Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management

Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community㩷 Forestry 1䌾20

Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems

between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry

Takako Wakiyama
University of East Anglia, England

Abstract
This is a review of forest management in Nepal that focuses on the differences between indigenous systems and
those introduced by the government and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) under community
forestry programmes. It includes an analysis of which system is more feasible for implementing sustainable forest
management by comparing an indigenous forest management system with community forestry. As well, the evolu-
tion of forest management implementation in Nepal through the populist paradigm of community-based forest man-
agement will be discussed. First, it will examine how forest management systems have shifted, by defining the
differences between the traditional indigenous forest management system and community forestry. Subsequently,
the features of community forestry as a political intervention, and its dynamic characteristics and evolutional proc-
esses, will be examined. A key factor of this study is the study of institutional arrangements, including property
rights, and the role of the state and its interactions with local users in both the indigenous forest management system
and community forestry. It aims to analyse how effective forest management is carried out, in terms of the im-
provement of livelihoods and the regeneration of forest cover, arguing that the presence of such institutions is vital to
achieving the goals of sustainable forest use. The research detailed in this report, primarily from secondary resources,
is used and analysed in the context of community forestry and the indigenous forest management system in Nepal.

Keywords: Indigenous forestry, Community forestry, Self-organised institution, Property rights, Relations with the state.

1. Introduction 1.1.2 Changes of forest policy and management

system
1.1 Forest management systems and local commu- As forest losses and degradation are recognised and per-
nities in Nepal ceived by the state and local communities, forest policies have
been changed. Along with the revision of forest policy, local
1.1.1 Characteristics of forests and local community communities have been also forced to change their familiar
In Nepal there are different ethnic and religious groups management systems or relationships with other social actors.
with their own social structures, such as the caste system The nationalisation of Nepal’s forests in 1957 ignored the
and hierarchical income groups, which vary according to diversity of existing management systems and took over the
geographical location (Varughese and Ostrom 2001). responsibility and autonomy of local people to manage the
As a result, there is a diversity of community manage- lands, converting community lands into state lands. There
ment systems relating to forest use, which are con- were limitations, however, on the state’s efforts to enact the
structed by the social nature of property embedded in the nationalisation policy as originally intended. Consequently, it
cultural and moral frameworks of each community failed to effectively manage the country’s forests and to ensure
(Messerschmidt 1985; Li 1996). the livelihoods of local communities.
Due to the beneficial functions that forests provide, Therefore, in the 1970s, the importance of local users’ par-
however, forest lands have attracted various actors and ticipation in forest management was reconsidered by the gov-
stakeholders, including the state and private enterprises ernment after recognising the effectiveness and benefits of
as well as local forest users. They have had different common property management (Brown et al. 2002). At first it
interests and have built up distinct interactions with the decided to devolve the power and authority over resource use to
forest in order to satisfy their needs in economic, politi- the community level as part of the decentralisation process,
cal, and social terms. Consequently, the Nepali people returning property rights to communities.1 Community forestry
have faced an increasing loss of forest areas, and con-
tested usufruct rights for forest uses with a large number
of various stakeholders, as the values of timber and other 1 Decentralisation is a process whereby responsibility and power, ini-
natural resources have risen (Hobley and Malla 1996). tially under the central authority, is increasingly shared or taken over
by one or more sub-units with the capacity and capability to efficiently
and effectively deliver the agreed upon services.
2 Policy Trend Report

programmes were initiated on an experimental basis in the transition of forest policy and local management system
1980s. Projects were established by policymakers, field staff in Nepal:
in the Forest Department, and project staff of the National The production of the First Five-year Development
Community Forestry workshop. Eventually, community for- Plan by HMG Nepal in 1957 is the clearest evidence of
estry was legally implemented with the 1993 Forest Act and the the impact of international thought on Nepalese policy,
1995 Forest Rules. and since that date Nepal has been increasingly influ-
The modern community forestry approach is based upon as- enced by world trends in economics and in development
pects of indigenous forest management systems that were prac- theory and practice. Before 1957, Nepalese policy, and
tised until the advent of nationalisation. The study of the era especially forest policy, was dominated by concerns and
when indigenous forestry was carried out as a form of privati- attitudes arising from within the country itself, and the
sation proceeded; as a result, it was found that forest lands did years before 1957 therefore provide the best evidence of
not have clearly defined owners under the land grant system. forest policy and management indigenous to Nepal
Therefore, in community forestry—although forest ownership (Gautam 1991, 4).
still remains with the government—the authority and control of
forest products and resource management has shifted back to 2.1 Indigenous forest management systems
the hands of communities.
2.1.1 Indigenous forestry
1.2 Aims and framework of this report Under indigenous forestry, local knowledge was fully
At present, forest users in Nepal have the responsibil- utilised, possessing information about agriculture,
ity of managing communal forests and property granted agro-forestry, pest management, soil fertilisation, multi-
by the government, and thus they also have de facto use ple cropping patterns, health care, and food preparation
rights and rights to control the land (Hobley and Malla (Agrawal 1995). In addition, as nature is a part of hu-
1996; Gilmour and Fisher 1998). There are several man society, which is constructed by social norms that
problems, however, that need to be dealt with in order to define people’s perspectives towards the environment
achieve the goals of setting up a community forestry and relations with others, management and livelihood
project plan: strategies for survival were adjusted to the social con-
x Establishing self-organised institutions in order to ef- struction of their knowledge and understanding of nature
fectively manage communal forests (see Section 4 (Alcorn 1993).
below). According to Gautam (1991), indigenous forestry in
x Excluding beneficiaries from access and use of forest Nepal is defined as the management systems that are not
by providing property rights to the local community significantly affected by Western influences and that are
(Section 5). operated as responses to local requests or initiatives
x Establishing effective relations among the state and through village or villager group meetings. Therefore,
local community so that the government and local it indicates being a product of the time before forests
people collectively implement sustainable forest were managed without any technical “inputs from other
management (Section 6). countries by way of imposition, inducement or exten-
It is therefore necessary to determine whether there are sion” (ibid., 4) through seminars, workshops, meetings,
further aspects of indigenous management systems that plantation activities, and training.
should be applied to solving contemporary difficulties
that the paradigm of community forestry does not cur- 2.1.2 Formation of an indigenous forest manage-
rently address. Both systems must be critically ap- ment system
praised to determine their suitability in providing the According to the indigenous forest management sys-
needs listed above. tems surveyed by Arnold and Campbell (1985), forest
Therefore, as the main discussion of this report, it will use was shared amongst adjoining villages. Manage-
assess how the features of both systems have changed. ment was undertaken with strong cohesive bonds
First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of the amongst households. The use of the forests was con-
following concepts: (1) indigenous forest management trolled with restricted access at certain times of the year,
systems and (2) community forestry. while during the rest of year the areas were protected and
regenerated under the rules set up by groups who had
2. Mechanism of community-based forest manage- their own management systems to deal with for-
ment in Nepal est-related problems. Harvesting was regulated depend-
Throughout the history of forest policy, from privati- ing on the type of products and species, the condition of
sation to nationalisation and finally to populism, the products, and the season.
transition of forest management systems can be viewed Villagers were willing to participate in co-operative
through categories of indigenous forestry and community forest management and to exercise rational use in line
forestry (Gautam 1991). This is essential to under- with the changes in forest condition. They preferred not
standing how forest use is viewed by both state and local to collect when they were aware of problems of dimin-
actors. The following statement describes the historical ishing resources such as shortages of fuel, fodder, and
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 3

composting material (Gautam 1991). In order to exer- responsibility of local forest management is based on
cise effective management and to enforce regulations, a experience of past government failures to control forest
watcher was hired, who was paid in grain gathered from degradation because of the limited capacity of the Forest
every household except the poorest. The duties of the Department to handle problems. Substantially, the
watchman were to patrol the forest and control access for correlation between the loss of traditional systems and
collection and cutting of firewood and fodder, and for the autonomous functions of local management and the
livestock grazing, according to the rules set up by the changes in forest condition were observed and then ex-
user group committee (Arnold and Campbell 1985). amined (Mosse 1997). Finally, the re-establishment of
For example, among the Sherpas of the Khumbu re- local users’ rights and social organisations has been fo-
gion, forest guards, who were called shingo naua and cused on, including institution building for the use of
mandated by the village assembly, were in charge of the natural resources. Local users were identified, and then
protected forest (Khatri-Chhetri 1993). They had the forest user groups (FUGs) were formulated so that they
responsibility for preservation by checking the areas could manage the local forest themselves. Rural com-
regularly and regulating access and forest use. They munities were empowered in the process of transferring
only provided permission to limited felling for special the authority to control and regulate their legitimate user
purposes in line with the needs of the community and rights (Soussan et al. 1995).
rules determined by the assembly. Furthermore, such
preservation mechanisms were reinforced through moni- (a) Initial contradiction
toring and patrols by other local individuals. The community forestry approach was set up based on
Indigenous forest management systems combine tradi- the definition and suggestion that “community forest
tional authority and self-regulation in order to organise implies ‘community-resource’ relations, commonly
informal institutions. Households co-operate in such a known as [the] ‘indigenous system of forest manage-
way that individuals manage and minimise damage to the ment’’’ (Fisher 1989). Yet, simultaneously, it was ini-
resources they rely on in order to meet their long-term tiated with Western influences through scientifi-
needs (Soussan et al. 1995). cally-trained foresters (Houster 1993). Therefore, in-
digenous forestry practices that included local knowledge
2.2 Community forestry were reconsidered as an essential factor for care of the
A community forestry programme was initiated with environment and the development of the community.
the assumption that local communities will become ac- Such an assumption has helped to empower local people
tive participants in forest management, since they under- through the study of their relationship with nature and
stand the problems, are motivated to find the best solu- their traditional system of managing natural resources.
tions, and possess knowledge of forest conditions and the And, at the same time, political interventions in forest
changes observed. It is a group of local people who will management were introduced by the state, ones that util-
be able to maintain the conditions sustainably over time ised scientific knowledge and methods, including educa-
due to their vested interests (Adhikari 2002). The original tion and training.
justification of the programme is linked to two basic as-
sumptions: (b) Transition
1. Participatory resource management is the most ap- As the programmes have progressed, such state inter-
propriate solution for reducing resource degrada- ventions have come to focus more on facilitating the res-
tion. toration of effective indigenous forestry practices and
2. Granting property rights over the local commons encouraging local participation in sustainable forest
will meet community needs in terms of equitable management, by bringing out local interests, identity, and
and sustainable use of environment resources. needs using research methods such as participatory re-
Moreover, two goals were set in order to achieve suc- search approval (PRA)2 (Hobley 1996).
cessful community forestry: Furthermore, as community forestry programmes in
1. Achieve environmental benefits by preserving for- some communities and the study of community-based
ests and appealing to conservation practice. forest management have advanced, the effectiveness of
2. Alleviate the poverty of people dependent on the traditional management systems have come to be better
forest by emulating the success of the understood by both international and national agencies,
now-diminished traditional forest management as is reflected in the growing volume of literature on lo-
system. cal people’s capacity to conduct sustainable resource
management (Messerschmidt 1985; Gautam 1991; Bart-
2.2.1 The aims of initiating community forestry lett and Malla 1992; Bhattachan 2002). The positive
The programmes were initially implemented as a result
of the government’s recognition that participation in for-
2
est management by forest users who customarily hold the PRA is a “family of participatory approaches and methods which
emphasize local knowledge and enable local people to do their own
de facto user rights should be prioritised (Timsina 2002). appraisal, analysis and planning. PRA uses group animation and exer-
This recognition of the importance for forest users to take cises to facilitate information sharing, analysis and action among
stakeholders.” (World Bank 1995:175)
4 Policy Trend Report

