REDD+ and forest tenure security: concerns in Nepal’s community forestry

References

• Agrawal A, Ostrom E. 2008. Decentralization and community-based forestry: learning from experience. In: Webb EL, Shivakoti G, editors. Decentralization, forests and rural communities: policy outcomes in South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Sage; p. 44–67.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett AG. 1992. A review of community forestry advances in Nepal. Commonw Forest Rev. 71:95–100.
   Google Scholar
• Basnet R. 2009. Carbon ownership in community managed forests. J Forest Livelihood. 8:78–84.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie P. 2001. Social nature and environmental policy in the South: views from verandah and veld. In: Castree N, Braun B, editors. Social nature: theory, practice, and politics. Oxford: Blackwell; p. 133–150.
   Google Scholar
• Bleaney A, Vickers B, Peskett L. 2009. REDD in Nepal: putting community forestry centre stage? REDD-net [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 29]. Available from: http://www.redd-net.org/posts/reddinnepalputtingcommunityforestrycentrestage
   Google Scholar
• Boyd E, May P, Chang M, Weiga F. 2007. Exploring socioeconomic impacts of forest based mitigation projects: lessons from Brazil and Bolivia. Environ Sci Policy. 10:419–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branney P, Yadav KP. 1998. Changes in community forest condition and management 1994–1998: analysis of information from the forest resources assessment study and socio-economic study in the Koshi Hills. Kathmandu: Nepal UK Community Forestry Project. Project Report G/NUKCFP/32.
   Google Scholar
• Brockhaus M, Obidzinski K, Dermawan A, Laumonier Y, Luttrell C. 2012. An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD plus? Forest Policy Econ. 18:30–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant RL. 1992. Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in third world studies. Polit Geogr. 11:12–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushley BR. 2010. Governance challenges of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Nepal. Recon Dev. 1:1.
   Google Scholar
• Cadman T, Maraseni T. 2012. The governance of REDD+: an institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. J Environ Plann Manage. 55:617–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castree N. 2001. Socializing nature: theory, practice, and politics. In: Castree N, Braun B, editors. Social nature: theory, practice, and politics. Oxford: Blackwell; p. 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Chapagain A. 2012 Jul 15. Forests can’t survive without communities. Down To Earth [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jan 30]. Available from: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/forests-can-t-survive-without-communities
   Google Scholar
• Cotula L, Mayers J. 2009. Tenure in REDD: start-point or afterthought? London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
   Google Scholar
• De Konig R, Capistrano D, Yasmi Y. 2008. Forest related conflict: impacts, links, and measures to mitigate. Washington (DC): Rights and Resources Initiative.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Forestry. n.d. CFUG database. (Internal database; last cited August 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Dermawan A, Petkova E, Sinaga A, Mumu Muhajir M, Indriatmoko Y. 2011. Preventing the risk of corruption in REDD+ in Indonesia. Jakarta and Bogor: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Center for International Forestry Research.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty E, Schroeder H. 2011. Forest tenure and multi-level governance in avoiding deforestation under REDD. Global Environ Polit. 11:66–88.
   Google Scholar
• Dooley K, Griffiths T, Martone F, Ozinga S. 2011. Smoke and mirrors: a critical assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Brussel: FERN and Forest Peoples Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Dulal H, Shah K, Sapkota C. 2012. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) projects: lessons for future policy design and implementation. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 19:116–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobar A. 1999. After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Curr Anthropol. 40:1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I. 2012. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J Peasant Stud. 39:237–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002. Land tenure and rural development. Land tenure study 3. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Agriculture Organization. 2011. Reforming forest tenure issues, principles and process. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL. 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int Forest Rev. 6:136–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilmour D, Malla Y, Nurse M. 2004. Linkages between community forestry and poverty. Bangkok: RECOFTC.
