Teorías Sobre el Clima Institucional

Source: District Development Committee, Kavrepalanchok, 2008

Three Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) were selected for the study, all situated within the Middle-Hills region of central Nepal. The selected groups were Hile Jaljale (Ka) CFUG at Tukucha Village Development Committee (VDC); Sharada Devi CFUG at Ugratara Janagal VDC; and Lakuri Rukh Bhulbhule CFUG at Chaubas VDC. The CFUGs were selected based on the following criteria: i) distance to district centre; ii) degree of influence of the armed conflict (representing an area controlled by Maoists, an area controlled by security forces and an area without control by either of the contending parties); iii) maturity of CF governance; and iv) degree of local people‘s dependence on the community forest. Among the three CFUGs, Sharada Devi Community Forest User Group (SDCFUG), located near the district centre and market, was not directly affected by either of the opposing parties during the late conflict periods, and the degree of economic dependence on the CF was less compared to the other two locations. The second case study, Hile Jalajle (Ka), is located at an intermediate distance from the district centre and market. This CFUG was heavily influenced by the security forces during the late conflict periods and the

17

user group had a relatively greater dependence on the forest. Finally the third case study, the Lakuri Rukh Community Forest User Group (LRCFUG), is remote and located farthest from the district capital with limited access to the market, and was dominated by Maoist insurgents during the period of armed conflict.

1.5. Research Methodology

For this particular research, I have adopted a case study approach (Yin 2009, 2). The case study research method has been used commonly in various disciplines with the aim of investigating the complexity of social phenomena (Yin 2009, 4). It is argued that the case study approach is particularly suitable under three conditions: firstly, when the research questions are concerned to answer ―how‖ and ―why‖; secondly, when the researcher has little control over events; and finally when the research is conducted on contemporary phenomena and in a real life situations (Yin 2009). Case study research is a complex task as it has to deal with the richness of phenomena in real life contexts, thus requiring multiple sources of evidence and the triangulation of data. In the field of collective action and commons studies, multiple methods are typically applied in the research. Among them, the case study approach has been widely used for empirical field- based research. This approach focuses intensively on one or more representative cases in order to draw inferences about the large population (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 33), investigating in depth the particularity and complexity of each case in order to understand its dynamics in context (Stake 1995, 4). It is argued that the case study research approach is better able to deal with the complexity of processes (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 33). The case study is defined as ―an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units‖ (Gerring 2004, 342). Case study research allows holistic and detailed analysis and cross-case comparison (Bennett and Elman 2006, 259). In order to obtain multiple perspectives on the case, researchers using the case study approach and obtain descriptions and interpretations from others, seeking primarily to discover and portray the multiple views of others through interviews (Stake 1995, 64).

18

Case study field research involves a range of data collection methods, including: semi-structured interviews with key informants; focus group discussion; household surveys: and observation and collection of secondary data (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 34), and is aimed at uncovering the dynamic processes at work. In this research both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were employed to generate data for the cases to be compared. Purposive sampling was used for the selection of case study communities, as it is appropriate to select specialized populations to identify particular types of case for in-depth analysis (Newman, 2003, 138-139). As indicated above, selection of the three Community Forest User Groups was made in view of a range of key characteristics: influence of the conflicting parties (one area dominated by security forces, another dominated by the Maoists, and the last without the influence of either of the conflicting parties); incidence of violence during the conflict; distance to district centre; maturity of the Community Forest program; and the relative dependency of these rural communities on forest resources. After the purposive selection of three CFUGs, the population living in the particular communities was divided into sub-groups (strata) using stratified sampling on the basis of a participatory wealth ranking, in which the criteria for dividing the population into three different socio-economic categories were based on the perspective and evaluation of villagers themselves (Richards et al. 1999; Zeller, Feulefack, and Neef 2006; Adams et al. 1997; Adhikari and Lovett 2006; Hargreaves et al. 2007). Newman (2003) argues that stratified sampling is useful and effective in producing samples more representative of the population of particular strata of interest, which could be missed in a random process. It guarantees that each group is represented in the sample.

The population was divided into three sub-groups, namely upper-income6, middle-income7, and lower-income households8. Once the population was

6

Upper-income households supplement their income from farming, local businesses, and service/overseas employment. They often have land outside the village, have irrigated as well as un-irrigated land holdings, and larger areas of kharbari (private forest and pasture land). Generally they are self reliant and have food sufficiency.

7

Middle-income households commonly have land-holdings and cattle, but only modest kharbari. Significant household income is earned from animal husbandry (including dairying) and vegetable farming (depending on the fertility of the soil and distance to the market). They tend to be heavily dependent on inputs to their farming systems from community forests. Off-farm employment is also important for their income.

