www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
World Development Vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 1821–1843, 2005
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0305-750X/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.06.002
Social Responsibility in the Growing Handmade
Paper Industry of Nepal
STEPHEN BIGGS
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
and
DON MESSERSCHMIDT *
Independent Research Anthropologist, Pullman, USA
Summary. — This study examines the recent dynamics in the rapidly growing handmade paper
industry in Nepal. The paper argues that the industry is sustainable from social responsibility as
well as natural resources and economic perspectives. Five principle sources of socially responsible
practices are identified: (1) traditional commitment to community development, (2) fair trade codes
of conduct, (3) corporate social responsibility, (4) the industry’s business service organization
(Nepal Handmade Paper Association), and (5) the general policy and legal framework. The paper
concludes with a discussion of this industry as a case study of ‘‘positive deviance’’ and with lessons
for contemporary innovation systems theory and for development policy and practice.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words — Asia, Nepal, handmade paper, fair trade, positive deviance, innovation
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a growing
interest in understanding the complex processes
that give rise to the emergence and spread of
technological and institutional innovations in
the agricultural, forestry, and other natural resources sectors. In the light of empirical evidence, simplistic pipeline and linear theories
and frameworks have given way to broader
innovation system approaches, where the
behavior of actors in the broader political, cultural, aid donor, trade, and economic arenas
are seen as important as any of the specific efforts on the part of natural and social scientists,
who might come up with new technologies and
new research methods and institutions. 1 While
innovations systems approaches have long
been established as useful ways to understand
and help direct policy at the national science
and technology level (Freeman, 1987; Nelson,
1993), it is only recently that these more holistic
and politically aware frameworks are being
used in the agricultural and natural resources
* The authors gratefully acknowledge colleagues who
have read and commented on this paper, including M.
Bhattarai, S. Chitrakar, L. Colavito, R.J. Fisher, C.
Heath, D. Lewis, P. Maharjan, H. Matsaert, M. Odell,
C. Richard, S. Smith, J. Sternin, B. Subedi, and H.
Wedgwood. Many of their suggestions have been incorporated. We also acknowledge personal (nonmonetary)
assistance given during the original research (mid-1980s)
and during this new study (2002–05) by officers and staff
of UNICEF’s Nepal Country Program, the Agricultural
Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN), and the Small
Farmer Development Program (SFDP), as well as the
Bhaktapur Craft Printers (BCP), private companies,
various NGOs, wholesalers, retailers, and representatives of the trade associations involved in Nepal’s handmade paper and crafts production industry and, not
least, the rural paper makers and urban factory workers
who talked at length with us and who make this industry
function so well. We also acknowledge and thank the
unseen reviewers whose comments were most helpful,
and Liesl Messerschmidt for her insights and editorial
assistance. Final revision accepted: June 22, 2005.
1821
1822
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
sectors (Douthwaite, 2002; Hall, Bockett, Taylor, Sivamahan, & Clark, 2001). Much of the
emphasis in past innovation studies in these
sectors has been on the creation and spread of
technology per se, and not so much on understanding the role of different actors in processes
of institutional innovation and change. In this
study, we use an innovation system approach
to investigate institutional innovation in a part
of the forestry sector—the handmade paper
industry in Nepal. In particular, we go beyond
the normal concerns of the national innovation
systems approach to identify specific actors,
and to explore poverty reduction and social
inclusion dimensions. As we found many examples of positive institutions (as regards contemporary social development indicators) in our
case study, we investigated the implications of
this in the context of the growing literature on
positive deviance (Sternin, 2002, 2003) and for
development planning and intervention in general. The period under study in this research
included a phase when a large project was designed to promote the handmade paper industry. This allowed us to reflect on the behavior
of past development actors in influencing the
growth of the industry and their role in influencing the initiation and spread of socially
responsible institutions in the industry.
The main purpose of the paper is to present
the findings of an exploratory study looking
at recent social dynamics in the handmade
paper industry. While two earlier studies
(Messerschmidt, 1988, 1995; New ERA, 1995)
reviewed the outcomes of the innovative handmade paper project described (in part) here,
this is not a ‘‘restudy’’ in the conventional
sense, as we do not analyze the recent historical
processes and outcomes of the components of
the original project. 2 Rather, this is a new
study, whose primary purpose is to ask questions of the rapidly growing overall industry:
What has happened in the industry in recent
years? What are the long-term prospects of the
industry? In particular, what are the answers
to these questions when viewed from the
perspectives of resource sustainability, social
responsible institutions, and economic sustainability? The paper also discusses the role of the
Community Development Through the Production of Handmade Paper Project (CDHP project) to help rejuvenate the industry, and what
lessons can be learnt for innovation theory.
The authors felt the timing of this study was
pertinent given the current development discourse on: (1) the promotion of private for
profit based entrepreneurship in the context of
globalization, and (2) criticism of Nepal’s current development vis-à-vis responsible social
and environmental practices, good governance,
rural livelihoods, poverty reduction, and gender equity (‘‘second generation’’ issues). 3 The
International Labor Organization (ILO), in its
recently released Economic Security Index,
ranks Nepal at the bottom of the world scale,
based on job security, income, union representation, workplace safety, health care, social
security, etc. (ILO, 2004). While this picture is
true for some economic sectors, we found that
a wide range of diverse practices within the
handmade paper industry are socially inclusive,
responsible, egalitarian, and sustainable (both
in terms of continuation and environmental
resources), and these are part of policies and
institutions of good governance and civil society. This case study shows how innovative
Nepalese actors are doing this and, because it
is a dynamic local indigenous process, why it
appears the systems are institutionally sustainable. (Thus, our approach stands in contrast
to institutional models transferred from elsewhere, and to models that are relevant only to
the ‘‘special conditions’’ of projects and programs.) The secondary purpose of this study
is to explore these cases of positive deviance
as regards socially responsible behavior within
Nepal’s economy.
2. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
AND METHODS
The main research framework for our exploratory study is an actor innovation systems
framework. There is a growing literature on
innovation systems research (Biggs & Matsaert,
1999; Douthwaite, 2002; Hall et al., 2004).
Some of this has much in common with the
growing number of studies on the ethnographies of aid agencies (Rossi, 2004; Sharma, Koponen, Gyawali, & Dixit, 2004). Our study also
touches on unique circumstances of ‘‘positive
deviance,’’ in that we have unexpectedly found
the industry to have many institutional innovations of this kind (see STC, 2003; Sternin, 2002,
2003; Sternin & Choo, 2000). Major actors in
the industry were identified and key informant
interviews conducted with these actors. In
addition, secondary data on the industry were
reviewed and are given in the bibliography.
Reliable statistics on the industry are difficult
to find. This is due not only to the normal prob-
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
lems of data collection, but also because it
would be very expensive to try and gather reliable figures on even such things as the number
of lokta paper production units actually operating at any one time, or the percentage of handmade paper products made from lokta fiber or
from cotton waste and other natural fibers. Because of this, we have tried whenever to ‘‘triangulate’’ our information from as many sources
as possible. 4
3. HANDMADE PAPER IN NEPAL
In Nepal, handmade paper is made from the
fibers of lokta and other natural fibers. Lokta is
the fibrous inner bark of the high elevation
forest shrub called Daphne bholua and Daphne
papyracea. It grows gregariously and abundantly on the south slopes of Nepal’s Himalayan forests between 1,600 and 4,000 m (c.
