Journal of Forest and Livelihood

  • Home
  • /
  • Publications
  • /
  • Journal of Forest and Livelihood

2018 - Special Issue on REDD+ in the Hindu Kush Himalayas, Vol 17 (1)

  • Countries in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region have historically taken diverse initiatives towards sustainable forest management (SFM) aimed at conserving critical ecosystems. To protect resources by regulating access to these resources, indigenous people and local communities of the HKH region have developed diverse and well-established norms and procedures. Given the rich diversity in ecology and society in the region, the specifc institutional and technological practices and innovations are also diverse. At the same time, most of the countries in the region have also actively involved in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) readiness process.

    REDD+ has been identifed as the cheap and fast scheme to climate change mitigation. In addition to many traditional forestry projects, several newly initiated REDD+ projects are now being implemented in the HKH region since the last few years. Such projects have been producing important scientifc, policy and practical lessons useful for the improvement of the current and future initiatives related to REDD+ and sustainable management of forest. However, lessons from such projects are not well documented and shared widely, constraining the potential contribution of such initiatives in policy, practice and scientifc arenas. Against this backdrop, ForestAction Nepal in collaboration with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) is pleased to publish this special issue of the Journal of Forest and Livelihood entitled, “REDD+ in Hindu Kush Himalaya”

    The nine papers in this Special Issue discuss about REDD+ practices from four countries in the HKH region namely Bhutan, India, Myanmar, and Nepal. Two papers focus on Myanmar, three on Nepal, and one each on Bhutan and India. Moreover, two papers in this Special Issue compare and contrast the national REDD+ strategies and Forest Reference Levels (FRLs) in multiple HKH countries.

  • Chief Editor: Naya Sharma Paudel
  • Managing Editor: Rahul Karki and Anukram Adhikary

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Forest and Livelihood undergo a double-blind peer review process and follow the steps listed below; 

  • All submissions to the Journal of Forest and Livelihood are first screened by the editorial officer for basic structural elements and appropriateness of formatting. Those satisfying these requirements are then passed on to the Chief Editor.
  • The Chief Editor assigns a member of the editorial team to review the theme, content, style of presentation and relevance.
  • Only those papers that are judged to be of potential interest to our readership, and are most likely to meet the editorial criteria (quality, originality, accuracy and contribution to the field) are sent for formal review.
  • Papers judged by the Chief Editor to be of insufficient interest or otherwise inappropriate for the journal are rejected out rightly without external review and the author(s) are advised accordingly.
  • Manuscripts are sent for formal review, to at least two reviewers in a full ‘double blind’ refereeing process.
  • The reviewers are asked to critically assess the overall quality of the paper and comment on several aspects such as relevance of the topic, methodology, quality of analysis, novelty of contributions, clarity of argument and the balance of theory and evidence.
  • The Chief Editor then makes a decision on the paper based on the reviewers' reports, from among several possibilities, which will be shared with the author. These are: 

Accept, with or without minor editorial revisions
Accept with major revisions (as suggested in the peer review reports)
Reject, but invite for resubmission after major rewriting or additional data collection and analysis
Reject out rightly

  • Editorial decisions are based on the evaluation of the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors.
  • The papers are sometimes reverted to the reviewers for reassessment. This is considered in terms of commitment to review subsequent revisions.
  • Reviewers' critiques are taken seriously. Additional reviewers may be requested to resolve serious contradictions in a paper that is otherwise very promising.
  • Editorial policy, procedures and criteria are reviewed periodically with contributions of the editorial advisory board, which provides additional editorial guidance and advice to the editorial team for enhancing the quality of the Journal.

 

Previous Issues