Final Bankojanakari 20-1.pmd


Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

37

Assessing the causes of  conflict and its effect on
livelihoods: a study from Bardia National Park and Khata

Corridor, Nepal.
S.C. Nepali1

The ten-year conflict in Nepal can be viewed as the result of ignoring and failing to
strengthen the state and nation building through political, economic and social integration.
This study aimed to understand and assess the causes of conflict and their effects on
livelihoods in and around Bardia National Park, Nepal. Crotty’s model has been used to
collect the information and conduct non parametric Wilcoxon test. Chi-square test with
descriptive tables has been used for data analysis. Causes of conflict based on people’s
perception revealed that 78% and 45% of the respondents agreed that weak governance
was the cause of conflict before and after. 79% and 52% attributed economical instability
as a cause while 78% and 49% believed disparity in resource use and distribution as the
cause of conflict before and after. The overall impact on livelihoods due to the conflict had
a weighted mean range 2.0-2.3, suggesting the medium impact on all the assets. The
conditions of livelihood were better before and were negatively affected after the conflict.
Studying patterns of armed conflict and their impact in a country like Nepal is not just of
historical interest, but also a matter of current concern for development.

Key words: Conflict, instability livelihoods, non parametric test

Conflict has been defined in various terms based
on a range of  categories, from serious

disagreement to violence leading towards war and
change in the society (Homer-Dixon, 1991 and
Warner and Jones, 1998). In addition to the war with
English East India Company in 1814, Nepal
witnessed ten years of  “people’s war” between the
Maoists and the State during 1996-2006. This war
not only claimed the lives of  thousands of  people,
but it also had a severe impact on conservation and
livelihoods. Though Nepal was united into one
country from several principalities, the autocratic
rulers failed from the beginning to strengthen the
state formation process; nation building through
political, economic and social integration was
completely ignored. Collier and Hoefler, (1998),
Arnson et al., (2005), Jung (2003), Upreti, (2004),
Upreti, (2007) ascribed the causes of  conflict to poor
socio-economic factors, differences in ideology,
identity, geographical causes, international causes,
environmental causes, poor governance, poverty and
exclusion and inequalities. Maybe a combination of
these factors has triggered the conflict in Nepal. The

relationship of  war and environment have been
documented by Homer-Dixon (1991), Homer and
Dixon (1994), Collier and Hoeffler (2004).

Materials and methods
Choosing a research approach within the natural and
social sciences in a society influenced by post
structural and post modern discourse is a different
task today than it was in the past. Research
methodology framework adopted for this study was
based on Crotty’s (1998) model. This research has
employed an interdisciplinary approach to be
understood in terms of  a process rather than a
representation. As the study tried to look into the
relation of  natural and social science, research here
involved the collection of  empirical data from the
field and extending the discussion to include those
who are the foci of  this study. This study, therefore,
aims to understand and assess the causes of  conflict
and their effects on the livelihoods in and around
Bardia National Park and Khata Corridor.

1 Ph.D student, Institute of  Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. E-mail: sushila_nepali@yahoo.com



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

38

Source: adopted by Crotty, 1998.

Data Collection
The collection of  the data for the survey was based
on multistage sampling technique. Preliminary field
visit and collection of  secondary data from the park
and projects working in the area was conducted. The
data was collected from 10 VDCs of  Bagnaha,
Neulapur, Magaragadhi/Baniyabhar, Thakurdwara,
Suryapatuwa, Shivpur, Dhodhari, Gola and Manau.
10% of  the households from each VDC were
randomly selected for detailed questionnaire survey.

Data Processing and Analysis
As Zar (1996) explains, there is a large body of
statistical methods that comprises procedures not
requiring the estimation of  the population variance
or mean and not stating hypotheses about parameters.
These testing procedures are termed as nonparametric
tests or distribution free test. Data collected were processed
and analyzed using SPSS/PC computer software. For
testing the results that were mainly categorical, various
non-parametric tests such as Wilcoxon sign rank test2
and descriptive analysis with graphical representation
have been applied for the analysis to measure
significance Zar, (1996); Siegel et al., (1988). Wilcoxon
signed-rank test is applied to compute the differences
between the two variables for all cases and classifies
the differences as positive, negative or tied. Then
summation with the ranks having plus sign (T+) and
the ranks with minus sign (T-) is done. For two-tailed
test, Ho is rejected if  either T+ or T- is less than or
equal to the critical value, T±(2),n, from the given table.

