Bluffstone, RandySomanathan, EswaranJha, PrakashLuintel, HarisharanBista, RajeshPaudel, NayaAdhikari, Bhim2015-07-172015-07-172015-06https://hdl.handle.net/10986/22194This paper estimate the effects of collective action in Nepal’s community forests on four ecological measures of forest quality. Forest user group collective action is identified through membership in the Nepal Community Forestry Programme, pending membership in the program, and existence of a forest user group whose leaders can identify the year the group was formed. This last, broad category is important, because many community forest user groups outside the program show significant evidence of important collective action. The study finds that presumed open access forests have only 21 to 57 percent of the carbon of forests governed under collective action. In several models, program forests sequester more carbon than communities outside the program. This implies that paying new program groups for carbon sequestration credits under the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing may be especially appropriate. However, marginal carbon sequestration effects of program participation are smaller and less consistent than those from two broader measures of collective action. The main finding is that within the existing institutional environment, collective action broadly defined has very important, positive, and large effects on carbon stocks and, in some models, on other aspects of forest quality.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOPHOTOSYNTHESISWOODFOREST DEGRADATIONALTITUDECOMMUNITY FORESTSBASESGREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT COSTENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATIONABSORPTIONFOREST MANAGEMENTFOREST PEOPLEGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSFOREST CONDITIONFORESTRY SECTORATMOSPHERIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONSCARBONESTIMATES OF CARBONRESOURCE MANAGEMENTTIMBERFORESTRY PROJECTEMISSIONSFOREST INSTITUTIONREGENERATIONFOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENTATMOSPHEREFOREST AREASINCENTIVESCOMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENTTROPICAL FORESTINTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCHGASGLOBAL GREENHOUSE GASFORESTRY PROGRAMFOREST TYPETREESGREENHOUSE GASTIMBER HARVESTSPARTICIPATORY FORESTRYFOREST MONITORINGATMOSPHERIC CARBONCARBON SEQUESTRATION CREDITSBIOMASSFOREST USERCARBON CONCENTRATIONSFOREST PRODUCTSNATIONAL FORESTSMANAGED FORESTSCAPACITYGHGCARBON LEVELSFOREST USERSFOREST INVENTORYCLOUDSLAND USE CHANGEBIODIVERSITYCARBON SEQUESTRATIONCONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGENATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTDRY FORESTRAINFALLNATIONAL FORESTRYFORESTRYFOREST REGULATIONSTROPICAL REGIONSFOREST RESOURCESFOREST CARBON STOCKGAS EMISSIONSNATURAL RESOURCESCARBON MANAGEMENTCOMMON LANDSABATEMENT COSTGREENHOUSE GASESCARBON EMISSIONSLAND USEFOREST CARBONFOREST FRUITSGREENHOUSEVEGETATIVE COVERECOSYSTEMLEADGREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENTFOREST MANAGEMENT METHODSFORESTRY RESEARCHIPCCCLIMATE CHANGECARBON STORAGEFOREST COVERFOREST HEALTHLAND QUALITYFOREST DATADEFORESTATIONCLIMATEFORESTSFOREST CARBON STOCKSCANOPY COVERAGRICULTURETROPICAL FOREST CARBONFORESTFOREST USEGLOBAL EMISSIONSFODDERFOREST RESOURCEANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONSFOREST COVER CHANGEGREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIESFOREST CHARACTERISTICSDEGRADATIONEROSIONLANDCARBON VALUESCARBON STOCKEMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATIONFOREST ACTNATURAL RESOURCEWATERSHEDTIMBER HARVESTCARBON INVENTORYFOREST BIOMASSFOREST MANAGEMENT QUALITYCONTROLLED FORESTSCARBON STOCKSCOMMUNITY FORESTRYCOUNTRY FORESTSLESSFOREST OFFICERFOREST TYPESCOMMUNITY FORESTFOREST QUALITYTIMBER SPECIESGASESFOREST AREAGLOBAL FORESTFOREST PRODUCTFRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGEFOREST STANDSFOREST ECOSYSTEMSFOREST PLOTSNEGATIVE IMPACTSBENEFITSREFLECTANCEENERGYFOREST COMMUNITIESWorking PaperWorld Bank10.1596/1813-9450-7327