Explore the vast range of titles available.

Economists studying environmental collective action and green governance have paid little attention to gender. Research on gender and green governance in other disciplines has focused mainly on women's near absence from forestry institutions. This interdisciplinary book turns that focus on its head to ask: what if women were present in these institutions? What difference would that make? Would women's inclusion in forest governance - undeniably important for equity - also affect decisions on forest use and outcomes for conservation and subsistence? Are women's interests in forests different from men's? Would women's presence lead to better forests and more equitable access? Does it matter which class of women governs? And how large a presence of women would make an impact? Answers to these questions can prove foundational for effective environmental governance. Yet they have hardly been empirically investigated. In an analysis that is conceptually sophisticated and statistically rigorous, using primary data on community forestry institutions in India and Nepal, this book is the first major study to comprehensively address these wide-ranging issues. It traces women's history of exclusion from public institutions, the factors which constrain their effective participation, and how those constraints can be overcome. It outlines how strategic partnerships between forestry and other civil society institutions could strengthen rural women's bargaining power with community and government. And it examines the complexities of eliciting government accountability in addressing poor rural women's needs, such as for clean domestic fuel and access to the commons. Located in the interface of environmental studies, political economy and gender analysis, the volume makes significant original contributions to current debates on gender and governance, forest conservation, clean energy policy, critical mass and social inclusion. Traversing uncharted territory with rare analytical rigor, this lucidly written book will be of interest to scholars and students as well as policy makers and practitioners.

Using primary data from India and Nepal, this volume is the first major study to comprehensively address the issue of gender and the role of women in relation to environmental collective action and green governance. It traces women's history of exclusion from public institutions and looks at how constraints can be overcome.

Globally, deforestation continues, and although protected areas effectively protect forests, the majority of forests are not in protected areas. Thus, how effective are different management regimes to avoid deforestation in non-protected forests? We sought to assess the effectiveness of different national forestmanagement regimes to safeguard forests outside protected areas. We compared 2000-2014 deforestation rates across the temperate forests of 5 countries in the Himalaya (Bhutan, Nepal, China, India, and Myanmar) of which 13% are protected. We reviewed the literature to characterize forest management regimes in each country and conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to measure differences in deforestation of unprotected forests among countries and states in India. Countries varied in both overarching forest-management goals and specific tenure arrangements and policies for unprotected forests, from policies emphasizing economic development to thosefocused on forest conservation. Deforestation rates differed up to 1.4% between countries, even after accounting for local determinants of deforestation, such as human population density, market access, and topography. The highest deforestation rates were associated with forest policies aimed at maximizing profits and unstable tenure regimes. Deforestation in national forest-management regimes that emphasized conservation and community management were relatively low. In India results were consistent with the national-level results. We interpreted our results in the context of the broader literature on decentralized, community-based natural resource management, and our findings emphasize that the type and quality of community-based forestry programs and the degree to which they are oriented toward sustainable use rather than economic development are important for forest protection. Our cross-national results are consistent with results from site- and regional-scale studies that show forest-management regimes that ensure stable land tenure and integrate local-livelihood benefits with forest conservation result in the best forest outcomes. La deforestación continúa a nivel mundial y aunque las áreas protegidas protegen eficientemente a los bosques, la mayoría de éstos no están en áreas protegidas. Por lo tanto, ¿qué tan efectivos son los diferentes regímenes de manejo para evitar la deforestación en los bosques sin protección? Comparamos las tasas de deforestación de 2000 a 2014 en los bosques templados de cinco países del Himalaya (Bután, Nepal, China, India y Myanmar), de los cuales el 13% está protegido. Revisamos la literatura para caracterizar los regímenes de manejo forestal en cada país y realizamos un análisis casi experimental para medir las diferencias en la deforestación de los bosques desprotegidos entre los países y los estados de la India. Los países variaron desde los objetivos dominantes del manejo forestal y los arreglos específicos por antigüedad y las políticas para los bosques desprotegidos, desde políticas que enfatizan el desarrollo económico hasta aquellas enfocadas en la conservación forestal. Las tasas de deforestación difirieron hasta un 1.4% entre los países, incluso después de representar los determinantes locales de la deforestación, como la densidad poblacional humana, el acceso al mercado y la topografía. Las tasas más altas de deforestación estuvieron asociadas con políticas forestales dirigidas a la maximización de las ganancias y regímenes inestables de antigüedad. La deforestación dentro de los regímenes de manejo forestal que enfatizaron la conservación y el manejo comunitario fue relativamente baja. En la India, los resultados fueron consistentes con los resultados a nivel nacional. Interpretamos nuestros resultados dentro del contexto de la literatura generalizada sobre el manejo de recursos descentralizado y basado en la comunidad. Nuestros hallazgos enfatizan que ese tipo y calidad de programas forestales basados en la comunidad y el grado en el que están orientados hacia el uso sustentable en lugar del desarrollo económico es importante para la protección forestal. Nuestros resultados trans-nacionales son consistentes con los resultados de estudios a escala regional y de sitio que muestran que los regímenes de manejo forestal que aseguran una antigüedad estable de suelo e integran los beneficios del sustento local con la conservación forestal resultan en mejores resultados forestales.