Having calculated either T+ or T-, the other can be
determined as T-= n(n+1)/2= T+P-value calculated

is the probability of being wrong in concluding that
there is a true effect (i.e., the probability of  falsely
rejecting the null hypothesis, or committing a Type I
error, based on W). The smaller the p-value, the
greater the probability that there is a treatment effect.
Traditionally, it can be concluded that there is a
significant difference when p<0.05.

Five point Likert Scale3 (Likert, 1974) point ranking
was used to analyze people’s perceptions of  conflict
and its impact in conservation and livelihoods. The
perceptions of  user in terms of  changes in the
communities during the conflict times: conflict before
(1996-2000) and after (2001-2006) were recorded in
five ordinal scales including “Strongly agreeing/very
high”, “Agreeing/high”, “Disagree/medium/don’t
know”, “Strongly disagree/low” and “Very low/no
change”. To measure the strengths or effects of  the
impact, classification was done as follows: very high
degree impact meant >80%, high degree is 60-80%,
medium degree is 40-60%, low degree meant 20-40%
and very low degree as < 20%.

Results and Discussion
Perception on causes of  conflict
Total of  1118 individuals from the aforementioned
10 VDCs were invited to agree or disagree with the
given statements based on the Likert scale. Statements
used for analyzing the causes of  conflict have been
updated based on Upreti (2004), Upreti (2007) and
Sambaugh et al., (2001). Causes of  conflict have been
classified into broader reasons and specific reasons
as given in Box 1.

Box 1, lists weak governance, economic instability
and weak resource use and distribution as the broader
reasons and these were further classified into specific
reasons. The following result analyzes each broader
category with specific reasons.

Weak governance perceived as a cause of
conflict:
Majority of  the respondents (78%) ‘agreed’ and
‘strongly agreed’ that conflict occurred because of
weak governance (Figure 1). In total, 17% and 5%
of  the respondents ‘did not know’ and ‘strongly
disagreed’ with the statement that weak governance
was the reason for causing the conflict, respectively,
before. Comparing the same statement after the

Survey Research-
Qualitative &

quantitative survey

Sampling, Administer
Questionnaire, key

informant interview, focus
group discussion, field

observation and statistical
analysis

Epistemology

Theoretical
perspective

Methodology

Methods

Constructionism

Postmodernism

Chart 1- Research Methodology Framework

2 Frank Wilcoxon (1892-1965), American (though born in Ireland) chemist and statistician, a major developer of  statistical methods
based on ranks

Nepali



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

39

conflict revealed that only 51% of  the respondents
thought that weak governance was the cause of
conflict, but 40% of  them ‘did not know’ if  this was
the cause.

Analyzing the individual or specific reasons, Figure 1
suggests that out of  various specific reasons, 89%
of  the respondents ‘agree/strongly agreed’ that the
government was lacking responsibility, accountability
and transparency. When comparing after the conflict
or during, 55% and 56% of  the respondents agreed
that inadequate forms of  redressing grievances and
disputes over revenue sharing were the causes of
conflict.

with the statement that the government did not have
or lacked responsibility, accountability and
transparency. The power struggle related to the fight
for their identity and lack of  development in the
country was very prominent. One of  the root causes
of  Nepal’s slow development is “institutional
problems”, a euphemism that covers a multitude of
sins. They also strongly agreed that there was not a
functioning regulatory or legal framework to tackle
the issues of  governance. The studies conducted by
World Bank Institute Governance Index for Nepal
(1996-2006) also reported that the governing situation
had witnessed a declining trend when compared with
the South Asia Region as a whole (Narayan
Manandhar, the Kathmandu Post 19 July 2007, cited
by Upreti 2007).

Over the years since 1990, governments had made
promises to the people and distributed hopes and
“dreams” of  an improved quality of  life. The misuse
of  funds, power results in wealth that is concentrated
around the capital where most of  the development
stays. This situation can build the perception of  the
people who strongly agree that resource and revenues
were not utilized properly. The results above revealed
that the majority of  the respondents agreed that lack
of  social inclusion was a cause of  conflict. There is
no doubt that existing literatures within the country
and across region have confirmed that gender, social
equity/inclusion and poverty considerations are still
weak.