5,250–13,000 ft). Long-lasting qualities and
resistance to insects and mildew make lokta
paper popular.
Historically, lokta paper was a single purpose
product used primarily for recording government records and religious texts. Since at least
the 12th century AD, production of traditional
handmade paper has occurred at several locations in the rural hills of Nepal, most notably
the central district of Baglung. As early as the
1930s, however, handmade paper production
began to decline due to paper craft imports
from Tibet. By the 1960s, the traditional Nepalese paper industry was virtually moribund due
to competition by mass produced paper made
by machine in India. In the 1970s, before
rejuvenation of the industry began, only a few
families in Baglung and neighboring Parbat
District retained the traditional knowledge of
handmade lokta paper production (see Tables
1 and 2 for a summary of different phases in
the recent history of the Nepalese handmade
1823
paper industry). Today the handmade paper
industry is growing at a rate of 15% per year,
and harvesting lokta and rural papermaking
occurs in at least 16 hill districts. It is currently
estimated that about 70% of all handmade
paper products in Nepal use lokta fiber, and
30% use cotton waste and other recycled natural fibers.
Lokta handmade paper production is a forest-based industry. It relies as much on a ready
supply of Daphne bark as it does on the skills
of traditional paper makers and block printers,
and on markets for end products. There are
four main steps in manufacturing the paper
and paper craft products: harvesting the lokta
bark, processing the paper pulp, producing
craft products from the finished paper, and
marketing the final products. 5 Many paper
producers follow a participatory group approach in organizing their works. Examples
are the Community Forest User Groups
(CFUGs) associated with the Malika Handmade Paper Enterprise in Bajhang District
and the Pandit Kamala Enterprise of Dolakha
District (Subedi, 2004). These groups have high
involvement of women, poor and disadvantaged members from their communities. 6
Groups form primarily on a neighborhood
basis for rural-level cutting, paper production,
stove construction, and transport, as well as
for block printing, cutting, grading, and packing at the factory. Most paper-making groups
form with little regard for caste, gender, or
ethnicity (Messerschmidt, 1988, 1995). The predominance of women working in this industry
is a result of Nepalese socioeconomic tradition,
rather than of a conscious gender policy initiative. Recently, the ongoing conflict and economic conditions have reinforced the local
employment of women, as men have fled villages both in fear and in search of overseas
employment mainly in India, Southeast, and
East Asia, and the Middle East.
Table 1. Phases in the recent history of the handmade paper industry in Nepal
Up to 1970s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
—Decline of tradition, against imports of modern paper
—Revival of handmade paper making, based on tourist demand
—Rejuvenation: CDHP project implemented (UNICEF/SFDP)
—Rapid expansion industrywide
—Growth of formal
commitments to social
responsibility and fair
trade
—Handmade lokta
paper making
tradition exists in
Nepal since the
12th century AD,
principally along
the trans-Himalayan
trade route through the
central hill districts
—Nepalese paper used
extensively for
government and religious
documents
—Tibetan paper imports
reduce market for
Nepalese lokta paper
(1930s+);
indigenous
handmade
paper
industry suffers
Up to 1970s. . .
2000s. . .
—FTGN exhibition and workshop
on fair trade challenges and
opportunities (2000)
—FTGN issues first joint catalog
featuring handmade paper and other
handicraft products (2002)
—HANDPASS workshop on
participation in international
trade fairs (2002)
—HANDPASS and HAN training
on paper making techniques and
product development (2002)
—HANDPASS seminar with CBI
on sector marketing (2003)
—Industry lobbies for improved
regulatory process to protect lokta
resources and industry
—Estimated over 13,000
registered CFUGs
—Maoist insurgents and RNA
restrict access to the high forests;
thus, to the harvesting of lokta
resources and movement of
products/inputs
—Pilot experimentation with
Private Public Alliance (PPA) in
certification for NTFPs (2002)
—FSC accreditation award to
FECOFUN (2005)
1990s. . .
—BCP adopts Japanese
technology (1991)
—Former BCP manager
starts private
handmade paper
company (1991)
—BCP joins IFAT (1990s)
—FTGN founded (1993) and
registered as NGO (1996)
—External evaluation
of SFDP paper
making project (1995)
—HANDPASS founded
and registered (1996)
—UNICEF temporarily
suspends orders
from BCP (1996–97)
—Nepalese paper product
NGOs and entrepreneurs
attend IFAT trade conference
in Italy (1999)
—GPI supplies Body Shop,
International, major
marketing crisis
1980s. . .
—UNICEF project
feasibility studies
conducted (1980)
—UNICEF project
begins (1980)
—BCP established
with market
guaranteed through
UNICEF/GCO (1980)
—First SFDP loans
to rural paper
makers (1980)
—Sustainable lokta
harvesting
practices studied
(1983) and first
resource management
plans written and
implemented (1984)
—First Nepalese paper
UNICEF greeting
cards sold globally
—BCP encourages
international marketing
by private producers
—Major private lokta paper
craft company
(GPI) founded (1985)
—Japanese paper making
technology
introduced (1985)
—IFAT formed (1989)
1970s. . .
—Industrial quality
paper imports
from India further
undermine Nepal’s
lokta paper industry
—HAN established
(1972)
—Nepal tourism
industry grows,
with interest in
paper crafts
—SFDP starts in
Asia and Nepal
—ADBN named
SFDP‘‘lead agency’’
in Nepal (1975); first
projects in
agricultural and
forward and
backward linked
sectors
—Community
forestry
program starts
under the DOF
(1978)
Table 2. Major events in the rejuvenation and growth of the Nepalese handmade paper industry
1824
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
Interest in rejuvenating lokta craft papermaking occurred as the tourism industry in Nepal began to grow in the 1970s. After a steady
decline in papermaking (in the late 1970s),
encouraging evidence of a potential international market presented itself. In this climate
of optimism for handmade paper and paper
craft products, the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF) and the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal/Small Farmer Development Program (ADBN/SFDP) launched the
CDHP project in 1980 (hereafter called ‘‘the
project’’), with close government involvement
and coordination. This was the first donorfunded attempt to revive indigenous paper
making processes. 7
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the
growth of popularity of lokta based and recycled fiber products, Nepalese entrepreneurs
sought out and developed international trading
partners. Currently, the Cottage Industry
Department reports 377 registered handmade
paper production industries, out of approximately 600 units operating in the country. Of
these, 175 manufacture about 30,000 metric
tons of paper products each year. Yet, despite
this major increase in handmade paper production, large lokta resources remain untapped.
Lokta-based handmade craft paper products
continue to offer considerable economic sustainability due to their high-quality niche market potential (Dhakal, 2004).
4. REJUVENATION OF
THE HANDMADE PAPER INDUSTRY
The early history of rejuvenation of handmade paper is dominated by the activities of
the UNICEF-sponsored project. In 1980,
encouraged by the success of the (then) newly
created SFDP and a felt need to revive the
declining handmade paper industry in rural
Nepal, the CDHP project was launched. The
goal of the project was to rejuvenate lokta
handmade paper and block-printing traditions
as an economic base for community development.
The project had a rural development focus, and
its designers set out to achieve this goal by
addressing ‘‘basic needs,’’ starting ‘‘from below’’ (at the local level), and using the structure
and processes of the ‘‘integrated rural development’’ approach. The assumptions and operating principles of this approach constituted
‘‘good development’’ practice at the time, the
early 1980s (Messerschmidt, 1988, 1995).