effects on local people of giving attention to the potential an autonomous institution of the local community, and
importance of “indigenous knowledge” to environmental consist of various castes and ethnic groups with different
management has been recognised in political ecology social, economic, and cultural backgrounds within a
theory (Adams 1990; Bryant 1997), which explains that community.
political and economic processes either generate or exac-
erbate environmental problems such as desertification, 3. Effective function of community-based manage-
tropical deforestation, soil erosion, and wildlife depletion. ment as a local institution
The role of local people and the value of their manage- As mentioned above, both community forestry and in-
ment systems have been appreciated for their sustainable digenous forest management systems are implemented in
use and protection of the forests that they depend on as line with the concept of community-based forest man-
common property. Eventually, while the role of the state agement in dealing with common property and adopting
is reduced to only that of a regulatory authority, the com- an institutional system. Groups of individuals can
munities take total management control (Hobley 1996). jointly use the same common pool resources, sharing
property rights with others by organising themselves in
2.2.2 Formation of community forestry such a way that the group effectively co-operates in prac-
Community forestry is based on the operational tising sustainable use and equally distributes the benefits
co-operation of Forest Department officers and forest and costs from the resources on which they depend
user groups. Moreover, the devolution of the power and (Verughese and Ostrom 2001).
authority to manage forest areas between these actors is As demonstrated in the study by Berkes et al. (1989),
linked to the idea of sharing the responsibility of forest in the communities that have effectively managed their
protection. Therefore, in order to ensure the feasibility resources, perceptions of the long-term benefits have
of resource management, it is necessary to emphasise been incurred. Moreover, group-based institutional
co-operation between the forester and those who use the arrangements have effectively provided adequate indi-
forest, especially for domestic purposes and as an inte- vidual incentives and secured long-term tenure arrange-
gral part of their farming systems (Pokharal 2002). ments and group-imposed restrictions, including rules
and regulations (Hobley and Shah 1996). Therefore, the
(a) District Forest Offices (DFO) key factors in operating the management system depend
In 1990 the government prepared operational guide- on how to deal with institutional arrangements and prop-
lines in the Forest Department for the process of handing erty rights, how to develop relations with the state, and
over responsibility and authority to protect, manage, and how to realise quality-of-life improvements for the peo-
use the forests from the regional directors to the district ple in a community.
forest offices (DFOs). The responsibility for adminis-
tering the new institutional arrangements was given to 3.1 Features as an institution
the DFO at the district level and its satellite offices at the The definition of an institution is a set of working
sub-district level. The role of the DFOs is shifting from rules that determines who is able to make decisions and
being a manager and a controller of forests to acting as be involved in an action, what relations are taken be-
an adviser to forest users and a supplier of technical as- tween the actors, and what actions are allowed or con-
sistance, in order to formulate and implement operational strained (Ostrom 1990). Institutions can also be de-
plans while helping organise FUGs (see below). The scribed as being composed of “sets of formal and infor-
partnership between the Forest Department and FUGs is mal rules and norms that shape interactions of human
characterised by an element of flexibility that allows user with others and nature” (Agrawal and Gibson 2001, 14).
groups to amend the operational plans structured by the Through the development of locally-based institutions,
Forest Department to meet their needs and then to inform individual actions at the community level are shaped, and
the DFO (Shretha 1998). interactions with other actors are structured. Thus, the
fundamental idea and perception of common property
(b) Forest user groups (FUGs) and natural resources varies according to the culture that
The amendment of the Forest Law in 1993 and 1995 people belong to. Regarding conservation of natural
put the control of forests into the hands of the resource resources, communal norms can “facilitate resource
users organised into FUGs. 3 The responsibility of management by preventing certain behaviours or en-
management, development, and exploitation of forest couraging others” (ibid., 11). According to Alcorn
areas has been handed over to FUGs, with property rights (1993), in resource management regimes, shared com-
given to them in order to gain access to forest resources munity-level norms can promote conservation so as to
(Bhattarai and Ojha 2000–01). FUGs are legitimised as specifically prohibit particular actions and encourage
co-operative decision-making within the community,
creating communal informal rules.
3
According to the CPFD database 2000, more than 9,000 FUGs with
about one million beneficiary families are managing about 660,000
hectares of community forest in Nepal. The number of FUGs is still 3.2 The function of the institutional system
increasing, with new communities being formed and community for- The concept of an effective institutional system is
estry being applied to a wide range of forests.
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 5

likely to be based around the premise that local commu- tions (Varughese 2000; Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Va-
nities share the characteristics of being a small unit that rughese and Ostrom 2001); the mechanisms of the insti-
has territorial concerns and is homogeneous in social tution are interrelated with the formation of collective
structure (Ellis and Allison 2001). It can be argued, action, making use of mutual functions, as shown in Fig-
however, that the effectiveness of an institution varies ure 1.
with the degree of co-operation found in collective ac-

㽲Promote social network and Positive results

arrangement
Institutional

Maintaining forests in the long term

Improving livelihoods in a group

individual responsibilities

Collective action
Institution

㽳Share cost and benefits

rights
Property

㽴 Adopt individual behav-

iours to co-operate with others

Given membership Enhance the sense of membership

Figure 1. Institutional mechanism

First, the beneficial function of an institution in a sciousness of being a stakeholder of the institution.
common property regime is to facilitate collaborative Such advantages stemming from participation in organi-
management practices by sharing rights and responsibili- sations and realising beneficial collective outputs provide
ties in a group. The mechanisms of an institution also the community members with enough incentives to
have the capability to formulate “a social network that co-operate amongst themselves in long-term resource
contributes to enhance coordination skills in that indi- management (Futemma at al. 2002). Thus, institutional
viduals learn or develop commitment, responsibility, and mechanisms are able to “regulate irrational or unpredict-
the importance of task fulfilment” (Futemma at al. 2002, able behaviour on the part of the individual” (Cleaver
504). It also helps a group to acquire and exchange 2000, 364).
information through a learning process. This can be explained by the study of Ostrom (1990),
Second, if people formulate collective action through a who examined the problems associated with a common
local institution, they can effectively organise and govern property regime dealing with the provision and the with-
themselves voluntarily as a group (Ostrom 1990), and drawal of scarce communal resources (Ostrom 1990).
can allow the development of their own internal govern- People usually tend to seek benefits from immediate
ance mechanisms and formulas so that they are able to outcomes, not those in the distant future, and by using
allocate costs and benefits to members. Ostrom (ibid.) different individual strategies for their livelihoods. Yet
argues that in terms of the total net benefits that appro- if a group of forest users establishes their own organisa-
priators obtain, individual acts in acquiring scarce com- tion, it is possible for them to devise their own rules,
mon property resources are not as effective as collective which involves, over time, the making and adopting of
actions with co-ordinated strategies. Thus, in resource rules, and as a result, can prevent forest users from seek-
management, establishing organisations will aid commu- ing individual benefits from a communal forest (Ostrom
nities to improve both forest conditions and their liveli- 1999).
hoods through co-operative conservation practices, and
allow the sharing of costs and benefits generated from 3.3 Demonstration of the function
resource use activities. The importance of collective action in managing com-
Finally, communities need to set up their own institu munal resources is proved by the study carried out by
tion in order to enhance collective action. Through the Varughese (2000), who found a linkage between changes
formation of a self-organised resource governance sys- in forest conditions and local forms of collective action.
tem, members are also made well aware of their rights, The study shows that local people organise and manage
responsibilities, duties, and benefits from shared infor- forest resources depending on the degree of collective
mation. As a result, they maintain an individual con- action performed within the community (see Table 1).
6 Policy Trend Report

Table 1. Preliminary comparison of forest conditions with collective activities.

Forest condition Forest stock Collective

Site location
trend condition action*
Churiyamai (Makwanpur) Improved Average High
Bijulikot (Ramechhap) Improved Average High
Doramba (Ramechhap) Improved Average High
Raniswara (Gorkha) Improved Average High
Bandipur (Tanahum) Improved Above average High
Manichaur (Kathmandu) Improved Average Moderate
Riyale (Kavre Palanchowk) Stable Below average Moderate
Thulo Sirubari (Sindhupalchowk) Stable Average Moderate
Barbote (Ilam) Stable Average Moderate
Baramchi (Sindhupalchowk) Stable Below average Low
Bhedetar (Dhankuta) Worsening Above average Moderate
Agra (Makwanpur) Worsening Average Low
Chhimkeshwari (Tanahum) Worsening Average Low
Chunmang (Dhankuta) Worsening Average Low
Bhagwatisthan (Kavre Palanchowk) Worsening Below average Low

Sunkhani (Nuwakot) Worsening Below average Low

Chhoprak (Gorkha) Worsening Below average None

Shantipur (Ilam) Worsening Average None

* Organised collective action level at the user level:
Low: individual may observe harvesting constraint on their own, no group activities
Moderate: as a group, individuals have harvesting constraints, minimal group activities, little or no monitoring
High: enforced harvesting constraints, organised group activities, monitoring by members

Source: Varughese (2000, 207).

