`s Terai region. After the implementation of REDD+, disadvantaged groups such as the poor, Dalits, women and indigenous groups have secured their position in decision making structures. The implementation of REDD+has resulted in positive changes in community forestry governance, but the institutional and social benefits of REDD+have not trickled down to the expected users of community forests. Though participation of poor, Dalits, women and indigenous communities in key decision-making position has increased, it is still far from influencing decisions in their favor based on social justice. Deliberation without the facilitation of the local political leaders has not taken space. Local politics is highly influential in community forest user groups and dominates the formal decision-making structure of community forestry. To overcome these issues, disadvantaged groups should be empowered and the criteria of selecting representatives in a quota system should be based on the users’ dependency on the forest. Only such criteria can stimulate responsiveness in local leaders.

Suggested Citation

  • Devkota, Bishnu Prasad, 2020. "Social inclusion and deliberation in response to REDD+ in Nepal’s community forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119300607
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119300607
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leventon, Julia & Kalaba, Felix K. & Dyer, Jen C. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Dougill, Andrew J., 2014. "Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from Joint Forest Management in Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 10-17.
    2. Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright, 2001. "Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(1), pages 5-41, March.
    3. Mustalahti, Irmeli & Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy, 2014. "REDD+ and Empowered Deliberative Democracy: Learning from Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 199-211.
    4. Pokharel, Ridish K. & Neupane, Prem Raj & Tiwari, Krishna Raj & Köhl, Michael, 2015. "Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: A case from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 75-84.
    5. Bishnu Prasad Sharma & Priya Shyamsundar & Mani Nepal & Subhrendu Pattanayak & Bhaskar S. Karky, 2015. "Are Community Forestry Institutions Appropriate for Implementing REDD+? Lessons from Nepal," Working Papers id:7294, eSocialSciences.
    6. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    7. Bluffstone, Randall A. & Somanathan, E. & Jha, Prakash & Luintel, Harisharan & Bista, Rajesh & Toman, Michael & Paudel, Naya & Adhikari, Bhim, 2018. "Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 133-141.
    8. Cadman, Timothy & Maraseni, Tek & Ma, Hwan Ok & Lopez-Casero, Federico, 2017. "Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 8-16.
    9. Bishnu Prasad Sharma et al., "undated". "Are Community Forestry Institutions Appropriate for Implementing REDD+? Lessons from Nepal," Working papers 94, The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.
    10. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    11. Cook, Nathan J. & Wright, Glenn D. & Andersson, Krister P., 2017. "Local Politics of Forest Governance: Why NGO Support Can Reduce Local Government Responsiveness," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 203-214.
    12. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    13. Boulding, Carew & Wampler, Brian, 2010. "Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 125-135, January.
    14. Maeve Cooke, 2000. "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 947-969, December.
    15. Lacuna-Richman, Celeste & Devkota, Bishnu P. & Richman, Mark A., 2016. "Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 69-78.
    16. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "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, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Trejos, Bernardo & Flores, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Influence of property rights on performance of community-based forest devolution policies in Honduras," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Khanal, Yajnamurti & Devkota, Bishnu Prasad, 2020. "Farmers' responsibilization in payment for environmental services: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Ullah, S M Asik & Tani, Masakazu & Tsuchiya, Jun & Rahman, M.Abiar & Moriyama, Masao, 2022. "Impact of protected areas and co-management on forest cover: A case study from Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mustalahti, Irmeli & Gutiérrez-Zamora, Violeta & Hyle, Maija & Devkota, Bishnu Prasad & Tokola, Nina, 2020. "Responsibilization in natural resources governance: A romantic doxa?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    3. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Sheely, Ryan, 2015. "Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 251-266.
    5. Lacuna-Richman, Celeste & Devkota, Bishnu P. & Richman, Mark A., 2016. "Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 69-78.
    6. Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    7. Benites-Lazaro, L.L. & Mello-Théry, N.A., 2019. "Empowering communities? Local stakeholders’ participation in the Clean Development Mechanism in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-266.
    8. Fontana, Lorenza B. & Grugel, Jean, 2016. "The Politics of Indigenous Participation Through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: Reflections from the Bolivian Case," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 249-261.
    9. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Friedman, Rachel S. & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Rhodes, Jonathan R. & Law, Elizabeth A., 2022. "What does equitable distribution mean in community forests?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    11. Julien Vrydagh, 2022. "Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 65-88, March.
    12. Moses Kazungu & Eliza Zhunusova & Gillian Kabwe & Sven Günter, 2021. "Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Jaramillo, Miguel & Wright, Glenn Daniel, 2015. "Participatory Democracy and Effective Policy: Is There a Link? Evidence from Rural Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 280-292.
    14. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    15. Jimmy Donaghey, 2008. "Deliberation, Employment Relations and Social Partnership in the Republic of Ireland," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 29(1), pages 35-63, February.
    16. Nunan, Fiona & Menton, Mary & McDermott, Constance L. & Huxham, Mark & Schreckenberg, Kate, 2021. "How does governance mediate links between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation? Results from a systematic mapping and thematic synthesis of literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    17. Paudel, Jayash, 2016. "Community-Managed Forests and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235481, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 0. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    19. Timothy Cadman & Tek Maraseni & Upama Ashish Koju & Anita Shrestha & Sikha Karki, 2023. "Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, February.
    20. Brendan Coolsaet & Neil Dawson & Florian Rabitz & Simone Lovera, 2020. "Access and allocation in global biodiversity governance: a review," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 359-375, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119300607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.