3

P-value calculated  is the probability of being wrong in concluding that there is a true effect (i.e., 

the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, or committing a Type I error, based on 

W). The smaller the p-value, the greater the probability that there is a treatment effect.  

Traditionally, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference when p<0.05. 

 

Five point Likert Scale3 (Likert, 1974) point ranking was used to analyze people’s perceptions of 

conflict and its impact in conservation and livelihoods. The perceptions of user in terms of 

changes in the communities during the conflict times: conflict before (1996-2000) and after 

(2001-2006) were recorded in five ordinal scales including “Strongly agreeing/very high”, 

“Agreeing/high”, “Disagree/medium/don’t know”, “Strongly disagree/low” and “Very low/no 

change”. To measure the strengths or effects of the impact, classification was done as follows: 

very high degree impact meant >80%, high degree is 60-80%, medium degree is 40-60%, low 

degree meant 20-40% and very low degree as < 20%. 

 

Results and Discussion 

Perception on causes of conflict 

1118 individuals from the aforementioned 10 VDCs were invited to agree or disagree with the 

given statements based on the Likert scale. Statements used for analyzing the causes of conflict 

have been updated based on Upreti (2004), Upreti (2007) and Sambaugh et. al, (2001). Causes of 

conflict have been classified into broader reasons and specific reasons as given in Box 1.  

 

Box 1, lists weak governance, economic instability and weak resource use and distribution as the 

broader reasons and these were further classified into specific reasons. The following result 

analyzes each broader category with specific reasons.  

 
Box 1: Causes of conflict broader and specific reasons 
 

Broad Reason Code Specific reason 

C1 The government was lacking accountability, responsiveness and  transparency 

C2 Lacking in functioning regulatory/legal framework 

C3 Inadequate  independent and neutral judiciary or other forms of redress of grievances 

C4 There are disputes among central, regional and local governments over the use of 
revenue 

C5 Lack of community consultation in project planning can lead to community confusion, 
opposition & violence 

Weak 
Governance 

C6 Lack of social inclusion in equal participation for management and decision making 
activities 

C7 Increase in corruption 

C8 Government providing inadequate basic services and not prioritizing 
Economic 
instability 

C9 Inequalities in wealth distribution 

C10 Competing claims to land rights & natural resources 

C11 Lack of education in resource management and distribution 
Resource Use 

and 
Distribution C12 Degrading environment having negative affect on livelihoods 

Source: updated from Upreti, 2004 and Shambaugh, et al. 2001. 

 

Weak governance perceived as a cause of conflict: 

 
3

Likert scaling is widely used format developed by Rensis Likert for asking attitude questions. Respondents are 
typically asked their degree of agreement with a series of statements that together form a multiple indicator or item 

measure. 

3 Likert scaling is widely used format developed by Rensis Likert for asking attitude questions. Respondents are typically asked their
degree of  agreement with a series of  statements that together form a multiple indicator or item measure.

4

78% of respondents ‘agreed’ and ‘strongly agreed’ that conflict occurred because of weak 

governance (Figure 1). In total, 17% and 5% of the respondents ‘did not know’ and ‘strongly 

disagreed’ with the statement that weak governance was the reason for causing the conflict, 

respectively, before. Comparing the same statement after the conflict revealed that only 51% of 

the respondents thought that weak governance was the cause of conflict, but 40% of them ‘did 

not know’ if this was the cause.  

 

Analyzing the individual or specific reasons, Figure 1 suggests that out of various specific 

reasons, 89% of the respondents ‘agree/strongly agreed’ that the government was lacking 

responsibility, accountability and transparency. When comparing after the conflict or during, 

55% and 56% of the respondents agreed that inadequate forms of redressing grievances and 

disputes over revenue sharing were the causes of conflict.   

