Abstract
Increased participation of local users in decision-making about forests and gaining benefits from these forests are major goals of the community forestry program in Nepal. However, there is a lack of real participation in community forest governance amongst users, particularly by poor and marginalised members. By employing a mixed-method approach, this research explores the issue of participation in the governance of community forests, and in particular the role of incentives in increasing participation. A partial least square approach is undertaken to link the participation indicators to the various incentives. Access to benefits, enforcement of legal property rights and social cohesion through building of local institutions are identified as the key influential incentives that determine the effective participation of users in community forest governance. Other incentive—including income supplements, community infrastructure development or payment for environment services—are insufficient to counter the opportunity cost of participation, and hence have a weak but still significant influence on users’ decisions to participate. Power inequality due to socio-cultural norms, together with poor economic capabilities and weak bargaining power, could undermine the meaningful participation of poor and disadvantaged groups in the governance of community forests, unless the community forestry institutions are strengthened in order to be able to deal with the issues of inequitable access and restricted opportunities at the local level.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Incentives are defined as those mechanisms that positively affect an individual’s attitude and behaviour, which then motivate their active participation in collective arrangements for improved governance and management of their forest resources.
The members of CFUGs are the households which have been managing and utilising the forest resources.
References
Adhikari B, Williams F, Lovett JC (2007) Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ 9(5):464–478
Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10):1623–1648
Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114
Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics Soc 29(4):485–514
Arnold JEM (1998) Managing forests as common property. Community Forestry Paper 136, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
Aryal B, Angelsen A (2006) Is community forest management in Nepal excluding the poor? Environmental and Resource Economists. 3rd World Congress. 3–7 July 2006. Kyoto, Japan. Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
Buchy M, Subba S (2003) Why is community forestry a social- and gender-blind technology? The case of Nepal. Gender Technol Dev 7(3):313–332
Cohen JM, Uphoff NT (1980) Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev 8(3):213–235
DoF (2011) Forest User Groups (FUGs) Records available in MIS (unpublished). Department of Forests, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal
Elsasser P (2002) Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a National Forest Programme. For Policy Econ 4(4):291–300
Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Econl Econ 65(4):663–674
Faham E, Rezvanfar A, Shamekhi T (2008) Analysis of socio-economic factors influencing forest dwellers’ participation in reforestation and development of forest areas (The case study of West Mazandaran, Iran). Am J Agric Biol Sci 3(1):438–443
Fehrenbacher DD (2013) Design of incentive systems: experimental approach to incentive and sorting effects. Physica-Verlag, Berlin
Gautam KH (2006) Forestry, politicians and power—perspectives from Nepal’s forest policy. For Policy Econ 8(2):175–182
Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL (2004) A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int For Rev 6(2):136–148
Gunkel M, Lusk EJ, Wolff B (2009) Country-compatible incentive design. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:290–309
Gurung A, Karki R, Bista R (2011) Community-based forest management in Nepal: opportunities and challenges. Resour Environ 1(1):26–31
Jumbe CBL, Angelsen A (2007) Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):661–672
Kanel KR, Niraula DR (2004) Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari 14(1):19–26
Khadka KR (2009) Why does exclusion continue? Aid, knowledge and power in Nepal’s community forestry policy process. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht
Khanal BBC, Johnsen FH, Konoshima M, Yoshimoto A (2013) Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management. For Policy Econ 30:6–13
Khatri DB (2009) Compromising the environment in payments for environmental services? An institutional analysis of mechanisms for sharing hydroelectricity revenue in Kulekhani Watershed, Nepal, The Hague, The Netherlands
Knoke D (1988) Incentives in collective action organizations. Am Sociol Rev 53(3):311–329
Lise W (2000) Factors influencing people’s participation in forest management in India. Ecol Econ 34(3):379–392
Malinowski ER (2002) Factor analysis in chemistry, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Meinzen-Dick R, Knox A (2001) Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: a conceptual framework. In: Meinzen-Dick R, Knox A, Gregoria MD (eds) Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Feldafing, pp 41–73
MFSC (1995) The Forest Act 1993 and the Forest Regulations 1995. Official translation by Law Books Management Board, Forestry Development Project, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu
Nagendra H, Gokhale Y (2006) Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environ Manag 41(5):733–799
Ojha HR, Subedi BP, Dhungana H, Paudel D (2008) Citizen Participation in Forest Governance: Insights from Community Forestry in Nepal. Paper presented at the Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy, May 10–11, 2008, Yale University, New Haven
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33(2):237–253
Platteau J-P (2004) Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Dev Change 35(2):223–246
Pokharel RK (2010) Development of community infrastructure through community forestry funds: What infrastructure gets priority? Banko Janakari 20(1):44–50
Pokharel RK, Rayamajhi S, Tiwari KR (2012) Nepal’s community forestry: need for better governance. In: Okia CA (ed) Global perspectives on sustainable forest management. InTech, Shanghai
Puffer SM, Meindl JR (1992) The congruence of motives and incentives in a voluntary organization. J Organ Behav 13(4):425–434
Reza B, Bahaman AS, Asnarulkhadi AS, Shamasuddin A (2009) A social exchange approach to people’s participation in watersehd management program in Iran. Eur J Sci Res 34(3):428–441
StatSoft (2010) Partial least squares (PLS). StatSoft Electronic Statistics Textbook (Electronic Version): StatSoft, Inc
Weinberger K, Jutting JP (2001) Women’s participation in local organizations: conditions and constraints. World Dev 29(8):1391–1404
Wickramasinghe K, Senaratne A (2009) Community forestry under conditions of low forest dependence: Experience from dry and intermediate zones of Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the Community Forestry International Workshop organized by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Pokhara, Nepal, 15–18 September, 2009
Wold S (1995) PLS for multivariate linear modeling. In: Mannhold R, Krogsgaard-Larsen P, Timmerman H (eds) Chemometric methods in molecular design: methods and principles in medicinal chemistry. VCH Publishers, Weinheim
Wunder S (2005) Payment for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia
Yadav BD, Bigsby H, MacDonald I (2008) Who are controlling community forestry user groups in Nepal? Scrutiny of elite theory. Paper presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, August 28–29, 2008, Nelson, New Zealand
Yang Z, Chenghu Z, Yongmin Z (2007) A partial least-squares regression approach to land use studies in the Suzhou–Wuxi–Changzhou region. J Geog Sci 17(2):234–244
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all members of the community forest user groups in the survey, who generously participated in this research regardless of their busy schedules and household chores. We are grateful to the professionals involved in the community forestry and the local key informants, who shared their views and experiences for this research. We would like to thank Massey University for the financial support to conduct this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adhikari, S., Kingi, T. & Ganesh, S. Incentives and Community Participation in the Governance of Community Forests in Nepal. Small-scale Forestry 15, 179–197 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9316-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9316-8