REDD+ and Community Forestry in Nepal: Strengthening or Paralysing Decentralised Governance?

Abstract

At a time when community forestry has become a prominent mode of forest governance in many developing countries, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest degradation) has emerged as a new conservation policy to contribute to climate change mitigation by incentivising such countries to conserve forest. While the proponents of REDD+ claim that it can help to strengthen decentralised forest governance through an increased flow of resources of fund and knowledge, the critics evince that there are negative consequences of REDD+ implementation to the decentralisation process, local control, and access to forests. Drawing on the ongoing engagement of the authors in the national REDD+ policy process and an ethnographic study of the REDD+ initiatives in Nepal, this paper demonstrates that REDD+ might paralyze Nepal’s long-standing community forestry policy rather than strengthening it. Findings show the instrumental use of participation in REDD+ policy development and limited representation of local voices in the policy processes. The piloting project implemented on community forestry suggest that REDD+, if implemented at full scale, can put new demand(s) to the long-standing community forestry policy and practices resulting in threatening of local uses of forests by smallholders. The implementation of REDD+ is likely to reshape community forest management practices driven from the priority of generating revenue which in turn undermines the need to manage forests to meet diverse needs of the smallholders. This analysis indicates the need for paying greater attention to represent local voices in developing national policies and programs, and align REDD+ objectives to the core principles of community forest management, local access, and control of forests.

The Implication of REDD+ in Community Forestry (CF) Governance and Local Livelihood: A Case from Nepal

“…The trend of decentralization can be reversed as REDD+ monitoring technical complexity required more centralized governance. (Khatri, Maskey, et al, 2018),in their study also claimed that although CF has strengthened due to increased income source, REDD+ interventions can weaken decentralization of CF by giving limited rights in the CFUGs' decisions. Also, REDD+ funding mechanism may incite the governments to reverse the trend of decentralization towards a centralized forest governance system for the purpose of reaping rewards more centrally (Sandbrook et al, 2010).Analysis also showed that REDD+ policies have been developed and interventions are made in a way local people's participation and representation of their voices is limited which may weaken and reverse the trend of forest decentralization (Bushley and Khatri, 2011;Ojha et al, 2013;.…”

“…For deprived and medium-class users revenue generating activities were executed in both Kankali CFUG and Janapragati CFUG. In CFUGs, the disadvantaged group's representation in the executive committee has improved, though they feel that their voices do not impact the decision on CFUG and benefit sharing (Devkota, 2019).According to (Khatri, Maskey, et al, 2018), the REDD+ pilot project mandate the CFUGs to spent at least 50% of carbon payment funds in poverty minimization and livelihood upliftment activities targeting disadvantage groups, as these activities were included in the Forest Carbon Trust Fund (FCTF) Operational Guidelines. Additionally, CFUGs has practiced various climate change adaptation measures to cope with climate change (Godar Chhetri, 2012).…”

“…Additionally, CFUGs has practiced various climate change adaptation measures to cope with climate change (Godar Chhetri, 2012). About REDD+ 50% income was invested for livelihood improvement projects and for CFUG's administration and training activities the rest 10 % of the payment was used (Khatri, Maskey, et al, 2018;Shrestha et al, 2014).While some study findings show that the carbon centered interventions like REDD+ gave priority to the carbon outcome as it is a payment mechanism rather than community forestry's forest management objective which aims to meet the local needs of people (Khatri, Marquardt, et al, 2018). Also, lack of attention in safeguarding the local people as well as marginalized communities rights, and interests reflected in REDD+ policy documents (MoFSC, 2010).…”

“…First of all, forests are changing into monoculture or forest plantation which tends to increase the carbon outcome while putting biodiversity and socio-cultural values at stake (Agrawal et al, 2011;Reed, 2011). Also these interventions have the potential risk of undermining the several ecosystem services that the local people usually depend upon (Khatri, Maskey, et al, 2018). Bushley and Khatri (2011) in their study state that governance is a concerned issue in the REDD+ debates, the current REDD+ readiness process lacks safeguards and mechanisms for monitoring to confirm the benefits from the biodiversity and effective decentralized forest governance.…”

Water Security and Inclusive Water Governance in the Himalayas

“…Nepal's forest policy and legislation has lingering uncertainty about forest tenure and allocation of rights of access and control. For example, in the region of the Terai, demands by distant users is often a justification for denying local community rights (Khatri et al, 2018 get other indirect benefits. A unique arrangement in this case was to differentiate people living in areas close to the project site and other "affected areas" outside and to provide benefits on that basis.…”