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

B
ef

o
re

A
ft

e
r

the govern

was lacking,

lacking in 

functioning

inadequate

forms to

disputes

over

lack of

community

lack of social

inclusion in

Average

R
e
sp

o
n

se
s

in
%

strongly disagree/disagree don't know agree/strongly agree

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia 

Figure 1- Weak governance as a cause of conflict 

 

The results also underscore that 68% of the respondents ‘agreed/strongly agreed’; however, the 

smallest portion attributed the lack of social inclusion in equal participation before as the cause 

of conflict. But after the conflict, the least portion (45%) agreed with the statement that the 

government did not have or lacked responsibility, accountability and transparency. The power 

struggle related to the fight for their identity and lack of development in the country was very 

prominent. One of the root causes of Nepal's slow development is "institutional problems", a 

euphemism that covers a multitude of sins. They also strongly agreed that there was not a 

functioning regulatory or legal framework to tackle the issues of governance. The studies 

conducted by World Bank Institute Governance Index for Nepal (1996-2006) also reported that 

the governing situation had witnessed a declining trend when compared with the South Asia 

Region as a whole (Narayan Manandhar, the Kathmandu Post 19 July 2007, cited by Upreti 

2007).  

Over the years since 1990, governments had made promises to the people and distributed hopes 

and “dreams” of an improved quality of life. The misuse of funds, power results in wealth that is 

concentrated around the capital where most of the development stays. This situation can build 

the perception of the people who strongly agree that resource and revenues were not utilized 

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia

Fig 1 : Weak governance as a cause of  conflict

The results also underscore that 68% of  the
respondents ‘agreed/strongly agreed’; however, the
smallest portion attributed the lack of  social inclusion
in equal participation before as the cause of  conflict.
But after the conflict, the least portion (45%) agreed

Nepali

Source: updated from Upreti, 2004 and Shambaugh, et al. 2001.



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

40

Economic instability as cause of  conflict:
Figure 2 suggests that 79% and 52% of  the
respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that economic
instability was the cause of  conflict both before and
after the conflict whereas 7% and 14% ‘disagreed’
and ‘did not know’ the cause before and 8% and 40%
of  the respondents ‘disagreed’ and ‘did not know’
after.

There are three specific reasons within economic
instability; and among them, 89% and 56% of the
respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that increase in
corruption within the system had led to conflict
before and after, respectively. Out of  these three
reasons, 73% of  the respondents ‘strongly agreed’
with the saying that causes of  conflict occurred
because the government was not providing sufficient
basic services.  However,  after the conflict, the least
agreed, 49% of  the respondents, ‘agreed’ that
inequalities in wealth distribution were the cause of
economic instability.

people’s needs. In a series of  studies, Blaikie, et al.,
(1980) have extensively documented what they call
‘Nepal in Crisis’ and focussed on the economic
inequality driving conflicts. It has been indicated and
stressed that there has been an increase in inequality
between socio-economic groups, leading to further
exclusion of  already marginalized groups, and this
helped explain the expansion of  civil conflict in
Nepal. It is important to focus on the variety of  ways
by which inequalities are managed by societies and
the significance of  varying kinds of  inequality
(Cramer, 2003; Robinson, 2001).

Unequal resource use and distribution as a
cause of  conflict:
Figure 3 suggests that resource use and distribution
as cause of  conflict was ‘strongly agreed’ by 78% of
the respondents before and 49% after the conflict.
6% and 16% of  the respondents ‘disagreed’ and ‘did
not know’ that resource use and distribution were
the causes of  conflict before, but 9% and 42% of
the respondents happened to ‘disagree’ and ‘did not
know’ after the conflict. 85% of  the respondents may
have ‘strongly agreed’ with a specific reason such as
inadequate education in resource use and distribution
before, but 56% of  the respondents mentioned
degradation of  the environment having an impact
upon resource use and distribution causing conflict
after. Before the conflict, 74% of  the respondents
had ‘strongly agreed’ that competing claims on land
and natural resources and degradation of  the
environment caused conflict. But after the conflict,
42% of the respondents thought competing claims
on land and natural resources as the cause of  conflict.
The responses shown here definitely indicate that the
understanding of  the cause of  conflict differs with
the ethnicity, status, age group, literacy, employment,
land holding and income of  the respondents.

5

properly. The results above revealed that the majority of the respondents agreed that lack of 

social inclusion was a cause of conflict. There is no doubt that existing literatures within the 

country and across region have confirmed that gender, social equity/inclusion and poverty 

considerations are still weak.  

