We assessed the effectiveness of Nepalese Community Forestry Program (CFP) in increasing local perceptions of equity in benefit sharing. Our aim is to inform emerging forest policy that aims to mitigate climate change, promote biodiversity conservation, and address poverty and livelihood needs. We collected data from 1,300 households from nationally representative samples of 65 CFP communities and 65 non-CFP communities. By using a robust method of covariates matching, we demonstrate the unique and positive effect of the CFP on perception of equity in benefit sharing at national level and among poor, Dalits, indigenous and women-headed households and in the hills (except Terai). Our results suggest the need to continue the current benefit-sharing practices in CFP except in the Terai, where such practices need to be reviewed. However, caution should be taken in implementing emerging carbon-focused forestry so that it does not alter the CFP management sufficiently to conflict with equity goals and upend the generally positive effects on equity.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica74(1): 235–267.
2.
AdamsW. M.HulmeD. (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa, What is the question?Oryx35(3): 193–200.
3.
AdhikariB. (2005) Poverty, property rights and collective action: Understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics10: 7–31.
4.
AdhikariB.Di FalcoS. (2009) Social inequality, local leadership and collective action: An empirical study of forest commons. European Journal of Development Research21: 179–194.
5.
AdhikariB.LovettJ. C. (2006) Transaction costs and community-based natural resource management in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management78(1): 5–15.
6.
AdhikariS.KingiT.GaneshS. (2014) Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: The case of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics44(1): 1–9.
7.
AgarwalB. (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development29: 1623–1647.
8.
AgrawalA.ChhatreA. (2007) State involvement and forest co-governance: Evidence from the Indian Himalayas. Studies in Comparative International Development42: 67–86.
9.
AgrawalA.GuptaK. (2005) Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development33(7): 1101–1114.
10.
AgrawalA.OstromE. (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society29(4): 485–514.
11.
AnderssonK.AgrawalA. (2011) Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Global Environmental Change21(3): 866–875.
12.
ArselM.BuscherB. (2012) Nature Inc.: Changes and continuities in neoliberal conservation and market-based environmental policy. Development and Change43(1): 53–78.
13.
BeckT.GhoshM. (2000) Common property resources and the poor: Findings from West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly35(3): 147–153.
14.
Beck, T., & Nesmith, C. (2001). Building on poor people’s capacities: The case of common property resources in India and West Africa. World Development, 29(1), 119–133. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00089-9.
15.
BeyeneA. D.BluffstoneR.MekonnenA. (2013) Community forests, carbon sequestration and REDD+: Evidence from Ethiopia. Environment and Development Economics21(2): 1–24.
16.
BhattaraiB. (2006) Widening the gap between Terai and hill farmers in Nepal? The implications of the new Forest Policy 2000. In: MahantyS.FoxJ.NurseM.StephenP.McLeesL. (eds) Hanging in the balance: Equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand: RECOFTC and EWC, pp. 143–161.
17.
BistaD. B. (1991) Fatalism and development: Nepal’s struggle for modernization, Calcutta, India: Orient Longman.
BoyceJ. K. (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics11: 169–178.
20.
Boyce, J. K., Narain, S., & Stanton, E. A. (Eds.). (2007). Reclaiming nature: Environmental justice and ecological restoration. London, England: Athem Press.
21.
CharnleyS.PoeM. R. (2007) Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?Annual Review of Anthropology36: 301–336.
22.
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (1999) Causal effects in non-experimental studies: Re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association94: 1053–1062.
23.
DiamondA.SekhonJ. S. (2013) Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics95(3): 932–945.
FairheadJ.LeachM.ScoonesI. (2012) Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?Journal of Peasant Studies39(2): 237–261.
26.
GauldR. (2000) Maintaining centralized control in community-based forestry: Policy construction in the Philippines. Development and Change31(1): 229–254.
27.
GautamA. P.ShivakotiG. P. (2005) Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: Some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society and Natural Resources18(2): 153–171.
28.
GrossC. (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy35: 2727–2736.
29.
HeckmanJ.IchimuraH.SmithJ.ToddP. (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica66(5): 1017–1098.
30.
HeinrichC.MaffioliA.VázquezG. (2010) A primer for applying propensity-score matching impact-evaluation guidelines (Technical Note), Washington, DC: Inter-American Development BankRetrieved from http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35320229.
31.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis15: 199–236.
HujerR.CaliendoM.ThomsenS. L. (2004) New evidence on the effects of job creation schemes in Germany: A matching approach with threefold heterogeneity. Research in Economics58: 257–302.
34.
ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2008) Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society171: 481–502.
35.
ImbensG. W. (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics86(1): 4–29.
36.
IversenV.ChhetryB.FrancisP.GurungM.KafleG.PainA.SeeleyJ. (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecological Economics58: 93–107.
37.
JolliffeI. T. (2002) Principal component analysis, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.
38.
KanferR.SawyerJ.EarleyP. C.LindE. A. (1987) Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice Research1(2): 235–249.
