IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v52y2015icp27-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?

Author

Listed:
  • Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta
  • Bigsby, Hugh
  • MacDonald, Ian

Abstract

Nepal established community forestry institutions to manage natural resources at a local level with the intention of improving environmental and economic outcomes. While environmental successes have been made under community forestry, economic improvements, particularly for poor and marginalised groups, have proved elusive. This study examines how personal and social attributes influence the membership of the Executive Committee of Community Forestry User Groups (CFUG) in Nepal, and whether there are factors that enable the poor and disadvantaged to gain membership of the Executive Committee of CFUGs. Statistical analysis using data from the middle hill district of Baglung, Nepal indicates that decision-making positions are dominated by the local elite, who are typically from higher castes and relatively wealthy, as measured by land holdings, livestock units, food sufficiency and off-farm income. The results also suggest that leadership experience gained through participation in NGOs provides poor and disadvantaged people the ability to overcome their lower socio-economic status and gain leadership positions within CFUGs. This is an important outcome in that it provides an opening for policy initiatives that encourage the development of leadership skills for the poor and disadvantaged, which in turn will improve representation of these groups.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:27-38
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114002202
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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 & 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.
    2. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    3. Iversen, Vegard & Chhetry, Birka & Francis, Paul & Gurung, Madhu & Kafle, Ghanendra & Pain, Adam & Seeley, Janet, 2006. "High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 93-107, June.
    4. Adhikari, Bhim & Williams, Frances & Lovett, Jon C., 2007. "Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 464-478, January.
    5. Bhim Adhikari & Jon Lovett, 2006. "Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 426-445.
    6. Veall, Michael R & Zimmermann, Klaus F, 1996. " Pseudo-R-[superscript 2] Measures for Some Common Limited Dependent Variable Models," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 241-259, September.
    7. Agrawal, Arun & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2006. "Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 149-166, January.
    8. Bhim Adhikari & Salvatore Di Falco, 2009. "Social Inequality, Local Leadership and Collective Action: An Empirical Study of Forest Commons," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 21(2), pages 179-194, April.
    9. Higley, John & Moore, Gwen, 1981. "Elite Integration in the United States and Australia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 581-597, September.
    10. David Lewis & Anthony J. Bebbington & Simon P. J. Batterbury & Alpa Shah & Elizabeth Olson & M. Shameem Siddiqi & Sandra Duvall, 2003. "Practice, power and meaning: frameworks for studying organizational culture in multi-agency rural development projects," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 541-557.
    11. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh, 2015. "Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 172-179.
    12. Jeff Dayton-Johnson & Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Inequality And Conservation On The Local Commons: A Theoretical Exercise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 577-602, July.
    13. Ilkka Ruostetsaari, 2010. "Changing Regulation and Governance of Finnish Energy Policy Making: New Rules but Old Elites?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(3), pages 273-297, May.
    14. Adhikari, Bhim, 2005. "Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 7-31, February.
    15. Behera, Bhagirath, 2009. "Explaining the performance of state-community joint forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 177-185, November.
    16. Surendra R. Devkota, 2005. "Is strong sustainability operational? An example from Nepal," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 297-310.
    17. Adhikari, Bhim & Di Falco, Salvatore & Lovett, Jon C., 2004. "Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 245-257, February.
    18. Ribot, Jesse C. & Agrawal, Arun & Larson, Anne M., 2006. "Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1864-1886, November.
    19. Chakraborty, Rabindra Nath, 2001. "Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 341-353, February.
    20. Richard L. Daft & Robert H. Lengel, 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 554-571, May.
    21. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Johnsen, Fred Hakon & Konoshima, Masashi & Yoshimoto, Atsushi, 2013. "Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 6-13.
    22. 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.
    23. Maskey, Vishakha & Gebremedhin, Tesfa G. & Dalton, Timothy J., 2006. "Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 261-274, January.
    24. Lund, Jens Friis & Baral, Keshab & Bhandari, Nirmala Singh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Treue, Thorsten, 2014. "Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 119-125.
    25. 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.
    26. Satyal Pravat, Poshendra & Humphreys, David, 2013. "Using a multilevel approach to analyse the case of forest conflicts in the Terai, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 47-55.
    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. 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.
    2. Chaudhary, Sunita & McGregor, Andrew & Houston, Donna & Chettri, Nakul, 2018. "Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 99-115.
    3. Chaudhary, Sunita & McGregor, Andrew & Houston, Donna & Chettri, Nakul, 2018. "Reprint of: Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 316-332.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    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:52:y:2015:i:c:p:27-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.