Abstract
In developing countries, participatory conservation initiatives have been criticized for many reasons, mainly for excluding marginalized groups which have led to unequal benefits. Using concepts from the literature on participation, conservation, and political ecology, this research explored the participation of marginal groups, i.e., poor, women, lower caste, and landless, in management institutions in Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Field work for this research was conducted through the use of interviews and participant observation during August–October 2010. Results show that although marginal groups were involved in local management institutions, their representation was minimal and had not led to meaningful participation or empowerment to influence the decisions being made in conservation and development programs. Our study findings indicate that the involvement of marginal groups in local initiatives is complex and influenced by several factors. The study concludes that the Annapurna Conservation Area Project needs to re-orient its conservation projects by adopting a more inclusive form of participation and move beyond the quota system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term institution in this paper is defined as a community based organizational structure such as associations, committees and village government (Cleaver 2005).
Where the elite members of the community capture all the benefits of participatory conservation initiatives.
Economic status was measured using land holding and ability to support livelihood needs with daily income (Spiteri and Nepal 2008).
Nepal consists of a social hierarchy based on the Hindu religion. Each individual, by birth, belongs to one of the four varna or classes. The four caste divisions are Brahmins (priests or scholars), Chhetri (rulers and warriors), Vaisya (Merchant or traders), and Sudra (farmers, artisans, and laborers). Below all this are the Dalits or the untouchables. In this paper, lower caste usually refers to the Dalits. The National Dalit Commission defines Dalits as “those communities who, by virtue of caste based discrimination and so called untouchability, are most backward in the social, economic, educational, political, and religious spheres, and are deprived of human dignity and social justice” (Pradhan and Shrestha 2005, p. 3).
The number when totaled comes to more than 44 because there was an overlap between the members and the different management groups.
Although there are many other management committees under ACAP (health post committee, day care center committee, road construction committee, school committee, etc.) these five committees were chosen, because they were related to natural resources and women’s empowerment; both issues were relevant to the research. The CAMC is the local institution under the ACAP required by the 1996 Conservation Area Management Regulation and legally recognized under the Conservation Area Management Act. Under the CAMC are many different sub-committees. These five were chosen because they were related to natural resource management and gender. The Ama Samuha/mothers’ group is a women only group. The MAS assists the CAMC in conservation and development activities. Each of the 9 wards has one or more WAS responsible for their ward. Each committee consists of 15–20 members, generally with a president, vice president, secretary, and a treasurer. These committee members are selected from each of the 9 wards within a VDC by the community members and then elected into their official position by the committee members themselves.
The main concept behind the Maoist movement or the “people’s war” is “based on a sense of injustice due to the way in which a social group is treated” (Murshed and Gates 2005, p. 122). It is a civil movement that started in 1996 to collect all castes and gender together to create a wholesome new Nepal.
References
ACAP (2009) Management operational plan of conservation area management committee. Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Ghandruk
Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48(2):245–257
Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10):1623–1648
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, Gibson C (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649
Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114
Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit Soc 29(4):485–514
Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 35(4):216–224
Bajracharya SB, Furley PA, Newton AC (2005) Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ Conserv 32(3):239–247
Baral N, Stern M (2010) Looking back and looking ahead: local empowerment and governance in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ Conserv 37:54–63. doi:10.1017/S0376892909990269
Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630
Brechin S, Wilshusen P, Fortwangler C, West P (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Soc Nat Resour 15(1):41–64
Brosius J, Tsing A, Zerner C (1998) Representing communities: histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 11(2):157–168
Bryant RL, Bailey S (1997) Third world political ecology. Routledge, New York
CAMC (2009) Complied Annual report-2066-67(UCO Ghandruk). ACAP
Classen L, Humphries S, FitzSimons J, Kaaria S, Jiménez J, Sierra F, Gallardo O (2008) Opening participatory spaces for the most marginal: learning from collective action in the Honduran hillsides. World Dev 36(11):2402–2420
Cleaver F (2005) The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. World Dev 33(6):893–906
Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed Books, New York
Dasgupta A, Beard VA (2007) Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia. Dev Change 38(2):229–249
Giri K, Darnhofer I (2010) Nepali women using community forestry as a platform for social change. Soc Nat Resour 23(12):1216–1229
Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ Manage 45(1):52–66
Gurung M (2004) Women and development in the third world: a case study from Ghandruk. WWF Nepal Program Office, Ghandruk