For example, in Rainswara, where the forest has been be found that an institution can properly function with
managed with a high degree of collective action by vil- collective action. It is now necessary to discuss the suit-
lagers, forest conditions have improved in terms of the ability of community forestry in setting the institutional
increase in abundance of tree species and shrubs. De- arrangements and property rights in the institutional sys-
spite the characteristics of this community—which has a tem (discussed below in Section 5). It will be compared
large membership, increasing population growth, and with those of indigenous systems in order to consider the
fluctuating migrant patterns—it overcomes potential advantages and disadvantages of both systems.
problems of co-operation by establishing smaller sub-
committees and subgroup activities. Within the sub- 4. Institutional arrangements
groups, forest activities and products are allocated. In
comparison, in the Agra forest, where the community did 4.1 Indigenous forestry
not organise a protection and management system, forest Self-organised institutions, as a traditional and infor-
conditions have deteriorated. Although they are a fairly mal system, are often considered as having weak mecha-
homogeneous community with the same ethnic back- nisms, since the rules of use policy are not firmly con-
ground and religion, and individuals are aware of forest structed through legal frameworks. Yet, in practise, in
degradation and practise harvesting constraints on their indigenous institutional arrangements, shared communal
own, there are no organised activities at the group level norms associated with forest management activities have
and no rules on harvesting. established complete sets of binding rules and regulations
In the institutional mechanism described above, it can under communal consensus, and they can promote
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 7

co-operative actions in both collective decision-making householders in the community were able to meet their
and at the operational level. Their control and man- basic needs.
agement practices of forest resources are determined by Provided that the livelihoods of individual household-
the people’s acquired knowledge, with which they inter- ers are ensured by the self-organised institution and
pret experience and generate social behaviour (Messer- strong leadership, the regulations and rules on using for-
schmidt 1985). Communal control, reflecting broader est can be operated by the local community for sustain-
styles of local governance, is based on these norms. It able management of the land.
is believed that the forest belongs to the community and,
therefore, that actions against that norm should be dealt 4.1.3 Critical views of self-organisation
with through “negative social sanction” (ibid., 470). In Although the advantages of the indigenous forest
indigenous societies, the concept of community is con- management system have been described above, three
structed from the perceptions of its members, who be- factors should be taken into account as critical when the
lieve that they share norms and identity and have com- analysis and study of traditional forest management sys-
mon interests and experiences with others within the tems are carried out:
community (Agrawal and Gibson 2001). Therefore, x Appropriators in common property regimes do not
local voices are reflected in the decision-making con- “always, even usually, self-organise to establish their
sensus regarding the regulation of access to forest re- own rules” (Varughese and Ostrom 2001, 748).
sources, as well as in the management system. Local resource users as appropriators will only or-
ganise themselves as long as costs and benefits are
4.1.1 Rules and regulation perceived in the processes of the institutional changes
Indigenous forest management systems are based on of local organisation (ibid.).
the local villagers’ definitions of the resources. The x Collective action is also carried out to varying de-
customary rights of the users were recognised and identi- grees and leads to different consequences, depending
fied in indigenous systems, and later they were legalised on the community’s social structure and social rela-
with indigenous codes.4 Indeed, through the study of tionships in relation to class, ethnicity, and gender
indigenous forest systems, it has been revealed that some (Malla 2001). Communities are not always composed
traditional local communities have long practised sus- of one single ethnic group but usually of various
tainable management without external influences by groups who have different backgrounds and culture,
regulating access to and use of their forest, and by plant- including customs and religion. Indeed, in Nepal
ing trees in their own ways to regenerate forests. There some traditional groups consist of migrants who do
are many places in Nepal where forest cover has im- not, or hardly, possess community cohesion and unity,
proved and farm land has been gradually returned to for- those that move to marginal areas, or who are disor-
est through practising well-organised management sys- ganised underclass workers in agricultural lands
tems with communal regulations and rules (Carter and (Varughese and Ostrom 2000). Therefore, the claim
Gilmour 1989). This can be possible in communities that traditional communities have shared community
where the function of the traditional voluntary organisa- norms is not true in all communities; rather such an
tions is well supported by the co-operation of individual idea is a myth of traditional communities.
villagers although there are no written laws, rules, or x Even if self-organised institutions are established in
regulations. line with social norms and social structure, the norms
do not necessarily lead the community members to
4.1.2 The role of local leaders carry out conservation practices (Alcon 1993).
Local leaders play a significant role in enhancing Therefore, in indigenous forestry, in reality, even
regulations determined through community consensus by though there are cases where forest users collectively
announcing them through the authority. According to manage lands by sharing responsibilities and duties, there
Ojha (2002, 19), “Where local leadership is strong, is not enough evidence and information to prove it. Fur-
committed and participatory, the enterprise benefits to thermore, many constraints to implementing a
disadvantaged section of the communities are enhanced.” self-organised institution can be seen in many traditional
Local leadership is therefore considered to be a critical communities.
factor in the effective functioning of an indigenous for-
estry system. For instance, in the Ramche forest in the 4.2 Community forestry
Dhankuta district (Pokharel 1997), the Limbu family was In the history of Nepal’s forest policy, the introduction
the traditional forest owner, and one senior family mem- of nationalisation included formulating a centrally de-
ber took care of the forest under traditional obligations signed and scientifically informed forest policy. The
that allowed others to use the forest, and ensured that all new policy took away the powers and interests of local
people, who had enacted rules to limit forest use and
conducted monitoring, and also removed any incentives
4
Indigenous code refers to the rules and exhortations concerning forest for sustainable use and co-operative management. How-
practices that guide the treatment and use of the forest resources, at ever, after the failure of the governmental forest man-
least in nominated areas (Gautam 1991).
8 Policy Trend Report

agement system, through the revival of common-based tion of ideas and views which do not necessarily reflect
management systems—the community forestry pro- the interests of local communities in managing their
jects—local communities have taken back these rights to lands (Housler 1993; Ferguson 1994). In such circum-
use and manage their forests, and formed institutions stances, operational plans are more likely to represent the
called forest user groups (FUGs). interests and ideas of the state.

4.2.1 The rules and regulations of forest use (b) Distribution of benefits
With the establishment of a FUG, the members control There exists a substantial discourse on common prop-
and manage the local forests, including independent har- erty management, in which a community tends to be
vesting and pricing of all forest products, and forest viewed as a harmonious and co-operative group of peo-
management is governed by an executive committee ple. Originally, community forestry projects were
elected in the FUG assembly. With the formation of a launched along with the revival of the indigenous forest
legitimised FUG, local forest users can gain membership management system, which was pointed to as an effec-
that encourages them to practise sustainable management tively functioning community-based management system.
and observe institutional regulations. The way the FUGs In the ethos of the time, traditional communities were
are organised, the members receive a cash subsidy as an treated as something special, and thus they were roman-
incentive for plantation, development, and protection. ticised as being better managers of local resources.
Moreover, any surplus income from the user group’s This romanticised idea of traditional indigenous commu-
forests can be used for development purposes other than nities resulted from using concepts of static and
forestry development. over-simplified social relations (Cleaver 2000). The
narrative of traditional systems claimed to find conserva-
4.2.2 Local leaders tion values in all traditional resource use systems without
In order to secure rights and enforce the restricting detailed analysis of their management systems.
regulations for sustainable forest management, an au- From this point of view, people in communities are
thoritative figure(s) should be formed, someone who has easily seen as part of a “use community” or as “appro-
the responsibility of protecting the whole forest and se- priators,” and considered as a mass unit that shares con-
curing the livelihoods of the members involved in the sensus and culture to collectively practise effective re-
community. Therefore, as community forestry is con- source management (McCay 2001). Therefore, the
structed along with the revival of the indigenous forest problems are located in the use of co-operative actions
management system, instituting alternative figures of and participatory arrangements (Dove 1995). Participa-
local leaders such as headmen is necessary. In this case, tion is undertaken in the form of representatives in a
the FUG committee is given the role of the local author- community or group, assuming that they reflect the
ity. It is responsible for the management system and en- voices of individual householders in decision-making
forcing the regulations and rules, as well as ensuring the processes. In this respect, individuals in a society are
livelihoods of members by providing them equal access likely to be regarded as “an undifferentiated mass, a col-
to the forest. lection of ‘individual farmers’ and ‘decision makers”’
(Ferguson 1994, 178). As long as they take the repre-
4.2.3 Critical views of self-organised institutions sentational form of community participation, the deci-
sion-making processes in forming communal agreements
(a) Formation of user groups are likely to be dominated by the most powerful actors in
As mentioned above, in community forestry the for- the community.
mation of a FUG is a critical factor needed to achieve As can be seen from the case of the Kankai forest in
effective forestry with communal rules and regulations. Terai (Pokharel 1997), the village user group committee
However, the current community forest programme in takes a representative form because local institutional
Nepal tends to emphasise the formation of user groups as arrangements are dominated by village elites. Since local
new community institutions rather than using existing elites in the villages are in influential positions in the
user groups and locally accepted institutional arrange- forest user groups, decisions are likely to reflect the in-
ments (Khatri-Chhetri 1993; Gilmour and Fisher 1998). terests of the most powerful actors. Forest department
In this sense, political intervention under community staff are likely to visit only the powerful individuals,
forestry is likely to impose new social institutions over such as local educated men and political party leaders, to
diverse and effective social formations already operating offer information and services. From the first stage of
(Fisher 1991; Gilmour and Fisher 1998). establishing a FUG, social inequity within user groups
Moreover, development planning by international or appears because, in practice, social interaction with indi-
state agencies often predetermines the structure of a vidual households hardly takes place.
community and the behaviour of its members before the In other words, if the decision-making process in for-
project is undertaken (ibid.; Agrawal and Gibson 2001). est management takes place in the form of community
The result of incorporating an individual into a prede- representation, then the determined management prac-
fined category or social structure can lead to the imposi- tices are likely to ignore the critical interests of individ-
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 9