Ecotourism is developing rapidly in biodiversity hotspots worldwide, but there is limited and mixed empirical evidence that ecotourism achieves positive biodiversity outcomes. We assessed whether ecotourism influenced forest loss rates and trajectories from 2000 to 2017 in Himalayan temperate forests. We compared forest loss in 15 ecotourism hubs with nonecotourism areas in 4 Himalayan countries. We used matching statistics to control for local-level determinants of forest loss, for example, population density, market access, and topography. None of the ecotourism hubs was free of forest loss, and we found limited evidence that forest-loss trajectories in ecotourism hubs were different from those in nonecotourism areas. In Nepal and Bhutan, differences in forest loss rates between ecotourism hubs and matched nonecotourism areas did not differ significantly, and the magnitude of the estimated effect was small. In India, where overall forest loss rates were the lowest of any country in our analysis, forest loss rates were higher in ecotourism hubs than in matched nonecotourism areas. In contrast, in China, where overall forest loss rates were highest, forest loss rates were lower in ecotourism hubs than where there was no ecotourism. Our results suggest that the success of ecotourism as a forest conservation strategy, as it is currently practiced in the Himalaya, is context dependent. In a region with high deforestation pressures, ecotourism may be a relatively environmentally friendly form of economic development relative to other development strategies. However, ecotourism may stimulate forest loss in regions where deforestation rates are low. El ecoturismo está desarrollándose rápidamente en los puntos calientes de biodiversidad en todo el mundo, pero existe evidencia empírica mixta y limitada de los resultados positivos que se logran con el ecoturismo. Valoramos si el ecoturismo influyó sobre las tasas de pérdida forestal y sus trayectorias entre el 2000 y el 2017 en los bosques templados del Himalaya. Comparamos la pérdida forestal en quince focos ecoturísticos con la pérdida forestal en las áreas sin ecoturismo de cuatro países del Himalaya. Utilizamos estadística correspondiente para controlar las determinantes a nivel local de la pérdida del bosque, por ejemplo, la densidad poblacional, el acceso al mercado y la topografía. Ninguno de los focos ecoturísticos estaba libre de pérdida forestal, además de que encontramos evidencia limitada de que las trayectorias de la pérdida forestal en los focos ecoturísticos eran diferentes a las trayectorias en las áreas sin ecoturismo. En Nepal y en Bután, las diferencias en la pérdida forestal entre los focos ecoturísticos y las áreas sin ecoturismo correspondidas no difirieron significativamente y la magnitud del efecto estimado fue menor. En la India, donde las tasas generales de pérdida forestal fueron las más bajas de cualquier país en nuestro análisis, las tasas de pérdida forestal fueron más altas en los focos ecoturísticos que en las áreas sin ecoturismo correspondidas. Como contraste, en China, donde las tasas generales de pérdida forestal fueron más altas, las tasas de pérdida forestal fueron más bajas en los focos ecoturísticos que en donde no existe el ecoturismo. Nuestros resultados sugieren que el éxito del ecoturismo como estrategia de conservación del bosque, a como se práctica actualmente en el Himalaya, depende del contexto. En una región con presiones altas de deforestación, el ecoturismo puede ser una forma de desarrollo económico relativamente amigable con el ambiente comparado con otras estrategias de desarrollo. Sin embargo, el ecoturismo puede estimular la pérdida forestal en regiones en las que las tasas de deforestación son bajas. 全球范围内，生物多样性热点地区的生态旅游芷在快速发展，但缺少明确的实证证据来证明生态旅游对生 物多样性保护有积极作用。本研究评估了生态旅游是否对2000-2017年间喜马拉雅温带森林的森林丧失率和森林丧失轨迹产生影响。我们比较了喜马拉雅地区四个国家的十五个生态旅游区与非生态旅游区的森林丧失情 况。我们用配对的统计数据来控制当地影响森林丧失的其它因素, 如人口密度，幵放市场程度和地形等。我们 发现所有生态旅游区都遭受了森林丧失，且有限的证据表明，生态旅游区与非生态旅游区森林丧失轨迹并不一 致。在尼泊尔和不丹，生态旅游区与相配对的非生态旅游区的森林丧失率没有显著差异，我们估计的生态旅游 影响程度也很低。在本研究中，印度的森林总体丧失率最低，生态旅游区的森林丧失率比相配对的非生态旅游 区更高。相比之下，在森林总体丧失率最高的中国，生态旅游区的森林丧失率却比非生态旅游区的更低。我们 的结果表明，以目前喜马拉雅地区的实践为例, 生态旅游能否成为ー种成功的森林保护策略要依据具#:情况 在森林砍伐压力较大的地区，生态旅游可能是相比于其它发展策略较为坏境友好的经济发展形式,但在森林砍 伐率低的地区，生态旅游则可能加速森林丧失。

