2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: Moving to a rights-based approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nearly all evaluations of both JFM (Sundar et al 2001; Springate-Baginski and Blaikie 2007; Lele and Menon 2014) and the FRA (Saxena et al 2010;Bose 2013;Kashwan 2013;Kumar et al 2015;Maharashtra CFR-LA 2017) have found that neither programs' participatory promise has been met on a wide scale. Although several reasons have been identified for this failure, including weak institutional design, power imbalances, and problems of implementation, two elements recur in many explanations.…”
Section: Participation Supply In a Low Demand Low Skill Environment:mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nearly all evaluations of both JFM (Sundar et al 2001; Springate-Baginski and Blaikie 2007; Lele and Menon 2014) and the FRA (Saxena et al 2010;Bose 2013;Kashwan 2013;Kumar et al 2015;Maharashtra CFR-LA 2017) have found that neither programs' participatory promise has been met on a wide scale. Although several reasons have been identified for this failure, including weak institutional design, power imbalances, and problems of implementation, two elements recur in many explanations.…”
Section: Participation Supply In a Low Demand Low Skill Environment:mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike the CBFM case in Nepal, participants in JFM have little control over how commercial products, such as timber, are sold and how the proceeds allocated. More recently, India's Recognition of Forest Rights Act (RFRA) was enacted in 2006, as a result of democratic processes driven by demand for recognition of forest rights by forest dwellers (Kumar et al, 2014). The RFRA represents a political effort to reform forest governance through a provision of rights to forestdependent people, while India also continues to operate the JFM program.…”
Section: Country Experiencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in the case presented here, existing power structures and inequalities are determining and readily reproduced (Kumar 2002 ). In a similar vein, Kumar, Singh, and Kerr ( 2015 ) have reported that the implementation of democratic decentralization of natural resources governance has been strongly opposed by powerful interests and that many of its provisions related to community rights over forests have remained unimplemented in various regions of India (Kumar et al 2015 ). In much the same way, Parajuli et al ( 2015 ) demonstrate that in Nepal’s community, forestry benefits of a co-management program are greater in rich households and that the poor pay the highest indirect costs (Parajuli et al 2015 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%