IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v58y2015icp75-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: A case from Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Pokharel, Ridish K.
  • Neupane, Prem Raj
  • Tiwari, Krishna Raj
  • Köhl, Michael

Abstract

Community based forestry is seen as a promising instrument for sustainable forest management (SFM) through the purposeful involvement of local communities. Globally, forest area managed by local communities is on the rise. However, transferring management responsibilities to forest users alone cannot guarantee the sustainability of forest management. A monitoring tool, that allows the local communities to track the progress of forest management towards the goal of sustainability, is essential. A case study, including six forest user groups (FUGs), two from each three community based forestry models—community forestry (CF), buffer zone community forestry (BZCF), and collaborative forest management (CFM) representing three different physiographic regions, was conducted in Nepal. The study explores which community based forest management model (CF, BZCF or CFM) is doing well in terms of sustainable forest management. The study assesses the overall performance of the three models towards SFM using locally developed criteria (four), indicators (26) and verifiers (60). This paper attempts to quantify the sustainability of the models using sustainability index for individual criteria (SIIC), and overall sustainability index (OSI). In addition, rating to the criteria and scoring of the verifiers by the FUGs were done. Among the four criteria, the FUGs ascribed the highest weightage to institutional framework and governance criterion; followed by economic and social benefits, forest management practices, and extent of forest resources. Similarly, the SIIC was found to be the highest for the institutional framework and governance criterion. The average values of OSI for CFM, CF, and BZCF were 0.48, 0.51 and 0.60 respectively; suggesting that buffer zone community forestry is the more sustainable model among the three. The study also suggested that the SIIC and OSI help local communities to quantify the overall progress of their forestry practices towards sustainability. The indices provided a clear picture of forest management practices to indicate the direction where they are heading in terms of sustainability; and informed the users on issues to pay attention to enhance sustainability of their forests.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:58:y:2015:i:c:p:75-84
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114001932
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.006?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. Jalilova, Gulnaz & Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Vacik, Harald, 2012. "Developing criteria and indicators for evaluating sustainable forest management: A case study in Kyrgyzstan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 32-43.
    2. Towa Tachibana & Sunit Adhikari, 2009. "Does Community-Based Management Improve Natural Resource Condition? Evidence from the Forests in Nepal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 107-131.
    3. Sikor, Thomas, 2006. "Analyzing community-based forestry: Local, political and agrarian perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 339-349, June.
    4. Ridish K. Pokharel, 2008. "Nepal's Community Forestry Funds:Do They Benifit the Poor?," Working Papers id:1643, eSocialSciences.
    5. 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.
    6. Pokharel, Ridish K., 2012. "Factors influencing the management regime of Nepal's community forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 13-17.
    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. 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).
    2. Degnet, M. & Wesseler, J. & Van Der Werf, E. & Ingram, V., 2018. "Do locals have a say? Local participation in governance of forest plantations in Tanzania and Mozambique," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277254, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora & Leopoldo Galicia & Laura Oliva Sánchez-Nupan & Balam Castro-Torres, 2023. "Conditions for Multilevel Governance, Co-Management and Sustainability in Two Forest Communities in Central Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-21, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Indra Mani Rai & Gavin Melles & Suresh Gautam, 2023. "Community Development for Bote in Chitwan National Park, Nepal: A Political Ecology of Development Logic of Erasure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Pinheiro, Silvia & Granados, Maria L. & Assunção, Manaira, 2020. "Local incentive structures and the constitution of community-based enterprises in the forest," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Jafari, Ali & Sadeghi Kaji, Hamdollah & Azadi, Hossein & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Aghamir, Fateme & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Assessing the sustainability of community forest management: A case study from Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.

    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. 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.
    2. Keijiro Otsuka & Ridish Pokharel, 2014. "In search of appropriate institutions for forest management," GRIPS Discussion Papers 13-25, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    6. Numazawa, Camila T.D. & Numazawa, Sueo & Pacca, Sergio & John, Vanderley M., 2017. "Logging residues and CO2 of Brazilian Amazon timber: Two case studies of forest harvesting," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 280-285.
    7. Meilby, Henrik & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Byg, Anja & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rayamajhi, Santosh, 2014. "Are Forest Incomes Sustainable? Firewood and Timber Extraction and Productivity in Community Managed Forests in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 113-124.
    8. 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.
    9. Kenta Tanaka & Keisaku Higashida & Arvin Vista & Anton Setyo Nugroho & Budi Muhamad Ruslan, 2016. "Do resource depletion experiences affect social cooperative preferences? Analysis using field experimental data on fishers in the Philippines and Indonesia," Discussion Paper Series 143, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jun 2016.
    10. Chunying Ning & Rajan Subedi & Lu Hao, 2023. "Land Use/Cover Change, Fragmentation, and Driving Factors in Nepal in the Last 25 Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Valls Pablo & Vallés Maria & Galiana Francisco & Jakešová Lenka, 2012. "Sustainability of Mediterranean Spanish forest management through stakeholder views," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 4(4), pages 269-282, January.
    12. Madalina Epure, 2013. "How Does the Changing Access to Resources Affect the Power and Authority of the Postsocialist Romanian State?," Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, Alliance of Central-Eastern European Universities, vol. 2(1), pages 32-56, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh R., "undated". "Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96827, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Clare, Stephen M. & Ruiz-Jaen, Maria C. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2019. "Assessing the potential of community-based forestry programs in Panama," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 81-92.
    16. Robyn Meeks & Katharine R. E. Sims & Hope Thompson, 2019. "Waste Not: Can Household Biogas Deliver Sustainable Development?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 763-794, March.
    17. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    18. Toft, Maja Nastasia Juul & Adeyeye, Yemi & Lund, Jens Friis, 2015. "The use and usefulness of inventory-based management planning to forest management: Evidence from community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 35-49.
    19. Azamat Azarov & Zbynek Polesny & Dietrich Darr & Maksim Kulikov & Vladimir Verner & Roy C. Sidle, 2022. "Classification of Mountain Silvopastoral Farming Systems in Walnut Forests of Kyrgyzstan: Determining Opportunities for Sustainable Livelihoods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Bose, Purabi, 2013. "Individual tenure rights, citizenship, and conflicts: Outcomes from tribal India's forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 71-79.

    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:58:y:2015:i:c:p:75-84. 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.