39.
Khanal ChhetriB. B.AsanteP.YoshimotoA. (2016) Forest dependence and inequality: An empirical study from community forests in Kaski, Nepal. Forest Resources & Mathematical Modeling15: 33–43.
40.
Lamichhane, D., & Parajuli, R. (2014). How good is the governance status in community forestry? A case study from midhills in Nepal. Journal of Ecosystems, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/541374.
41.
LarsonA. M.SotoF. (2008) Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources33: 213–239. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020607.095522.
42.
LiT. M. (1996) Images of community: Discourse and strategy in property relations. Development and Change27: 501–527.
43.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
44.
LiseW. (2007) An econometric and game theoretic model of common pool resource management: People’s participation in forest management in India, New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
45.
LuintelH. (2006) Do civil society organizations promote equity in community forestry? A reflection from Nepal’s experience. In: MahanthS.FoxJ.NurseM.McleesL. (eds) Hanging in the balance: Equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand: RECOFTC & EWC, pp. 122–142.
46.
Luintel, H., Ojha, H., Rana, B., Subedi, R., & Dhungana, H. (2009). Community forestry in Nepal: Promoting livelihoods, community development and the environment. ForestAction and Livelihoods and Forestry Programme.
47.
MahalanobisP. C. (1936) On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India2(1): 49–55.
48.
MahantyS.FoxJ.NurseM.StephenP.McLeesL. (2006) Introduction: Equity in community-based resource management. In: MahantyS.FoxJ.NurseM.StephenP.LeslieM. (eds) Hanging in the balance: Equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand: RECOFTC and EWC, pp. 1–14.
49.
MahantyS.GuernierJ.YasmiY. (2009) A fair share? Sharing the benefits and costs of collaborative forest management. International Forestry Review11(2): 268–280. Retrieved from http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1505/ifor.11.2.268.
50.
ManlyB. F. J. (2005) Multivariate statistical methods: A primer, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
51.
MapelD. (1989) Social justice reconsidered: The problem of appropriate precision in a theory of justice, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
52.
McAfeeK. (2012) The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. Development and Change43(1): 105–131.
53.
McDermottM.MahantyS.SchreckenbergK. (2013) Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy33: 416–427.
54.
McDermottM.SchreckenbergK. (2009) Equity in community forestry: Insights from North and South. International Forestry Review11(2): 157–170.
55.
MeynenN.DornboosM. (2005) Decentralising natural resource management: A recipe for sustainability and equity? In: RibotJ. C.LarsonA. M. (eds) Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens, New Yok, NY: Routledge, pp. 235–254.
56.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (2000) Forest policy of Nepal 2000, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.
57.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (2008) Community forestry development programme guidelines (Second Revision), Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.
58.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (2013) Persistence and change: Review of 30 years of community forestry in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: MOFSC.
59.
Ministry of Law and Justice (1993) Forest Act of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.
60.
Ministry of Law and Justice (1995) Forest regulation of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.
61.
NaiduS. C. (2009) Heterogeneity and collective management: Evidence from common forests in Himachal Pradesh, India. World Development37(3): 676–686.
62.
NaiduS. C. (2011) Access to benefits from forest commons in the western Himalayas. Ecological Economics71: 202–210.
63.
Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide, Paris, France: Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development, European Commission.Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf.
64.
OstromE. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
PershaL.AnderssonK. (2014) Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Global Environmental Change24: 265–276.
68.
PoudelM.ThwaitesR.RaceD.DahalG. R. (2015) Social equity and livelihood implications of REDD+ in rural communities—A case study from Nepal. International Journal of the Commons9(1): 177–208.
69.
RibotJ.PelusoN. (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology68(2): 153–181.
70.
Rights and Resources Initiative (2014) What future for reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002, Washington, DC: Author.
71.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002) Observational studies, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
72.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70(1): 41–55.
73.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician39(1): 33–38.
74.
RubinD. B. (1980) Bias reduction using Mahalanobis-metric matching. Biometrics36: 293–298.
75.
RubinD. B. (2001) Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology2(3): 169–188.
76.
RubinD. B.ThomasN. (1996) Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics52: 249–264.
77.
SchreckenbergK.LuttrellC. (2009) Participatory forest management: A route to poverty reduction?International Forestry Review11(2): 221–238.
78.
SekhonJ. S. (2011) Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software42(7): 1–52.
79.
SmithP. D.McDonoughM. H. (2001) Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources14: 239–249.
80.
StruhsakerT. T.StruhsakerP. J.SiexS. S. (2005) Conserving Africa’s rain forests: Problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation123(1): 45–54.
81.
SunamR. K.McCarthyJ. F. (2010) Advancing equity in community forestry: Recognition of the poor matters. International Forestry Review12(4): 370–382.
82.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011) A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research46(1): 90–118.
83.
ThomsC. A. (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum39: 1452–1465.
84.
VatnA. (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics60(6): 1245–1252.
