Suchergebnisse

Based on the life histories of 10 poor rural Nepalese, the article, drawing on the metaphor of dance, explores the structured improvisations of these individuals in response to the hazards and possibilities they have found in life. Key themes of repertoires and risk pools, time preference behaviour and disposition or hope are explored. While land remains central to risk pools, contributing to subsistence and security, it is insufficient. The improvisatory nature of life and the contingent and contextual nature of the choice architecture faced by these poor individuals, make clear that pathways of change are not constant or linear. The gathering storm of crises in Nepal of which climate change is just one element has rendered customary time frames unstable. The normal can no longer be taken for granted, questioning how policy and planning can address the hazard-laden environment that poor people face.

Nepal's community forestry is an example of a decentralized, participatory and autonomous development model. However, recent community forestry practices informed by the concept of scientific forestry in resource-rich and commercially lucrative Terai regions of Nepal have reversed community forestry gains. Scientific forestry, enforced through the Department of Forest has reproduced frontier power dynamics creating reterritorialization of community forestry through commercialization. Discouraging subsistence utilization and increasing commodification of high-value timber resources have been crucial in reconfiguring forest authority and territorial control. Moreover, the Scientific Forestry Programs have informally institutionalized rent-seeking practices at the local level. A local level, power nexus has developed among forest officials, contractors and community elites that systematically undermine local participation, allocation of resources for subsistence livelihoods and local autonomy. In effect, scientific forestry is recentralizing forest authority by legitimizing territorial control and the elite accumulation of benefits.

Over the last three decades, Nepal has experienced a rapid transition in rural livelihoods, from largely subsistence farming to more diversified off-farm employment and remittances. Despite this, subsistence farming continues to be a central part of rural production. Why does farming persist in the face of other, more remunerative, off-farm employment options? In this article we argue that subsistence food production continues to be important for rural livelihood security by providing food needs from farming, thus helping households to cope with uncertainties in off-farm employment and international labor migration. Taking the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of a high level of livelihood stress, the paper provides insights and further explanations on the logic of maintaining subsistence food production as part of rural households' livelihood security. Drawing on in-depth qualitative study, complemented with a quantitative survey from eight villages in rural Nepal, we examine the impact of the pandemic on farming and off-farm activities and explore the reasons behind peoples' choice of livelihood strategies and how these vary between different social groups. We show that there was only limited impact of the dramatic disruptions caused by the global pandemic on subsistence farming, however it brought substantial challenges for emerging semi-commercial farming and off-farm incomes, including both local and migratory wage labor. During the pandemic, people increased their reliance on locally produced food, and subsistence farming served as a critical safety net. Our analysis underscores the continued importance of subsistence production amidst contemporary shifts toward off-farm employment among rural households. We also find a growing interest in semi-commercial farming among farmers with better access to land who seek state support to develop such production. This suggests that it is important for agricultural development policy to recognize and support subsistence farming alongside emerging commercial agriculture production as an integral foundation of future farming and rural livelihood security.

Whilst political ecology scholarship has contributed much to articulating social injustices associated with Nepal's community forestry, here we took a different approach, by attempting an 'affirmative political ecology.' We drew on feminist and activist scholarship to inspire collective action that engaged directly with challenges of social justice and those charged with delivering it through their work. Guided by theories and practices of 'transformative learning' and a range of associated reflective practices, our participatory action research involved 4 facilitators and (up to) 25 participants who work across Nepal's forest bureaucracy (and for some, the wider community-based natural resource management sector). Together physically, remotely and through our writing, we reflect upon the operation of power in our professional – and personal – lives, exploring how that may enable a more informed and meaningful engagement with social justice within the workplace, and beyond. This article presents the process of our collective reflection and learning, and shares some of its initial outcomes based on the experiences of the 15 co-authors. Whilst 'simply' having the time and space to come together was hugely important, it was the form and feel of that space that was particularly significant, as we focused on co-creating a safe space which was non-judgmental and based on mutual respect, enabling comfortable and open discussion of often unspoken and uncomfortable issues. Ultimately, this article argues that collective practices of reflection and transformative learning can create shared learning, understanding, empathy and solidarity, and thus that it offers hope in the face of on-going social injustices. It therefore urges political ecologists to work towards such caring and affirmative collective engagements with practitioners as one way in which to affect change.