scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Adam Pain

Bio: Adam Pain is an academic researcher from Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The author has contributed to research in topics: Subsistence agriculture & Agriculture. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 11 publications receiving 173 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors critique the ways in which the politics of representation and climate science are framed and pursued in the process of climate policy development, and contribute to an understanding of the relative effectiveness of globally framed, generic policy mechanisms in vulnerable and politically volatile contexts.

117 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate how REDD+ has been downscaled into the community forestry context and with what implications for CF governance, and they argue that the technical and financial logic of REDD+, has had implications for community forestry governance, risks of co-opting local voices and has contributed to an ongoing commercialisation of community forests, at the cost of the livelihoods of the poorest people.

28 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article explored how changes in the agrarian economy in the Nepalese mid-Hills have had locally specific effects on forest area, agricultural practices and ecosystem service provision and use.
Abstract: The REDD+ literature in Nepal in its assessment of the likely impacts of REDD+ has paid little attention to the drivers behind the increasing forest cover and the changing role of forests in Nepal’s rural economy. This paper explores how changes in the agrarian economy in the Nepalese Mid-Hills have had locally specific effects on forest area, agricultural practices and ecosystem service (ES) provision and use. The contribution of agriculture to rural livelihoods has declined in many locations, and in parallel, the demands on community forests have changed. However, pockets of subsistence agriculture are likely to remain in the hills and these will remain dependent on forest-related ES provision. REDD+’s formulaic approach to forests and carbon sequestration fails to address the question of how forests in different contexts can support sustainable agriculture. The findings draw on field observation and interviews with officials and organisations, forest user groups, forest users and small-scale farmers in Dolakha and Chitwan districts.

24 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is proposed that attention should be given to the nature of the disturbance that may alter forest ecology, the forms of regeneration that follow, and the governance context within which this takes place.
Abstract: Forests have long been locations of contestation between people and state bureaucracies, and among the knowledge frameworks of local users, foresters, ecologists, and conservationists. An essential framing of the debate has been between the categories of primary and secondary forest. In this introduction to a collection of papers that address the questions of what basis, in what sense, and for whom primary forest is 'primary' and secondary forest is 'secondary,' and whether these are useful distinctions, we outline this debate and propose a new conceptual model that departs from the simple binary of primary and secondary forests. Rather, we propose that attention should be given to the nature of the disturbance that may alter forest ecology, the forms of regeneration that follow, and the governance context within which this takes place.

18 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyse Nepal's community forestry program and find that forest policies and local institutional practices have historically evolved to regulate forests either as sources of timber or as a means of biodiversity conservation, disregarding food security outcomes for local people.
Abstract: The growing challenge of food insecurity in the Global South has called for new research on the contribution of forests to food security. However, even progressive forest management institutions such as Nepal's community forestry programme have failed to address this issue. We analyse Nepal's community forestry programme and find that forest policies and local institutional practices have historically evolved to regulate forests either as sources of timber or as a means of biodiversity conservation, disregarding food security outcomes for local people. Disciplinary divisions between forestry and the agriculture sector have limited the prospect of strengthening forest–food security linkages. We conclude that the policy and legislative framework and formal bureaucratic practices are influenced by ‘modern forestry science’, which led to community forestry rules and practices not considering the contribution of forests to food security. Furthermore, forestry science has a particularly narrow focus on timber production and conservation. We argue for the need to recognise the importance of local knowledge and community practices of using forests for food. We propose adaptive and transformational approaches to knowledge generation and the application of such knowledge in order to support institutional change and policy reform and to enable landscape-specific innovations in forest–food linkages.

16 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Feb 2016

1,970 citations

Journal Article

1,449 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Oct 1993-Nature
TL;DR: Mitsch et al. as mentioned in this paper published a Journal of Ecological Engineering (JEE) article with the title of "The Future of Ecology: A Review of Recent Developments".
Abstract: Ecological Engineering: Journal of Ecotechnology. Editor-in-chief William J. Mitsch. Elsevier. 4/yr. DFL 361, $195.

1,161 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Abstract: Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

1,038 citations