1825
The project objectives were to (a) provide
community development in rural areas, primarily among lokta cutters and paper makers, and
(b) reduce poverty through new employment
opportunities in the same areas. An anticipated
outcome was active involvement of poor and
marginalized groups by improving livelihoods
for small farmers and other rural lokta paper
makers, landless laborers, and the disadvantaged poor; developing self-reliance among
these groups by enabling them to plan and
carry out community development projects;
and adapting government and institutional
delivery mechanisms to the local needs of the
rural poor (Messerschmidt, 1988; UNICEF &
APROSC, 1981).
In addition, the project facilitated the creation of a private (quasi-governmental), Kathmandu-based paper craft products factory,
called Bhaktapur Craft Printers (BCP). The
BCP bought lokta paper stock produced in
rural areas and then used another indigenous
Nepalese technology, block printing, to
produce high-quality paper products for an
international market. To ensure that market,
UNICEF’s Geneva-based Greeting Cards
Operation (GCO) guaranteed to buy the product. Paper produced by the project for greeting
cards was part of UNICEF’s Basic Services in
Local Development Program, combining economic and community development functions
with rural and urban components to revitalize
and expand a traditional craft production process (ADBN, 1982; UNICEF, 1980).
A key ingredient of the project’s overall
development objectives was that, in rural areas,
small-scale loans from the SFDP assisted rural
households in paper production. As handmade
paper production relies on labor-intensive technology, the project supported neighborhood
groups, mobilized by a social mobilizer called
a Group Organizer, posted to the papermaking
villages by ADBN. 8 On the urban side, BCP
bought all the highest quality handmade paper
that village participants could produce, and
converted it into greeting cards, stationary,
and the like, for sale to GCO. Twenty-five percent of BCP profits reverted back to support
community development activities in the rural
sites, and social development activities among
the BCP factory employees.
When the project began in 1980, harvested
lokta resources came exclusively from the Hatiya Forest in Baglung District, and papermaking occurred in the nearby villages of Pang
and Nanglibang in Parbat District. Eventually,
1826
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
the project expanded to include lokta cutters
and paper makers in nearby Myagdi and
Lamjung Districts. Prior to implementation,
UNICEF engaged a team of forest scientists
to study lokta ecology and growth in order
to inform project administrators and rural
participants of the most sustainable resource
management and harvesting techniques. They
recommended specific strategies, such as rotational cutting, and care in cutting stems (for
effective coppicing), and conducted training
with cutters and paper makers. The project staff
also established small wood lots as sources of
fuel on which to cook the lokta pulp (called
‘‘bast’’), to make paper. In some areas, forest
officers and CFUGs continue to follow those
comprehensive resource management guidelines today for lokta preservation (Acharya,
2003; Development Associates, 1997). However, even in some of the BCP areas of Parbat,
the guidelines for lokta maintenance are not
kept to (Subedi, Ojha, Nicholson, & Binayee,
2002, pp. 10–13). Lokta resource sustainability
remains a high priority concern within the lokta
craft industry. Sustainable harvesting, however,
is no longer considered to be a major long-term
technical problem, for even when over harvested, lokta coppice and new growth from
seed are ready for harvest within 8–10 years.
Several studies of the project are important
to be mentioned here to provide historical
background and analysis, and a basis to describe other entrepreneurial activities within
the industry but outside of the CDHP project.
The first study by Messerschmidt, entitled
‘‘Success in small farmer development: Papermaking at Pang and Nanglibang, Nepal,’’ appeared in World Development in 1988 (revised
and reprinted in 1995). The 1988 study provides
a history of the SFDP, the basic program upon
which the project was set up, outlining its institutional style, structure, and functions. That
study also described local sociocultural traditions, leading to the inception of the CDHP
project. The important catalytic role of local
Group Organizers is noted, and the project’s
use of indigenous approaches, technologies,
and natural and human resources that enhance
rural family welfare are detailed. The article
concludes with a discussion and observation
about what makes such forms of rural development ‘‘successful,’’ including a comparison of
project assumptions and practices with development thinking of the time. 9
Here was a project that appeared to be viable
ecologically, socioculturally, and economically
(as long as UNICEF’s GCO continued buying
the handmade paper products). Certain aspects
of the project’s initial ‘‘successes’’ are undisputed. The most obvious is the rejuvenation
of lokta-based handmade paper production,
followed by an increase in rural employment
and income, as well as project-supported community development initiatives such as access
to clean drinking water, sanitation facilities,
preschool teacher training, education for village
children, and development of fuel wood plantations (Messerschmidt, 1988, 1995). It began as
a classic special project, which helped with the
continuing opening up of a new niche market
that, in the words of one observer, was an
opportunity for ‘‘success just waiting to happen’’ (Michael Thompson in Messerschmidt,
1995). The industry had a promising future,
embodying many of the ingredients for long
range ‘‘success,’’ including goals of poverty
reduction and improved quality of life through
community development. As we demonstrate,
however, the actual growth of the industry took
place in socially innovative ways that were, in
significant ways, quite different from the design
of the original project.
From a purely economic perspective, UNICEF’s guaranteed market for lokta paper products might appear to be the most important
component of the project. The 1988 analysis,
however, argues that economic incentives alone
are insufficient for such a project to ‘‘succeed.’’
Instead, attention to and support of preexisting
social and cultural values in project design and
implementation, in addition to the guaranteed
market, are as important as the underlying
economic rationale for success. (In more contemporary terms: ‘‘culture matters’’ as much
as economics; see Harrison & Huntington,
2000.) The 1988 article concludes:
Indications of success in human terms can be seen in
participants’ dedication to project goals because, in
part, the project is based on local technological tradition, the proud renewal of the ancient craft of papermaking. Success is also seen in the enthusiasm
expressed as the people’s traditional knowledge is
used by developers to solve project problems. And,
not least, it is evident in the strength of project work
groups and of the style of leadership that developers
established based on the simple logic of [adapting]
the local social structure. . . [Thus] project design
and evaluation require early attention to variables
in the local socio-cultural environment (Messerschmidt, 1988, p. 733).
A separate impact study of the project in
1995 reaffirms these successes, pointing to the
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
sustainable human development derived from
the initial objectives and activities, including:
. . .reviving traditional culture and skill, promoting
labor-intensive technology, providing employment
and income and thereby supporting the lives of thousands of poor families, halting the accelerating trends
of migration, supporting development of children
and women, earning foreign currency, and more
importantly, providing basic services in the areas of
health, child care, water, education and sanitation
that affect the entire community (New ERA, 1995,
p. viii).
Today the project activities continue in attenuated fashion, producing paper in the districts,
manufacturing paper crafts through BCP, and
channeling a percentage of the profits back to
community development in the rural districts.
Current activities still reflect many of the initial
objectives (though UNICEF no longer funds it,
and SFDP has been restructured). BCP still
relies on lokta paper from rural villages, and
almost exclusively on its market contract with
GCO. Until recently, UNICEF was closely
involved in advising BCP on management of
the project’s community development funds.
Some of the original rural community development objectives, however, have been difficult to
implement, and should GCO discontinue buying paper (as it did briefly during 1996–97),
BCP in its present form will face serious problems. 10
The earlier assessments of the CDHP project
show what promotion of indigenous technical
knowledge in rural areas can achieve when
the designers are aware of and build on existing
socially responsible behavior. The project was a
success, because its planners and implementers
built upon cultural values that already existed.
