IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wodepe/v23y2021ics2452292921000692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contested forest management and the Nepalese Government’s forest policy

Author

Listed:
  • Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta
  • Shrestha, Krishna Kumar
  • Acharya, Bishnu Prasad

Abstract

Community forest resources have huge potential for improving economic and social outcomes to enhance the livelihoods of local communities. The diversity of stakeholder power and preferences are vital but inconsistent in forest production, distribution management, access, utilisation, and stability among stakeholders at inter-community levels because of defective management of forest resources under existing forest policy. This study aims to find real-life problems of individual categories of stakeholders trying to achieve their preferences. We analyse the preferences and contested roles of the powerful, including forest specialists, and non-powerful actors, including poor, regular users (disadvantaged and socially weaker women). The data are from a random sample of 310 households and 31 Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) in Siraha, Saptari and Udaypur Districts, Nepal. We examine the linked Operational Community Forest Management Plan (OCFMP) that determines firewood and timber distribution to households. Descriptive analysis reveals that only 32.5% and 27.4% of households achieved their basic needs for firewood and timber, respectively. Non-powerful stakeholders received significantly less firewood and timber than powerful stakeholders. Econometric analysis indicates that greater per household forest area, age of household head, tree stand pole size and older handed-over and amendments OCFMP of community forestry are significant variables showing that end-user and disadvantaged households receive an inadequate amount of firewood and timber despite sufficient accessible harvestable amounts in the forest. Powerful society members include Executive Committee (EC) members who influence decisions to sell firewood and timber outside the CFUG. It is often assumed that when the prescribed conceptual model and OCFMP are implemented, economic and social, outcomes will flow to end-user households and support local and national development. We provide critical information to policy makers and managers for designing appropriate plans to improve CF economic and social outcomes that make for good CF governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Shrestha, Krishna Kumar & Acharya, Bishnu Prasad, 2021. "Contested forest management and the Nepalese Government’s forest policy," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wodepe:v:23:y:2021:i:c:s2452292921000692
    DOI: 10.1016/j.wdp.2021.100353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292921000692
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.wdp.2021.100353?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. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    2. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    3. 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.
    4. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Amy R Lewis & Richard P Young & James M Gibbons & Julia P G Jones, 2018. "To what extent do potential conservation donors value community-aspects of conservation projects in low income countries?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    7. Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C., 2012. "The Colonial heritage and post-Colonial influence, entanglements and implications of the concept of community forestry by the example of Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 70-77.
    8. Anderson, Jon & Mehta, Shreya & Epelu, Edna & Cohen, Brian, 2015. "Managing leftovers: Does community forestry increase secure and equitable access to valuable resources for the rural poor?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 47-55.
    9. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    10. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Baral, Srijana & Rumba, Yam Bahadur, 2020. "Re-centralisation through fake Scientificness: The case of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Torpey-Saboe, Nichole & Andersson, Krister & Mwangi, Esther & Persha, Lauren & Salk, Carl & Wright, Glenn, 2015. "Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 408-418.
    12. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    13. Gbedomon, Rodrigue Castro & Floquet, Anne & Mongbo, Roch & Salako, Valère Kolawolé & Fandohan, Adandé Belarmain & Assogbadjo, Achille Ephrem & Glèlè Kakaї, Romain, 2016. "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, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 46-55.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Louda, Jiří & Dubová, Lenka & Å paÄ ek, Martin & Brnkaľáková, Stanislava & Kluvánková, Tatiana, 2023. "Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Maryudi, Ahmad & Citraningtyas, Erlita R. & Purwanto, Ris H. & Sadono, Ronggo & Suryanto, Priyono & Riyanto, Slamet & Siswoko, Bowo D., 2016. "The emerging power of peasant farmers in the tenurial conflicts over the uses of state forestland in Central Java, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 70-75.
    4. Putraditama, Andika & Kim, Yeon-Su & Sánchez Meador, Andrew Joel, 2019. "Community forest management and forest cover change in Lampung, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Zeb, Alam & Hamann, Andreas & Armstrong, Glen W. & Acuna-Castellanos, Dante, 2019. "Identifying local actors of deforestation and forest degradation in the Kalasha valleys of Pakistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-64.
    6. Sullivan, Abigail & York, Abigail M. & An, Li & Yabiku, Scott T. & Hall, Sharon J., 2017. "How does perception at multiple levels influence collective action in the commons? The case of Mikania micrantha in Chitwan, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Schultz, Bill, 2020. "Resource management and joint-planning in fragmented societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    8. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Long, Hexing & de Jong, Wil & Yiwen, Zhang & Liu, Jinlong, 2021. "Institutional choices between private management and user group management during forest devolution: A case study of forest allocation in China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    10. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Moktan, Mani Ram & Norbu, Lungten & Choden, Kunzang, 2016. "Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study from Tshapey and Zariphensum in Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 149-157.
    12. Erbaugh, James T., 2019. "Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    14. Lukas Giessen & Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman, 2016. "International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    15. García-López, Gustavo A., 2019. "Rethinking elite persistence in neoliberalism: Foresters and techno-bureaucratic logics in Mexico’s community forestry," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 169-181.
    16. Lund, Jens Friis, 2015. "Paradoxes of participation: The logic of professionalization in participatory forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-6.
    17. Di Girolami, Erica & Kampen, Jarl & Arts, Bas, 2023. "Two systematic literature reviews of scientific research on the environmental impacts of forest certifications and community forest management at a global scale," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    18. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Baral, Srijana & Rumba, Yam Bahadur, 2020. "Re-centralisation through fake Scientificness: The case of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    20. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Fischer, Richard & Tamayo, Fabian & Navarrete, Bolier Torres & Günter, Sven, 2022. "Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).

    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:wodepe:v:23:y:2021:i:c:s2452292921000692. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/world-development-perspectives .

    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.