19

divided into sub-groups, a random sampling was applied to select respondents from each stratum (Lind, Marchal, and Wathen 2010, 262). According to the central limit theorem9 (Lind, Marchal, and Wathen 2010, 271), a sample of 30 selected from a population will be representative if the phenomena of interest is normally distributed. Randomization generally increases the likelihood of selecting a representative sample if the population is normally distributed (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 76). A total sample of 45 households from each community with 15 households from each of the three income groups has been selected randomly for a detailed household survey from the complete list of the CFUG members (see household survey questionnaire in the Appendix). In addition to the structured household survey, primary data were collected using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods including key informant interviews, focus group discussions, wealth ranking, semi-structured interviews, and transect walks to enable triangulation (Chambers 1994a, 1253). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as a qualitative assessment tool has gained mainstream acceptance as one of the tools for including the voice of the poor and trying to understand realities at the local level through local people‘s own analysis (deGraft Agyarko 2002). A number of methods are used in PRA that include: participatory mapping, time lines and trends, change analysis, seasonal calendars, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, wealth ranking, semi-structured interviews, and transect walks to enable triangulation (Laderchi 2001, 6-7; Chambers 1994a). Timelines are used for assessing migration patterns and environmental changes, while trend analysis is used for income and expenditure, and focus group discussions are used to investigate access to services, access to common property resources and other natural resources including soil and water conservation, forestry, agriculture and fisheries among others (deGraft Agyarko 2002; Chambers 1994a, 1253). Key informant

8

Lower income households (including landless households) have small or no land holdings, are mostly dependent on off-farm activities, such as labouring, artisan work (blacksmithing, tailoring, mason, carpentry) and non timber forest product collection. To pursue these livelihoods they have specific needs from the forest distinct from the other wealth-rank groups, such as charcoal for blacksmithing, and fuel- wood and medicinal plants for sale.

9

The central limit theorem is based on the theory of probability. The theorem states that if all samples of a particular size are selected from any population having the same distribution has, under certain general conditions, the distribution of the sample mean is approximately a normal distribution. Moreover, the approximation steadily improves as the number of observations increases. (Lind, Marchal, and Wathen 2010, : 271).

20

interviews were conducted with CFUG committee members, village leaders, social workers, representatives from women‘s groups, and forestry technicians. Before the interview a semi-structured questionnaire was developed to guide the interview. Information available from the Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihood Project (NACRMLP), at the District Forest Office and Department of Forest (DoF) was used as far as possible.

It has been argued that the case study approach poses problems of limited external validity, and difficulty of replication (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 33). It is useful to select cases which are typical and representative of other cases. For the analysis of collective action on the commons, the main unit of analysis in the case study research can be natural resource systems, villages, community forest user groups, or other social groups. Case study research has proved useful in conceptual development and testing of theory, especially in the study of commons. However, researchers should be careful in selecting, cases, and should endeavour to control the pattern of variation and comparability in such a way that it leverages analytical strength (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 34, 76). For the study of community-based forest governance arrangements and livelihoods, a combination of both documentary analysis and field research is necessary (Ellis 2000, 198). However, the mix of data collection methods is often dictated by the resources available and time factors. Field based research demands substantial time and financial resources, which poses particular challenges for student researchers (Poteete, Janssen, and Ostrom 2010, 74). For this particular research, a six-month field survey was undertaken from February 9 through July 30, 2008. During my field visit the comprehensive peace agreement between the Nepalese government and the Maoist was signed. In the countryside the uncertain security situation still made it difficult to collect data and interact with people. However, being well known to the local area I managed to collect the data required despite these challenges.

1.6. Chapter outline

This thesis is organized in nine chapters. The first chapter has provided the background and context of the research and identifies the issues, research

21

questions and conceptual framework that informed the research plan. It also presented a methodological overview, explaining the criteria for selection of study sites, the methodological approaches adopted, and sampling criteria for selection of survey households.

Chapter two explores the existing theoretical debates on common property resource governance, collective action, and property rights in the management of natural resources. This chapter specifically deals with the different approaches to resource governance, focusing on particular debates and recent findings on co- management and community-based forest governance.

The third chapter discusses in detail the political conflict in Nepal. It begins with an historical overview of political development, socio-economic conditions, and the struggle for democracy in Nepal. This chapter also outlines the evolution of the communist movement in Nepal, the causes of the recent armed conflict (1996 – 2006) launched by the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN-M), and the historical peace agreement between government and CPN-M, signed in 2008. It also assesses the dynamics of armed conflict, its socio-economic implications and impacts on the environment and the community forestry program in particular.

Chapter four provides an overview of forest policy, including the evolution and practices of community-based forest management (CBFM) initiatives in Nepal. It discusses the farm-forest and livelihoods linkages for rural households and provides a detailed account of the evolution of the community forestry program and its socio-economic and environmental benefits at village level. This chapter then considers equity and gender issues, and the question of the effectiveness of the community forest programs in addressing the problem of poor and marginalized people to date in Nepal.

Chapters five, six and seven are case studies of three community forest user groups (CFUGs). Each chapter begins with a brief introduction to the study site, socio-economic background information on the households. Each examines the context of forest degradation in the village, how the community forest programs

22

were initiated, and the level of people‘s participation in the process. It further explores the dynamics of local level governance of community forests and considers questions of protection of environmental services, equity and community development benefits of the program. In a nutshell, the case study chapters assess how the prolonged armed conflict impacted upon participation in local level forest governance, livelihoods and the sustainability of environmental services associated with community forests.