Interestingly, as we shall now discuss, it appears that developments in the industry reinforce this earlier conclusion for development
planners.
5. RECENT GROWTH OF
THE INDUSTRY
The recent growth of the handmade paper
industry has been remarkable. From a state
of a decline in the 1970s, it has been, until
recently, a rapidly growing industry. During
1998–2004, the average yearly expansion rate
was 22%. This figure began to decline, however,
in 2003–04, to 10%. In 2003–04, according to
official statistics from the Handicraft Association of Nepal (HAN), the export of handmade
1827
paper products (the great majority of sales) was
about US$4.25 million. While the CDHP project and BCP concentrated exclusively on lokta
fiber for handmade paper, other firms have
concentrated on recycled fibers, such as cotton
waste and other natural fibers. Currently, it is
estimated that lokta based products make up
about 70% of handmade paper and recycled
fiber products 30%. While in the early 1980s,
BCP was the most important firm in the industry, today BCP’s contributions to the total
industrial output is small, between 5% and
10%. Today Get Paper Industries (GPI), the
largest company and the biggest exporter, uses
almost entirely recycled paper.
By one recent estimate, the industry provides
employment to 4,155 families, or about 21,000
persons, with women making up 80% of those
employed (Dangol, 2003). This may seem a
small impact on poverty in absolute numbers,
but in an industry where (typically) whole
neighborhoods or communities are involved,
it has significant local socioeconomic impacts.
While the project promoted ‘‘group’’-based
development at all stages in the handmade paper value added chain, the industry has always
been characterized by diverse institutional
structures, and this diversity continues today.
In rural areas, there are private microenterprise
lokta producing units as well as communitybased units. However, most of the paper manufacturing companies are private enterprises
(including nongovernmental organizations—
NGOs) where, as we point out, there is a high
degree of socially responsible business practice.
We now look at three aspects of the recent
growth of the industry: (a) niche market development, (b) growth of private and social entrepreneurship, and (c) resource management and
sustainability.
(a) Niche market development
UNICEF helped introduce Nepalese handmade paper to the world through the CDHP
project, including the BCP factory and GCO,
which provided an excellent platform to advertise and promote handmade paper products
internationally. At first, the global attraction
to Nepal’s handmade paper products was based
upon perceptions of an ‘‘exotic’’ handmade
craft and a culture of concern for people and
the environment—that is, humanitarianism, social responsibility, social ethics, a remarkably
high-quality product, and resource sustainability. Also marketed is a touch of romantic
1828
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
idealism, by identifying lokta products as part
of an ‘‘age-old ethnic folk tradition’’ from the
‘‘remote’’ Himalayas. This attraction continues
to be promoted by many private and NGOs
producing lokta paper in Nepal. ‘‘Handmade
in Nepal’’ has become an international sales
slogan, and social and environmental consciousness is part of the industry image. The
result is a socially responsible, resource sustaining industry.
Handmade paper manufacturers in Nepal
stress two main features about their product:
First, paper is handmade following traditional
production technology, and produced from
pure lokta grown sustainably. Second, the
industry also produces paper from other fibers,
recycled paper, fabric, etc. 11 The expansion to
other paper stock began in 1985, with the introduction of a Japanese technology that employs
energy and resource-efficient factory methods
with labor-intensive handmade craft production. A key aspect of the Japanese technology
is a method of recycling and reusing lokta
paper trimmings and the use of cotton waste
and other recycled fibers. 12 General Paper
Industries (now known as Get Paper Industries,
or GPI, founded in 1985), was the first to adopt
the new Japanese technology (see Table 2). GPI
was Nepal’s first major private handmade
paper making company, and began by using
BCP’s lokta scraps as raw material, purchased
at the market price. GPI continued to buy
BCP’s scrap lokta until 1991, when BCP itself
adopted the Japanese recycling technology
and scrap lokta was no longer available for
sale. 13 Meanwhile, GPI expanded into nonlokta recycled handmade paper products made
from waste papers and recycled cotton, which
soon dominated its product line. The exploration and development of international niche
markets for handmade paper has been led by
the private/NGO sector.
For example, Lewis (1998) describes how in
the early 1990s, Body Shop International
(BSI) had encouraged GPI’s rapid expansion
by taking a large percentage of GPI’s output.
This created an overdependence on BSI so that
when the market shifted, GPS was left without
other buyers. The implications and outcomes
were difficult for both partners. However, it
led to BSI working with GPI to develop a successful diversification strategy for both local
and international markets. Now GPI is the
largest firm in the industry with about 30% of
all handmade paper export sales. On the development of international niche markets for
handmade paper and other craft products it
has also been the long-standing entrepreneurship of members of local NGOs such as the
Association of Craft Producers, and other
members of the Fair Trade Group, Nepal, that
have been particularly important (Limbu,
2002). Some of these local NGOs started producing quality craft goods for local and international markets in the 1970s. This concern
with developing international markets is illustrated by the discussions on globalization and
Nepal’s accession to the WTO at a recent fair
trade conference in Katmandu in 2003 (Fair
Trade Group of Nepal—FTGN, 2003). The
handmade paper business organization called
the Nepal Handmade Paper Association
(HANDPASS) has made this a priority in its
work, and held a special industrywide marketing strategy workshop in 2003.
(b) Growth of private and social
entrepreneurship
During the 1990s, many private sector business entrepreneurs, seeing the potential to
develop a growing international market for
handmade paper products, joined the papermaking industry. 14 (The ‘‘private sector’’ here
includes both for-profit companies and NGOs.)
Included among these were two previous BCP
employees; one had been a BCP previous general manager and one a technician. Together,
they founded Nepali Paper Products P. Ltd.
(NPP) in 1991. NPP allocates funds toward
employee adult education classes and a scholarship fund for the children of its poorest
workers. It also maintains a program for local
community development in areas where lokta
is procured. NPP is a Nepalese company that
in recent years has been awarded the Genevabased international ISO accreditation for high
business standards, and is a member of Global
Compact, an international alliance against the
use of child labor. NPP is, therefore, subject
to the monitoring of two international certifying agencies.
Besides being one of the first private companies to be established in the growing industry,
GPI has also been a leader in social entrepreneurship. In 1991, GPI established an ancillary
organization called General Welfare Pratishan
(GWP), funded from 25% of the GPI’s profits;
a travel and tour agency operated to generate
income for social service activities; and (as with
other philanthropic organizations and programs) GWP receives additional funding from
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
international agencies, foundations, and NGO
grants. GWP also renovates and builds schools,
provides scholarships to disadvantaged girls,
supports HIV/AIDS awareness among vulnerable groups throughout Nepal, and maintains
a tree plantation program (Bhattarai, 1994).
GPI is a member of the Federation for Alternative Trade and is monitored under its code of
conduct. Another influential firm in the industry as regards promoting social responsibility
in business is Lotus Paper Crafts (LPC), 15
which was formed in the early 1990s. Its manager came from an engineering background,
with no previous experience of the handmade
paper industry. The company is dedicated to
producing high-quality lokta-based handmade
paper products for an international market.