To achieve global biodiversity targets, expanding protected area (PA) networks has been regarded as a major strategy in international commitments. However, the PA strategy often fails to achieve its objective – preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, the expansion of PA areas could replicate and amplify historical injustices such as forced evictions, state-led physical violence, assimilation of culture and loss of traditional ecological knowledge, affecting communities’ livelihood, quality of life and rights. There is an increasing consensus that the post-2020 biodiversity conservation framework should be rights-based and sensitive to the role and contributions of local communities towards achieving the PAs’ targets. India’s Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 may be considered a useful framework for biodiversity conservation in the context of this new conservation vision. It puts local people at the centre stage, making them active participants in designing and managing conservation. PAs following ‘fortress conservation’ approach were based on the flawed idea that human interference endangers biodiversity and therefore habitats should be preserved by force if required. Such an idea contradicts the recent understanding that ecosystems once perceived as ‘wilderness’, have been transformed by people. PAs undermine the intricate and intertwined relationship of humans with their immediate ecosystem. The conservation model proposed by FRA 2006, on the other hand, recognises local communities as an integral part of ecosystem and thereby acknowledges people’s rights and agency in conservation. It ensures locals’ equitable benefits from economic activities, and provides equitable opportunities to participate in decision-making. Though various provisions under FRA empowered local people in conservation, it faces various challenges during the implementation on the ground. It is argued that a clear and appropriate institutional arrangement specifying various stakeholders’ power, roles and responsibilities in the conservation and management of bioresources (including the protection of endangered species) should be developed for transformative change in biodiversity conservation.

