Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Embeddedness of Collective Action in Nepalese Community Forestry

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. The Sukumbasi are generally landless people, who encroach government land (often forests) to construct temporary houses with a view to a permanent settlement.

  5. The basis for the calculation and analysis is reported in Shrestha (2005).

  6. 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).

  7. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralisation and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baland JM, Platteau JP (1996) Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? FAO and Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R, McBeth MK (1992) Community encouragement: returning to the basis for community development. J Community Dev Soc 23(2):20–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup SV, Bishop RC (1975) Common property as a concept in natural resources policy. Nat Resour J 15(1):713–727

    Google Scholar 

  • CPFD (2006) Community forest user group data base. Nepal Government, Department of Forests, Community and Private Forest Division (CPFD), Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M, Swedberg R (2001) The sociology of economic life. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heckathorn DD (1996) The dynamics and dilemmas of collective action. Am Sociol Rev 61(2):250–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall G (1998) A dictionary of sociology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy N, Dutilly-Diane C, Drabo B (2004) Cooperation, collective action and natural resource management in Burkina Faso. Agric Syst 82(3):233–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearns R (1996) Community, collective action and common grazing: the case of post-socialist Mongolia. J Dev Stud 32(3):297–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick R, DiGregorio M, McCarthy N (2004) Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agric Syst 82(3):197–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peluso NL (1993) Coercing conservation?: the politics of state resource control. Glob Environ Change, 3:199–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi K et al (1957) The great transformation. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: institutionalising popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralisation. World Resource Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade R (1988) Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in south India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krishna K. Shrestha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-007-9020-4

Keywords

Navigation