Can authority change through deliberative politics?

Ojha, Hemant; Banjade, M.R.; Sunam, Ramesh; Bhattarai, Balkrishna; Jana, Sudeep; Goutam, Keshab Raj; Dhungana, Sindhu Prasad

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.04.005

Cited by 45 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To be specific, better stakeholder relations are necessary conditions for creating an enabling environment to achieve the prosperity vision [16] for which SciFM is designed. However, the history of participatory forest policy and practice in Nepal conveys the ingrained dominance of government bureaucracy despite several waves of deliberative politics [62]. Since stakeholders have witnessed events where the conventional techno-bureaucratic authority has constrained the autonomy of FUGs [28,[62][63][64], stakeholders suspect that the implementation of SciFM will herald the revival of recentralized forest management.…”

Section: Potential Reasons and Implications Of Differences In Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Forest Management Practice in Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Poudyal

Maraseni

Cockfield

2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design and application of context-specific forest management practices with the participation of key stakeholders plays a significant role in sustainable forest management outcomes. However, key forestry stakeholders often hold different, and sometimes conflicting, expectations in relation to forest management policies and management objectives. Applying the triple-perspective typology of stakeholder theory, this paper assessed the evolution of “Scientific Forest Management” (SciFM), a signature programme of the Nepalese Government, as well as its policy processes and explored compatibility, complexity, cost and relative advantages of the adoption of SciFM. The government believes that without this programme, Nepal is losing 91 Million US Dollar (USD) per year. This study revealed that participation of key stakeholders remained contested from the beginning of its implementation, primarily due to differences they held in understanding and interpretation of SciFM. Although stakeholders’ views converged on the potential role of SciFM to increase forest product supply and the domination of timber-centric management, their perspectives differed in nomenclature and implementation modality of SciFM. Primarily, the community forest users and their networks did not own the concept from the beginning, as they were suspicious of recentralization and bureaucratic dominance in forest governance through SciFM. Since historically ingrained skepticism in both government officials and community forest users’ networks towards each other has negatively influenced the trust-building environment, the management of stakeholders’ relations through frequent and meaningful deliberations, and the simplification of bureaucratic procedures in implementation and capacity development of key actors could be instrumental in achieving SciFM objectives.

show abstract

Section: Potential Reasons and Implications Of Differences In Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Forest Management Practice in Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Poudyal

Maraseni

Cockfield

2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nepal's forest policy and its actors have been shaped through global political and environmental waves, as well as national events [43][44][45][46]. Specifically, stories of Himalayan degradation in the 1970s, the structural adjustments of the 1980s, and carbon forestry efforts after 2007 constituted major global waves that affected forest policies and (re)shaped the political landscape of Nepal's forest governance.…”

Section: Actors and Their Changing Role In Nepal's Forestry Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 2 (see below) gives a broad overview about global and national drivers that affected Nepal's forest policies and its actors throughout different phases of forest governance. The evolutionary process is roughly simplified here and depicted as a linear pathway, but in practice these processes were interconnected and overlapped in complex ways [44].…”

Section: Actors and Their Changing Role In Nepal's Forestry Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing REDD+ at National Level: Actors and Discourse around Nepal’s Policy Debate

Bastakoti

Davidsen

2017

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests and carbon sequestration have become fundamental themes in climate change mitigation. The idea of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has generated significant interest in forest governance from United Nations (UN) climate strategies over the past decade. REDD+ was initially hailed as a smart and cost-effective way to mitigate climate change. As it is rolling out, ambiguities and controversies are increasingly surfacing to the stakeholders at different levels. Examining the forest governance of Nepal in detail, this research examines how relationships between national and local forest actors have changed, and how REDD+ discourses have evolved among them at the interface between global interests in carbon commodification on one hand, and local realities of community forestry on the other hand. To better understand these competing positions, the study uses a post-structural political ecology perspective with elements of discourse analysis. Using data from interviews with policy actors and members of three local community forest user groups, focus group discussions, policy event observations, and document reviews, this paper highlights how global forest carbon commodification has been affecting community forestry governance. It also illustrates different storylines that actors employ to influence policy discourse and REDD+ debates, indicating a considerable range of problem definitions and policy solutions of climate change among the actors. The analysis highlights the connection between power relationships and the evolution of discourses surrounding REDD+, and how an external discourse can reinforce or challenge local governance and the centralization of forest authority. As such, the research also offers a new application of discursive storylines to climate change discourse analysis across national and local scales. The findings emphasize the importance of a more open and transparent dialogue across Nepal's forest governance and management levels to ensure actual benefits for healthy forests, strong communities, and effective climate change mitigation. Nepal's findings also suggest highly relevant lessons to other developing countries with significant community forest governance, and a strong planned focus on REDD+.

show abstract

“…Climate policy processes in Nepal, as with other environment and development policy making, have never been determined entirely from within the country (Blaikie & Muldavin, 2004;Ojha et al, 2014). For Nepal and more generally in the developing world, it is donors and their 'service providers' who shape and construct spaces for participation, negotiation, and research around climate policy.…”

Section: International Framing Of Policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is evident from studies that have highlighted how development aid has either strengthened the status quo (Metz, 1995) or reinforced inequality contributing to social conflicts in Nepal (Sharma, 2006;Upreti, 2004). Moreover, given the political and social differences that exist in Nepal, creating some space for participation is not enough (Tamang, 2011) as this can in itself lead to 'participatory exclusion' (Agarwal, 2001); more critical to representation in policy making is how the underlying power relations are addressed (Gaventa, 2004;Kothari & Cook, 2001) and what opportunities for transformative deliberation are created (Nightingale & Ojha, 2013;Ojha et al, 2014).…”

Section: International Framing Of Policy Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Ojha¹,

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As developing countries around the world formulate policies to address climate change, concerns remain as to whether the voices of those most exposed to climate risk are represented in those policies. Developing countries face significant challenges for contextualizing global-scale scientific research into national political dynamics and downscaling global frameworks to subnational levels, where the most affected are presumed to live. This article critiques the ways in which the politics of representation and climate science are framed and pursued in the process of climate policy development, and contributes to an understanding of the relative effectiveness of globally framed, generic policy mechanisms in vulnerable and politically volatile contexts. Based on this analysis, it also outlines opportunities for the possibility of improving climate policy processes to contest technocratic framing and generic international adaptation solutions. Policy relevanceNepal's position as one of the countries most at risk from climate change in the Himalayas has spurred significant international support to craft climate policy responses over the past few years. Focusing on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Climate Change Policy, this article examines the extent to which internationally and scientifically framed climate policy in Nepal recognizes the unfolding political mobilizations around the demand for a representative state and equitable adaptation to climate risks. This is particularly important in Nepal, where political unrest in the post-conflict transition after the end of the civil war in 2006 has focused around struggles over representation for those historically on the political margins. Arguing that vulnerability to climate risk is produced in conjunction with social and political conditions, and that not everyone in the same locality is equally vulnerable, we demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of the politics of representation for climate policy making in Nepal. However, so far, this policy making has primarily been shaped through a technocratic framing that avoids political contestations and downplays the demand for inclusive and deliberative processes. Based on this analysis, we identify the need for a flexible, contextually grounded, and multi-scalar approach to political representation while also emphasizing the need for downscaling climate science that can inform policy development and implementation to achieve fair and effective adaptation to climate change.

show abstract

Can authority change through deliberative politics?

Cited by 45 publications

References 36 publications

Scientific Forest Management Practice in Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Scientific Forest Management Practice in Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Framing REDD+ at National Level: Actors and Discourse around Nepal’s Policy Debate

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About