Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Incentives and Community Participation in the Governance of Community Forests in Nepal

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10):1623–1648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics Soc 29(4):485–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JM, Uphoff NT (1980) Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev 8(3):213–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DoF (2011) Forest User Groups (FUGs) Records available in MIS (unpublished). Department of Forests, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehrenbacher DD (2013) Design of incentive systems: experimental approach to incentive and sorting effects. Physica-Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam KH (2006) Forestry, politicians and power—perspectives from Nepal’s forest policy. For Policy Econ 8(2):175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel M, Lusk EJ, Wolff B (2009) Country-compatible incentive design. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:290–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurung A, Karki R, Bista R (2011) Community-based forest management in Nepal: opportunities and challenges. Resour Environ 1(1):26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanel KR, Niraula DR (2004) Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari 14(1):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Khadka KR (2009) Why does exclusion continue? Aid, knowledge and power in Nepal’s community forestry policy process. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lise W (2000) Factors influencing people’s participation in forest management in India. Ecol Econ 34(3):379–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski ER (2002) Factor analysis in chemistry, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H, Gokhale Y (2006) Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environ Manag 41(5):733–799

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platteau J-P (2004) Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Dev Change 35(2):223–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokharel RK (2010) Development of community infrastructure through community forestry funds: What infrastructure gets priority? Banko Janakari 20(1):44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Puffer SM, Meindl JR (1992) The congruence of motives and incentives in a voluntary organization. J Organ Behav 13(4):425–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunit Adhikari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9316-8

Keywords

Navigation