4.5 Article

Politics of getting the numbers right: Community forest inventory of Nepal

期刊

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 19-26

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.007

关键词

Bureaucracy; Growing stock volume; Operational plan; Participatory forestry; Recentralization

资金

  1. 'Science and Power in Participatory Forestry' project - Consultative Research Committee for Development Research under the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [13-05KU]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inventory based management planning is a prerequisite for handing over forest management rights to community forest user groups in Nepal. However, the quality and rationale of such planning remains largely unexplored. Using a multiple case study approach, we aimed to assess the quality of community forest inventories in the mid-hill region of Nepal. We therefore conducted inventory in nine community forests, reviewed forest management plans and guidelines, and interviewed forest officials and representatives of community forest user groups to understand the procedures applied. Further we compared our inventory results with results presented in the plans and explored reasons for deviations. We found that the Inventory Guideline was frequently disregarded, both in design and implementation. Forest inventories were either poorly conducted or results simply fabricated. Significant differences were observed between the results of our inventories and those presented in the management plans. Furthermore, it turned out that growing stock volume was frequently manipulated to align with government circulars, specifying an upper limit of growing stock volume of 178 m(3) ha(-1). Seemingly, community forest inventories contribute to recentralizing community forestry through strengthening bureaucratic authority. Thus the inventory requirement serves mainly as a tool to satisfy bureaucratic requirements, rather than being a tool for guiding forest management decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据