Law Enforcement in Community Forestry: Consequences for the Poor

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 11 - Trang 435-452 - 2012
Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri1, Helle Overgaard Larsen2, Carsten Smith-Hall2
1Institute of Forestry, Hariyokharka, Pokhara, Nepal
2Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

Tóm tắt

Decentralised forest management is believed to hold potential for increased economic and social equity. Implications of the associated local forest law enforcement on livelihoods, however, are not well understood. This paper explores the impacts of local forest law enforcement with a focus on the poorest forest users in community-managed forests. A case study including 14 community forest groups in western Nepal was conducted in 2008. Methods included review of archival data, a stakeholder survey (n = 211), and recall of forest crimes by a random household sample (n = 252). Local forest law enforcement was found to detect far more crimes than district-level enforcement. Crimes are primarily small-scale unauthorised appropriation of products for subsistence use by poorer households and rules are lightly enforced. It is argued that local law enforcement, while apparently not economically harmful to the poorer in the short term, may be used to perpetuate existing wealth and cast-based social inequities.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abbott JIO, Maze R (1999) Managing protected woodlands: fuelwood collection and law enforcement in Lake Malawi National Park. Conserv Biol 13(2):418–421 Agarwal B (2009) Rule making in community forestry institutions: the difference women make. Ecol Econ 68(8–9):2296–2308 Agarwal B (2010) Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia. World Dev 38(1):98–112 Agrawal A (2001) The regulatory community: decentralization and the environment in the Van Panchayats (forest councils) of Kumaon, India. Mt Res Dev 21(3):208–211 Ahmed MR, Laarman JG (2000) Gender equity in social forestry programs in Bangladesh. Hum Ecol 28(3):433–450 Andersson KP, Gibson C (2006) Decentralized governance and environmental change: local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia. J Policy Anal Manag 26(1):99–123 Auer MR, Karr-Colque C, McAlpine J, Doench B (2006) Forest law enforcement and governance: resolve needed from all sides. Georget Public Policy Rev 11(1):57–67 Bala G, Caldeira K, Wickett M, Phillips TJ, Lobell DB, Delire C, Mirin A (2007) Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. PNAS 104(16):6550–6555 Bandiaky S (2008) Gender inequality in Malidino biodiversity community-based reserve, Senegal: political parties and the ‘village approach’. Conserv Soc 6(1):62–73 Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217 Becker H (1978) Outsiders. In: Rubington E, Weinberg M (eds) Deviance. Macmillan, New York, pp 11–24 Blaikie P, Springate-Baginski O (2007) Setting up key policy issues in participatory forest management. In: Springate-Baginski O, Blaikie P (eds) Forests, policy and power: the political ecology of reform in South Asia. Earthscan, London, pp 1–23 Blessing C, Jumbe L, Angelsen A (2006) Do the poor benefit from devolution policies? Evidence from Malawi’s forest co-management program. Land Econ 82(4):562–581 Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Ng KLP (2003) Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424(6947):420–426 Cameron MM (1998) On the edge of the auspicious: gender and caste in Nepal. University of Illonois Press, Urbana Cerutti PO, Tacconi L (2008) Forests, illegality, and livelihoods: the case of Cameroon. Soc Nat Resour 21(9):845–853 Chambliss WJ, Seidmann R (1971) Law, order and power. Addison-Wesley, London Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. PNAS 105(36):13286–13291 Chhetri BBK, Larsen HO, Smith-Hall C (2010) Poverty, inequality and forest dependence in rural Nepal. A conference paper for national conference on forest-people interaction, 7–8 June, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Colchester M (2006) Justice in the forest: rural livelihoods and forest law enforcement. Forest Perspectives 3. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor Dasgupta A, Beard VA (2007) Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia. Dev Change 38(2):229–249 DFO (District Forest Office) (2008) Community Forestry Program: Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2007/2008. District Forest Office, Gorkha Downes D, Rock P (1995) Understanding deviance: a guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford Gautam KH (2006) Forestry, politicians and power-perspectives from Nepal’s forest policy. Forest Policy Econ 8(2):175–182 Gavin MC, Solomon JN, Blank SG (2010) Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources. Conserv Biol 24(1):89–100 Gibson CG, Williams JT, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273–284 Gilmour DA (2003) Retrospective and prospective view of community forestry in Nepal. J For Livelihood 2(2):5–7 Graham H (2003) Policing the forests of pre-industrial France. Eur Hist Q 33(2):157–182 Gupte M (2004) Participation in a gendered environment: the case of community forestry in India. Hum Ecol 32(3):365–382 HMG (1976) National forestry plan 1976 (2033). Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu HMG (1989) Master plan for the forestry sector, forest sector policy. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu HMG (1993) Forest act 1993. Official translation. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. Government Press, Kathmandu HMG (1995) Forest regulations. Official translation. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. Government Press, Kathmandu Hobley M (1996) Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. ODI, London Iversen V, Chhetry B, Francis P, Gurung M, Kafle G, Pain A, Seeley J (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecol Econ 58(1):93–107 Kaimowitz D (2007) Forest law enforcement and rural livelihoods. In: Tacconi L (ed) Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. Earthscan, London, pp 110–138 Kanel KR, Dahal GR (2008) Community forestry policy and its economic implications: an experience from Nepal. Int J Soc For 1(1):50–60 Klooster D (2000) Community forestry and tree theft in Mexico: resistance or complicity in conservation? Dev Change 31(1):281–305 Lachapelle P, Smith P, McCool S (2004) Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest user groups in Nepal. Hum Ecol Rev 11(1):1–12 Larsen HO, Smith PD (2004) Stakeholder perspectives on commercial medicinal plant collection in Nepal: poverty and resource degradation. Mt Res Dev 24(2):141–148 Larsen HO, Olsen CS, Boon TE (2000) The non-timber forest policy process in Nepal: actors, objectives and power. For Policy Econ 1(3–4):267–281 Larsen HO, Smith PD, Olsen CS (2005) Nepal’s conservation policy options for commercial medicinal plant harvesting: stakeholder views. Oryx 39(4):435–441 Lynch MJ, Michalowski R (2006) Primer in radical criminology: critical perspectives on crime, power and identity. Criminal Justice Press, New York Malla YB (2001) Changing policies and the persistence of patron-client relationships in Nepal. Environ Hist 6(2):287–307 Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor benefiting more from community forestry? J For Livelihood 3(1):78–90 Nightingale AJ (2002) Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. J For Livelihoods 2(1):17–24 Olsen CS, Helles F (2009) Market efficiency and benefit distribution in medicinal plant markets: empirical evidence from South Asia. Int J Biodivers Sci Manag 5(2):53–62 Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. PNAS 103(51):19224–19331 Pacheco P (2005) Decentralization of forest management in Bolivia: who benefits and why? In: Colfer CJ, Capistrano D (eds) The politics of decentralization: forests, people and power. Earthscan, London, pp 166–183 Pagdee A, Kim Y-S, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour 19(1):33–52 Paudel NS, Banjade MR, Dahal GR (2008) Handover of community forestry: a political decision or technical process? J For Livelihood 7(1):27–35 PEN (2007) PEN technical guidelines, version 4. Poverty Environment Network, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor Pendleton MR (1997) Looking the other way: the institutional accommodation of tree theft. Qual Sociol 20(3):325–340 Pradhan R, Shrestha A (2005) Ethnic and caste diversity: implications for development. Asian Development Bank, Kathmandu Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource management. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Schur E (1971) Labeling deviant dehavior. Harper, New York Shrestha KK, McManus P (2007) The embeddedness of collective action in Nepalese community forestry. Small Scale For 6(4):273–290 Sunderlin WD, Hatcher J, Liddle M (2008) From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC Tachibana T, Adhikari S (2009) Does community-based management improve natural resource condition? Evidence from the forests in Nepal. Land Econ 85(1):107–131 World Bank (2006) Strengthening forest law enforcement and governance: Addressing a systematic constraint to sustainable development. The World Bank, Washington DC