 

Economic instability as cause of conflict: 

Figure 2 suggests that 79% and 52% of the respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that economic 

instability was the cause of conflict both before and after the conflict whereas 7% and 14% 

‘disagreed’ and ‘did not know’ the cause before and 8% and 40% of the respondents ‘disagreed’ 

and ‘did not know’ after.  

 

There are three specific reasons within economic instability; and among them, 89% and 56% of 

the respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that increase in corruption within the system had led to conflict 

before and after, respectively. Out of these three reasons, 73% of the respondents ‘strongly 

agreed’ with the saying that causes of conflict occurred because the government was not 

providing sufficient basic services.  However,  after the conflict, the least agreed, 49% of the 

respondents, ‘agreed’ that inequalities in wealth distribution were the cause of economic 

instability. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Before After Before After Before After Before After

increase in

corruption

govt. not  providing

sufficient basic

inequalities in wealth

distribution

average wt. mean

Economic Instability

R
e
sp

o
n

se
s

in
%

strongly disagree/disagree don't know agree/strongly agree

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia 
Figure 2: Economic Instability as a cause of conflict 

 

Nepal as a country moving towards modernization has been making efforts to address the 

economic situation but got bogged down in the absence of the political space necessary for a 

system of performance based upward mobility while corruption is on the rise (Singh et al., 2002; 

Thapa and Sijapati, 2003). Nepal's gravest institutional problem is corruption, which seems to 

plumb new depths with each short-lived government (Singh et al., 2002; Khanal, 2006 and 

Global Witness, 2004). The Neoclassical theory of greed (instead of focusing on grievances or 

developing economic agendas) by the previous rulers of Nepal can be confirmed by the argument 

made by Collier and Hoeffler (2004).  

 

Once Nepal was known to the greater world, development in industries and health sectors 

became started, but this was mostly done in the top-down approach, instead of identifying or 

addressing people’s needs. In a series of studies, Blaikie, et. al., (1980) have extensively 

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia

Fig 2: Economic Instability as a cause of  conflict

Nepal as a country moving towards modernization
has been making efforts to address the economic
situation but got bogged down in the absence of  the
political space necessary for a system of  performance
based upward mobility while corruption is on the
rise (Thapa and Sijapati, 2003). Nepal’s gravest
institutional problem is corruption, which seems to
plumb new depths with each short-lived government
(Khanal, 2006). The Neoclassical theory of  greed
(instead of  focusing on grievances or developing
economic agendas) by the previous rulers of  Nepal
can be confirmed by the argument made by Collier
and Hoeffler (2004).

Once Nepal was known to the greater world,
development in industries and health sectors became
started, but this was mostly done in the top-down
approach, instead of  identifying or addressing

6

documented what they call 'Nepal in Crisis' and focussed on the economic inequality driving 

conflicts. It has been indicated and stressed that there has been an increase in inequality between 

socio-economic groups, leading to further exclusion of already marginalized groups, and this 

helped explain the expansion of civil conflict in Nepal. It is important to focus on the variety of 

ways by which inequalities are managed by societies and the significance of varying kinds of 

inequality (Cramer, 2003; Robinson, 2001). 

 

Unequal resource use and distribution as a cause of conflict: 

 Figure 3 suggests that resource use and distribution as cause of conflict was ‘strongly agreed’ by 

78% of the respondents before and 49% after the conflict. 6% and 16% of the respondents 

‘disagreed’ and ‘did not know’ that resource use and distribution were the causes of conflict 

before, but 9% and 42% of the respondents happened to ‘disagree’ and ‘did not know’ after the 

conflict. 85% of the respondents may have ‘strongly agreed’ with a specific reason such as 

inadequate education in resource use and distribution before, but 56% of the respondents 

mentioned degradation of the environment having an impact upon resource use and distribution 

causing conflict after. Before the conflict, 74% of the respondents had ‘strongly agreed’ that 

competing claims on land and natural resources and degradation of the environment caused 

conflict. But after the conflict, 42% of the respondents thought competing claims on land and 

natural resources as the cause of conflict. The responses shown here definitely indicate that the 

understanding of the cause of conflict differs with the ethnicity, status, age group, literacy, 

employment, land holding and income of the respondents.  

