UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

From participation to responsiveness: The changing priorities of community forestry governance in Nepal`s Terai

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.14214/df.282

Auteurs

Bishnu Prasad Devkota

Année déclarée

2019

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:19:10.118195+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:19:10.118195+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Tribhuvan University

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

The involvement of local people in the governance process, reliable and transparent engagement of disadvantaged people in decision-making and justice in benefit sharing have been the emerging strategies for the acceptance of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, forest conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks).However, closer scrutiny of the values of forest governance is needed in order to evaluate its effectiveness, contribute to its legitimacy and understand the interactions of governance attributes.At the same time, both at the international and national level, there is lack of clarity around the kinds of governance arrangements that can be implemented at the ground when striving for REDD+.This PhD thesis assesses the practicability and priorities of community forestry governance to articulate climate change mitigation initiatives by forest users.The focus includes factors associated with benefit sharing process, patterns of engagement of disadvantaged groups in community forestry and the impact of REDD+ implementation on social inclusivity of community forest user groups in Nepal`s Terai region.The study is based on grounded theory of qualitative approaches that builds on case studies from three community forest user groups and REDD+ interventions.Through the lens of a theoretical framework of common resources governance, the study assesses the similarities and differences between policy goals and observations of forest governance values and their impacts.Second, the study explains the nature of factors affecting benefit sharing and their impacts under REDD+ and other benefit sharing process in community forestry.Third, the study explores how existing policies and practices engage Dalits in community forestry governance processes.Finally, the study investigates how social inclusivity under REDD+ enhances representation and deliberation of disadvantaged groups and requires responsiveness in community leaders within community forestry.The study results are based on the focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and participant observation in three community forests of the Nepal´s Terai.Similarities and differences between the factors of forest governance are apparent within the specific conditions of each community.Qualitative differences in the implementation of governance initiatives have increased the level of dissatisfaction among the community forest users.Though poor users of community forest were highly dependent on forest resources, rich users benefit comparatively more due to their control over decision-making structures.The formal structures for engagement of disadvantaged groups in community forestry do not provide enough space for genuine participation.The benefits of REDD+ implementation have not trickled down as expected to ground level.However, the implementation of REDD+ has also positively supported governance in community forestry.Proportional representation of disadvantaged groups has been achieved but the criteria need revisiting to prioritize the inclusion of highly dependent users in community forestry.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2977701350

DOI

10.14214/df.282

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/10.14214/df.282
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2977701350

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:w1482147891 · CITES
• openalex:w1889743263 · CITES
• openalex:w1901363518 · CITES
• openalex:w1973808375 · CITES
• openalex:w1974149450 · CITES
• openalex:w1974595773 · CITES
• openalex:w1975261156 · CITES
• openalex:w1976633633 · CITES
• openalex:w1979602131 · CITES
• openalex:w1979922701 · CITES
• openalex:w1980452295 · CITES
• openalex:w1983981789 · CITES
• openalex:w1985322450 · CITES
• openalex:w1987794676 · CITES
• openalex:w1988181132 · CITES
• openalex:w1988894183 · CITES
• openalex:w1989007054 · CITES
• openalex:w1990000295 · CITES
• openalex:w1999012314 · CITES
• openalex:w2005066455 · CITES

1 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

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