IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9420-d443990.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory Compliance of Community-Based Conservation Organizations: Empirical Evidence from Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Nabin Baral

    (School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA)

  • Joel T. Heinen

    (Department of Earth and Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

Abstract

Community-based conservation in the developing world generally puts more emphasis on voluntary commitments and compliance rather than enforcement of formal laws and regulations for the governance of protected areas. However, as with other forms of organizational management, once institutions are established, they are required to comply with all relevant, legally binding regulations. Furthermore, it is broadly assumed that compliance with established regulations is critical for good governance. In this paper, we review these matters through an empirical study of Conservation Area Management Committees’ degree of compliance with regulations under Nepalese law, within the Annapurna Conservation Area—one of the best-known community-based protected areas worldwide—based on quantitative content analysis of the committees’ meeting minutes from 2008 to 2012. According to the established rules, two to four women and one to five minorities serve as committee members in each instance. On average, fewer members than expected attended meetings, and the number of decisions made per meeting showed a curvilinear relationship with the number of members present as well as their demographic diversity. Of the 13 committees selected for study, only two met the legal mandate of holding six regular meetings annually within two-month intervals. In all the other cases, non-compliance was noted for one to all five years of the committees’ terms. In general, compliance declined over the five-year terms, and some committees were significantly less-compliant than others. Although enforceable decisions were made within both compliant and non-compliant committees, several problems of non-compliance were identified that may affect conservation outcomes. We suggest several possible reasons for non-compliance and argue that these may be symptoms of institutional weaknesses. Organizations that fail to meet their commitments risk liability and may also lose the formal legal authority to govern. Regular monitoring is recommended to address compliance issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabin Baral & Joel T. Heinen, 2020. "Regulatory Compliance of Community-Based Conservation Organizations: Empirical Evidence from Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9420-:d:443990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9420/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9420/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joel Heinen & Nabin Baral & Prakash Paudel & Jay Sah, 2020. "On the Road to Sustainability? A Review of a Half-Century of Biodiversity Conservation Successes in Nepal and Some Thoughts on Future Needs," Chapters, in: Ahmad Naqiyuddin Bakar & Mohd Nazip Suratman (ed.), Protected Areas, National Parks and Sustainable Future, IntechOpen.
    2. Vincent P. Miller & John M. Quigley, 1990. "Segregation by Racial and Demographic Group: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 27(1), pages 3-21, February.
    3. Tallberg, Jonas, 2002. "Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management, and the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(3), pages 609-643, July.
    4. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    5. Heyes, Anthony, 2000. "Implementing Environmental Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 107-129, March.
    6. Downs, George W. & Rocke, David M. & Barsoom, Peter N., 1996. "Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 379-406, July.
    7. Checkel, Jeffrey T., 2001. "Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 553-588, July.
    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. Smith, Alexander C. & Hurni, Kaspar & Fox, Jefferson & Van Den Hoek, Jamon, 2023. "Community forest management led to rapid local forest gain in Nepal: A 29 year mixed methods retrospective case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(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. Benassi, Chiara., 2011. "The implementation of minimum wage : challenges and creative solutions," ILO Working Papers 994629883402676, International Labour Organization.
    2. Stine Aakre & Jon Hovi, 2010. "Emission trading: Participation enforcement determines the need for compliance enforcement," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 427-445, September.
    3. Hartlapp, Miriam, 2005. "Two Variations on a Theme: Different Logics of Implementation Management in the EU and the ILO," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 9, June.
    4. repec:ilo:ilowps:462988 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ruud van Druenen & Pieter Zwaan & Ellen Mastenbroek, 2022. "Getting State Aid Approved by the European Commission: Explaining the Duration of Preliminary Investigations in the State Aid Notification Procedure," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 545-561, May.
    6. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    7. Jasper Krommendijk, 2015. "The domestic effectiveness of international human rights monitoring in established democracies. The case of the UN human rights treaty bodies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 489-512, December.
    8. Bernhard Reinsberg & Centre for Business Research, 2018. "Blockchain Technology and International Relations: Decentralised Solutions To Foster Cooperation In An Anarchic World?," Working Papers wp508, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    9. Fabio Franchino & Camilla Mariotto, 2021. "Noncompliance risk, asymmetric power and the design of enforcement of the European economic governance," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 591-610, December.
    10. Richard Perkins & Eric Neumayer, 2007. "Implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements: An Analysis of EU Directives," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 7(3), pages 13-41, August.
    11. Liliana B. Andonova & Ioana A. Tuta, 2014. "Transnational Networks and Paths to EU Environmental Compliance: Evidence from New Member States," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 775-793, July.
    12. Stine Aakre & Leif Helland & Jon Hovi, 2016. "When Does Informal Enforcement Work?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(7), pages 1312-1340, October.
    13. Tobias Böhmelt & Tina Freyburg, 2013. "The temporal dimension of the credibility of EU conditionality and candidate states’ compliance with the acquis communautaire, 1998–2009," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 250-272, June.
    14. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    15. Berliner, Daniel & Ingrams, Alex & Piotrowski, Suzanne, 2022. "Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 111060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.
    17. Thomas König & Bernd Luig, 2014. "Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 501-519, September.
    18. Ryan M. Welch, 2019. "Domestic politics and the power to punish: The case of national human rights institutions," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(4), pages 385-404, July.
    19. Daniel Berliner & Alex Ingrams & Suzanne J. Piotrowski, 2022. "Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: Theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1343-1361, October.
    20. Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin, 2017. "Why the United States Supports International Enforcement for Some Treaties but not for Others," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 79-92.
    21. Christopher Marcoux & Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "Capacity, not constraints: A theory of North-South regulatory cooperation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 399-424, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9420-:d:443990. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.