Description: Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : The Case of the Nepal Community Forestry Program

Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : The Case of the Nepal Community Forestry Program

This paper estimate the effects of collective action in Nepal’s community forests on four ecological measures of forest quality. Forest user group collective action is identified through membership in the Nepal Community Forestry Programme, pending...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Bluffstone, Randy, Somanathan, Eswaran, Jha, Prakash, Luintel, Harisharan, Bista, Rajesh, Paudel, Naya, Adhikari, Bhim
Language:	English en_US
Published:	World Bank, Washington, DC 2015
Subjects:	PHOTOSYNTHESIS WOOD FOREST DEGRADATION ALTITUDE COMMUNITY FORESTS BASES GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT COST ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION ABSORPTION FOREST MANAGEMENT FOREST PEOPLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOREST CONDITION FORESTRY SECTOR ATMOSPHERIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONS CARBON ESTIMATES OF CARBON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TIMBER FORESTRY PROJECT EMISSIONS FOREST INSTITUTION REGENERATION FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ATMOSPHERE FOREST AREAS INCENTIVES COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT TROPICAL FOREST INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH GAS GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS FORESTRY PROGRAM FOREST TYPE TREES GREENHOUSE GAS TIMBER HARVESTS PARTICIPATORY FORESTRY FOREST MONITORING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON CARBON SEQUESTRATION CREDITS BIOMASS FOREST USER CARBON CONCENTRATIONS FOREST PRODUCTS NATIONAL FORESTS MANAGED FORESTS CAPACITY GHG CARBON LEVELS FOREST USERS FOREST INVENTORY CLOUDS LAND USE CHANGE BIODIVERSITY CARBON SEQUESTRATION CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DRY FOREST RAINFALL NATIONAL FORESTRY FORESTRY FOREST REGULATIONS TROPICAL REGIONS FOREST RESOURCES FOREST CARBON STOCK GAS EMISSIONS NATURAL RESOURCES CARBON MANAGEMENT COMMON LANDS ABATEMENT COST GREENHOUSE GASES CARBON EMISSIONS LAND USE FOREST CARBON FOREST FRUITS GREENHOUSE VEGETATIVE COVER ECOSYSTEM LEAD GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT FOREST MANAGEMENT METHODS FORESTRY RESEARCH IPCC CLIMATE CHANGE CARBON STORAGE FOREST COVER FOREST HEALTH LAND QUALITY FOREST DATA DEFORESTATION CLIMATE FORESTS FOREST CARBON STOCKS CANOPY COVER AGRICULTURE TROPICAL FOREST CARBON FOREST FOREST USE GLOBAL EMISSIONS FODDER FOREST RESOURCE ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS FOREST COVER CHANGE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES FOREST CHARACTERISTICS DEGRADATION EROSION LAND CARBON VALUES CARBON STOCK EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION FOREST ACT NATURAL RESOURCE WATERSHED TIMBER HARVEST CARBON INVENTORY FOREST BIOMASS FOREST MANAGEMENT QUALITY CONTROLLED FORESTS CARBON STOCKS COMMUNITY FORESTRY COUNTRY FORESTS LESS FOREST OFFICER FOREST TYPES COMMUNITY FOREST FOREST QUALITY TIMBER SPECIES GASES FOREST AREA GLOBAL FOREST FOREST PRODUCT FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOREST STANDS FOREST ECOSYSTEMS FOREST PLOTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS BENEFITS REFLECTANCE ENERGY FOREST COMMUNITIES
Online Access:	http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/06/24684658/collective-action-sequester-carbon-case-nepal-community-forestry-program http://hdl.handle.net/10986/22194

Description
Summary:	This paper estimate the effects of collective action in Nepal’s community forests on four ecological measures of forest quality. Forest user group collective action is identified through membership in the Nepal Community Forestry Programme, pending membership in the program, and existence of a forest user group whose leaders can identify the year the group was formed. This last, broad category is important, because many community forest user groups outside the program show significant evidence of important collective action. The study finds that presumed open access forests have only 21 to 57 percent of the carbon of forests governed under collective action. In several models, program forests sequester more carbon than communities outside the program. This implies that paying new program groups for carbon sequestration credits under the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing may be especially appropriate. However, marginal carbon sequestration effects of program participation are smaller and less consistent than those from two broader measures of collective action. The main finding is that within the existing institutional environment, collective action broadly defined has very important, positive, and large effects on carbon stocks and, in some models, on other aspects of forest quality.

Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : The Case of the Nepal Community Forestry Program

Similar Items