ual householders and other social actors (Agrawal and regulations—a result of agreements determined in
Gibson 2001). By perceiving local communities as a community meetings—that members of the commu-
whole, many of the world’s poorest rural people have nity follow, while excluding from access and use of
been ignored because they do not belong to any defined the forest those who are not included in the institution
community, but they are in fact marginalised (Li 1996). as a member of the community user group; and
A community usually consists of different ethnic groups, x local leaders are identified in the community that take
and therefore it is difficult to identify it as one single responsibility for equal distribution of the members’
group. equal access to forest uses.
However, there are weaknesses to implementing such
4.3 Analysis an institutional system, both in the indigenous forest
The movement to restore traditional management sys- management system and community forestry, as shown
tems was necessary in order to encourage local forest in Table 2, below. In particular, self-organisation of an
users to empower themselves in setting up new local and indigenous forest management system does not guarantee
self-organised institutions. In the revival of com- that the people in the community voluntarily form the
mon-based management systems, community forestry institutional system, except in communities that have
programmes, local knowledge, and voices should be in- already organised themselves to manage and maintain
corporated into local forest management systems with their common property.
institutional arrangements. The advantages of organising In this sense, state intervention in the forest manage-
institutional arrangements for effective management ment system is necessary to some degree with planned
practices are as follows: community forestry when local people do not organise to
x increased awareness, through participation processes, provide equal distribution of forest access and use, and
of individual responsibility and each person’s role as where effective forest management has not been con-
a forest user in the institution; ducted, in order to ensure long-term sustainability of for-
x the benefits of setting restricting forest use rules and est conservation and people’s livelihoods.

Table 2. Institutional arrangement

Indigenous forest management Community Forestry

Institution Formation Self-organisation FUG
Disadvantages x Not always organised x Difficult to identify and formulate user groups
x Difficult to be organised and there- x Given priority to state’s interests over commu-
fore share norms because communi- nities’
ties are usually the gathering of many x Tend to be represented only by powerful elites
ethnics and migrants
Rules and Characteristics Norms and codes (unwritten rules) Official document
regulation Customary law Statute law
Obligation as a member living in a Obligation as a member of a institution
community
Problems No constant standard (different de- Advantages and power in common property tend
pending on the communities’ features to be given to people who decide the rules and
regulation
Leadership Characteristic Headman Committee of FUG
Roles Have responsibility for the members of Ensure equal access and livelihood for FUG
his group members
Ensure all householders met their basic
needs

5. Property rights The function of property rights in an institution is to

One of the most important elements involved in setting promote local sustainable forest management. By incor-
up an effective institutional system is common property porating property rights into an institutional system, the
arrangements, as briefly mentioned above in Section 3. following advantages can be expected:
According to Mckean (2000), the rights and duties con- x strict countermeasures taken against the inevitable
cerned with resource use are defined in the form of “free riders” with firmly conformed regulations, and
shared ownership, and the users should have a great in- x a desirably clarified distinction of the resource user
terest in promoting the long-term responsible steward- groups in a restricted property rights system (Bartlett
ship of resources. and Malla 1992).
10 Policy Trend Report

Each individual is expected to provide support by ac- and effective management regime (Adhikari 2001).
tively participating in communal management practices, Cleaver (2000) also argues that incentives to be actively
sharing the responsibility as an obligation of all property involved in the community management system can be
rights holders. This also offers greater promise for ef- gained from property rights, as well as from social norms
fective conservation, guaranteeing them benefits distri- shaped by the social structure, culture, and beliefs that
bution over communal lands by excluding exist in the community.
non-communal members. Therefore, common pool re- In Nepal, however, there are difficulties in carrying
sources need to be regulated as common property with out such a common property arrangement. The follow-
the provision of concessions or property rights to limit ing statement clearly describes the present contested and
the number of users under the system. complex situation in exercising the property rights re-
There are four different types of property rights over gime in Nepal in forest areas where large economic and
resources: withdrawal, management, exclusion, and social values have attracted various stakeholders: “At the
alienation (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001) (see Table 3). If heart of participatory forestry lies the battle for owner-
property rights over forest resources are in the hands of ship of forest lands. Property rights structures have for
the community, the potential economic benefits will give the last century been skewed in favour of the state, at the
the community enough incentives to practise an efficient expense of local people’s needs” (Hobley 1996, 7).

Table 3. Property rights.

Common property Community

Indigenous forestry Nationalisation
regime forestry
Withdrawal Participants as pro- Local residents in village Restricted by the gov- Forestry user groups
prietors communities and their ernment (FUGs)
representatives Private individuals Use all the products
Management Participants as pro- Local residents in village Forest Department FUGs
prietors communities and their Buy and sell forest prod-
representatives ucts in market
Decision-making Design regulations of
internal use patterns
Exclusion No right Land distribution system Forest Department District Forest Officers
by King
Alienation No right No right N/A No right
Source: Gilmour and Fisher (1998).

5.1 Indigenous forestry from the perspectives of providing for long-term needs
and the security of livelihoods.
5.1.1 Communal property rights Berkes and Farvar (1989) also describe the effective-
Indeed, the self-organised institution implemented in ness of indigenous self-organised institutions as provid-
the indigenous forest management system gave the ing members with customary rights, by which livelihood
community members a sense of ownership and responsi- was ensured in “providing guaranteed access rights to
bility to patrol and manage their communal lands. Such vital resources so that everyone in the community is as-
traditional voluntary organisations played an important sured of the opportunity of meeting their basic needs”
role in reflecting the voices of individual householders (ibid., 11). Li (1996) emphasises the advantages of in-
through the process of assembly and in supporting the digenous management systems in terms of balancing
self-reliance of community members (Bhattachan 2003). individual and community rights with mutual agreements
All householders, except those of different ethnic groups, by formulating institutions.
participated in the village assembly and accepted the
authority of the headman. Although the village head- 5.1.2 Land distribution
man had de facto ownership of the communal lands as a In Nepal, land distribution has been taking shape in
privilege and reward for his service rendered to the state, various management systems according to versatile ap-
the land was assigned to community institutions with the plications; forest lands were categorised into private
full responsibility of the management and use of the local lands, communal lands, state owned lands, and lands
resources (Gautam 1993). If people are given land that related to religion institutions, respectively called birta,
they can control as their own possession, and if there is kipat, raikar, and guthi, as different tenure systems.
guarantee that the community meetings are worthwhile As pointed out by McKean (2000), the common prop-
participating in and that they reflect local voices, then erty regime was carried out in communal lands in the
they will contribute more effort to managing the land form of shared private property. On one hand, like pri-
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 11

vate property, the forest can be effectively monitored by cising their property rights. Although in some commu-
the voluntary activities of members to manage and pro- nities equitable access to resources might have been be
tect forest with an awareness and sense that a portion of ensured for the members of the community under a
the distributed land is their own land. On the other hand, communal forest management system, in many cases
as common property, forest uses are restrained by shared communities were controlled by local elites who had
communal regulations among members without needing strong ties as officials and nobles with the state, and were
to establish physical boundaries such as fencing, which able to exercise their authority in enforcing or withdraw-
usually costs money to build and maintain. ing access rights (Gilmour et al. 1989).
According to Alcorn (1993), indigenous land use In fact, an effective forest management system func-
could deal with the complex and often-overlapping ten- tioned only in communities with the following particular
ure system by sharing benefits over communal lands and conditions:
excluding non-communal members. Overlapping rights x The lands were not contested amongst various inter-
are effectively operated in order to protect the forest from est groups. This occurred in the case where there was
invasion by outsiders. no economic and social value and benefits; for exam-
Traditional systems are conducted with effective ple, where forest cover was divided into patches,
“partnerships between individuals and their communi- which makes it difficult to use machines to collect
ties” (Alcorn 1993, 426). Although common property timber, and therefore it was not beneficial and effi-
regimes have been operated by larger entities and groups, cient for the private or state entrepreneurs to cultivate
individuals “theoretically hold private property rights and the forest.
do in actual fact” (Gibson et al. 2001, 7). The system x The forests were situated in inconvenient locations by
gave individual resource owners the incentive to carry reasons of remoteness or unfamiliarity.
out long-term planning, to invest in resource quality for
productivity, and to properly husband their resources 5.2 Nationalisation
(McKean 2000). When indigenous management systems were operating,
Furthermore, the land distribution system in a commu- local people were actively involved in forest manage-
nity also functioned effectively by dividing communal ment practices, possessing the autonomy to control the
forest lands into small patches, so that it was easy to use of forest (Hobley 1996). However, as Tamang
identify resource boundaries. In many cases, distribution (1993) argues, “The displacement of indigenous commu-
could be negotiated on an informal basis. In this case, nities which exercised customary law over their forests
agreed membership was given to individual householders, actually weakened control over the use of resources”
and the code of practice that “guided the treatment and (ibid., 308).
use of forest resources” (ibid., 11) was applied for a spe- Upon institution of the nationalisation policy, local
cific area, as was the right to collect forest products and people lost not only autonomy but also their property
“to till certain areas and to collect forest products from rights to take responsibility for the management and use
other areas” (Hobley 1996, 289). of their forest (Soussan et al. 1995; Agrawal and Gibson
Such effective forest management was successfully 2001). They were forced either to leave the land or to
implemented with the existence of the following two give up their familiar forest management system without
common conditions: being replaced by effective alternative management prac-
x the acknowledgement of shared property rights with tices.
which, as a member of the community, the member The dissolution and replacement of the traditional sys-
can work with others in sharing costs and benefits, tem by state-imposed management practices took place
while, like private property, a sense of ownership is during nationalisation in Nepal; land surveys were con-
obtained over small patches of land given to indi- ducted without detailed examination of the many local-
viduals; and ised people-resource relationships that already existed.
x boundaries were clearly identified in communal The cadastral survey demarcated lands according to their
lands . geographical location (Hobley 1996). In line with col-
lected data by the land survey and its resulting bounda-
5.1.3 Critical view of the property rights regime ries, new communities and user groups called panchayat5
It is true that in order to secure rights and enforce the were set up by the government over the pre-existing lo-
restricting regulations, property rights should be distrib- cally accepted institutional arrangements.
uted to all households in the community and include Consequently, the results of nationalisation created
clearly identified boundaries to exclude others from us- new boundaries without considering the existing forest
ing the resources.
But in Nepal, indigenous communities vary in terms of
spatial and temporal location, and each community also 5
Panchayat boundaries divided the whole country into about 29 town
differs in social structure and cultural diversity. There- and 4,000 village panchayats (Guatam 1991). In these circumstances,
people who proximately lived within the panchayats were automati-
fore, there is not always a guarantee that all members cally included in the community and given user rights, whereas those
belonging to the institution gain equal benefits by exer- outside the new boundary were excluded from access to and the use of
the forest, even though they were traditional users.
12 Policy Trend Report

