Abstract
Collective action by local communities has been recognised as crucial for effective management of natural resources, particularly the management of forests in rural settings in developing countries. However, the processes and outcomes of collective action in forest management are often analysed through a narrow rational choice model, ignoring the impacts of wider social, political and economic processes in conditioning peoples’ decisions to act (or not to act) collectively. Optimistic assumptions are made for collective action being instrumental to enhance both social and ecological outcomes, but there is a paucity of empirical evidence on how and why the condition of forests has improved (or deteriorated) under collective action, and what impacts the change in forest condition has on various groups within local communities. This study critically examines the emergence, evolution and outcomes of collective action in a case of community forestry in Nepal. A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used to collect primary data from the forest, households, key informants and focus groups. The emergence and outcomes of collective action is found to be embedded in social, economic and political relationships, where powerful actors control the use of forests in order to ensure conservation, thereby resulting in the underutilisation of forest products. Poor users, who depend heavily on forests, are found to be worse off economically under community forestry, but still engage in collective action for a variety of socio-political reasons. This contradicts the conventional wisdom which assumes that people only cooperate when they benefit from cooperation. It is concluded that a deeper understanding of the embeddedness of community forestry is needed in order to achieve the potential of collective action.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Community forestry is defined here as the management and control of forests by groups of local people who live in and around the forest, and are formally given both the authority and responsibility by the state officials to control the access and use of forest resources.
FUG (Forest User Group) in community forestry in Nepal refers a group of forest users living in and around the forests, who organise themselves to make and implement management decisions in regards to access, use and control of forest resources.
Nepal is divided into three physiographic regions, namely the Terai (elevation 59–610 m), The Middle Hills Region (610–4,877 m), and the Mountains or Himalayas (4,877–8,848 m). Administratively, the country is divided into five development regions, 14 zones, 75 districts, 58 municipalities and 3,912 Village Development Committees (VDCs).
The Sukumbasi are generally landless people, who encroach government land (often forests) to construct temporary houses with a view to a permanent settlement.
The basis for the calculation and analysis is reported in Shrestha (2005).
Bhari is a Nepali term which refers to an average load of forest products that a person can carry (approximately 30 kg) (Malla et al. 2003).
Foliage and leaf litter are used for animal bedding and making compost manure for crops.
References
Adhikari B, Williams F, Lovett JC (2007) Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ 9(5):464–478
Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649
Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralisation and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114
Baland JM, Platteau JP (1996) Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? FAO and Clarendon Press, Oxford
Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630
Brown D (1999) Principles and practice of forest co-management: evidence from West-Central Africa, Overseas Development Institute, European Union Tropical Forestry Paper No 2, London
Chambers R (1994) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis and experience. World Dev 22(9):1253–1268
Chambers R, McBeth MK (1992) Community encouragement: returning to the basis for community development. J Community Dev Soc 23(2):20–38
Ciriacy-Wantrup SV, Bishop RC (1975) Common property as a concept in natural resources policy. Nat Resour J 15(1):713–727
CPFD (2006) Community forest user group data base. Nepal Government, Department of Forests, Community and Private Forest Division (CPFD), Kathmandu
Dev OP, Yadav NP, Springate-Baginski O, Soussan J (2003) Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. J For Livelihood 3(1):64–77
Dougill AJ, Soussan JG, Kiff E, Springate-Baginski O, Yadav NP, Dev OP, Hurford AP (2001) Impacts of community forestry on farming system sustainability in the middle hills of Nepal. Land Degrad Dev 12(3):261–276
Fisher RJ (1994) Indigenous forest management in Nepal: why common property is not a problem. In: Allen M (ed) Anthropology of Nepal: peoples, problems and processes. Mandala Book Point, Kathmandu, pp 64–81
Fisher RJ (2000) Decentralization and devolution in forest management: a conceptual overview. In: Enter T, Victor M, Patrick D (eds) Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC (Regional Community Forestry Training Centre), Bangkok, pp 3–10
Fisher RJ (2003) Innovations, persistence and change: reflections on the state of community forestry. In: FAO, RECOFTC (eds) Community forestry: current innovations and experiences. RECOFTC and FAO, Bangkok, pp 16–29
Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problems of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510
Granovetter M, Swedberg R (2001) The sociology of economic life. Westview Press, Boulder
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248
Heckathorn DD (1996) The dynamics and dilemmas of collective action. Am Sociol Rev 61(2):250–277
HMGN (His Majesty Government of Nepal) (1989) Master plan for the forestry sector, Revised. Ministry of Forest and Environment, Kathmandu
Iversen V, Chhetry B, Francis P, Gurung M, Kafle G, Pain A, Seeley J (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecol Econ 58(1):93–107
Kanel K (2001) Forests, collective action, and policy instruments in Nepal: aligning decentralization with Fiscal responsibility. In: Eighth workshop on community management of forestlands. The East-West Center, Honolulu
Klooster DJ (1997) Conflicts in the commons: commercial forestry and conservation in Mexican indigenous communities. PhD Thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Knox A, Meinzen-Dick R (2001) Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. International Food Policy Research Institute, CAPRi Working Paper No 11, Washington, DC
Mahanty S, Fox J, Nurse M, Stephen P, McLees L (2006) Hanging in the balance: equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia. RECOFTC and East-West Centre, Bangkok
Maharjan M (1998) The flow and distribution of costs and benefits in the Chuliban community forest, Dhankuta District, Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, Rural Development Forestry Network, Network Paper, No 23e, London
Malla YB (2000) Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unasylva, 51(202): http://www.fao.org/docrep/x7273e/x7273e00.htm
Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? J For Livelihood 3(1):78–93
Marshall G (1998) A dictionary of sociology. Oxford University Press, New York
Maskey V, Gebremedhin TG, Dalton TJ (2006) Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. J For Econ 11(4):261–274
McCarthy N, Dutilly-Diane C, Drabo B (2004) Cooperation, collective action and natural resource management in Burkina Faso. Agric Syst 82(3):233–255
Mearns R (1996) Community, collective action and common grazing: the case of post-socialist Mongolia. J Dev Stud 32(3):297–339
Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N (2004) Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agric Syst 82(3):197–214
Mosse D (1997) The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and locality in a tank-irrigated landscape in south India. Dev Change 28(3):467–504
Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pagdee A, Kim Y-S, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour 19:33–52
Pandit BH, Thapa GB (2004) Poverty and resource degradation under different common forest resource management systems in the mountains of Nepal. Soc Nat Resour 17:1–16
Peluso NL (1993) Coercing conservation?: the politics of state resource control. Glob Environ Change, 3:199–217
Petrzelka P, Bell MM (2000) Rationality and solidarities: the social organization of common property resources in the Imdrhas Valley of Morocco. Hum Organ 59(3):343–352
Polanyi K et al (1957) The great transformation. Beacon Press, Boston
Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: institutionalising popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralisation. World Resource Institute, Washington, DC
Shrestha KK (2005) Collective Action and Equity in Nepalese Community Forestry. PhD Thesis, School of Geosciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney
Springate-Baginski O, Dev OP, Yadav NP, Soussan J (2003) Community forest management in the middle hills of Nepal: the changing context. J For Livelihood 3(1):5–20
Steins NA, Edwards VM (1999) Collective action in common pool resource management: the contribution of a social constructivist perspective to existing theory. Soc Nat Resour 12:539–557
Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burger P, Nasi R, Santoso L, Wunder S (2005) Livelihoods, forests and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev 33(9):1383–1402
Timsina NP (2003) Promoting social justice and conserving montane forest environments: a case study of Nepal’s Community Forestry Programme. Geogr J 169(3):136–242
Wade R (1988) Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in south India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wollenberg E, Moeliono M, Limberg G, Iwan R, Rhee S, Sudana M (2006) Between state and society: local governance of forests in Malinau, Indonesia. For Policy Econ 8:421–433
Wood H, McDaniel M, Warner K (eds) (1995) Community development and conservation of forest biodiversity through community forestry. In: Proceedings of an international seminar, RECOFTC, Bangkok
Yadav NP, Dev OP, Springate-Baginski O, Soussan J (2003) Forest management and utilization under community forestry. J For Livelihood 3(1):37–50
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shrestha, K.K., McManus, P. The Embeddedness of Collective Action in Nepalese Community Forestry. Small-scale Forestry 6, 273–290 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-007-9020-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-007-9020-4