LPC comes under the umbrella of Lotus Holdings (LHs), which provides financial and social
services to 11 associate companies. LHs actively promotes corporate social responsibility
(CSR) in private business. LPC was founded
in 1998 by its associate members who had been
pursuing socially responsible behavior in business for many years. Like all other associates
of LHs, LPC signs a Social Code of Conduct
under which it provides education and day-care
services to the children of employee families, as
well as health insurance and fair wages (as per
the law) to the workers. LHs also supports a
Nepalese NGO called ‘‘Hoste Hainse,’’ which
is assigned to independently administer employee benefits, and provide regular, independent, transparent, and publicly available
social audits of all LHs companies. 16
GPI and NPP dominate the industry, each of
which contributed about 27% to the total official export figures for Nepal in 2001–02. 17
Their major markets are in the United States,
United Kingdom, France, and Japan. Besides
the export market, some producers and buyers
supply a steady tourist and local Nepalese middle class market in Kathmandu and other
urban areas, as well as links to Internet-based
international markets. Their web sites provide international access to Nepalese paper
products, information about traditional manufacturing techniques, and description of associated social programs and assistance to workers’
communities.
Closely allied to these expressions of social
responsibility by major companies is the paper
industry’s current concerns with fair trade ethics. Several of the larger NGOs manufacturing
handmade paper products belong to FTGN.
This was formed in 1993 by a group of seven
1829
like-minded social entrepreneurs. This group
was formally registered as an NGO in 1996
and now has 13 members, including the Association for Craft Producers (ACP), a professional
group providing design, marketing, and technical services for low income, primarily female
craft artisans. ACP maintains welfare, retirement, and loan funds; counseling services; educational allowances; and medical provisions for
its employees. Although ACP was formally
established in 1984, its director of long standing
has been active in ‘‘socially oriented commercially viable enterprises’’ since the mid 1970s
(Limbu, 2002). Like many of the FTGN member, ACP is committed to the revival of Nepal’s
indigenous handicrafts. In the context of
handmade paper, mention should be made of
another FTGN member, the Women Development Service Center of Janakpur, which was
established in 1979 to promote production
and marketing of the popular Mithila cultural
paintings on handmade paper.
Mahaguthi, one of Nepal’s oldest NGOs,
also belongs to FTGN. It goes by the mottoes:
‘‘Crafts with a Conscience’’ and ‘‘Fair Trade at
Grass Roots.’’ Mahaguthi helps over 1,000
poor and marginalized producers and artisan
groups to supply many international marketing
outlets. Another NGO is Sana Hastakala,
whose name translates as ‘‘small handicrafts.’’
Established under the auspices of the UNICEF
(independently of the CHDP Project), it assists
small, home-based handicraft producers, most
of whom are women, and provides a local
storefront outlet for many crafts including
BCP’s lokta paper products. Together, these
and other FTGN members pursue a collective
marketing strategy and publish a joint catalog
(www.peoplink.org/ftgnepal).
Some prominent international buyers require
their suppliers to abide by codes of trade conduct that include social and environmental
programs. Thus, fair trade and social consciousness activities feature prominently in the
niche marketing strategies of many paper
product wholesalers and retailers worldwide. 18
Being part of the FTGN enables commercial
units to provide some of the socially responsibly assurances. Only NGOs can be members
of the FTGN, however. Several of the major
actors in the handmade paper industry (GPI
and BCP) as well as ACP and FTGN are members of an international fair trade organization,
the International Federation for Alternative
Trade (IFAT), established in 1989. 19 Fair trade
objectives espoused by these organizations
1830
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
include (a) working with low income and
marginalized producers (mainly women); (b)
supporting ethical work place practices; (c) promoting safe working conditions, equal employment opportunities, and concern for workers’
health and quality of life; (d) respecting workers’ cultural and ethnic identities; (e) providing
educational facilities and programs; and (f)
maintaining the environment to assure a sustainable resource base and continued employment (see www.ifat.org; NRI, 1998). FTGN
administers the code of conduct procedures
for IFAT.
As the industry further expanded during the
1990s and early 2000s, a number of government
and international agencies, private sector organizations, and associations have become involved. They serve such functions as the
regulation of employment practices, quality
control, fair trade, and export. (Table 3 lists
significant actors and how they were instrumental in the industry at different points in time.)
These include the Nepal government’s Department of Small and Cottage Industries, the
Trade Promotion Center, the Nepal Chamber
of Commerce, and the Federation of Nepalese
Chambers of Commerce and Industry. There
are also two handicraft associations: the
government-sponsored HAN, and the more
recently established private business service
organization, the HANDPASS.
The creation of HANDPASS in 1996 marked
a significant change in the overall conduct of
the industry. This business service organization
was founded to strengthen and promote handmade paper enterprises; by 2003, it had 32 registered members. Membership dues follow a
sliding scale based on ability to pay. The main
Table 3. Main actors in Nepal’s handmade paper making innovation system
Private firms, NGOs
and associations
International agencies
and associations
Nepal government
agencies
Local and other
—Bhaktapur Craft
Printers (BCP)
—Fair Trade Group,
Nepal (FTGN)
—Federation of
Community
Forest Users,
Nepal (FECOFUN)
—Federation of
Nepalese Chambers
of Commerce and
Industry (FNCCI)
—General Welfare
Pratishan (GWP)
—Get Paper
Industries (GPI)
—Handicraft Association
of Nepal (HAN)
—Nepal Handmade Paper
Association (HANDPASS)
—Nepali Paper Products
P. Ltd. (NPP)
—Lotus Paper Crafts (LPC)
—Lotus Holdings (LHs)
—Asia Network for
Sustainable
Agriculture and
Bioresources (ANSAB)
—Association for Craft
Producers (ACP)
—Greeting Cards
Operation
(UNICEF/GCO)
—International
Federation
for Alternative
Trade (IFAT)
—Japan
International
Cooperation
Agency (JICA)
—Small Industry
Promotion
Program (SIP-P)
—UNICEF/Nepal
—Community
Development Through
the Production of
Handmade
Paper Project
(CDHP)
—Body Shop,
International (BSI)
—Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC)
—Agricultural
Development
Bank/Nepal-Small
Farmer Development
Program (ADBN/SFDP)
—Department of
Forest Research
and Survey (DFRS)
—Department of
Forests (DOFs)
—Department of
Small and Cottage
Industries
(DSCI)
—Nepal Tourism
Board (NTB)
—Royal Nepal
Army (RNA)
—Trade Promotion
Center (TPC)
—Community Forest User
Groups (CFUGs)
—Cookstove makers
—Lokta harvesters
and porters
—Maoist insurgents
—Paper craft buyers
(local, global)
—Paper transport workers
—Private research firms
—Rural paper makers
—Urban factory workers
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
objectives of HANDPASS include (a) developing mutual understanding and fraternity among
the handmade paper production groups and
product manufacturers; (b) promoting paper
making enterprises in rural areas, and improving the lifestyle of low income communities;
(c) ensuring that the handmade paper making
industry continues to be an environmentally
sustainable and socially desirable enterprise;
(d) helping paper manufacturers in product
development and marketing, as well as in skill
enhancement; and (e) promoting handmade paper as one of Nepal’s leading export commodities. The association assists rural and urban
paper makers, craft producers, exporters, and
product sellers by providing information,
consulting services, and technical advice in
order to assure maintenance of paper and product quality. It conducts workshops, seminars,
training programs, and exhibitions; carries out
market surveys and research; and publishes
bulletins, a newsletter, and other informative
materials. It also lobbies government on industry concerns and serves (informally) to monitor
the industry. HANDPASS is mainly sustained
by receiving 1% of the levee imposed on the
export of handmade product by the HAN.
