Advertisement

Introduction

  • Radha Wagle
  • Soma Pillay
  • Wendy Wright
Chapter
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Forest ecosystems provide a number of goods and services vital for human life, livelihoods, socio-cultural activities and economies (MEA, 2005; Patterson and Coelho, 2009; Persha et al., 2011). The supplies of these goods and services are contingent upon human actions associated with forests, such as policy and legal frameworks, tenure arrangements, forest management systems, governance structure and rights-based activism, which can collectively be referred to as forestry ‘institutions’ (Robbins, 1998; Springate-Baginski and Blaikie, 2007). Institutions contribute to good governance for forestry. These institutions may be formal or informal, legal or customary. They affect and are affected by people who are dependent on forests for their livelihoods and economies. While institutions are crucial for the protection, management and use of forest resources, the roles and responsibilities of the actors and stakeholders with defined access to, control over and use of forest resources matter for forestry sector governance (FAO, 2011; Larson et al., 2010; RRI, 2009). The categories of actors associated with the access to, control over and use of forest resources include, but are not limited to, males or females, landlords or tenants, industrialized or developing countries, bureaucracy or communities, state or private sector and so on (Larson et al., 2010; RRI, 2009). A cross-cutting category among these actors is the category of ‘women’. However, the roles and responsibilities of women in forestry sector governance or institutions are one of the most contested issues in recent decades (Agarwal, 2010a, 2010b; Sarker and Das, 2002; Shiva, 1989; Sunderland et al., 2014; FAO, 2006; Coutinho-Sledge, 2015).