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Before After Before After Before After Before After

competing claims on

land and natural res

inadequate education

in resource use and

degrading

environment

average wt. mean

Resource use and distribution

R
e
sp

o
n

se
s

in
%

strongly disagree/disagree don't know agree/strongly agree

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia 
Figure 3: Unequal resource use and distribution as a cause of conflict 

 

Studies of violent conflicts do show that they begin with the political economy and the 

mechanisms of access, control, and struggle over resources. Studies carried out in Nepal 

regarding resource use conflict and leading to park-people conflict or conflict with forest officers 

have been documented by Upreti, 2007. These findings revealed that, on  average, 74%  agreeing 

with the statements reasoning the facts that there were competing claims to land rights & natural 

resources; environmental degradation in the area had affected the traditional livelihood of the 

community; there were projects which had not felt responsible to tackle environment problems 

and encourage people to participate; people had perceived the importance of natural resources 

Source: Field data 2006, Bardia

Fig 3: Unequal resource use and distribution as a
cause of  conflict

Nepali



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

41

8

Table 2 : Summary table showing the significance and linear combination of the independent variables to the 

causes of conflict 
 

Broader 
reasons 

causes of 
conflict 

Periods 
wt. 
mean 

difference W T+ T- P-value
Changes 
impact 

Before 2.9 
C1 

After 2.3 
0.58 -144033.00 210.00 -144243.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 
C2 

After 2.4 
0.31 -88028.00 38786.00 -126814.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 
C3 

After 2.5 
0.26 -66872.00 44824.00 -111696.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 
C4 

After 2.9 
-0.16 48607.00 105101.50 -56494.50 <0.001 b< or -

Before 2.8 
C5 

After 2.3 
0.47 -143556.00 26975.00 -170531.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.6 

w
ea

k
go

v
er

n
an

ce

C6 
After 2.3 

0.31 -100737.00 52833.00 -153570.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.9 
C7 

After 2.5 
0.36 -79028.00 14891.50 -93919.50 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.6 
C8 

After 2.4 
0.17 -42749.00 65208.50 -107957.50 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 

ec
o

n
o

m
ic

in
st

ab
il
it

y

C9 
After 2.4 

0.30 -83065.00 41844.00 -124909.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 
C10 

After 2.3 
0.33 -97296.00 44835.00 -142131.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.8 
C11 

After 2.4 
0.40 -110302.00 29094.00 -139396.00 <0.001 b> or +

Before 2.7 

R
es

o
u
rc

e
u
se

an
d

d
is

tr
ib

u
ti

o
n

C12 
After 2.5 

0.21 -55303.00 52579.00 -107882.00 <0.001 b> or +

Source: Field Data, Bardia, 2006 

 

With respect to economic instability, resource use and distribution, all respondents agreed that 

the causes of conflict were greater before than after. The respondents perceived some changes 

after and identified different causes of conflict than before. 

 

Analyzing the conditions of livelihoods before and after the conflict 

After analyzing all the causes of conflict and their impacts on livelihood assets, the conditions of 

livelihood assets based on their perception before and after the conflict were queried.  Table 3 

demonstrates that 83% of the respondents recalled that social assets were good before and 65% 

mentioned that they got bad after the conflict intensified. In the case of financial assets, 87% of 

the respondents perceived the condition as good before and 66% of them felt it was bad after. 

Similarly, physical assets were perceived to be good by 77% of the respondents before but bad 

by 68% of the respondents. 85% of the respondents reckoned natural assets to be good before the 

conflict and 71% of the respondents saw them to be bad after. Finally, human resource assets 

were perceived to be good by 81% before, and 67% mentioned it be bad after the conflict.  

 

Studies of  violent conflicts do show that they begin
with the political economy and the mechanisms of
access, control, and struggle over resources. Studies
carried out in Nepal regarding resource use conflict
and leading to park-people conflict or conflict with
forest officers have been documented by Upreti,
2007. These findings revealed that, on  average, 74%
agreeing with the statements reasoning the facts that
there were competing claims to land rights & natural
resources; environmental degradation in the area had
affected the traditional livelihood of  the community;
there were projects which had not felt responsible to
tackle environment problems and encourage people
to participate; people had perceived the importance
of  natural resources and their impact on livelihoods;
they had also seen the negative effects due to
unmanaged natural resources on their livelihoods and
that this has impacted social and cultural trends.

