Site selection

Two hill districts (i.e. Sindhupalchowk and Kavre) of the Central Development Region of Nepal, where the community and leasehold forestry regimes have been implemented for more than ten years were selected. Two sites in each district were selected because these vary in terms of degree of homogeneity of the communities, and the communities’ access to markets and roads. Selection of more sites would have obvious value, but resources available to the researcher did not allow for this.

Fieldwork for selection of sub-cases was started in Sindhupalchowk district, which had a long history of implementation of the regimes, and was accessible and convenient for the researcher since she had prior working experience there (Figure 4.2). The researcher visited Sindhupalchowk in October 2005, and obtained permission to undertake the study from the District Forest Office. A district level workshop was carried out in which four staff members27 and three members of local forest user groups participated. In the workshop, the purpose of the research was explained and then criteria for identifying cases and sub- cases in the field for this study were discussed. There were 417 community forest user groups (CFUGs) and 216 leasehold forest user groups (LFUGs) in Sindhupalchowk in 2005 (DFO/Sindhupalchowk, 2006a). It was not easy to decide the most suitable two FUGs (one community FUG and one leasehold FUG) from such a large number of FUGs in the district. Two criteria were decided for selecting forest user groups: (i) accessibility and (ii) completion of one five-year implementation cycle of the regime.

The workshop participants suggested that a heterogeneous FUG (consisting of members of different social and economic status) would provide richer information to understand the research topic (i.e. the influence of informal institutions such as caste-based networks and caste-based norms on community forestry regime implementation in relation to the resource access of the poor) as compared to a homogeneous FUG. But they said that this criterion could not be strictly applied for the leasehold forestry regime, which had mostly been implemented in the settlements of single ethnic groups. Two potential community forest user groups (CFUGs) and leasehold forest user groups (LFUGs) based on this criterion were listed. A preliminary visit was made to communities of which the FUGs were from and their suitability was assessed. One CFUG and one LFUG were selected because they were receptive and provided permission for the study to be undertaken.

27

Figure 4.2: Location of the study districts (Sindhupalchowk and Kavre)

(Source: www.nabkavre.org/Images/Nepal_map.jpg)

The participants of the district level workshop also suggested that FUGs located in different areas (i.e. districts) would have different experiences and that they strongly recommended the researcher study at least two CFUGs and LFUGs located in different areas. Similar suggestions were made by three key informants (staff members of NGOs and donor projects). During the workshop, the access to markets and roads was identified as an appropriate criterion to select two types of FUGs: (i) FUG with good access to markets and roads, and (ii) FUG with low access to markets and roads. The purpose behind this criterion was to understand whether the resource access of the poor is influenced by the different levels of access to markets and roads. Gautum et al. (2004) reported that members of the FUGs with good access to markets have obtained more benefits from community forests than members of the FUGs with low access to markets in the hills of Nepal. However, whether all group members, i.e. the well-off and the poor, obtained similar benefits could not be determined from this study. The FUGs which were identified from the Sindhupalchowk district workshop had poor access to markets. In order to select FUGs with good access to markets, a neighbouring district ‘Kavre’ was selected because it was accessible, had FUGs that had completed one five-year implementation cycle, and had heterogeneous CFUGs. Selection of the CFUG and the LFUG in Kavre was comparatively easier because the staff member of the donor project (i.e. NACRMLP)

Study districts

who had good access to information on the FUGs assisted. One each of suitable CFUGs and LFUGs in Kavre28 were identified by three staff members29 and two key local informants. In this way, the case design was modified in the field in such a way to integrate two differently located CFUGs and LFUGs as the basis for two sub-cases to enhance understanding of the collective case study. Gomm et al. (2000) suggest that findings emerging from the study of several sites that are quite varied would be more robust than a study of several very similar sites.

The selection of the four FUGs in two districts was also based on the impressions obtained from the preliminary visits to the communities in which the FUGs were a part. After the identification of each FUG, the researcher obtained permission for the study and initiated steps to establish rapport. Rapport was easily built with members of the communities in Sindhupalchowk because the researcher had prior working experience there. In Kavre, the researcher and the staff member of the donor project visited the FUGs jointly twice and presented them with the purpose of the research, and this helped in establishing trust. From the visits to all four FUGs, the researcher came to know that there were many households in the ‘communities’ who were affected by the regimes’ implementation but were excluded from the FUGs; they were the nonmember households. Many previous studies have focused on FUGs for selecting cases (Pokharel, 1997; Varughese, 1999; Thoms, 2006). Agrawal (1999) and Vandergeest (2006) argued that a CBNRM study needs to include both member and nonmember households. Therefore, an effort was made to identify nonmember households in each community. In three of the four sub-cases30, communities were larger than the FUGs because they included members as well as nonmembers of the FUGs. The selection of the ‘community’ was based on the forest that was being governed under a particular regime and those people who had accessed the forest historically (Figure 4.3). The community forestry case included Dhuseni and Saparupa communities of Sindhupalchowk and Kavre districts. Likewise, the leasehold forestry case included Tutikhola and Odarepakha communities of Sindhuaplchowk and Kavre districts.

28

Out of 415 CFUGs and 234 LFUGs (DFO/Kavre, 2006b)

29

One from the DFO, one from the donor project (the NACRMLP), one from a NGO (the FECOFUN)

30

In the fourth sub-case, the non-members in the community have been included in FUG in its first planning cycle, and therefore, were FUG members at the time of this research.

Figure 4.3: Three levels considered to construct a case

In summary, the collective case study for this research consisted of two cases and two sub-cases (or communities) within each case, and had temporal (i.e. October 2005 to April 2006), geographical (two typical hill districts of the Central Development Region) and social (four communities) aspects. The study focused on the influence of institutional elements of community forestry and leasehold forestry regimes on the access of the poor to forests. Understanding institutional elements was initially focused on three themes identified from the literature: property rights, culture, and resource governance (Chapter 3). Table 4.2 outlines the key criteria of selecting the communities for each of the cases.

Group (FUG) Members

Community Members and nonmembers

Regime implementation at district level The DFO, NGO, and the project

Table 4.2: Key Criteria for Selecting the Communities for each of the Cases

Community forestry case Leasehold forestry case DFOs Long experience (> five years) of the

regimes’ implementation

Long experience (> five years) of the regimes’ implementation

Communities Sub-case 1

Dhuseni community, Sindhupalchowk Poor access to market Sub-case 2

Saparupa community, Kavre Good access to market

Sub-case 1

Tutikhola community, Sindhupalchowk Poor access to market Sub-case 2

Odarepakha community, Kavre Good access to market

FUGs Sub-case 1

Heterogeneous

Completed one five-year implementation cycle Sub-case 2

Heterogeneous

Completed one five-year implementation cycle

Sub-case 1 Homogeneous

Completed one five-year implementation cycle Sub-case 2

Homogeneous

Completed one five-year implementation cycle