References

  1. ABS. (2013). Women in the workforce: By industry. (6291.0.55.003). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6291.0.55.003?OpenDocument: Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly.
  2. Agarwal, B. (2010a). Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia. World Development, 38(1), 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal, B. (2010b). Gender and green governance: The political economy of women’s presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Awasti, G. D., & Adhikary, R. (2012). Changes in civil service after the adoption of inclusive policy and reform measures. Retrieved from http://un.info.np/Net/NeoDocs/View/2000. Kathmandu.
  5. Bennet, L. (2005, December 12–15). Gender, caste and ethnic exclusion in Nepal: Following the policy process from analysis to action. World Bank.Google Scholar
  6. Bhatta, B. D. (2013). Women in civil service (in Nepali vernacular). Gorkhapatra Daily.Google Scholar
  7. Buchy, M., & Rai, B. (2008). Do women-only approaches to natural resource management help women? The case of community forestry in Nepal. In B. P. Resurreccion & R. Elmhirst (Eds.), Gender and natural resource management: Livelihoods, mobility and interventions (pp. 127–147). Oxford: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  8. Buckingham-Hatfield, S. (2005). Gender and environment. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christie, E. M., & Giri, K. (2011). Challenges and experiences of women in the forestry sector in Nepal. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 3(5), 139–146.Google Scholar
  10. Colfer, C. (2013). The gender box: A framework for analysing gender roles in forest management. CIFOR Occasional Paper (82).Google Scholar
  11. Coutinho-Sledge, P. (2015). Feminized forestry: The promises and pitfalls of change in a masculine organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 22(4), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO. (2006). Time for action: Changing the gender situation in forestry. Report of the team of specialists on Gender and Forestry, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  13. FAO. (2007). Gender mainstreaming in forestry in Africa. Forestry Policy and Institution Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. FAO. (2011). Reforming forest tenure: Issues, principles and process. Rome.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Case.Google Scholar
  16. Gilmour, D. A., & Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests, and foresters: The philosophy, process, and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press.Google Scholar
  17. Giri, K., & Faculty, I. (2008). Reflecting on experiences: Women in the forestry sector (Vol. MemCoE IoF Discussion Paper # 24). Pokhara, Nepal: Institute of Forestry.Google Scholar
  18. GoN. (1988). Master plan for the forestry sector, Nepal (Main Report). Kathmandu.Google Scholar
  19. GoN. (1993). Forest Act. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Law Books Management Board.Google Scholar
  20. GoN. (2004). Herbs and non-timber forest products development policy, 2061, Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar
  21. GoN. (2007). The interim constitution of Nepal. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Law Book Management Board.Google Scholar
  22. GoN. (2015a). Forest policy. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  23. GoN. (2015b). Status of women foresters under the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal: PIS database. Kathmandu: MOFSC.Google Scholar
  24. GoN. (2016a). Forest sector strategy. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.Google Scholar
  25. GoN. (2016b). The constitution of Nepal. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Law Book Management Board.Google Scholar
  26. GoN. (2017). Fourteenth plan. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission.Google Scholar
  27. Gurung, J., Hytonen, L., & Pathak, B. (2012, September 22–24). Scoping dialogue on inclusion and exclusion of women in forest sector. Co-chair Summary Report.Google Scholar
  28. Gurung, J. D. (2002). Getting at the heart of the issue: Challenging male bias in Nepal’s department of forests. Mountain Research and Development, 22(3), 212–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobley, M., & Malla, Y. (1996). From forests to forestry—The three ages of forestry in Nepal: Privatization, nationalization, and populism. In M. Hobley (Ed.), Participatory forestry: The process of change in India and Nepal (pp. 65–92). London: Rural Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Kenny, M., & Mackay, F. (2009). Already doin’it for ourselves? Skeptical notes on feminism and institutionalism. Politics & Gender, 5(2), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khadka, M. (2009). Why does exclusion continue? Aid, knowledge and power in Nepal’s community forestry policy process. The Hague, The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Krook, M. L., & Mackay, F. (2015). Introduction: Gender, politics and institutions. In M. L. Krook & F. Mackay (Eds.), Gender, politics and institutions: Towards a feminist institutionalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Larson, A. M., Barry, D., & Dahal, G. R. (2010). Tenure change in global south. In A. M. Larson, D. Barry, G. R. Dahal, & C. J. P. Colfer (Eds.), Forests for people: Community rights and forest tenure reform (pp. 3–18). London, Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  34. Lidestav, G. (2010). Preface: Gender and forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(S9), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010). New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review, 31(5), 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mai, Y. H., Mwangi, E., & Wan, M. (2011). Gender analysis in forestry research: Looking back and thinking ahead. International Forestry Review, 13(2), 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDougall, C. L., Leeuwis, C., Bhattarai, T., Maharjan, M. R., & Jiggins, J. (2013). Engaging women and the poor: Adaptive collaborative governance of community forests in Nepal. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(4), 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Our human planet (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  39. Multistakeholder Forestry Programme. (2014). Assessment of implementation status of forestry sector gender equality and social inclusion strategy. Kathmandu.Google Scholar
  40. Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Sun, Y. (2011). Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patterson, T. M., & Coelho, D. L. (2009). Ecosystem services: Foundations, opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(8), 1637–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pokhrel, B. K., & Niraula, D. R. (2004, August 4–6). Community forestry governance in Nepal: Achievements, challenges and options for the future. In K. R. Kanel, P. Mathema, B. R. Kandel, D. R. Niraula, A. R. Sharma, & M. Gautam (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth national workshop on community forestry (pp. 298–316). Kathmandu: Department of Forests, Nepal.Google Scholar
  44. Robbins, P. (1998). Authority and environment: Institutional landscapes in Rajasthan, India. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(3), 410–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. RRI. (2009). Who owns the forests of Asia? An introduction to the forest tenure transition in Asia 2002–2008. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Sarker, D., & Das, N. (2002). Women’s participation in forestry. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(43), 4407–4412.Google Scholar
  47. Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shiva, V. (1989). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  49. Springate-Baginski, O., & Blaikie, P. (2007). Understanding the policy process. In O. Springate-Baginski & P. Blaikie (Eds.), Forests people and power: The political ecology of reform in South Asia (pp. 61–91). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Subedi, B. P., Ghimire, P. L., Koontz, A., Khanal, S. C., Katwal, P., Sthapit, K. R., & Khadka Mishra, S. (2014). Private sector involvement and investment in Nepal’s forestry: Status, prospects and ways forward. Study Report, Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme—Services Support Unit, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar
  51. Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., et al. (2014). Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: A global comparative study. World Development, 64, S55–S66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radha Wagle
    • 1
  • Soma Pillay
    • 2
  • Wendy Wright
    • 3
  1. 1.Ministry of Forests and EnvironmentKathmanduNepal
  2. 2.Federation Business SchoolFederation University Australia Berwick CampusMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Health and Life SciencesFederation University AustraliaGippslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations