1.1 Background
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 âinstitutionsâ (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 âwomenâ. 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).
The direct attachment of women to forests, particularly in rural economies, has been widely acknowledged across space and over time (Shiva, 1989; Buckingham-Hatfield, 2005; Mwangi et al., 2011). Women collect firewood, medicinal herbs and water from forests, and they are also often responsible for leading cattle to grazing areas, frequently in forest areas (FAO, 2006). Despite the attachment of women to forests, the management and use of forests (known as âforestryâ) have long been controlled by males or male-dominated institutions (Coutinho-Sledge, 2015). A number of cultural, social, economic and institutional factors mean that women have less access to decision-making about, and fewer benefits from, forest resources in comparison with their male counterparts (FAO, 2006). There is general consensus among recent researchers that forestry (both as a profession and as a practice) is gendered, implying that there are differences between men and women in access to, control over and use of, forest resources (Sunderland et al., 2014). This differentiation is considered to be characterized by a greater involvement of males in decision-making and forest management outcomes that favour men over women (Mwangi et al., 2011).
Scholarly research acknowledges the crucial roles of women in the protection and sustainable use of forest resources around the world (Agarwal, 2010a: Colfer, 2013; FAO, 2006, 2007; Mai et al., 2011; Sewell, 1992). Notwithstanding their contributions to forest management, women are still largely excluded from decision-making in forestry organizations, including government organizations, civil societies and private sector institutions, especially in developing countries (FAO, 2007). Women are particularly excluded wherever governance, benefit sharing, policymaking, capacity building, education and employment opportunities are taken into consideration (Colfer, 2013; Gurung et al., 2012). In the forestry profession, gender roles, knowledge and interests are often undermined or overlooked either due to the lack of women in decision-making fora or a lack of gender sensitivity among those who are engaged in decision-making (Khadka, 2009; MSFP, 2014). Most forestry-related decisions are made by males, resulting in the marginalization of womenâs interests in forest management and minimization of the actual and potential participation and contributions of women in enhancing the benefits from forest resources (ABS, 2013; Agarwal, 2010b; Christie and Giri, 2011; Lidestav, 2010).
There is an apparent contradiction between the considerable day-to-day engagement of women with forest environments and forest resources (this engagement requires and develops significant knowledge of forest ecosystems) and their lack of access to forestry-related decision-making across space and over time. On the one hand, women, and womenâs knowledge of forest ecosystems, are considered vital for the sustainable use and conservation of forest resources (Shiva, 1989; Mwangi et al., 2011). On the other hand, participation of women in decision-making process of forest management is not easily accepted and may be actively resisted in forestry institutions (Agarwal, 2010a, 2010b; Khadka, 2009).
The contradiction between the attachment of women to forest ecosystems and their exclusion from forestry-related decision-making process raises three fundamental questions. First, how do legal and policy frameworks in certain forestry jurisdictions, such as at country level or forest management unit level, take the role of women into account, in terms of both forest management and decision-making processes? How can new insights be offered into forestry institutions in terms of their capacity to facilitate womenâs access to and management of forest resources while also documenting any tendencies to dismiss or restrain womenâs roles in decision-making in practice? Finally, how can forestry be viewed from a perspective of gender equalityâa perspective that may challenge the existing male-dominated or masculine stereotypes associated with forestry governance?
This book attempts to address these questions by examining Nepalâs forest bureaucracy as a public institution that claims to be a world leader in the promotion and upscaling of gender-balanced community forestryâCF (McDougall et al., 2013). This book adds relevance from a number of issues revolving around womenâs participation in forest governance, such as variation between policies and practice of womenâs participation, the proportion of women comprising community institutions, womenâs lack of access to decision and male-dominated forest bureaucracy (MSFP, 2014; Khadka, 2009; GoN, 2007; Gurung et al., 2012; Agarwal, 2010a, 2010b).