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248
HMG (1996) Conservation area management regulation (2053). Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu
Kellert S, Mehta J, Ebbin S, Lichtenfeld L (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Soc Nat Resour 13(8):705–715
Khadka D, Nepal SK (2010) Local response to participatory conservation in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ Manage 45:351–362. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9405-6
Krishna A (2003) Partnerships between local governments and community-based organisations: exploring the scope for synergy. Public Adm Dev 23(4):361–371
Lachapelle PR, Smith PD, McCool SF (2004) Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Hum Ecol Rev 11(1):1–12
Lama A, Buchy M (2004) Gender, class, caste and participation: community forestry in Central Nepal. In: Krishna S (ed) Livelihoods and gender: equity in community resource management. Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp 285–305
Li TM (2002) Engaging simplifications: community-based resource management, market processes and state agendas in upland Southeast Asia. World Dev 30(2):265–283
MacFarlane A, Gurung IB (1992) Gurungs of Nepal: A guide to the Gurungs, 2nd edn. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu
Mansuri G, Rao V (2003) Evaluating community-based and community-driven development: a critical review of the evidence. World Bank, Washington, DC
Mbaiwa JE, Stronza A, Kreuter U (2011) From collaboration to conservation: insights from the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Soc Nat Resour 24(4):400–411
McCool SF, Guthrie K (2001) Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Soc Nat Resour 14(4):309–323
Murshed SM, Gates S (2005) Spatial-horizontal inequality and the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Rev Dev Econ 9(1):121–134
Neumann RP (2005) Making political ecology. Oxford University Press, New York
Nightingale AJ (2003) Nature–society and development: social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum 34(4):525–540
NTNC (2009) Management plan of Annpurna Conservation Area (2009–2012). National Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Parker P, Thapa B (2012) Natural resource dependency and decentralized conservation within Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Environ Manage 49(2):435–444
Peet R, Watts M (2004) Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social movements. Routledge, New York
Pradhan R, Shrestha A (2005) Ethnic and caste diversity: implications for development. Nepal resident mission. Asian development bank, Nepal resident mission
Pretty J (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263
Robbins P (2004) Political ecology: a critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden
Saito-Jensen M, Nathan I (2011) Exploring the potentials of community-based natural resource management for benefiting local communities: policies and practice in four communities in Andhra Pradesh, India. Soc Nat Resour 24(11):1142–1156
Saito-Jensen M, Nathan I, Treue T (2010) Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and power in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Conserv 37(3):327–335
Sherpa MN, Coburn B, Gurung C (1986) Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: operation plan. King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu
Spiteri A, Nepal SK (2006) Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Environ Manage 37(1):1–14
Spiteri A, Nepal SK (2008) Evaluating local benefits from conservation in Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Environ Manage 42(3):391–401
Springate-Baginski O, Blaikie P (eds) (2007) Forests, people and power: the political ecology of reform in South Asia. Earthscan, London
Stevens S (1997) Annapurna Conservation Area: empowerment, conservation, and development in Nepal. In: Steven S, De Lacy T (eds) Conservation through cultural survival: indigenous peoples and protected areas. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 237–261
Stonich SC (2000) The other side of paradise: tourism, conservation and development in the Bay Islands. Cognizant Communication Corporation, Elmsford
Townsend JG, Porter G, Mawdsley E (2004) Creating spaces of resistance: development NGOs and their clients in Ghana, India and Mexico. Antipode 36(5):871–889
Wells M, McShane T (2004) Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33:513–519
Western D, Wright R (1994) The background to community-based conservation. In: Western D, Wright R (eds) Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–14
Williams G, Veron R, Corbridge S, Srivastava M (2003) Participation and power: poor people’s engagement with India’s employment assurance scheme. Dev Change 34(1):163–192
Wilshusen PR, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Soc Nat Resour 15(1):17–40
Zimmerer KS, Bassett TJ (2003) Political ecology: an integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies. Guilford Press, New York
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Siddhartha Bajracharya for his assistance in Kathmandu and at the National Trust for Nature Conservation. We are also grateful to the ACAP staff in Ghandruk and Pokhara for all their assistance on the research. We sincerely thank the people of Ghandruk who shared their perspectives and time with us within the ACA. We would also like to thank Texas AgriLife Research at Texas A&M University for their funding support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
We have met all ethical guidelines for the research and adhered to the current laws and legal requirements of Nepal and the Annapurna Conservation Area.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dahal, S., Nepal, S.K. & Schuett, M.A. Examining Marginalized Communities and Local Conservation Institutions: The Case of Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Environmental Management 53, 219–230 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0204-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0204-8