Community Forestry and the Threat of Recentralization in Nepal: Contesting the Bureaucratic Hegemony in Policy Process

Sunam, Ramesh; Paudel, Naya Sharma; Paudel, Govinda

doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.799725

Cited by 60 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further challenge of decentralization is its inability to avoid the subversion of democratic processes by more powerful actors at multiple levels (Lane 2003). In Nepal and elsewhere, there is tension between formal decentralization initiatives and informal, often covert, efforts to recentralize or maintain power and control over critical financial, political, and natural resources (Dahal 2003, Ribot et al 2006, Ojha 2008, Sunam et al 2013). There are concerns that REDD+ might reinforce these recentralizing tendencies in forest governance (Phelps et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance?

Bushley¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Over the past 40 years, Nepal has become renowned for its community-based forestry policies, initiatives, and institutions, characterized by local autonomy in decisions about forest management and use and a gradual shift toward more inclusive national policy processes. In recent years, the government, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), donors, and some civil society organizations have instigated policy and piloting initiatives for an international climate change mitigation scheme known as "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries" (REDD+). Although many people see REDD+ as a means of bolstering forest conservation efforts and enhancing rural livelihoods, its broader implications for decentralized forest governance in Nepal and elsewhere remain uncertain and contested. Using policy network analysis and theories of polycentric and network governance, I examined influence, inclusiveness, and deliberation among actors involved in REDD+ policy making in Nepal. Data were collected between June and December 2011 through a survey of 34 organizations from government, civil society, educational and research institutions, international NGOs and donors, and the private sector. I investigated whether policy processes and the configurations of actors involved reflect state-centric, market-oriented, or polycentric governance, and I discuss the implications for decentralized forest governance in general and for the implementation of REDD+ in particular. Results indicate that REDD+ policy making is dominated by a "development triangle", a tripartite coalition of key government actors, external organizations (international NGOs and donors), and select civil society organizations. As a result, the views and interests of other important stakeholders have been marginalized, threatening recentralized forest governance and hampering the effective implementation of REDD+ in Nepal. Key Words: climate change; conservation; decentralization; forest governance; policy networks; South Asia INTRODUCTIONReducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) has strong implications for forest governance worldwide. REDD+ is an emerging market-based mechanism designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions through performancebased payments for the protection and sustainable management of forests. Some stakeholders involved in REDD+ believe that it will inject renewed vigor, transparency, and accountability into forest governance and promote decentralized and inclusive modes of governance, considered necessary for forest conservation and reforestation (Springate-Baginski and Wollenberg 2010). Others note its potential to recentralize governance and threaten biodiversity by ignoring social and ecological safeguards, increasing the value of forests to governments (and thus incentives to regain control over them), and promoting more technobureaucratic, carbon-focused ap...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance?

Bushley¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Larson et al (2010) argue, "new statutory rights do not automatically result in rights in practice, however, nor do local rights necessarily lead to improvements in livelihoods or forest condition". This can be seen for example in Nepal despite the country having granted clear legislative rights to communities Sunam et al, 2013). A wave of recentralisation is reported from cases elsewhere in the world .…”

Section: Reforms Related To Tenure and Resource Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such facilitative arrangements are particularly crucial in the forestry sector in which governance has historically been organised around a "command and control" model. Even decentralised systems of forest governance face recentralisation threats (Ribot, 2006;Sunam et al, 2013). Options for forest governance to be more food-friendly include for example establishing demonstration landscape sites, creating incentives and offering subsidies for provisioning services.…”