Anthropogenic activities are altering the structure and functioning of forests and their services to society. However, we know little about the degree to which such activities are changing the health of forests through edge effects in fragmented forests in different regions of the world. The present study was carried out in Minkong Community Reserve Forest of Nagaland (North-east India) with the aim to determine the effects of anthropogenic activities on floristic composition and diversity, population structure, and biomass and carbon (C) stocks in the core zone (CZ) and buffer zone (BZ) of the forest. We established 15 plots of 0.04 ha each in the two forest zones. We identified 31 trees, 18 shrubs, and 22 herbs in the CZ, and 22 trees, 25 shrubs, and 24 herbs in the BZ; tree species diversity was greater in the CZ whereas the diversity of shrubs and herbs was greater in the BZ. The values for tree density and basal area in the CZ and BZ were 303 and 197 individuals ha−1 and 32.6 and 22.2 m2 ha−1, respectively; in contrast, the shrub and herb density increased in the BZ (4470 and 50,200 individuals ha−1) compared to that of the CZ (2530 and 35,500 individuals ha−1). The total stand biomass (including that below-ground) was 327 Mg ha−1 in the CZ and 224 Mg ha−1 in the BZ. Similarly, the total ecosystem C stocks in the CZ and BZ were 224 Mg C ha−1 and 173 Mg C ha−1, indicating that the overall ecosystem C pool including soil in the CZ was approximately 30% greater than the BZ. These results show how fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbance can reduce forest diversity and C stocks and that community forest management can play a role in conserving biodiversity and act as an ecosystem management tool to mitigate climate change.

How does political representation affect conservation? We argue that the mixed evidence in the literature may be driven by institutional arrangements that provide authority to marginalized communities, but do not make adequate arrangements to truly boost their voice in resource management. We study a 1996 law that created local government councils with mandated representation for India’s Scheduled Tribes (ST), a community of one hundred million. Using difference-in-differences designs, we find that the dramatic increase in ST representation led to a substantial increase in tree cover and a reduction in deforestation. We present suggestive evidence that representation enabled marginalized communities to better pursue their interests, which, unlike commercial operations such as mining, are compatible with forest conservation. While conservation policy tends to stress environmentally focused institutions, we suggest more attention be given to umbrella institutions, such as political representation, which can address conservation and development for marginalized communities in tandem.

Our study explores the nexus between forests and local communities through participatory assessments and household surveys in the central Himalayan region. Forest dependency was compared among villages surrounded by oak-dominated forests (n = 8) and pinedominated forests (n = 9). Both quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate variations in the degree of dependency based on proximity to nearest forest type. Households near oak-dominated forests were more dependent on forests (83.8%) compared to households near pine-dominated forests (69.1%). Forest dependency is mainly subsistenceoriented for meeting basic household requirements. Livestock population, cultivated land per household, and non-usage of alternative fuels are the major explanatory drivers of forest dependency. Our findings can help decision and policy makers to establish nested governance mechanisms encouraging prioritized sitespecific conservation options among forest-adjacent households. Additionally, income diversification with respect to alternate livelihood sources, institutional reforms, and infrastructure facilities can reduce forest dependency, thereby, allowing sustainable forest management.

Forest tenure reform has opened economic and livelihood opportunities for community forestry management through the devolution of management rights under broader decentralisation reforms. However, the transfer of rights and associated power to forest communities is usually partial. The view of property as composed of ‘bundles of rights’ allows for the disaggregation of rights transferred from government to local people. In practice, it is common that rights held by natural resource stakeholders encompass only part of the rights bundle. This partial transfer of rights shapes community forestry institutions and the manner in which they function. When communities and state agencies share responsibilities and benefits of forest management, they collaborate within co-management systems. Co-management systems are attractive to governments because they open avenues for local participation in resource governance and more equitable benefit-sharing while maintaining some level of state control. However, co-management systems can place a greater burden on community level actors without providing the corresponding benefits. As a result, co-management can fail to meet expectations. In response, the promotion of community forestry may require greater emphasis on adjusting forest regulatory frameworks, institutions, and agencies, to allow more freedom by community-level actors in developing forest management systems.