Contestation and Citizen-Led Negotiation Around the Establishment of Protected Areas in Nepal Himalaya

Abstract

This paper examines and uncovers the politics and debate emanating from and embedded in the contestations and negotiations around the establishment of protected areas (PAs) in Nepal. We take an example of one of the newly declared PAs – Gaurishankar Conservation Area (GCA)—and traverse through the politics and debate over its establishment. This paper is based on the ethnographic encounters and accounts of everyday dynamics, popular discourse and deliberations since the government’s declaration of GCA in central Nepal. It is driven by a political ecology approach to analyse state – community contestation around nature conservation. We argue that vigorous social campaign at different levels primarily led by Federation of Community Forest User Groups Nepal (FECOFUN) has been able to bring the state and powerful conservation actors on the negotiation table by contesting the hegemony of conservation and rhetoric of community based conservation. The contours of FECOFUN’s campaign around GCA suggest how the nature of contestation and conflict has evolved from a mere resistance and protests towards critical engagement and negotiation with the state conservation actors leading to a democratic governance of GCA. We suggest that concurrent adoption of constant struggle and critical engagement can produce negotiated arrangement of PA governance. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jfl.v10i1.8600 Journal of Forestry and Livelihood Vol.10(1) 2012 42-57

Prospects and challenges of tenure and forest governance reform in the context of REDD+ initiatives in Nepal

“…Unfortunately, the government decisions in recent years, particularly since Nepal embraced the REDD + initiatives, are mostly oriented towards recentralization of forest management and restriction of local rights. The expansion of protected areas, declaring new protected forests, withdrawal of previously given rights, putting additional restrictions on CF user groups and sudden bans on timber harvesting have undermined the rights of local communities (Paudel et al, 2012;Sunam et al, 2013). Centralization of forest management decisions and restrictions on access and use has not only created an environment of mistrust, insecurity and alienation among the local communities, but has also induced conflicts in and around forestlands (Satyal-Parvat and Humphreys, 2013).…”

REDD+ comes with money, not with development: an analysis of post-pilot project scenarios from the community forestry of Nepal Himalaya

“…Government, on the other hand, is in the process of policy making, negotiating with donors, and also increasing government forest through declaring new conservation areas by invading existing CFUGs (e.g. Gaurishankar Conservation Area in Dolakha district) (Paudel et al 2012). And donors are interested to distribute carbon benefits through aid mechanism.…”

The context of REDD+ in Nepal: Drivers, agents, and institutions

“…Deforestation has occurred even in the community forests to a lesser extent. Media reports suggest that illegal logging and unsustainable harvesting have occurred in Terai despite the government's attempts to curb illegal logging (Bhushal 2010 (Sunam et al 2010, Paudel, Jana andKhatiwada 2012). The continued confusion, conflict and tenure insecurity may undermine REDD+ implementation.…”