Learning to manage a complex resource: a case of NTFP assessment in Nepal

Ojha, Hemant; Bhattarai, Badri

doi:10.1505/ifor.5.2.118.17416

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Planning and decision-making within the FUGs is carried out by executive committees. Many FUGs in Baglung have banned grazing and extraction in order to promote forest regeneration, but this is determined by committee members who have not taken part in open discussions about the potential supply of forest products such as firewood, fodder and timber, a situation not uncommon in Nepal (Branney et al 2001;Ojha & Bhattarai 2003;Adhikari et al 2004). Methods which explicitly help FUGs to plan and monitor their management can therefore enhance the value of the forest to members, by clarifying the consequences of over-or under-harvesting and of distribution of benefits, and contribute to more equitable decision-making.…”

Section: Research Site and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Lawrence

Paudel²,

Barnes

et al. 2006

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of action research in community forests, stakeholders' values for biodiversity can be elicited, communicated and understood with the help of a multidimensional conceptual framework. This incorporates levels of diversity (genes, species, habitats and processes), types of values (direct use, indirect use, option and existence) and stakeholders. This paper explores the effect of using this framework on forest monitoring, learning and communication, and wider implications for conservation, in Baglung District (Nepal). Monitoring was initially an unfamiliar concept to villagers, but the process clarified its purpose, whilst helping to elicit and exchange values and knowledge amongst stakeholders. This precipitated proposals for silvicultural experimentation and social inquiry into the diversity of users' needs. The framework allowed the translation of local value statements into categories recognized by other actors. It aided external stakeholders in understanding the factors contributing to values held by community forest users. Villagers' appreciation of ‘quality’ forest did not necessarily equate to the most ‘biodiverse’ forest, but rather the greenest and densest and that stocked with useful species. Elite domination, tenure and access to markets affected values assigned and behaviour in forest management. Elicitation of these values provoked questioning of forest management decisions and benefit sharing among community forest users. This, in turn, stimulated more democratic forest management and more inclusive, wide-ranging biodiversity values. Participatory monitoring is more conceptually challenging than is usually recognized, and the links between equity and conservation merit further attention in different cultural contexts.

show abstract

Section: Research Site and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Lawrence

Paudel²,

Barnes

et al. 2006

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Above-ground tree and sapling biomass Murthy et al 2006;Verplanke and Zahabu 2009;Subedi et al 2010 Below-ground biomass Murthy et al 2006;Subedi et al 2010 Herb and grass biomass Subedi et al 2010 Leaf litter Subedi et al 2010 Soil organic carbon Subedi et al 2010 Total carbon stock density Skutsch et al 2009;Subedi et al 2010 Non-timber forest products Participatory tools for decision making 4R framework Lynam et al 2007;Evans et al 2006 Bayesian belief networks Lynam et al 2007 Discourse-based valuation Lynam et al 2007;Wilson and Howarth 2002 Focus group discussion Lynam et al 2007; Future scenarios Wollenberg et al 2000;CIFOR 2007;Lynam et al 2007Key informant McDougall 2001Lynam et al 2007 Pebble distribution method Lynam et al 2007;van der Meer et al 2007 Participatory mapping Ojha and Bhattarai 2003;Lynam et al 2007 Participatory Spidergrammes Lynam et al 2007 System dynamic modeling Lynam et al 2007 Venn diagrams Hamilton et al 2001;Lynam et al 2007 Who Counts matrix Colfer et al 1999;Purnomo et al 2005;Lynam et al 2007 Annex 1. Continued…”

Section: Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on compliance and impact monitoring indicators for delivery of forest ecosystem services

Savilaakso¹,

Meijaard²,

Guariguata³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The difference with adaptive management, compared with less 'intentional' forms of management, lies in the explicit planning for the 'doing' to be information-driven in addition to being result-driven. It can be quite challenging for managers to expand from choosing actions with the greatest likely effect, or possibly the least harm, to inclusion of actions which provide the greatest learning about the system (Lessard, 1998;McDaniels & Gregory, 2004;Ojha & Bhattarai, 2003).…”

Section: Do What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Components of Adaptive Management

Argent

2009

Adaptive Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive Management of ecosystems for production and preservation is a cyclical process with four components: learning, describing, predicting and doing. Learning involves monitoring and evaluation, describing uses models to summarise and represent systems, prediction and gaming are used to test policies and proposed actions, and the doing is done through management experiments. Successful adaptive management needs clear objectives, data and knowledge, the right participants, science skill, willing partners, and money and time. Additionally, in doing adaptive management it is necessary to drive and steer the process, keep momentum, embrace uncertainty, and beware of the danger of half measures. Adaptive management supports decisions and resource allocation, and provides a framework for action directed to changing ecosystem state while learning through and from such change. It focuses conversation and reduces arguments and finger pointing; and also reduces excuses for inaction, provides system understanding, identifies data and knowledge gaps, and sets up a time and space framework for explanation of key processes. Adaptive management won't make decisions, won't do the work or the thinking, and has scientific, social, political and economic aspects that may cause failure, but which, when understood and embraced, provide the framework for successful ecosystem improvement.

show abstract

Learning to manage a complex resource: a case of NTFP assessment in Nepal

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

A review on compliance and impact monitoring indicators for delivery of forest ecosystem services

Components of Adaptive Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About