Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests: Does one size fit all?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests : Does one size fit all? / Baral, Srijana; Hansen, Christian Pilegaard; Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal.

In: Small-Scale Forestry, 26.06.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Baral, S, Hansen, CP & Chhetri, BBK 2020, 'Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests: Does one size fit all?', Small-Scale Forestry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

APA

Baral, S., Hansen, C. P., & Chhetri, B. B. K. (2020). Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests: Does one size fit all? Small-Scale Forestry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

Vancouver

Baral S, Hansen CP, Chhetri BBK. Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests: Does one size fit all? Small-Scale Forestry. 2020 Jun 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

Author

Baral, Srijana ; Hansen, Christian Pilegaard ; Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal. / Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests : Does one size fit all?. In: Small-Scale Forestry. 2020.

Bibtex

@article{daebdc57278345ec86f838f6cd5a14f7,
title = "Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests: Does one size fit all?",
abstract = "Technical forest management plans are prerequisites for obtaining forest management rights by community forest user groups in Nepal. However, the relevance of such plans and the rationale for accepting them remain unexplored. Using a multiple-case-study approach, we examine the contents of the silvicultural prescriptions, and the relevance of these prescriptions in day-to-day forest management, and assess the reasons for accepting or rejecting the plans. To do so, we conducted content analysis of 34 plans, direct observations of forest management activities and semistructured interviews, informal conversations, and focus group discussions in nine selected community forest user groups. We also interviewed representatives of the Nepalese forest bureaucracy. We found that the silvicultural prescriptions were identical in all plans and that they were not guided by forest management objectives, forest conditions, and the socioeconomic conditions of the users. Moreover, neither the forest users nor the forest bureaucracy made use of the plans and the prescriptions in forest management. However, both groups accept the plans, albeit for different reasons. The users accept the plans because they considered them necessary in order to gain access to the forest resource, while for the forest bureaucracy, the plan serves as a tool for regaining power and authority over the forest. We argue that there is a need for a closer fit between the management plans and the social, economic, and ecological realities they are embedded in.",
keywords = "Decentralized forest management, Forest access, Forest bureaucracy, Power, Silvicultural prescriptions",
author = "Srijana Baral and Hansen, {Christian Pilegaard} and Chhetri, {Bir Bahadur Khanal}",
year = "2020",
month = "6",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9",
language = "English",
journal = "Small-Scale Forestry",
issn = "1873-7617",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forest management plans in Nepal’s community forests

T2 - Does one size fit all?

AU - Baral, Srijana

AU - Hansen, Christian Pilegaard

AU - Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal

PY - 2020/6/26

Y1 - 2020/6/26

N2 - Technical forest management plans are prerequisites for obtaining forest management rights by community forest user groups in Nepal. However, the relevance of such plans and the rationale for accepting them remain unexplored. Using a multiple-case-study approach, we examine the contents of the silvicultural prescriptions, and the relevance of these prescriptions in day-to-day forest management, and assess the reasons for accepting or rejecting the plans. To do so, we conducted content analysis of 34 plans, direct observations of forest management activities and semistructured interviews, informal conversations, and focus group discussions in nine selected community forest user groups. We also interviewed representatives of the Nepalese forest bureaucracy. We found that the silvicultural prescriptions were identical in all plans and that they were not guided by forest management objectives, forest conditions, and the socioeconomic conditions of the users. Moreover, neither the forest users nor the forest bureaucracy made use of the plans and the prescriptions in forest management. However, both groups accept the plans, albeit for different reasons. The users accept the plans because they considered them necessary in order to gain access to the forest resource, while for the forest bureaucracy, the plan serves as a tool for regaining power and authority over the forest. We argue that there is a need for a closer fit between the management plans and the social, economic, and ecological realities they are embedded in.

AB - Technical forest management plans are prerequisites for obtaining forest management rights by community forest user groups in Nepal. However, the relevance of such plans and the rationale for accepting them remain unexplored. Using a multiple-case-study approach, we examine the contents of the silvicultural prescriptions, and the relevance of these prescriptions in day-to-day forest management, and assess the reasons for accepting or rejecting the plans. To do so, we conducted content analysis of 34 plans, direct observations of forest management activities and semistructured interviews, informal conversations, and focus group discussions in nine selected community forest user groups. We also interviewed representatives of the Nepalese forest bureaucracy. We found that the silvicultural prescriptions were identical in all plans and that they were not guided by forest management objectives, forest conditions, and the socioeconomic conditions of the users. Moreover, neither the forest users nor the forest bureaucracy made use of the plans and the prescriptions in forest management. However, both groups accept the plans, albeit for different reasons. The users accept the plans because they considered them necessary in order to gain access to the forest resource, while for the forest bureaucracy, the plan serves as a tool for regaining power and authority over the forest. We argue that there is a need for a closer fit between the management plans and the social, economic, and ecological realities they are embedded in.

KW - Decentralized forest management

KW - Forest access

KW - Forest bureaucracy

KW - Power

KW - Silvicultural prescriptions

U2 - 10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

DO - 10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85087558275

JO - Small-Scale Forestry

JF - Small-Scale Forestry

SN - 1873-7617

ER -

ID: 244957401