The influence of  society, state, corporate and various
powers has an impact on degrading the environment
or influencing environmental policies. The inter
relation between power groups monopolizing policy,
legitimizing their power to seize common resources

can be understood through “Political ecology” theory.
Upreti, 2007, has cited various studies, most of  which
have stressed the relationship between armed conflict
and natural resources. The government and
community forestry areas have been misused for their
camps. Upreti, (2004); Blaikie et al., (1980), have
addressed that structural global political economy
approach to explain social marginalization and
environmental degradation. Civil war can limit the
access to resources and only few groups or people
will have access and power to use them for their own
benefit. The study by Le Billon (2000) documents
how armed groups can gain economically and exploit
natural resources. In the case of  Nepal, it may be
difficult to document what and how much natural
resources were diminished.

Determining the associated factors with causes
of  conflict and its perceived effect on livelihoods
This section analyses the factors associated with the
causes of  conflict and their relation to livelihoods.
Table 2 shows that understanding among the
respondents differed in agreeing about the causes
before and after the conflict. In the case of  weak

Nepali



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

42

governance becoming the cause of  conflict, most of
the respondents agreed the causes to be greater before
than after the conflict except for the cause where
respondents agreed that disputes over revenue
sharing got worse than before. Thus, it is significantly
different with p-values <0.001 and signifies that after
the conflict, respondents’ perception of  conflict and
its causes changed showing positive impact.

With respect to economic instability, resource use and
distribution, all respondents agreed that the causes
of  conflict were greater before than after. The
respondents perceived some changes after and
identified different causes of  conflict than before.

Analyzing the conditions of  livelihoods before
and after the conflict
After analyzing all the causes of  conflict and their
impacts on livelihood assets, the conditions of
livelihood assets based on their perception before
and after the conflict were queried.  Table 3
demonstrates that 83% of the respondents recalled
that social assets were good before and 65%
mentioned that they got bad after the conflict
intensified. In the case of  financial assets, 87% of
the respondents perceived the condition as good
before and 66% of  them felt it was bad after. Similarly,
physical assets were perceived to be good by 77% of
the respondents before but bad by 68% of  the
respondents. 85% of  the respondents reckoned
natural assets to be good before the conflict and 71%

of  the respondents saw them to be bad after. Finally,
human resource assets were perceived to be good by
81% before, and 67% mentioned it be bad after the
conflict.

All livelihood issues deal with communities being
poor, deprived and their well being attached to various
assets and access to resources and services. As Rakodi
and Lloud-Johnson (2002) put it, livelihood
approaches propose to think in terms of  strengths
or assets, or who has access to what in terms of
savings; if  not, have other materials or non material
assets distinguishing between poor, deprived or the
better off. As the livelihood framework addresses
human links to various assets such as social, financial,
natural, human and physical, when these assets
become vulnerable, livelihoods deteriorate. Therefore,
when the country is in crisis the first impact is seen
on these livelihood assets.

Conclusion
Weak governance, economic instability and inequality
in resource use and distribution as the perceived
causes of  conflict before and after persisted and were
highly significant. The 10-year long conflict made the
country’s economic, political and social situation very
miserable and this is revealed in impacts on
livelihoods which were perceived as better before and
worse after the conflict. This study could be a lesson
for learning how to cope with such situation in future
by addressing the livelihood options

9

Table 3- Conditions of livelihood assets before and after or during the conflict 
social financial physical natural asset human res asset 

before after Before after before after before after before after Condition

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 

Bad 12 1 723 65 14 1 737 66 17 2 765 68 12 1 789 71 17 2 748 67 
Same 174 16 151 14 130 12 173 15 243 22 163 15 155 14 103 9 196 18 185 17 
Good 932 83 244 22 974 87 208 19 858 77 190 17 951 85 226 20 905 81 185 17 

Source: Field Data, Bardia, 2006 

All livelihood issues deal with communities being poor, deprived and their well being attached to 

various assets and access to resources and services. As Rakodi and Lloud-Johnson (2002) put it, 

livelihood approaches propose to think in terms of strengths or assets, or who has access to what 

in terms of savings; if not, have other materials or non material assets distinguishing between 

poor, deprived or the better off. As the livelihood framework addresses human links to various 

assets such as social, financial, natural, human and physical, when these assets become 

vulnerable, livelihoods deteriorate. Therefore, when the country is in crisis the first impact is 

seen on these livelihood assets.  