HAN, founded in 1972, also plays an important role in industrial development, not only of
handmade paper but also in all handicraft sectors. It serves as a government business certification agency; conducts technical trainings,
workshops, and seminars; provides members
with information on trade and export policy;
publishes promotional materials; and sponsors
trade missions, exhibitions, and craft competitions. Financing comes from a small tax on
the sales of its members. In 2003–04, the
US$4.24 value of handmade paper products
made up about 10% of the total exports of
handicraft goods (US$36.22 million) under
HAN.
In 2003, HANDPASS and HAN, with the
support of the Swiss/Nepal Small Industries
Promotion Program, organized a two-day seminar on ‘‘Lokta Production and Handmade
Paper Making in Nepal: Problems and Way
Out.’’ 20 Further development of international
markets was a main discussion point. While
many private companies and NGOs have been
innovative in investing in new product designs,
and seeking out new niche markets, several
smaller producers are simply producing inferior
copies. This issue is now under discussion
among HANDPASS members, who are providing support and advice to businesses to encour-
1831
age more creativity in the industry. 21 Other
international connections have also helped the
private industry entrepreneurs to improve their
marketing. For example, following the Lokta
production seminar, Nepal’s Trade Promotion
Center put the HANDPASS secretary in touch
with an independent European consultancy
firm, the Center for the Promotion of Imports
from Developing Countries (CBI) in The Netherlands, to help the association prepare a sector
wide international marketing plan.
To some extent, there is now a ‘‘coming of
age’’ in the handmade paper industry where
there is an overriding recognition that niche
markets (international and local) have to be
developed and maintained by Nepalese social
entrepreneurs and overseas partners creating
high-quality new products and designs. This
awareness is reflected by the preoccupations
of HANDPASS, FTGN, ACP, etc., and reflected in the frequent articles on the handmade
paper industry in the local press and monthly
journals aimed at local expatriates, tourists,
and the Nepalese middle classes in Kathmandu
(Dhakal, 2004; Newar, 2003; Poudyal, 2004a,
2004b).
(c) Resource management and sustainability
There exists a large natural resource potential
for the lokta paper industry in Nepal. Some
manufacturers estimate that the 2003 usage of
lokta (30,000 metric tons) represents only a
small percentage of the estimated 110,000 metric tons national availability. Nonetheless, in
some districts, there is evidence of diminishing
lokta resource due to over harvesting (see
Acharya, 2003; Poudyal, 2004a, 2004b; RSS,
2002; Subedi et al., 2002, pp. 10–13). 22
In addition to lokta harvesting practices and
the use of wood for preparing lokta pulp, two
other aspects of resource management are of
concern to the industry. First, some members
of the industry estimate that illegal sales of
lokta across Nepal’s southern border to India
represent up to 10% of the yearly harvest.
HANDPASS is working with government officials to improve the regulatory system and ensure that paper production occurs in the same
region or district as lokta harvesting. Second,
the ongoing Maoist insurgency is affecting lokta harvesting, with economic and poverty impacts. The conflict, coupled with the Royal
Nepal Army’s strategy of pursuit and engagement in remote forest tracts, has curtailed
access to lokta forests in many areas. The
1832
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
ramifications of the conflict are many and diverse; for example, in Bhojpur District during
2003, nine handmade paper factories were
closed because the local administration imposed restrictions on caustic soda used in making pulp, believing that the Maoist may use it
for producing explosives (Kathmandu Post,
November 29, 2003). In addition, some Maoists
have targeted the paper making industry as a
‘‘capitalist’’ enterprise, essentially driving lokta
cutters out of forests. Paper makers prefer to
operate in the rural districts as close to the
lokta source as possible, where the rural workforce is readily available, and where transportation and storage costs are kept to a minimum.
Given the conflict, however, some papermaking
operations have sought safer, but more costly,
locations. The industry is also experiencing
declining demand for lokta products as the
tourist industry is declining due to the conflict.
Meanwhile, however, export markets continue
to expand.
Any analysis of forest resource management
needs to take into account the role of CFUGs
as emerging actors in the industry. When the
CDHP started in the early 1980s, there were
very few CFUGs. The Nepal Community
Forestry (CF) Program, which promotes user
groups, has grown phenomenally in recent
years. By 2005, there were over 13,000 registered CFUGs nationwide, an increase from
only a few hundred in the mid-1990s. Under
the CF Program, the Department of Forests
assists community groups to prepare five-year
operational plans to facilitate handing over designated local forest resources to them. In addition to the management of timber, the CF
Program has come to recognize the importance
of managing alternative forest resources (nontimber forest products, NTFPs), including
lokta and fuel wood. 23 Where lokta falls under
the control of local forest user groups, there is
evidence that lokta resources management is
more likely to be sustainable, as CFUGs are
required to draw up and follow up resource
management plans.
In this context, HANDPASS recently approached the Federation of Community Forest
Users, Nepal (FECOFUN) to meet local group
representatives from lokta producing districts
to discuss lokta management practices by
CFUGs. The interest is high in those mid-hill
districts where lokta grows, and a number of
groups already include lokta management in
their operational plans. 24 Where forest user
groups are not working well with district forest
officers (for a range of political and other reasons) or where lokta extractions is from national forests, then the issue of who has access
to lokta extraction licenses becomes highly
political and contentious. In Myagdi District,
where the BCP has been involved for many
years, the district level FECOFUN has recently
initiated proceedings against the Department of
Forests, implicating BCP in obstructing
CFUGs from marketing lokta from their forests to other buyers. 25
Currently there is a widespread development
interest in the promotion of lokta and in alternative forest resources and other NTFPs. For
example, the Department of Small Scale Industry gave trainings in collecting and making
paper to women of Baglung as part of an
alternative Energy Promotion Center and
Paper and Poverty Employment Program (Tripathi, 2004). Another example of this interest
was a workshop focused on opportunities and
policy challenges for alternative forest products
in an increasingly globalized world, organized
in 2003 by the Asia Network for Sustainable
Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB, 2003).
This workshop complimented an earlier study
on the assessment of community based forest
enterprises in Nepal, where case studies of lokta
production were analyzed (Subedi et al., 2002).
ANSAB has coordinated a Private Public
Alliance (PPA) program to promote certification and sustainable marketing of Nepalese
NTFPs, including lokta, while contributing to
responsible forest management in Nepal since
2002. With the pilot initiatives of PPA, the
Rainforest Alliance/SmartWood has awarded
the first Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification in Asia for community-based NTFP
management to the FECOFUN in January
2005 based on evidence of social, environmental, and economic sustainability. The pilot
certification includes 11 CFUGs in a certified
pool comprising about 10,500 ha of forests
land in Bajhang and Dolakha Districts. Most
of the certified CFUGs are managing lokta in
their respective community forests, and handmade paper manufacturing companies such as
Himalayan BioTrade and Malika Handmade
Paper, both of which promote responsible business practices, are in the process of obtaining
the FSC Chain of Custody (CoC) certification
(ANSAB, 2005).