   Google Scholar
• GoN. 2010. Nepal’s readiness preparation proposal REDD 2010–2013. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• GoN/MFS C. 2008. Readiness programme idea note (R-PIN) for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal/Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• Goers-Williams L, Larsen G, Lupberger S, Daviet F, Davis C. 2011. Getting ready with forest governance: a review of the World Bank forest carbon partnership facility readiness preparation proposals and the UN-REDD national programme documents. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths T. 2009. Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, climate change mitigation and the rights of indigenous peoples. Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Program.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huettner M. 2012. Risks and opportunities of REDD plus implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environ Sci Policy. 15:4–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. Good practice guidance for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
   Google Scholar
• Ives JD. 1989. Deforestation in the Himalayas: the cause of increased flooding in Bangladesh and Northern India? Land Use Policy. 6:187–193.
   Google Scholar
• Kandel PN. 2007. Effects of forest certification towards sustainable community forestry in Nepal. Banko Janakari. 17:11–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kanel KR. 2004. Twenty-five years of community forestry: contribution to millennium development goals. In: Kanel KR, Mathema P, Niraula DR, Kandel BR, Gautam M, editors. Twenty-five years of community forestry proceedings of the fourth national workshop on community forestry; 2004 Aug 4–6; Kathmandu: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forests; p. 4–18.
   Google Scholar
• Kanel KR. 2006. Nepal’s forest policies on community forestry development: the government perspective. In: Gyamtsho P, Singh BK, Rasul G, editors. Capitalisation and sharing of experiences on the interaction between forest policies and land use patterns in Asia: linking people with resources, Volume 2. Kathmandu: SDC and ICIMOD; p. 35–52.
   Google Scholar
• Kanel KR, Dahal GR. 2008. Community forestry policy and its economic implications: an experience from Nepal. Int J Soc Forest. 1:50–60.
   Google Scholar
• Khatri DB, Paudel N. 2013. Is Nepal getting ready for REDD+? An assessment of REDD+ readiness process in Nepal. Discussion paper series 12.2. Kathmandu: ForestAction Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Knox A, Caron C, Goldstein A, Miner J. 2010. The interface of land and natural resource tenure and climate change mitigation strategies: challenges and options. Paper presented at: The Expert Meeting on Land Tenure Issues for Implementing Climate Change Mitigation Policies in the AFOLU sectors; 2010 Nov 15–17. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Larson A. 2011. Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: lessons for REDD+. Global Environ Change. 21:540–549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson AM, Barry D, Dahal GR. 2010. New rights for forest-based communities? Understanding processes of forest tenure reform. Int Forest Rev. 12:78–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leggett M, Lovell H. 2012. Community perceptions of REDD+: a case study from Papua New Guinea. Clim Policy. 12:115–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster R. 2011. REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law. Environ Sci Policy. 14:118–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macintosh A. 2012. The Australia clause and REDD: a cautionary tale. Clim Change. 112:169–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNally R, Sage N, Holland T. 2009. Understanding REDD: implications for Lao PDR. Nepal and Vietnam: SNV Netherlands Development Organisation and Indochina Carbon.
   Google Scholar
• Meinzen-Dick R, Markelova H, Moore K. 2010. The role of collective action and property rights in climate change strategies. Policy Brief Number 7 ~ February 2010. Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi).
   Google Scholar
• Mustalahti I, Bolin A, Boyd E, Paavola J. 2012. Can REDD+ reconcile local priorities and needs with global mitigation benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecol Soc. 17:16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mustalahti I, Tassa DT. 2012. Analysis of three crucial elements of REDD plus in participatory forest management. Scand J Forest Res. 27:200–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagendra H. 2007. Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 104:15218–15223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Planning Commission. 2007. Three Year Interim Plan: 2007/08-2009/10. Nepal: National Planning Commission.
   Google Scholar
• National Planning Commission. 2010. Three Year Plan: 2010/11-2012/13. Nepal: National Planning Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha H. 2008. Reframing governance: understanding deliberative politics in Nepal’s Terai forestry. New Delhi: Adroit.
   Google Scholar
• Osafo Y. 2010. REDD-net case study. A review of tree tenure and land rights in Ghana and their implications for carbon rights in a national REDD+ scheme. REDD-net.