Chapter eight compares the three dimensions of the community forestry program - resource governance, livelihood security and environmental sustainability - across the three case studies chosen for study in terms of the influence of the conflicting parties, distance to the district centre and dependence on the community forest on the socio-economic, governance and environmental parameters of investigation.

Finally, chapter nine presents the conclusions and policy recommendations drawn from the study and identifies areas requiring further research.

23

Chapter 2

Governance of Common-Pool Resources (CPRs)

2.1. Introduction

Previously in the Asian region and elsewhere, natural resources were typically either under the effective control of local communities or were available to them as open access. Even where traditional states claimed sovereignty, local people were managing and harvesting common-pool resources (CPRs) under established customary rules and practices (Persoon and van Est 2003, 1-2). However, after colonization, authority over most commercially important natural resources - forests, minerals, land and water - was appropriated by colonial governments. Large tracts of primary forest were granted as concessions to private companies for commercial purposes and large forest areas were converted to either agricultural land or commercial plantations. During this period, colonial interests, private companies and local elites mostly benefitted. After the end of colonial rule, the establishment of national governments in Asia and pursuit of developmentalist policies during the 1970s and 1980s intensified pressure on natural resources. Degradation accelerated as global markets expanded while governments did not have the technical, human and financial resources to control the vast areas theoretically under central government control (Berkes 1994; Persoon and van Est 2003, 3).

In South Asia, forest management was heavily influenced by the British colonial administration during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that shaped the formalization of the forestry sector, creating a complex administrative, legal and policy framework. This colonial forestry legacy was institutionalized in almost all the South Asian nations (IUCN 2000, 5). A dramatic depletion of natural resources including forests was experienced in the post-colonial ―development‖ period. After independence, national governments in most cases did not change natural resource management policy, leaving central state agencies tasked with implementing national policies and legislation (Korten 1987, 275; Persoon and

24

van Est, 2003, 2; Webb 2008, 25). Pressure to exploit resources for national development, expanding markets and technological innovation in the 1960s and 1970s led to overexploitation of the vast forest resources of the Asian region, which soon became exhausted across much of the region. (Persoon and van Est 2003, 3)

Beyond the formulation of laws in favour of state control, rationalized in terms of scientific management and national economic development, there was barely any attempt to address issues of local property rights, or institutional arrangements that would assure access to and sustainable use of common-pool resources (CPRs) for ordinary people. In the past, access to and use of these resources had been largely determined by the local communities themselves. However, under the modern state local communities lost their role in the management of resources now under the jurisdiction of central government (Korten 1987, 276). Critics argued that while modernizing and rationalizing resource management, authorities underestimated the resource management capacity and experience of local communities and over-estimated the state‘s capacity to manage these resources on a sustainable basis (Berkes 1994, 19-20; Goodland, Ledec, and Webb 1989, 150; Persoon and van Est 2003, 3). Governments undermined traditional systems of resource management, claiming that these systems were inequitable and unproductive. In doing so government put a great burden on the national economy, and aggravated disparities by transferring power over resources from local people into the hand of elites (Korten 1987, 1). Because of their technocratic and bureaucratic approach, many development projects in agriculture and rural development failed to deliver the desired objectives due to centralization of decision-making and minimal participation of local stakeholders (Chambers 1983).

Narrowly defined economic development policies produced pernicious effects on the global environment (Weaver, Rock, and Kusterer 1997, 1) and aggravated poverty (Mansuri and Rao 2004, 5). Concerns over combined socio-economic and environmental impacts reawakened the interest of the international community in local management of natural resources. There was realization at the international level that the existing model of development not only had

25

negative impacts on the natural resource base, but also increased the gap between developed and developing nations. In order to address the issues of failed development intervention, inequitable distribution of resources at a global scale, and the deepening environmental crisis, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD) commissioned the Brundtland Report (also known as ―Our Common Future‖) in 1987, which was primarily concerned with the integration of economic, social, and environmental aspects to achieve sustainable development10 (Jacobs 1999, 21). Environmental issues received further attention after the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration and the establishment of the ―Commission on Sustainable Development‖ were considered a watershed in placing environmental considerations into the mainstream of development policy.

Because of the failure of many development interventions, there was a realization among policy makers, academics, and development practitioners that the problem of natural resource degradation could not be addressed without understanding the nature of property rights and authority over natural resources (Bromley and Cernea 1989, 5). In his seminal article ―The Tragedy of the Commons‖ published in the journal Science in 1968, Garrett Hardin argues multiple individuals acting independently on the basis of their self-interest will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen (Hardin 1968). The Hardin metaphor of the ―tragedy of the commons‖ had a remarkable influence among social scientists and policy makers in formulating new policies and programs in response to the inadequacies of state control (Bromley 1990, 6). Hardin‘s thesis was widely used to explain the overexploitation of forests, fisheries, overgrazing, and misuse of public land in the situation of open access regimes. In the 1960s and 1970s, Hardin‘s article stimulated intense discussion among academics across both the natural and social sciences, emphasizing different aspects of his account of resource degradation, and taking different lessons from the allegory

10

- In the Brundtland Report, sustainable development is defined as ―development that meets the needs of