Recently, a major community forest project
published a study entitled ‘‘Rural Entrepreneur
Development: a Pro-poor Approach to Enterprise Development through Community For-
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
estry.’’ Central to this and other studies by the
same agency have been concerns about how to
ensure that an equitable share of value added in
the production and marketing chain of all forest products went to poor people (Nurse &
Paudel, 2003; Pokharel, Nurse, & Hem Tembe,
2004). Another example of the growing interest
in this area is a large donor project designed to
provide business development services for alternative forest resources and products in Nepal.
While the major emphasis is on the support
for the marketing and production of herbs
and spices in Nepal with a focus on strengthening of private sector service providers, some of
its activities relate to lokta production and marketing. From a social responsibility perspective,
an important dimension of this business development service project is that one of the implementing partners, LHs, brings with it a track
record of effectively developing codes of corporate social responsibly in private and NGO
operations. 26
Against a background of widespread skepticism and criticism in the literature, of the ability of the Government of Nepal to facilitate
development, it appears that at the macroinstitutional and policy levels at least some of
Nepal’s existing trade policies, regulatory practices, and development projects have facilitated the rapid growth of the handmade paper
industry. Especially relevant and responsive
in this regard have been such government
and quasi-governmental organizations as the
Department of Small and Cottage Industries,
HAN, the Federation of Nepalese Chambers
of Commerce, and the Trade Promotion
Center. Without doubt, overall the national
community forestry policy is being effective
in improving the management of lokta forestry resources.
6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
(a) Social responsibility in the handmade paper
industry—a case of positive deviance
There is a growing body of literature on what
can be learned from situations of positive deviance in different social arenas. In its simplest
terms ‘‘positive deviance’’ represents situations
where, by some indicators, better things are
happening than in the majority of cases (see
Buscell, 2005; Sternin, 2002, 2003; STC,
2003). Traditionally, attention has been given
to microlevel community examples, such as
1833
investigation about why some children in a
poor community are better nourished than others, though both live under similar socioeconomic conditions. This type of investigation
has existed for many years, but it was not
always called positive deviance. For example,
the work of Tendler (1997) on good governance
in Brazil investigates how and why in a specific
region of Brazil examples exist where, by contemporary development indicators, good things
are happening, while neighboring regions with
similar base conditions are rife with corruption,
nepotism, and poor levels of development indicators.
In Asia, Jain (1994, 1996) has investigated
managerial reasons as to why a number of large
NGO and government programs have been
successful (where others have failed). In
Bangladesh, in the early 1970s, the Ministry
of Rural Development organized a series of
investigations to search out, understand, and
write up the policy and practical implications
coming out of a wide range of positive development situations in the field (sponsored and
unsponsored; see Yunus & Latifee, 1975). More
recently, Uphoff, Esman, and Krishna (1998)
have touched upon similar themes in their case
studies of ‘‘successes,’’ just as Messerschmidt
(1988) earlier investigated why the UNICEF
handmade paper project in Nepal was successful.
In our study regarding ‘‘positive deviance’’
and ‘‘successes’’ we see some difference in approaches of the observers, and in what they
investigate and reveal. In the case of the positive deviance studies, the entry point is where
something ‘‘positive’’ or ‘‘better than average’’
is already observed and where there is no presumption that there was, or must have been,
‘‘a project,’’ ‘‘a program,’’ or ‘‘a policy’’ that
gave rise to the outcomes. In the case of many
‘‘success’’ stories, the entry point is often part
of an ‘‘outsider’s’’ development intervention
perspective of the world. For example: Why
was ‘‘the development project’’ a success? The
difference is that the question for positive deviance is not about project inputs or outside
sponsorship, but about preexisting or coexisting positive nonproject success stories. Focusing strictly on project or program inputs,
from the outside, as the key to success can lead
to a preoccupation with the inputs, agencies,
special agendas, and ‘‘catalytic’’ actions of
intervention-minded development agents and
agencies. With positive deviance studies, however, there is no preconceived idea that an ‘‘out-
1834
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
sider’s’’ development actions were important or
even present. Rather, positive deviance starts
with what positive behaviors are working
‘‘on the ground’’ regardless of project inputs.
Hence, it can lead to development actions that
build on the positive in the most cost-effective
and locally owned manner, with the least project support.
When we started this investigation, we were
uncertain about what would be happening
now in the handmade paper industry. We knew
the early (1980s) history and that the industry
had grown, but we knew little about the social
aspects and outcomes of that growth, nor
whether the industry was sustainable from economic and environmental perspectives. While
this is only an exploratory study, we argue that
there is sufficient evidence to indicate that this
is an industrywide case of positive deviance
vis-à-vis all three development indicators of
environmental, economic, and socially responsible outcomes.
(i) Environmental considerations
The main resources for handmade paper are
lokta bark, cotton wastes, recycled paper or
rags, fuel wood and caustic soda or potash
for cooking the lokta bast, and dyes for adding
color. It has been established that there are very
large areas of lokta resource untapped as yet in
the Nepal Himalayas. At a maximum, it only
takes eight years to grow Daphne shrubs either
from seed or from coppicing. While there are
some reports of over-cutting coppice stock,
there are also indicators that the industry is
lobbying the government to get forest offices
to play a more proactive role in monitoring
existing regulations to maintain sustainable
lokta stocks. There is evidence, too, of viable
and well functioning and resource sustainability-conscious community groups such as the
FSC-certified forest users groups mentioned
above. In addition, where well-managed CF
user groups do operate, the local regulation of
lokta harvesting is part of the overall resource
management plan.
Regarding the necessary fuelwood for cooking the bast, there are concerns that this can
put undue pressure on local fuel wood sources.
The issue is not new (see Poudyal, Oli, & Gautam, 1996); it was addressed in the CDHP project in the early 1980s through the development
of fast-growing fuel wood lots (Messerschmidt,
1988). This is, however, an aspect of the CDHP
project that has slipped over the years. From
interviews with members of the industry, we
were told that, relatively speaking, this is now
not seen as the major issue it once was. Industry representatives argue that (a) the wood
requirements of the handmade paper industry
are small compared with other demands for
wood; (b) the preferred wood fuel is from dead
or fallen trees, not green-felled timber; (c) some
commercial buyers of lokta paper are actively
promoting sustainable wood lots among their
suppliers (e.g., GPI and NPP); (d) many lokta
paper makers have begun using alternative
sources of fuel (e.g., gas, kerosene, electricity);
and (e) where effective forest user groups exist,
there are management plans that regulate fuel
wood needs for paper makers. 27
One other environmental concern relates to
the chemicals used in papermaking, including
caustic soda for processing the bast, and dyes
used for coloring some of the paper. In the
past, paper makers used potash in the bast
cooking process, but this required a considerable amount of fuel wood to be burned. Generally, paper makers now use caustic soda (where
possible), a chemical not considered to be a
serious environmental hazard.
Regarding dyes, Nepal has banned harmful
chemical dyes, and we found no evidence that
the handmade paper industry is violating the
law. In fact, the major commercial units in
the industry make a point of not using harmful
dyes, and HANDPASS both endorses the regulations and promotes the use of natural dyes by
its members (Dhaubhadel, 2003).
There have been no reports of unexpected
negative environmental side effects because of
the use of recycled fibers, another major resource used by parts of the industry.
