The Effect of the Nepal Community Forestry Program on Equity in Benefit Sharing

• Author: Randall A. Bluffstone,Harisharan Luintel,Robert M. Scheller,Bhim Adhikari
• Date: 01 September 2017
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496517707305
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Effect of the Nepal

Community Forestry

Program on Equity in

Benefit Sharing

Harisharan Luintel

1,2

, Randall A. Bluffstone

3

,

Robert M. Scheller

4

, and Bhim Adhikari

5

Abstract

We assessed the effectiveness of Nepalese Community Forestry Program (CFP)

in increasing local perceptions of equity in benefit sharing. Our aim is to inform

emerging forest policy that aims to mitigate climate change, promote biodiversity

conservation, and address poverty and livelihood needs. We collected data from

1,300 households from nationally representative samples of 65 CFP communities

and 65 non-CFP communities. By using a robust method of covariates matching,

we demonstrate the unique and positive effect of the CFP on perception of equity

in benefit sharing at national level and among poor, Dalits, indigenous and women-

headed households and in the hills (except Terai). Our results suggest the need to

continue the current benefit-sharing practices in CFP except in the Terai, where such

practices need to be reviewed. However, caution should be taken in implementing

emerging carbon-focused forestry so that it does not alter the CFP management suf-

ficiently to conflict with equity goals and upend the generally positive effects on equity.

Keywords

benefit sharing, community forestry, equity, Nepal, social groups

Journal of Environment &

Development

2017, Vol. 26(3) 297–321

!The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1070496517707305

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

1

School of the Environment, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

2

ForestAction Nepal, Patan, Nepal

3

Department of Economics, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

4

Department of Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

5

International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Harisharan Luintel, School of the Environment, Portland State University, Portland OR, USA.

Email: hluintel@gmail.com

Many governments in tropical countries have been promoting decentralized

forestry to involve forest-dependent communities and households in the conser-

vation and management of local forests. A key aspect of decentralized forestry is

that it devolves all or part of forest management rights from governments to

local or even household levels (Charnley & Poe, 2007; Larson & Soto, 2008), and

there is a growing consensus that decentralized forestry has the potential to

reconcile sometimes-conf‌licting goals of social justice, equity, and environmental

sustainability (Gauld, 2000). Concerns over equity have inf‌luenced many social

movements related to human rights, global trade, and climate change (Gross,

2007), and in recent years, equity has been one of the central concerns regarding

forest management (Adhikari & Di Falco, 2009). Indeed, it is increasingly con-

sidered to be a legitimate basis for judging the ef‌fectiveness of forest commons

management (e.g., Li, 1996), af‌fecting not only the motivation of community

members but also credibility, acceptability, and socioenvironmental outcomes

(McDermott, 2009).

The concept of equity is based on human needs related to survival, self-

concept, and dignity through which people evaluate their social standing in a

society (Mapel, 1989). Equity ref‌lects the existence of social justice that includes

contextual, procedural, and distributional dimensions, where context refers to

the capacity of actors to participate and capture benef‌its, procedures focus on

decision-making processes, and distribution considers how costs, benef‌its, and

risks are shared (McDermott, Mahanty, & Schreckenberg, 2013). In the context

of natural resource management, equity ref‌lects a situation of fairness in which

everyone has just and equal opportunities to participate in decision-making

processes and access the resources required to achieve full potential (Mahanty,

Fox, Nurse, Stephen, & McLees, 2006). A core determinant of equity, fairness is

expected in day-to-day interactions (Gross, 2007) and in general requires value

judgments in a particular context (Schreckenberg & Luttrell, 2009). Perspectives

on fairness therefore vary across cultures, time, and space.

Equity and fairness are likely to be especially important for

decentralized and incentive-based forest management. An important example

of incentive-based approach to forest management is Reducing Emissions

from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Conservation and Enhancement

of Carbon and Sustainable Management of Forest (REDD+), which is an

international climate change initiative that provides f‌inancial resources to low-

income countries in exchange for verif‌iable reductions in forest-based emissions

(Wunder, 2008). While both decentralized forestry and REDD+ have the

potential for poverty reduction and support for forest-dependent communities

(Eliasch, 2008; Luintel, Ojha, Rana, Subedi, & Dhungana, 2009; World Bank,

2004), their incentives may dif‌ferentially benef‌it individuals and groups and

thereby create dif‌ferent perceptions of equity in benef‌it sharing.

Equity has so far been assessed either by using tangible benef‌its or by using

perception of communities receiving benef‌its. Equity as measured by tangible

298 Journal of Environment & Development 26(3)