Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program

This paper uses 620 forest plot measurements taken from a nationally representative sample of 130 Nepal community forests combined with information on forest collective action to estimate the effects of collective action on carbon per hectare and three additional measures of forest quality. We use t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Bluffstone, Randy, Somanathan, Eswaran, Jha, Prakash, Luintel, Harisharan, Bista, Rajesh, Toman, Mike, Paudel, Naya, Adhikari, Bhim
Format:	Journal Article
Published:	Elsevier 2018
Subjects:	FORESTS CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE COMMUNITY PROGRAM COLLECTIVE ACTION COMMUNITY FORESTRY CARBON SEQUESTRATION CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
Online Access:	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/29354

id	okr-10986-29354
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	okr-10986-293542021-05-25T10:54:44Z Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program Bluffstone, Randy Somanathan, Eswaran Jha, Prakash Luintel, Harisharan Bista, Rajesh Toman, Mike Paudel, Naya Adhikari, Bhim FORESTS CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE COMMUNITY PROGRAM COLLECTIVE ACTION COMMUNITY FORESTRY CARBON SEQUESTRATION CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION This paper uses 620 forest plot measurements taken from a nationally representative sample of 130 Nepal community forests combined with information on forest collective action to estimate the effects of collective action on carbon per hectare and three additional measures of forest quality. We use three measures of forest user group collective action, including membership in the Nepal Community Forestry Programme (CFP). Collective action shows large, positive, and statistically significant carbon effects vis-à-vis communities exhibiting no evidence of forest collective action, which do not necessarily correspond with results for other measures of forest quality. We find that depending on the collective action definition and physiographic region, forests controlled by communities exhibiting no evidence of forest collective action may have as little as 34% of the carbon of forests governed under collective action. We do not, however, find evidence that CFP forests, our narrowest measure of collective action, store more carbon than forests outside the CFP. Our results therefore suggest that it is the collective action behavior and not the official CFP label that offers the largest gains. Carbon benefits from collective action are therefore not found to be conditional on CFP participation. 2018-02-12T17:33:51Z 2018-02-12T17:33:51Z 2018-01 Journal Article World Development 0305-750X http://hdl.handle.net/10986/29354 CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo World Bank Elsevier Publications & Research :: Journal Article Publications & Research South Asia Nepal
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	Digital Repositories
building	World Bank Open Knowledge Repository
collection	World Bank
topic	FORESTS CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE COMMUNITY PROGRAM COLLECTIVE ACTION COMMUNITY FORESTRY CARBON SEQUESTRATION CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
spellingShingle	FORESTS CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE COMMUNITY PROGRAM COLLECTIVE ACTION COMMUNITY FORESTRY CARBON SEQUESTRATION CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION Bluffstone, Randy Somanathan, Eswaran Jha, Prakash Luintel, Harisharan Bista, Rajesh Toman, Mike Paudel, Naya Adhikari, Bhim Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
geographic_facet	South Asia Nepal
description	This paper uses 620 forest plot measurements taken from a nationally representative sample of 130 Nepal community forests combined with information on forest collective action to estimate the effects of collective action on carbon per hectare and three additional measures of forest quality. We use three measures of forest user group collective action, including membership in the Nepal Community Forestry Programme (CFP). Collective action shows large, positive, and statistically significant carbon effects vis-à-vis communities exhibiting no evidence of forest collective action, which do not necessarily correspond with results for other measures of forest quality. We find that depending on the collective action definition and physiographic region, forests controlled by communities exhibiting no evidence of forest collective action may have as little as 34% of the carbon of forests governed under collective action. We do not, however, find evidence that CFP forests, our narrowest measure of collective action, store more carbon than forests outside the CFP. Our results therefore suggest that it is the collective action behavior and not the official CFP label that offers the largest gains. Carbon benefits from collective action are therefore not found to be conditional on CFP participation.
format	Journal Article
author	Bluffstone, Randy Somanathan, Eswaran Jha, Prakash Luintel, Harisharan Bista, Rajesh Toman, Mike Paudel, Naya Adhikari, Bhim
author_facet	Bluffstone, Randy Somanathan, Eswaran Jha, Prakash Luintel, Harisharan Bista, Rajesh Toman, Mike Paudel, Naya Adhikari, Bhim
author_sort	Bluffstone, Randy
title	Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
title_short	Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
title_full	Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
title_fullStr	Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
title_full_unstemmed	Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program
title_sort	does collective action sequester carbon? : evidence from the nepal community forestry program
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2018
url	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/29354
_version_	1764469138455003136

Does Collective Action Sequester Carbon? : Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program

Similar Items