   Google Scholar
• Pagdee A, Kim YS, Daugherty P. 2006. What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour. 19:32–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagiola S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econom. 65:712–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel T, Dhiaulhaq A, Gritten D, Yasmi Y, de Bruyn T, Paudel NS, Luintel HS, Khatri DB, Silori C. 2013. Predicting future conflict under REDD+ implementation. Forests. 4:343–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paudel NS, Khatri DB, Khanal DR, Karki R. 2013. The context of REDD+ in Nepal: challenges and opportunities. Occasional Paper 81. Bogor: CIFOR.
   Google Scholar
• Peluso NL. 1992. Rich forests, poor people: resource control, and resistance in Java. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peskett L, Huberman D, Bowen-Jones E, Edwards G, Brown J. 2008. Making REDD work for the poor, poverty and environment partnership (PES) Policy Brief. London: ODI.
   Google Scholar
• Petkova E, Larson A, Pacheco P. 2010. Forest governance, decentralization and REDD+ in Latin America. Forests. 1:250–250.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps J, Webb E, Agrawal A. 2010. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science. 328:312–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandbrook C, Nelson F, Adams WM, Agrawal A. 2010. Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox. Oryx. 44:330–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiva V. 2000. Tomorrow’s biodiversity. London: Thames and Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Sikor T, Stehl J, Enters T, Ribot JC, Singh N, Sunderlin WD, Wollenberg L. 2010. Will REDD-plus, forest people’s rights and nested climate governance. Global Environ Change. 20:423–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skutsch M, Karky B, Rana E, Kotru R, Karki S, Joshi L, Pradhan N, Gilani H, Joshi G. 2012. Options for payment mechanisms under national REDD+ programmes. ICIMOD Working Paper 2012/6. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
   Google Scholar
• Smith J, Scherr S. 2002. Forest carbon and local livelihoods: assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations. Bagor: CIFOR.
   Google Scholar
• Sunam RK, Banjade MR, Paudel NS, Khatri DB. 2010. Can bureaucratic control improve community forestry governance? An analysis of proposed Forest Act amendment. Kathmandu: ForestAction.
   Google Scholar
• Sunam RK, Paudel N, Paudel G. 2013. Community forestry and the threat of recentralization in Nepal: contesting the bureaucratic hegemony in policy process. Soc Nat Res Int J. 26:1407–1421.
   Google Scholar
• Sunderlin WD, Hatcher J, Liddle M. 2008. From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Washington (DC): Rights and Resources Initiative.
   Google Scholar
• Sunderlin WD, Larson AM, Cronkleton P. 2009. Forest tenure rights and REDD. In: Angelsen A, editor. Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. Bogor: CIFOR.
   Google Scholar
• Tachibana T, Adhikari S. 2009. Does community-based management improve natural resource condition? Evidence from the forests in Nepal. Land Econom. 85:107–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapa GB, Weber KE. 1990. Actors and factors of deforestation in ‘Tropical Asia’. Environ Conserv. 17:19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson M, Baruah M, Carr E. 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy. 14:100–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uprety DR, Luintel H, Bhandari K. 2011. REDD+ and conflict: a case study of the REDD+ projects in Nepal. Kathmandu: The Center for People and Forest and ForestAction Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Vhugen D, Aguilar S, Peskett L, Miner J. 2012. REDD+ and carbon rights: lessons from the field. Property Rights and Resource Governance Project. Landesa, Seattle, WA: USAID.
   Google Scholar
• White A, Martin A. 2002. Who owns the world’s forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Washington (DC): Forest Trends & Centre for International Environmental Law.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 1979. Forestry in Nepal. Nepal development performance and prospects. Washington (DC): World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2007. Forest law and sustainable development. Washington (DC): World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• World Resources Institute. 2005. The wealth of the poor – managing ecosystems to fight poverty. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Wunder S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Bagor: CIFOR.
   Google Scholar
• Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econom. 65:834–852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yasmi Y, Kelley L, Murdiyarso D, Patel T. 2012. The struggle over Asia’s forests: an overview of forest conflict and potential implications for REDD. Int Forest Rev. 14:99–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar