Presentation at the STEPS Conference 2010 - Pathways to Sustainability: Agendas for a new politics of environment, development and social justice http://www.steps-centre.org/events/stepsconference2010.html

1. Reframing contestations over environmental resources: the themes of social justice in community forestry in Nepal Hari Dhungana College of Development Studies/Purvanchal University & ForestAction www.forestaction.org Kathmandu suhit@wlink.com.np

2. Presentation Outline Framework of understanding the contestation over natural resources: Q: “How the claims over natural resources are framed, in the context of political transition & widespread violence?” patterns of claiming natural resources Legitimation of the claims Basics: Evolution & the state of CF in Nepal Three strands of thinking—development, politics, and environmentalism—converge to form the “social justice” problematic Pluralist conception of SJ & “equity triad” ‘Soft’ versus radicalised constructions of contestation Patterns of contestation Conclusions

3. Claiming environmental resources in violent context

4. Political discourse on social justice The “modern” state imagined as a “social justice community” The founding of “modern” state used a cut-off date for the construction of historical injustice—that justifies: Secessionism Redress for historical appropriations by state/ dominant groups—of land, water, forest Discursive privileging of the masses as a compulsion of electoral politics Categorizations of peoples and places—link of a social group to a space since immemorial past

5. Developmental/environmental Developmentalist attitude to SJ Supplying people with ‘basic needs’ people’s participation Empowerment of backward groups Poverty reduction—securing a minimum standard of living Forest conservation policies Disfavour to ‘fortress conservation’ model Local people’s rights over resources Livelihood benefits—one key priority, Harmonisation of environmental & developmentalist thinking

6. Understanding Social Justice Plural Conceptions of SJ Economic-redistributive Political-participative (associational) Cultural-recognitive “Equity triad”—from Osterle (2002) Resources (what to be distributed?) Recipients (between whom?) Principles (how?)

7. CF in Nepal: brief outline Before 1950: patrimonial appropriation of forest/land: grants to client groups/govt. Employees & nobilities 1950s—brought under eminent domain through nationalisation Widespread destruction and inability of DOF 1970s onwards Theory of Himalayan degradation—Eckholm Ecological doom Harmonise international forestry policy (donor strategy) with development and response to doom (within DOF)—policing forest infeasible by DoF itself Extensive mobilisation of resources—policy making to implementation Government forest is “handed over” to CFUGs 14,439 CFUGs 32% of population: 1,659,775 households 25% forest areas: 1,229,669 hectares

8. CF handover

9. Existing framework of assessing CF Aimed primarily at Halting deforestation Enhancement of forest stock Poverty reduction—securing access to forest products Inclusion of women and marginalised groups into forest user group committees Positive linkage with agriculture—ecosystem services

10. Solidarities at work (modified after Gyawali)

11. Patterns of contestation

12. Few points Forest conservation/management tends to be seen in ‘soft’ discourse Politicisation—movement demands & political discourse important Forest provides important symbolic & material basis to articulate political demands Frameworks of legitimation –convenience of stakeholder groups Existence of multiple actors & multiple legitimacies Key areas to look into: Land rights versus forest rights Ethnic autonomy and local people Negotiating rights under current tranisition