Section: Catalysing Governance Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such reforms range from the titling of land parcels to indigenous communities to sharing timber revenues (Larson et al, 2010). At least five forms of tenurial reform can be identified: a) state-community collaborative or joint management, empowering communities to secure their livelihood interests, including meeting their food and nutrition needs, in forest management plans (Sundar, 2000;Bampton et al, 2007); b) formal community rights supported by concurrent reforms in state institutions (Bray and Merino-Pérez, 2002); c) national laws granting rights to communities for forest management, but still focusing narrowly on subsistence use, as in the case of Nepal (Sunam et al, 2013); d) pro-poor forest tenure reforms (leasehold forestry) allowing poor households to grow annual and perennial crops (Thoms et al, 2006); and e) institutional arrangements for enhancing the access of indigenous people to land resources (e.g. indigenous forest rights in Mexico (Toledo et al, 2003)).…”

Section: Reforms Related To Tenure and Resource Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

1. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition

Vira¹,

Agarwal²,

Jamnadass³

et al. 2015

Forests and Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrefaceConnecting the dots W ith the establishment of the Global Forest Expert Panels (GFEP) initiative in the year 2007, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) created an international mechanism which effectively links scientific knowledge with political decision-making on forests. The GFEP responds directly to key forest-related policy questions by consolidating available scientific knowledge and expertise on these questions at a global level. It provides decision-makers with the most relevant, objective and accurate information, and thus makes an essential contribution to international forest governance.This report entitled "Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition" presents the results of the fourth global scientific assessment undertaken so far in the framework of GFEP. Previous assessments addressed the adaptation of forests and people to climate change; international forest governance; and the relationship between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people. All assessment reports were prepared by internationally recognised scientists from a variety of biophysical and social science disciplines. They have all been presented to decision-makers across relevant international policy fora. In this way, GFEP supports a more coherent policy dialogue about the role of forests in addressing broader environmental, social and economic challenges.The current report reflects the importance of policy coherence and integration more than any previous GFEP assessment. It comes at a time when the United Nations General Assembly seeks to adopt a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and converge with the post-2015 development agenda. In this context, the eradication of hunger, realisation of food security and the improvement of nutrition are of particular relevance. By 2050, the international community will face the challenge of providing 9 billion people with food, shelter and energy. Despite impressive productivity increases, there is growing evidence that conventional agricultural strategies will fall short of eliminating global hunger and malnutrition. The assessment report in hand provides comprehensive scientific evidence on how forests, trees and landscapes can be -and must be -an integral part of the solution to this global problem. In other words, we must connect the dots and see the bigger picture.The review of the International Arrangement on Forests by the member states of the United Nations Forum on Forests provides a unique opportunity to integrate forests into the SDGs in a holistic manner and to promote synergies in the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda across multiple levels of governance. It is my hope that those with a responsibility for forests, food security and nutrition at all levels will find this report, and its accompanying policy brief, a useful source of information and inspiration.

show abstract

“…Ribot, Agrawal, and Larson (2006) analyze six countries' ''decentralization'' policies and how central authorities employed a ''variety of strategies to obstruct the democratic decentralization of resource management and, hence, retain central control'' (1864). Sunam, Paudel, and Paudel (2013), addressing the context of Nepal's forestry industry, discuss the importance of unpacking ''government attempts to monopolize the policy process by magnifying minor weaknesses in community forestry and by cultivating media rhetoric to justify recentralization, while hiding its own serious shortcomings in governance'' (3). Contributing to this discussion of ''monopolizing'' the policy process, the present study also adds to recent literature on the importance of context-sensitive governance and formalization policy in the ASM sector in Africa (Dondeyne and Ndunguru 2014;Hirons 2014;Jønsson and Fold 2014) and recent debates on ''reconfiguring state power'' in Zimbabwe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Formalization Policies and Recentralizing Power: The Case of Zimbabwe's Artisanal Gold Mining Sector

Spiegel

2015

Society & Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community Forestry and the Threat of Recentralization in Nepal: Contesting the Bureaucratic Hegemony in Policy Process

Cited by 60 publications

References 23 publications

REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance?

REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance?

1. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition

Shifting Formalization Policies and Recentralizing Power: The Case of Zimbabwe's Artisanal Gold Mining Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About