boundaries identified by indigenous communities, and tate the regulation of forest activities in government for-
the newly articulated communities were given responsi- ests. International agencies and the Forest Department
bilities to protect and manage the forests, but they were have defined communities in line with the boundaries
subsequently less effective than the groups they replaced created by using geographical mapping systems (Hobley
(Gilmour and Fisher 1998). Under such circumstances, and Malla 1996).
conflicts over boundaries occurred at the panchayat level, Such an institutional arrangement of property rights
due to this system of seeing a community as a physical does not provide equal opportunities of access to the
unit and ignoring individual roles in forest management. communal forest, and therefore does not guarantee the
It is difficult now to identify who possesses the legiti- equal gain of benefits and security for each house-
mate rights to management due to the overlapping holder’s livelihood. Bhattarai and Ojha (2000–01) re-
boundaries. The emergence of conflicts between in- vealed with a study of labour distribution of household-
digenous communities and newly established communi- ers and their livelihood strategies that, even though dis-
ties for control of community forestry programmes can- tribution of access and uses of the forests was equally
not be avoided, as both lay claim to the right of manag- given to each householder, the wealthier gained more
ing the same areas. Lacking clearly recognised bounda- benefits from the communal forests, while the poor could
ries leads to difficulties in establishing co-operation and not effectively exercise their rights to use the forest be-
collective actions with others. cause of many constraints. The former possesses the
capacity to carry out maximum use and benefits from
5.3 Community forestry given opportunities under community forestry, as well as
From the historical experience of changes in Nepalese the strong power to exercise their rights to harvest forest
forest management, as described above, it is recognised products. On the contrary, even though the poor gain
that unless people are given user rights and ownership, or equal opportunity to access and use forest products, they
at least the authority to control and make decisions on the are not able to maximise their opportunities due to a lack
work plan of a forestry management system, people lose of time and technical capability.
interest in active practices of management, or conflicts
emerge. In other words, co-operation and collective 5.4 Analysis
actions will be obtained by transferring authority and As can be seen in Table 4, it is necessary to create the
responsibility for forest management, so that “the legiti- situation where forest users are responsibly ensured and
mate needs of these people for forest products were met” respected in terms of awareness of their rights with
(Gilmour and Fisher 1998, 36) and incentives are made which forest users harvest and manage with a sense of
available to collectively control the forest through the ownership of the lands. There are difficulties, however,
practise of sustainable activities for income generation. in implementing a communal property regime, as fol-
lows:
5.3.1 Property rights arrangement x There is the difficulty of identifying and deciding
The responsibility of management, development, and who is included or excluded in a community as a
exploitation of forest areas has been handed over to forest user, in defining clear boundaries in communal
FUGs, with property rights given in order to access forest lands, and in setting up a user group in order to con-
resources (Bhattarai and Ojha 2000–01). FUGs have de duct an effective management system.
facto use rights and rights to control the land (Hobley x There are also questions in the communal property
1996; Gilmour and Fisher 1998), as well as to establish regime of whether it takes place in practice in terms
co-operation within communities to effectively manage of equal distribution of the rights for all members of
communal forests and property granted by the govern- the community. If it does, then it should function in a
ment. In Nepal, current legislation allows local users to way that ensures the share of benefits of the members
have power to control and access forest products. In so all of them can meet their basic needs.
community forestry programmes, a community member In practice, as Li (1996) states, the distribution of
possesses a license to share access of communal forest property is often contested, and therefore, in this sense, it
resources and the benefits gained from them under the is likely to be articulated by the representatives of the
agenda of the provision of equal distribution of benefits community. The existence of representatives who are
and costs to a community, powerful spokespersons, such as local leaders or local
elites, that can gain power from the co-operative actions
5.3.2 Critical view of property rights arrangements with the state, can easily simplify the needs of a commu-
There are problems in present property rights ar- nity. These factors have created a weakness in institu-
rangements in the structure of boundaries of communal tional arrangements in both indigenous forestry and com-
lands and the distribution of property rights; the bounda- munity forestry. As self-organised institutions vary
ries and distribution of forest lands are administrated by from community to community, there is not always a
territorially-based forms of local government (Gilmour guarantee for all members that belong to the institution
and Fisher 1998). Such boundaries are still under the that they will equally gain benefits by exercising their
influences of the nationalisation policy in order to facili- property rights.
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 13

Table 4. Periodical differences in communal property management systems.

Indigenous forestry Nationalisation Community forestry

Institutional Self-organised institution and local Panchayats: FUGs and DFO:
characteristics leaders Establishing new village adminis- Re-establishment of local users’
trative institutions. rights and social organisations,
New communities and user groups including institution building for
were set up by the government. the use of natural resources.
Communal Kipat system: Panchayats system: Community forestry system:
land system A form of communal tenure that The government took over all land Newly articulated communities
provided community members rights from people and made it were given the responsibility of
with the right to collect forest state-owned land. management, development, and
products. exploitation of forest areas.
Talukdari system:
Forest as common property was
under the control of local state
functionaries
Other land Diversity of land systems: Simple land system: Diversity of land systems: national
systems private land (birta); state-owned state-owned land park; state-owned land; private
land (raikar); lands related to reli- land
gious institutions (guthi)
Institution Self-regulation: Panchayats: FUGs:
Administered with traditional land New village administrative institu- Local institutions have de facto use
tenure system by local headmen. tions. rights and the right to control the
land.
Boundaries Easy to identify the boundaries of Cadastral survey demarcated lands Still under the influence of the
the resource. according to geographical location nationalisation policy in order to
Could be negotiated on an informal with unclear boundaries. facilitate the regulation of forest
basis. Forest users also unclear. activities in government forests.

Sources: Takako Wakiyama.

Indeed, although in indigenous forestry of hill areas in beneficial areas. In the era of nationalisation, land
Nepal, where small patches of forest land were distrib- ownership in Nepal was vested in the state. Interven-
uted to individual households in a sustainable and effec- tions exercised by the government have been aimed to-
tive way, certain segments of groups, including women wards the “planned transformation of a dynamic in-
and the marginalised in the community, were excluded ter-relationship among community, state, and [the]
from using the forests and faced problems in meeting physical environment” (Dove 1995, 316). Therefore,
their needs (Soussan et al. 1995). when community forestry is initiated in a community,
Therefore, it should be borne in mind that it is a myth one of the key elements necessary is to build up the
to assume that every householder in a community would partnership between those who own the land and those
have equal access to and benefits from distribution of who use the land; relations with the state are an inevita-
common resources if a member of the community is ble factor for local people who live close to forests.
given the ownership of resources (Adhikari 2002). The historical relations amongst these actors were de-
Therefore, it is also based on the assumption that through scribed in Table 5.
the establishment of self-reliant and self-organised insti-
tutions, local people can regain their autonomy and secu-
rity for their livelihoods with equal distribution of bene-
fits.

6. Relations amongst the state and local actors

As described in the previous chapter, the state has in-
tervened in the forest management practices of local
communities in different ways. The state intervention
has been exercised since the time when indigenous for-
estry management was practised (Hobley and Malla
1996). Although the power of the state has been weak-
ened, still now the government has the authority to dic-
tate how to use forests in the economically and socially
14 Policy Trend Report

Table 5. Relationship between the state and community.

Indigenous forestry Nationalisation Community forestry

Actors x The state x The state (scientifi- x The state (DFO)
x Local functionaries; local cally-trained forester) x The committees
headmen x Panchayats x FUGs
x Local forest users
Type of x No direct interaction between x The state is wholly involved x The state is partly involved in forest
relationship local people and the state in forest management management (the foresters and FUGs)
x Indirect relation with the state x Dynamic inter-relationship x Dynamic inter-relationship among com-
through local leaders in a among community, state, and munity, the state, and the physical envi-
community (relation between physical environment ronment
local authority and the state) x Divide the roles between x Co-operation between the forester and
x Close relationships between those who own the land and those who use the forest
local leaders and the local those who use the land x Close relationships between local leaders
government and the local government
Intervention x No direct intervention State intervention in forest man- Less intervention in forest management,
by the state x Land use and livelihood agement system of local com- however, in defined areas territori-
in a com- strategies have been affected munities ally-based forms of local government ad-
munity ministrate the formation of FUG meetings
and the boundaries of forest land and com-
munities.
Sources: Takako Wakiyama.

6.1 Indigenous forest management system management of forests.

Although forest users had not previously had direct Ultimately, the government handed over all responsi-
interactions with the Forest Department, their land use bility over forest areas to the local functionaries, recog-
and livelihood strategies were affected by influential nising the difficulties of implementing forest manage-
forces formally and informally imposed on local man- ment with the responsibility of looking after all the forest
agement systems with local governments “through social areas (Hobley and Malla 1996). Therefore, local au-
(kinship, alignment with political parties, ethnic and re- thority figures were appointed as a local functionary,
gional identity) and economic (bribing, rent-seeking be- regulating forest management practices on behalf of the
haviour) relations” (Timsina and Paudal 2003, 8). In state. Furthermore, he was given the rights to adminis-
other words, the interference of the state in local com- ter the traditional land tenure system and self-regulation
munities appeared indirectly through the interaction with established by the local people. The management
local functionaries who had influential power in the local strategies taken by the government were carried out
forest management system as well as the social lives of through the effective relationships with local leaders, and
the community. the state provided birta6 (private lands) to the local au-
thorities in exchange for their services of looking after
6.1.1 Local leaders and local community the lands and communal obligations towards the state.
As already mentioned earlier in Section 4, local lead-
ers played a significant role in supporting the effective 6.1.2 Critical views of relations
management of communal forests and promoting the In traditional societies that did not have legal frame-
functions of institutional arrangements and property
rights. The local authority figures, such as local head- 6
Private lands: since the Rana era began in 1846, when Jung Bahadur
men, held the title and responsibility of forest areas under Rana became prime minister, a large portion of the land in Nepal was
their land ownership, and they also fulfilled their func- in the hands of local elites or local functionaries, who obtained own-
tions as collectors of land taxes for the local government. ership through the birta system. By 1950, when the system was
As a local leader of a community, they achieved a close abolished, “one-third of the county’s agricultural and forestlands had
been granted to private individuals” (Malla 2001: 291). Under the
relationship with government officials. The relations birta system, landlords were given rights to use forest products, and
between the headmen and the state had been effectively therefore regulated use through their responsibility to look after the
enhanced as leading the policy tendency to focus on the lands. While a large portion of lands was converted into private
devolution of central government since the 1900s. As a property, many rural farmers had to rent land from birta holders
(Gautum 1991). As the penalty for failing to pay their obligation, a
result, an official document confirmed the role of local large number of tenant farmers ended up as “bondage labour” (slaves)
headmen by providing guidelines for the utilisation and working for large birta owners or had to supply forest products to
landlords.
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 15

works in communal lands “manipulative control” by the state should also reveal and take it into account the exis-
state tended to create co-operative interests and man- tence of migrants and the marginalised within and out-
agement strategies with powerful local actors in the rep- side of a community to implement equal distribution of
resentative form of land distribution and ownership benefits. In addition, the DFOs maintain authority over
(Mosse 1998). Even though local functionaries should forests so as to prevent local users from mismanagement,
have dedicated themselves to being an intermediary be- and the roles of the DFOs as a local authority are to sup-
tween the state and local communities, their choices and port and facilitate the forest users’ activities by giving
related behaviour were likely to respond to the govern- them legal rights (Gilmour and Fisher 1998).
ment expectations through their interaction processes. The community forestry mechanism is reinforced with
This is because they tended to represent and express the the partnership between FUGs and DFOs in order to en-
community’s needs and interests in line with their ex- force communal rules and regulations. While FUGs are
pectation of what the state offered, resulting in a benefi- given responsibility for the lands, and therefore the obli-
cial relationship between the state and local functionar- gation to follow the rules set up themselves, the DFOs
ies. play a key role in monitoring the practice of regulation
Therefore, even though the local people did not have a and supporting FUGs with advice to establish their own
direct relationship with the state, their management sys- rules, following the legal procedures and rules deter-
tem and livelihoods strategies were affected. Ultimately, mined in forest policies.
the state had the power to ratify the forestry system and However, because national governments do not pos-
to “attribute it with agency in the re-shaping of social and sess enough staff and money to enforce their laws over
productive relations” (Mosse 1998, 1). forest resources, some user groups in local communities
tend to ignore the rules determined by the central gov-
6.2 Nationalisation changed the intervention of lo- ernment and add their own rules and familiar pattern of
cal government activity (Gibson et al. 2000). Such rules and activities
In the post-Rana7 period in Nepal, just before the na- are likely to be different from the expectations of the
tionalisation policy was implemented, while state control government.
and the power of forest departments had been increasing,
especially through the birta system, a “technical elitism 6.3.2 Critical view of the relations between local
based on forest science” (Soussan et al. 1995, 17) began government and local community
to be developed as a result of the influence of Western There are constraints to FUGs having full autonomy in
countries. For example, foresters began to be trained in their forest management practices, because the DFOs
the developed countries (ibid.), and such scientifically have legal power over the FUGs in regulating mecha-
trained foresters began the nationalisation policy in order nisms for their constitution and operational plans as well
to enact forest conservation and economic development as formation. For instance, if a DFO does not return a
through the conversion of private and communal lands to response to the application for amendments from an FUG,
state ownership (Houster 1993). The nationalisation of it cannot function and the amendments are not completed.
forest lands and state ownership were justified with the Although FUGs possess the power to amend the consti-
assertion that they would contribute to the welfare of the tution and operational plans, according to the study car-
country and the people by the equal distribution of natu- ried out by Springate-Baginski et al. (1999), most FUGs
ral resources (Soussan et al. 1995). have not done so.
Furthermore, as already mentioned in the previous
6.3 Community forestry section, it becomes more difficult for FUGs to obtain the
Today, dialogues between communities and the state power to manage forest in areas that have economic and
for establishing forestry projects have progressed re- political value. Therefore, although the FUGs were es-
garding the issue of handing over a defined area of gov- tablished as a local institution, it became clear that user
ernment forest to community control, so that all sections groups were “either dominated by local elites or existed
of communities participate in the formation of a le- on paper only and were in practice moribund” (Soussan
gally-recognised forestry user group which follows the et al. 1995, 83).
government’s community forestry regulations (Soussan The prescribed existence of a community FUG does
et al. 1995). not necessarily give the users incentives to actively en-
gage in such activities, because there is no guarantee for
6.3.1 The relations between DFOs and FUGs the members of the group that they will gain benefits and
The government’s role is to give property rights to lo- value through effective participation. In Sitalpati, in the
cal user institutions to provide political legitimacy to the district of Sankuwasabha (Soussan et al. 1995), the FUGs
concept of local use (Gilmour and Fisher 1998). The formed by the Forest Department were handed over lands
that were already degraded, and so the FUG existed in
name only and was irrelevant to the lives of most villag-
7
The Rana period ended with the introduction of the panchayat system ers.
in 1959. During this period, the unification of the country was en- Even in hill forests that have not been subject to state
hanced in sense of social and economical unification (Gautam 1991).
16 Policy Trend Report

intervention due to their geographic characteristics, as its resources. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that
soon as the value of forest products suddenly increases, even though in some communities, in both indigenous
the focus of the Forest Department might extend its forestry and community forestry, local participation
power to these areas, which means that “the access of the seems to have been successfully obtained—and function
marginalized groups to the forests is questioned by more effectively as a user-group-oriented management system
powerful groups” (Hobley and Shah 1996, 10). In the in decision-making and consensus—the co-operative
Terai forest, arguments against community forestry have interests and strategic engagements tend to be promoted
been common within the Forest Department due to the by the state and the elite groups, rather than by individual
value of the forest products and the great interest shown interests in terms of costs and benefits (Pokharel 1997).
by commercial loggers, leading to unwillingness to re- As Springate-Baginski et al. (1999) state, the decisions
linquish management. It is clearly described in the study made at the implementation stage by elite groups within
by Pokharel (1997) that since the process of the forma- FUGs are likely to deal their desired actions concerning
tion of FUGs, meetings with local communities have not roles, responsibilities, and plans, and therefore they
taken place in Terai, where the state has a great interest might reach the conclusion that “it is easier just to close
due to the area’s rich natural resources, such as valuable the forest than to reach complex agreements on [a] regu-
timber and forest products, and its suitable location for lar basis” (ibid., 13). Such agreements occur possibly
commercial purposes. because villagers do not regard the constitutions and op-
erational plans as working documents that guide their
6.4 Analysis own forest management practices, and they continue to
In order to practise effective local forest management, practise their familiar methods.
another key element is to build up a triangular relation- Therefore, in order to avoid such unequal distribution
ship between local communities, local leaders, and the within a community when new institutional arrangements
state (see Figure 2). are set up, the government should stick to the role of fa-
In practice, however, such a relationship has con- cilitator in order to support local forest users and monitor
straints, because each actor is dedicated to conducting the functions of user groups—working flexibly with
their own tasks and roles for community management them, while giving them the autonomy to make decisions
due to the economic and social values of the forest and and to manage their communal forests.

State

㽲 㽳 㽷 㽶

㽵
Local leaders Forest user groups
㽴

State and 㽲 Hand over the responsibility for management.

local leaders 㽳 Look after forest and communities in terms of conservation and livelihoods, respectively.
㽴 Ensure the livelihood security of local forest users as members of the community.
Local leaders and
local communities Practice forest management following communal rules and regulations determined in commu-
㽵
nity meetings.
㽶 Practice sustainable management.
Local communities
and the state Subsidies for community development activities. Administrate legal rights to local people so
㽷
they can access forest lands provided by the government.
Source: Takako Wakiyama.

Figure 2. The triangular relationship and the roles of the state, local leaders, and forest user groups.