 

Conclusion 

Weak governance, economic instability and inequality in resource use and distribution as the 

perceived causes of conflict before and after persisted and were highly significant. The 10-year 

long conflict made the country’s economic, political and social situation very miserable and this 

is revealed in impacts on livelihoods which were perceived as better before and worse after the 

conflict. This study could be a lesson for learning how to cope with such situation in future by 

addressing the livelihood options  

 

References: 

Arnson, C.J and I. W. Zartman, 2005. Rethinking the economics of war-The intersection of 

need, creed and greed. Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Washington D.C and The John 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

 

Blaikie, P.M., Cameron, J. and Seddon, D. 1980. Nepal in Crisis: Growth and Stagnation at 

the periphery. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 

 

Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler. 1998. On the economic consequences of civil war. Oxford Economic 

Papers 50:563-573. 

 

Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A. 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic paper 56, 

p. 563-595. 

 

Cramer, C., 2003. Does inequality cause conflict? Journal of International Development 15, 397-

412. 

 

Crotty, M. 1998. The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the 

research process. Australia. 

 

Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1991. On the threshold: environmental changes as causes of acute conflict. 

International Security, 16 (2): 76-116. 

 

Table 3 : Conditions of  livelihood assets before and after or during the conflict

Source: Field Data, Bardia, 2006

Nepali



Banko Janakari, Vol. 20, No. 1

43

References
Arnson, C.J and Zartman, I.W. 2005. Rethinking

the Economics of  War-The Intersection of
Need, Creed and Greed. Woodrow Wilson
Center Press. Washington D.C and The John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Blaikie, P.M., Cameron, J. and Seddon, D. 1980.
Nepal in Crisis: Growth and Stagnation at the
Periphery. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A. 1998. On the economic
consequences of  civil war. Oxford Economic Papers
50: 563-573.

Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A. 2004. Greed and grievance
in civil war. Oxford Economic paper 56: 563-595.

Cramer, C., 2003. Does inequality cause conflict?
Journal of  International Development 15: 397-412.

Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of  Social
Research. Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. Australia.

Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1991. On the threshold:
environmental changes as causes of  acute conflict.
International Security, 16 (2): 76-116.

Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1994. Environmental Scarcities
and Violent Conflicts: Evidence from Cases,
International security, 19 (19): 5-40.

Jung, D. 2003. Shadow Globalization, Ethnic
Conflicts and New Wars. A Political Economy
of  Intra-State War. Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group, London and New York.

Khanal, D.R. 2006. Sasastra Dwandama
Samudayik Ban (Community Forestry in
Armed Conflict), Kathmandu: Federation of
Community Forestry Users of  Nepal.

Le Billon, P. 2000. The political ecology of  transition
in Cambodia, 1989–1999: war, peace and forest
exploitation. Development and Change, 31 (4): 785-
805.

Rakodi, C. and Johnson, T. 2002. Urban
Livelihoods: A People-Centered Approach to
Reducing Poverty. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Robinson, 2001. Social identity, inequality and
conflict. Journal of  Economics of  Governance 2: 85-
99.

Siegel, S and Castellan. Jr., N.J. 1988 Nonparametric
Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
McGraw-hill book company, Singapore.

Shambaugh, J. Oglethorpe, J. and Ham, R. (with
contributions from Sylvia Tognetti) 2001. The
Trampled Grass: Mitigating the Impacts of
Armed Conf lict on the Environment.
Washington DC, USA: Biodiversity Support
Program.

Thapa, D. and Sijapati, B. 2003. A Kingdom under
Siege: Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency, 1996 to
2003. Kathmandu: Printhouse.

Upreti, B.R. 2004. The Price of  Neglect: From
Resource Conflict to Maoist Insurgency in the
Himalayan Kingdom. Bhrikuti Academic
Publication. Kathmandu.

Upreti, B.R. 2007. Crisis beyond the Battlefield: A
Rapid Impact Assessment of  the Armed
Conflict on Environment and Biodiversity in
Nepal. Unpublished. Kathmandu.

Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, Third
Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey 07458.

Nepali