REDD+ comes with money, not with development: an analysis of post-pilot project scenarios from the community forestry of Nepal Himalaya

References

• Aase TH, Chapagain PS, Tiwari PC. 2013. Innovation as an expression of adaptive capacity to change in Himalayan farming. Mt Res Dev. Feb 1;33:4–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aase TH, Chaudhary RP, Vetaas OR. 2010. Farming flexibility and food security under climatic uncertainty: Manang, Nepal Himalaya. Area. 42:228–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Angelsen A. 2009. Realising strategy and policy options. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals.
   Google Scholar
• Angelsen A. 2009a. Introduction. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, editors. Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. Bogor: CIFOR; p. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Angelsen A. 2009b. Policy options to reduce deforestation. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, editors. Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. Bogor: CIFOR; p. 125–138.
   Google Scholar
• Angelsen A, MacNeill D. 2012. Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Bogor: The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The evolution of REDD+; p. 31–49.
   Google Scholar
• Angelsen A, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. 2008. Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). What are the key design issues for REDD and the criteria for assessing options?; p. 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Bastakoti RR, Davidsen C. 2014. REDD+ and forest tenure security: concerns in Nepal’s community forestry. Int J Sust Dev World. Mar 4;21:168–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry S. 1989. Social institutions and access to resources. Africa. 1:41–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CBS. 2011. National population and housing census 2011 (national report). Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
   Google Scholar
• Chhatre A, Agrawal A. 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. P Natl Acad Sci USA. Oct 20;106:17667–17670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhatre A, Lakhanpal S, Larson AM, Nelson F, Ojha H, Rao J. 2012. Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible. Curr Opin Env Sust. Dec;4:654–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbera E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr Opin Env Sust. Dec;4:612–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DDC. 2013. Samudayik Ban Bikas Karyakram [Community forestry development programme]. Charikot, Dolakha: District Forest Office (DFO), Disctrict Developement Committee (DDC).
   Google Scholar
• Eckholm EP. 1975. The deterioration of mountain environments. Science. 189:764–770.
   PubMed 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
• Gautam AP, Webb EL, Shivakoti GP. 2002. Local participants’ perceptions about socio-economic and environmental impacts of community forestry in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Asia Pac J Rural Develop. 12:60–81.
   Google Scholar
• GoN-MoFSC. 2010. Nepal’s readiness praparation proposal: REDD 2010–2013. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), Government of Nepal (GoN).
   Google Scholar
• GoV-Nepal. 1993. Forest act (Ban Ain), 1993 AD/2049 BS. Kathmandu: DoF, MoFSC. p. 95.
   Google Scholar
• ICIMOD, ANSAB, FECOFUN. 2011. Operational guidelines of forest carbon trust fund for regulating SEED GRANT under community forestry REDD+ project, Nepal. Kathmandu: Community Forestry REDD+ Project.
   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
• Jackson WJ, Tamrakar RM, Hunt S, Shepherd KR. 1998. Land use changes in two Middle Hills district of Nepal. Mt Res Dev. 18:193–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatri DB, Paudel NS 2013. Is Nepal getting ready for REDD+? An assessment of REDD+ readiness process in Nepal. Kathmandu: F Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Lama A, Buchy M. 2002. Gender, class, caste and participation: the case of community forestry in Nepal. Indian J Gend Stud. 9:27–41.
   Google Scholar
• Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I. 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev. Feb;27:225–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach M, Scoones I. 2013. Carbon forestry in West Africa: the politics of models, measures and verification processes. Global Environ Change. 23:957–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D, Brockhaus M, Angelsen A, Sunderlin WD. 2013. Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecol Soc. [Internet]. 18:52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malla YB. 2001. Changing policies and the persistence of patron-client relations in Nepal: stakeholders’ responses to changes in forest policies. Environ Hist. 6:287–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maraseni TN, Neupane PR, Lopez-Casero F, Cadman T. 2014. An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community forests in Nepal. J Environ Manage. 136:37–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neupane S, Shrestha KK. 2012. Sustainable forest governance in a changing climate: impacts of REDD program on the livelihood of poor communities in Nepalese community forestry. OIDA Int J Sust Dev. 4:71–82.
   Google Scholar
• Nightingale AJ. 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. J For Livelihoods. 2:17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Niraula RR, Gilani H, Pokharel BK, Qamer FM. 2013. Measuring impacts of community forestry program through repeat photography and satellite remote sensing in the Dolakha district of Nepal. J Environ Manage. Sept 15;126:20–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojha HR, Khatri D, Shrestha KK, Bushley B, Sharma N. 2013. Carbon, community and governance: Is Nepal getting ready for REDD+?. Forests Trees Livelihoods. Dec 1;22:216–229.
   Google Scholar
• Oli BN, Shrestha K. 2009. Carbon status in forests of Nepal: an overview. J For Livelihood. 8:62–67.
   Google Scholar
• Parasai RB. 2011. Community forest monitoring for the carbon market: opportunities under REDD. London: Earthscan. Will poor Nepalese communities be able to access REDD+ carbon credits? A legal analysis; p. 169–181.
   Google Scholar
• Patel T, Dhiaulhaq A, Gritten D, Yasmi Y, de Bruyn T, Paudel NS, Luintel H, Khatri DB, Silori C, Suzuki R. 2013. Predicting future conflict under REDD+ implementation. Forests. Jun;4:343–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paudel NS, Jana S, Khatiwada B. 2012. Contestation and citizen-led negotiation around the establishment of protected areas in Nepal Himalaya. J For Livelihood. 10:41–57.
   Google Scholar
• Paudel NS, Khatri DB, Khanal DR, Karki R 2013. The context of REDD+ in Nepal: drivers, agents, and institutions. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 30p.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A. 2010. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science. Apr 16;328:312–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokorny B, Scholz I, de Jong W. 2013. REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecol Soc. [Internet]. 18:3. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05458-180203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poudel M, Thwaites R, Race D, Dahal GR. 2014. REDD plus and community forestry: Implications for local communities and forest management - a case study from Nepal. Int For Rev. 16:39–54.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder H, McDermott C. 2014. Beyond carbon: enabling justice and equity in REDD+ across levels of governance. Ecol Soc. [Internet]. 19:31. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06537-190131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skutsch M, Simon C, Velazquez A, Fernandez JC. 2013. Rights to carbon and payments for services rendered under REDD plus: options for the case of Mexico. Global Environ Chang. Aug;23:813–825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2006. Report of the conference of the parties on its eveventh session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005 (FCCC/CP/2005/5). Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
   Google Scholar
• Venter O, Koh LP. 2012. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick fix? Year Ecol Conserv Biol. 1249:137–150.
   Google Scholar
• Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Gupta A, Herold M, Pena-Claros M, Vijge MJ. 2012. Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary research to address key challenges. Curr Opin Env Sust. Dec;4:590–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallbott L. 2014. Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: “importing power” and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecol Soc. [Internet]. 19:21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06111-190121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollenberg E, Springate-Baginski O. 2010. Introduction. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BWollenberg0101.pdf
   Google Scholar