7. Analysis: an effective forest management system management systems as traditional/local in comparison

There is the fact that “traditional” systems are easily to modern/scientific management (McCay 2001; Gilmore
romanticised by advocates of restoring past practices. and Fisher 1998). This happens because, while the latter
They describe and categorise effective community-based is easily criticised when examining recent comparative
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 17

information and references to past experiences, the tradi- x The reasons why traditional practices functioned
tional systems are difficult to evaluate due to lack of data properly should be considered, including examining
and informants. Therefore, if the discussion on traditional what the roles were of local individual householders
and modern systems takes place without considering the in resources management.
factors and functions of self-organisation in indigenous x A survey should be conducted of the characteristics
forestry, then there is the danger that a simple dichotomy of the communities, including social structure and
of the traditional system from the modern system will geographic constraints, and of other stakeholders in
emerge. In other words, as a counterpart of the occasion the forest, as well as influences from outside the
that when traditional systems do not properly work out in communities and the interaction with other local
a particular situation or are not adopted by a community, communities, etc.
it may lead all attention to shift to using Western scien- That is, before an intervention is introduced to a group
tific knowledge8 established by outside specialised ex- of people by establishing a new community organisation,
pertise as the only alternative (ibid.; Housler 1993). the study and analysis of the area and group have to be
The use of Western knowledge over local knowledge carefully carried out in order to avoid creating conflicts
arises from assumptions such that, even though people amongst different groups and individuals, as well as
had effectively managed resources harmoniously in the avoiding mistakenly dissolving existing effective forest
past, community-based forest management has been lost, management systems.
and traditional knowledge cannot be adopted into a mod-
ern society influenced by external forces, such as the 8. Closing remarks
market for economic development, which exert increas- The past experience of nationalisation in forest policy
ing pressure to exploit natural resources (Agrawal and in Nepal reveals the danger of using scientific knowledge
Gibson 2001). Forsyth (1996) states that the “indige- alone as a problem-solving method, because doing so
nous knowledge of hill farmers may be no more accurate most often resulted in the imposition of externally de-
because it was developed in a time when shifting cultiva- fined problems and technical solutions. It is associated
tion had sufficient time and space to be sustainable, with the development discourse which claims that “the
which is no longer the case” (ibid., 381). ‘Third World’ has been created as a ‘problem’” (Housler
In this sense, the state can justify the appropriateness 1993, 84) in order to justify the necessity of external in-
of its interventions concerning forest conservation and tervention through the input of First World science and
sustainable use. The government and donors tend to professional expertise (Bryant and Bailey 1997).
view local actors as being weak and lacking the capacity With the emergence of nationalisation, new forestry
to deal with the problems they face as a result of external systems were established, creating gaps with pre-existing
changes, such as the loss of forest cover, population indigenous forestry. Indigenous management systems,
growth, and the influence of market forces on their live- composed of a combined system of community-based
lihoods (ibid.). management and private management, were converted
For example, the formation of FUGs is likely to be es- into “an externally-imposed system of state regulation”
tablished with the assumption by the government that (Soussan et al. 1995). Eventually, the pre-existing for-
“individuals cannot organise themselves and always need est management was dissolved with the abolition of the
to be organised by external authorities” (Ostrom 1990, traditional talukdari system (indigenous authorities as
25). In other words, although the government recog- local functionaries). The areas ruled by local authorities
nises that self-organised and self-governed institutions were supplanted by “a territorially-based form of local
are necessary for communal resource management, if the government” (Gilmour and Fisher 1998, 34). The other
institutions are not fully developed and accepted by a effect of nationalisation emerged with the introduction of
community, then this presumption tends to be used to a cadastral mapping system based on scientific knowl-
justify state intervention in the organisation of local in- edge and measuring tools. The idea of such scientifi-
stitutions. cally mapped boundaries enhanced the support of the
Therefore, even though it is necessary to initiate advocates of community-based conservation, who con-
community forestry management, when setting up forest ceptualise communities as territorially fixed, small, and
user groups as a local institution in communities where homogeneous.
people do not practise a sustainable management system, Consequently, the impact of the policy change ap-
in terms of forest use and regeneration as well as distri- peared negatively, resulting in deteriorating forest condi-
bution of benefits from communal forest lands, the fol- tions and the livelihoods of the poor, due to the lack of
lowing factors should be carefully examined: support from local people and hindered ability to exer-
cise forest regulation. Community forestry was intro-
duced along with the reconsideration and study of the
8
Knowledge concerning scientific and economic principles that can be effectiveness of the indigenous forest management sys-
seen when comparing differences with indigenous knowledge and tem. This new forest system has had a positive impact
interpreting it as the “ability to break down data presented to the
senses and to reassemble in different ways” (Agrawal 1995: 417). on indigenous people and their knowledge by focusing
Thus, it will be possible to gather, document, and spread useful infor- on their existence and capacity to manage forests.
mation in the society easily and rapidly in a systematic fashion.
18 Policy Trend Report

However, there are some problems associated with Therefore, as a next step, it is important to clarify the
community boundaries and the constraints on local peo- boundaries of communal lands and identify the users by
ple’s autonomy to control their communal lands, due to conducting new mapping. In East Kalimantan, Indone-
the power relations between the poor and local elite in sia (Eghenter 2002), for instance, community mapping is
terms of equity of benefits distribution, and also because taking place, with the aim of finding natu-
the Forest Department still retains power over working rally-established communal tenure boundaries over for-
plans at the legitimate level. In addition, some foresters ests by focusing on “indigenous ways to organise and use
are not willing to give up their authority over forest space and how these might conflict with or support forest
products and economic values, having the ???sceptical protection” (Sirait 1994, 411). Community mapping
view that the local communities do not have the capacity systems might be useful for recognising the perceptions
to manage the forests effectively and that their profes- of local management of territory and resources, while
sional role is being threatened. local people obtain information about other stakeholders
As a next concern, it should be considered whether and their communal lands—enhancing their ability to
community forestry has achieved the goals set out above control, manage, and monitor their forest lands. Fur-
in Section 2.2. From the analysis, it is clear that with thermore, the results of mapping can be used in negotia-
community forestry programmes, local institutions are tions over land use.
established in an area either where the indigenous forest
management system was dissolved by the impact of na- References
tionalisation, or where the local people had not formu- Adams, W. M. 1990. Green Development: Environment and
lated any institutional arrangements. However, there Sustainability in the Third World. London: Routledge.
are two problems involved in defining a community: first, Adhikari, B. 2001. ‘Socio-heterogeneity and Income Distribu-
a community may be newly established in a location tion: From Common Property Resource Management’,
where co-operative actions already take place with or- Journal of Forestry and Livelihood, 1, 22-24.
ganised group arrangements; second, if it is considered Adhikari, B. 2002. ‘Community Forestry and Livelihoods,
whether or not the institutional arrangements are to ef- Household characteristics and common property forest
fectively function by collective action amongst commu- use: complementarities and contradictions’, Journal of
nity members, then the results will differ in each com- Forest and Livelihood, 2, 1 3-61.
munity, depending on the formations of FUGs and forest Agrawal, A. 1995. ‘Dismantling the divide between indigenous
conditions. Furthermore, the formation of FUGs is and scientific knowledge’, Development and Change, 26,
largely influenced by the economic values of the forest as 3, 413-434.
perceived by the state. The valuable Terai forests have Agrawal, A and C.C. Gibson 2001. ‘The Role of Community in
attracted the attention of the Forest Department officials, Natural Resource Conservation’ in A. Agrawal and C.C.
who seek either economic development of the country, or Gibson (ed.) Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity,
those who care about the loss of forests and consider the Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation.
conservation of forests in line with the conventional at- London: Rutgers University Press.
tention to the natural functioning of biodiversity. As a Agrawal, A and E. Ostrom 2001. ‘Collective Action, Property
result, the Forest Department neglected to hand over the Rights, and Decentralisation in Resource Use in India and
lands to local users when formulating FUGs. Nepal’, Politics and Society, 29, 4, 485-514.
The newly created boundaries of forest lands have Alcorn, J. B. 1993. ‘Indigenous Peoples and Conservation’,
made it difficult to identify who exactly possesses the use Conservation Biology, 7, 2, 424-426.
rights. Subsequently, the formation of FUGs is also dif- Allison, E. H and Ellis F 2001. ‘The Livelihoods Approach and
ficult to implement due to unclear identification of Management of Small-Scale Fisheries’, Marine Policy, 25,
community members. Unclear boundaries also create 5, 377-388.
constraints when regulating forest uses. Shared inter- Arnold, J. E. M and J. G. Campbell 1985. ‘Collective Manage-
ests, however, can be easily created between the Forest ment of Hill Forests in Nepal: The Community Forestry
Department and elite user groups, as the interests of these Development Project’, Proceeding of the conference on
powerful actors are not affected by the enclosure of for- common property resource management, April 21-26.
ests for conservation purposes because they are able to Bartlett, A. G and Y.B. Malla 1992. ‘Local Forest Management
meet their own needs from private sources without diffi- and Forest Policy in Nepal’, Journal of World Forest Re-
culty. source Management, 6, 99-116.
However, community forestry is undergoing an evolu- Becker, C. D and R. Leon 2000. ‘Indigenous Forest Manage-
tionary learning process. It is obvious, as illustrated by ment in the Bolivian Amazon: Lessons from the Yuracare
the progressive changes to operational plans and the in- People’ in Gibson C. C, M. A. McKean and E Ostrom
volvement of autonomous local users—as well as the (ed.) Forest and People: Communities, Institutions, and
continuing improvement of forest conditions in some Governance. Cambridge, The MIT press.
sites where community forestry has been carried Berkes, F, D. Feeny, B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson 1989. ‘The
out—that the method will achieve its goals, provided that benefits of the commons’, Nature, 340, 91-93.
the necessary conditions for success are in place. Berkes, F and M.T. Farvar 1989. ‘Introduction and Overview’
 Community Forestry in Nepal: A Comparison of Management Systems between Indigenous Forestry and Modern Community Forestry 19

