UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Are traditional and modern forestry institutions complementary or do they prescribe contradictory rights in Trans-Himalayan Nepal? A lesson to be learned for REDD+ implementation

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1080/00291951.2017.1413418

Auteurs

Dilli Prasad Poudel

Année déclarée

2017

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:12:00.540950+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:12:00.540950+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

University of Bergen

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Rights to forest products are difficult to decide in situations when traditional management institutions exist parallel to formal ones. Such situations raise the question of whether the institutions are complementary or prescribe contradictory rights and management principles. Based on a household survey and key informant interviews, the article focuses on how diverging management principles can be harmonized to satisfy national forestry goals in Nepal. Villages in the Trans-Himalayan district of Mustang used to manage forests according to their traditional institutions but after 1993 they were included in a new management regime called Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMCs). The findings revealed that the villagers appreciated development initiatives undertaken by the CAMCs but three disjunctions regarding forest management existed between the CAMCs and traditional institutions: there was a disjunction between the two sets of rules for forest resource utilization; there were role dilemmas of local residents who were entrusted with CAMC implementation; and there were spatial disjunctions when formal administrative forest borders did not coincide with customary ones. The simultaneous existence of two institutions thus blurred the rights to forest resources. The author concludes that knowledge of the disjunction between parallel institutions is vital for accommodating new management schemes such as REDD+.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2776137333

DOI

10.1080/00291951.2017.1413418

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

NP

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Forêt

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1413418
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2776137333

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1493958753 · CITES
• openalex:w1509113417 · CITES
• openalex:w151963733 · CITES
• openalex:w1522872137 · CITES
• openalex:w1890494621 · CITES
• openalex:w1967988279 · CITES
• openalex:w1972970214 · CITES
• openalex:w1979922701 · CITES
• openalex:w1982375826 · CITES
• openalex:w1983916799 · CITES
• openalex:w1988846626 · CITES
• openalex:w1988894183 · CITES
• openalex:w1990000295 · CITES
• REDD+ and community forestry: implications for local communities and forest management- a case study from Nepal · CITES
• openalex:w1992841883 · CITES
• openalex:w1994467853 · CITES
• openalex:w2002763101 · CITES
• openalex:w2006031600 · CITES
• openalex:w2010938524 · CITES
• openalex:w2011321888 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.