in F. Berks (ed.) Common Property resources: Ecology malayan environmental degradation in Thailand’, Geofo-
and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London: rum, 27, 3, 375-392.
Belhaven Press. Futemma, C, E. Ostrom, F.D. Castro and M.C. Silva-Forsberg
Bhattachan, K. B. 2002. Traditional Local Governance in Ne- 2002. ‘An Institutional and Ecosystem Approach: The
pal, A thesis submitted for Central Department of Sociol- Emergence and Outcomes of Collective action’, Social
ogy and Anthropology of Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, and Natural Resources, 15, 503-522.
Kathmandu. Gautam, K. H. 1991. Indigenous Forest Management Systems
Bhattarai, B and H. Ojha 2000–01. Distributional Impact of in the Hills of Nepal, A thesis submitted for the degree of
Community Forestry: Who is Benefiting from Nepal’s Master of Science of the Australian National University.
Community Forests?, ForestAction Research Series 00/01. Gautam, K. H. 1993. ‘Evolving Forest Legislation: Strengthen-
Brown, D, Y.B Malla, K. Schreckrnberg and O. Sprin- ing or Weakening Indigenous Forest Management’ in D.
gate-Baginski 2002. From Supervising ‘Subjects’ to Sup- Tamang, G.J Gill and C.B. Thapa (ed.) Indigenous Man-
porting ‘Citizens’: Recent Developments in Community agement of Natural Resources in Nepal. Winrock Institu-
Forestry in Asia and Africa, Overseas Development Insti- tional Policy Analysis in agriculture and related resource
tute, Natural Resource Perspective 75, February. management.
Bryant, R and S. Bailey 1997. Third World Ecology. London: Gibson, C.C, M.A. McKean and E. Ostrom 2001. ‘Explaining
Routledge. Deforestation: The Role of Local Institutions’ in Gibson C.
Bryant, R. 1998. ‘Power, Knowledge and Political Ecology in C, M. A. McKean and E Ostrom (ed.) Forest and People:
the Third World: A Review’, Physical Geography, 22, Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge:
79-94 The MIT press.
Carter, A.S and D.A. Gilmour 1989. ‘Tree Cover Increases on Gilmour, D.A and R.J Fisher 1998. Evolution in Community
Private Farm Land in Central Nepal’, Mountain Research Forestry: Contesting Forest Resources, RECOFTC, Bang-
and Development, 9, 4, 45-54. kok, Thailand.
CFD 2002. Database of the Community Forest User Groups Gilmour, D.A, G.C. King and M. Hobley 1989. ‘Management
(FUG) in Nepal, Community Forestry Division (CFD), of Forests for Local Use in the Hills of Nepal. 1. Change
Department of Forests, Nepal. Forest Management Paradigms’, Journal of World Forest
Chettry, B, P. Francis, M. Gurung, V. Iversen, G. Kafle, A. Resource Management, 4, 93-110.
Pain and J. Seeley 2003. Challenges to increasing the op- Gouri, S, N.E. Morrison and J. Mayers 1999. ‘Making Moola
portunities for the poor to access benefits of common pool and Muddling along Tree, Poor People and Polices in Hi-
resources – The Case of Community Forestry in the Terai machl Predesh. Briefing Note 9’ in A. Bhatia (ed.) Par-
of Nepal, Paper No. 19. ticipatory Forest Management: Implications for Policy
Cleaver, F. 2000. ‘Moral Ecological Rationality, Institutions and Human Resources development in the Hindu
and the Management of Common Property Resources’, Kush-Himalayas, Volume V. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Ne-
Development and Change, 31, 361-383. pal.
Dove, M. R. 1995. ‘The Theory of Social Forestry Intervention: Hardin, G. 1968. ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, 162,
the state of the art in Asia’ Agroforestry Systems, 30, 3859, 1243-1248.
315-340. HMG 1988. ‘Master Plan for the Forestry Section: Nepal’ in
Eckholm, E. P. 1976. Losing Ground: Environmental Stress Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, HMG Nepal,
and World Food Prospects. New York: W.W.Norton. Kathmandu.
Eghenter, C. 2002. ‘Planning for Community-based Manage- Hobley, M. 1996. Participatory Forestry: The Process of
ment of Conservation Areas: Indigenous forest manage- Change in India and Nepal, Rural Development Forestry
ment and conservation of biodiversity in the Kalimantan, Study Guide 3. London: Rural Development Forestry
Indonesia’ in D. Chatty and M. Colchester (ed.) Conserva- Network Overseas Development Institute.
tion and Mobile Indigenous People: Displacement, Forced Hobley, M and Y. Malla 1996. ‘From Forests to Forestry. The
Settlement and Sustainable Development. Oxford: Berg- Three Ages of Forestry in Nepal: Privatisation, Nationali-
naha Book. sation and Populism’ in M. Hobley (ed.) Participatory
Ferguson, J and L. Lohmann 1994. ‘The Anti-Politics Machine: Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal, Ru-
“Development” and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho’, The ral Development Forestry Study Guide 3. London: Rural
Ecologist, 24, 5,176-181. Development Forestry Network Overseas Development
Fisher, R.J. 1989. Indigenous Systems of Common Property Institute.
Forest Management in Nepal, Working Paper No18, Hobley, M and P. Shah 1996. What Makes a Local Organisa-
Honolulu: Environment and Policy Institute, East-West tion Robust? Evidence from India and Nepal, Overseas
Centre. Development Institute, Natural Resource Perspectives 11.
Fisher, R.J. 1991. Studying Indigenous Systems of Common Housler, S. 1993. ‘Community Forestry: A Critical Assessment,
Property Forest Management in Nepal: Towards a More the Case of Nepal’, The Ecologist, 23, 3, 84-90.
Systematic Approach, Working Paper No. 30. Honolulu: Khatri-Chhetri J. B. 1993. ‘Indigenous management of Forest
Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Centre. Resources: A Case Study of Jomson. VDC in Mustang
Forsyth, T. 1996. ‘Science, myth and knowledge: testing Hi- District, From Indigenous Management of Natural Re-
20 Policy Trend Report

sources in Nepal’ in D. Tamang, G.J Gill and C.B. Thapa Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: University
(ed.) Indigenous Management of Natural Resources in Press.
Nepal. Winrock Institutional Policy Analysis in agriculture Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources, Oc-
and related resource management. casional Paper No. 20, CIFR.
Li T.M. 1996. ‘Image of Community: Discourse and Strategy in Pokharel, B.K. 1997. Foresters and Villagers in Contention and
Property Relations’, Development and Change, 27, Compact: the Case of Community Forestry in Nepal. The-
501-527. sis (PH.D.) in University of East Anglia: School of De-
Long, N. 1992. ‘From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained?: velopment Studies.
The Case for an Actor-Oriented Sociology of Develop- Pokharal, B.K. 2001. ‘Livelihoods, Economic Opportunities
ment’ in Long, N and A. Long (ed.) Battlefields of and Equity: Community Forestry and People’s Liveli-
Knowledge: the Interlocking of Theory and Practice in hoods’, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 1,
Social Research and Development. London: Routledge. Regmi, M.C. 1988. An Economic History of Nepal 1846-1901.
Long, N and A Long 1992. ‘The Dynamics of Knowledge: Varanasi: Nath Publishing House.
Interfaces between Bureaucrats and Peasants’ in N, Long Shretha, B. 1998. Changing Forest Policies and Institutional
and A. Long (ed.) Battlefields of Knowledge: the Inter- Innovations: User Group Approach in Community For-
locking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and estry of Nepal, Community-Based Natural Resources
Development. London: Routledge. management (CBNRM), Washington DC, World Bank.
Malla, Y.B. 1992. The Changing Role of Forest in the Hills of Sirait, M. 1994. ‘Mapping Customary Land in East Kalimantan,
Nepal, Unpublished PhD thesis, Canberra, Australian Na- Indonesia: A tool for forest management’, Ambio, 23, 7,
tional University. 383-406.
Malla, Y.B. 2001. Changing Policies and the Persistence of Soussan J, B.K. Shrestha and L.P. Uprety 1995. The Social
Patron-Client Relations in Nepal: Stakeholders’ Responses Dynamics of Deforestation: A case study from Nepal. New
to Changes in Forest Policies, Journal of Environmental York: The Parthenon Publishing Group.
History, 6, 2, 287-307. Springate-Baginski O, J. G. Soussan, O. P. Dev, N. P. Yadav
McCay, B.J. 2001. ‘Community and the Commons: Romantic and E. Kiff 1999. Community Forestry in Nepal: Impacts
and Other Views’ in A. Agrawal and C.C. Gibson (ed.) on Common Property Resource Management, Environ-
Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and ment and Development Series No. 3, Working Papers,
the State in Community-Based Conservation. London: School of the Environment of University of Leeds.
Rutgers University Press. Tamang, D. 1993. ‘Living in a Fragile Ecosystem: Indigenous
McKean, M.A. 2000. ‘Common Property: What is it, What is it Soil Management in the Hills of Nepal’ in D. Tamang, G.J
good for, and What makes it work?’ in Gibson C. C, M. A. Gill and C.B. Thapa (ed.) Indigenous Management of
McKean and E Ostrom (ed.) Forest and People: Commu- Natural Resources in Nepal. Winrock Institutional Policy
nities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge, The MIT Analysis in agriculture and related resource management.
press. Timsina, R.B. 2002. ‘Empowerment or Marginalisation: A
Messerschmidt, A.D. 1985. People and Resources in Nepal: Debate in Community Forestry in Nepal’, Journal of For-
Customary Resource Management Systems of the Upper est and Livelihood, 2, 1, 27-33.
Kali Gandaki, Proceeding of the conference on common Timsina N and N. S. Paudel 2003. ‘State versus Community: A
property resource management, April 21-26. Confusing Policy Discourse in Nepal’s Forest Manage-
Mosse, D. 1997. ‘The Symbolic making of a Common Property ment’, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2, 8-16.
Resource: History, Ecology and Locality in a Varughese G. 2000. ‘Population and Forest Dynamics in the
Tank-Irrigated Landscape in South Indian’, Development Hills of Nepal: Institutional Remedies by Rural Communi-
and Change, 28, 3, 467-504. ties’ in Gibson C. C, M. A. McKean and E Ostrom (ed.)
Mosse, D. 1998. The Making and Marketing of Participatory Forest and People: Communities, Institutions, and Gov-
Development: A Sceptical Note, Institute for Development ernance. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Policy and Management, University of Manchester. Varughese G and E. Ostrom 2001. ‘The Contested Role of Het-
Mosse, D. 1999. ‘Colonial and Contemporary Ideologies of erogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from
‘Community Management’: The Case of Tank Irrigation Community Forestry in Nepal’, World Development, 29, 5,
Development in South India’, Modern Asian Studies, 33, 2, 747-765.
303-338. World Bank 1995. The Participation Sourcebook, Washington
Neuman, R.P. 1997. ‘Political Ecology of Wildlife Conserva- DC, World Bank.
tion in the Mt Meru Area of Northeast Tanzania’, Land Warren D and J Pinkston 2000. ‘Indigenous African resource
Degradation and Rehabilitation, 3, 85-98. management of a tropical rainforest ecosystem: a case
Ojha, H.R. 2001. ‘Commercial Use of Non-Timber Forest study of the Yoruba of Ara, Nigeria’ in F Berkers and C
Products: Can the Poor Really Get Benefits?’, Journal of Folke (ed.) Linking Social and Ecological System: Man-
Forest and Livelihood, 1, 19-21 agement Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Resilience. Cambridge: University Press.