(ii) Economic considerations
As we have seen, handmade paper producers
are finding good international markets, and are
increasingly supplying the growing demand for
high-quality Nepalese craft products. Perhaps
the biggest contribution that the original project made to the revival of the industry was
the social marketing of Nepalese handmade paper Christmas cards internationally, conducted
by UNICEF. This aspect of the project has
had a profound long-term effect on the entire
industry. Since those early days of the CDHP
project, though, it has been the social entrepreneurs of the industry who have been most
active in attending international trade fairs,
fostering partnerships and links with established international buyers, diversifying their
products to meet buyers’ needs, and seeking
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
professional advice from international consultants. One of the major goals of the HANDPASS has been to help its members develop
strong international markets.
From an economic perspective, it appears
that private entrepreneurs in the handmade
paper industry are very much abreast of the
challenges of developing viable international
markets. In no sense are they waiting for government, or anyone else, to either provide or
open up markets for them. Consequently, one
can argue that the industry has a good chance
of being economically sustainable in the future.
This appears to be the case even noting that
handmade products from Nepal are often more
expensive than comparable products from
other countries, and that Nepalese entrepreneurs have to compete on the basis of uniqueness, quality, and in keeping with stringent
fair trade and socially responsible codes of
conduct. 28
(iii) Social responsibility considerations
Perhaps the most interesting features we
found in this study were the depth and diversity
of socially responsible behavior in the handmade paper industry. This diversity and some
of the long-term socially responsible traditions
that exist at the foundations of Nepalese society
lead us to conclude that socially responsible
behavior in the paper industry is sustainable
in Nepal well into the future. 29 We see this socially responsible behavior coming from five
interrelated sources: (1) traditional community
development practices of social responsibility
and volunteerism that are deeply rooted in
Nepalese society; (2) fair trade codes of conduct
to which social entrepreneurs adhere; (3) CSR
codes of conduct arising in the private sector;
(4) agreements built into membership in
HANDPASS, the industry’s major business
association; and (5) the general policy, project,
and legal context.
(1) Traditional commitments to community
development. There is a long history in Nepal
of a commitment to socially responsible and
voluntary community development (Messerschmidt, Yadama, & Silwal, 2005; Yadama &
Messerschmidt, 2004). In the context of handmade paper industry, the largest company,
GPI, is illustrative of a viable company that adheres to the IFAT codes of practice and, at the
same time channels 25% of its profits into a
community development NGO noted for its
high and long established reputation (since
1835
1991). Similarly, BCP has IFAT accreditation
and continues to support community development programs. NPP also has a local community development program in areas where
lokta fiber is procured.
(2) Fair trade codes of conduct. The second
major source of socially responsible behavior
is the development of fair trade codes of
conduct. In Nepal, we have seen that these
traditions go back a long way. Currently, the
largest handmade paper company, GPI, is a
member of IFAT, as are BCP and FTGN. As
such, these organizations are monitored under
the certifying codes of conduct of IFAT. Many
of the major NGOs that market handmade
craft products, including paper products, are
members of FTGN, which has its own monitoring procedures for compliance to its code of
conduct. These initiatives are related to other
social responsibility initiatives, but have and
continue to develop relatively independently.
The recent award to the FECOFUN of the first
FSC Certificate in Asia is another example of
international recognition of compliance to fair
trade principles.
(3) CSR. The third source of interest comes
from the CSR promotional work of LHs.
LHs’ special commitments to social responsibility focus largely on the rights of children, the
banning of child labor, and ensuring that children of poor families in their employment have
access to education and medical attention. One
of the influential firms in the handmade paper
industry is LPC, a member of LHs. LHs has
also made significant inputs, both in terms
of financial assistance and moral support, to
the development of the industrywide HANDPASS.
(4) HANDPASS. The fourth notable feature
of social responsibility in the industry is the
nature of its major business service organization, HANDPASS. This association was
founded in 1996 and comprises members who
are either (or both) handmade paper manufacturers and exporters (traders). This means, for
example, that when members attend international trade fairs to develop markets, they are
in a position to assess both the financial and
the social responsibility implications of possible
new market developments. Many of the core
goals and objectives of HANDPASS membership focus on socially responsible behavior.
These are not just ‘‘add-ons’’ to profit driven
1836
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
entrepreneurial behavior, but are underlying
principles, illustrated by the fact that HANDPASS has lobbied the government to change
the tax laws in order to bring them in line with
those of most high income countries so that
funds transparently allocated to worker health,
welfare, child education, and community development are tax deductible. It is not coincidental
that many of the organizations concerned with
social responsibility in the handmade industry
are the ones with long traditions in prompting
the rights of women and children, as the handmade paper industry is dominated by women
workers. HANDPASS represents a good example of an effective, influential, and socially
responsible Nepalese ‘‘civil society’’ organization.
To some extent, it can be argued that
HANDPASS represents an institutional innovation that local actors created to address what
are now called in the forestry sector ‘‘second
generation’’ issues. 30 Significantly, HANDPASS was not the creation of a development
program or project, but was created by socially
responsible entrepreneurs in the industry. Its
continuing viability (which includes finding
funds to sustain its work) and its relevance to
challenges of the industry indicate that it has
developed its own ‘‘sustainable capability’’ by
being relevant and responsive in the continuously changing local and international contexts. Many development projects would envy
such outcomes from their planned policy, program, and project interventions.
(5) General policy and legal context. The fifth
feature of socially responsible behavior concerns the government laws and regulations that
effect handmade paper activities. While in
many industries, laws and actions of the government are described as lacking, inadequate,
not enforced, etc., in the case of the handmade
paper industry, it appears that the legal system
is helping to create better levels of social behavior. The major industries in the sector recognize
unions; the IFAT and CSR codes of conduct
are all monitored and all require that child labor laws, etc., are enforced and that accounts
of companies are open for inspection, especially
as regards the tax and other business records.
One major paper making company is proud
to have received the international ISO award
for good company practice based on maintaining high standards in observing labor laws and
honest business practices. Skeptics might ask to
see how these laws and codes are monitored
and compliance maintained. While we agree
these are legitimate concerns, we maintain
(based on interviews) that the existing labor legislation, the various codes of conduct, and the
transparent methods for monitoring, all imply
that there is a widespread culture of social
responsibility in this industry to keep within
the legal labor and business frameworks of
the country. All the major firms welcome
‘‘unexpected’’ visits to their factories, which
reinforces our confidence that compliance to
the law and codes of conduct are being maintained. This makes it an industry with a different culture than those covered under the ILO
publication cited at the beginning of this paper
(ILO, 2004).
(b) Lessons for innovation theory
and development practice
(i) Searching for the positive
We have found that the handmade paper
industry has many examples of new institutional innovations that serve to improve social
indicators (jobs, working conditions, child welfare, health care, etc.) in the industry. These are
effective and useful in the current political and
economic climate of Nepal. A hypothesis that
this research has lead to is that there are many
such illustrations of new institutional innovations in Nepal. Subsequent to our initial research on the subject, this line of research was
followed up in a major study of groups and
group-based development in Nepal. We had
no trouble finding case studies of socially
responsible and innovative processes at the
micro, meso, and macrolevels (Biggs et al., 2004).
While many observers of Nepal’s development
and current socioeconomic and political conditions concentrate on the negative, this study of
the handmade paper industry and our separate
(but related) research on positive development
group behaviors has shown that positive innovations are continuously arising in Nepal and
there is a basis for building upon these examples. 31
Interestingly, no one can claim that these sustainable socially responsible institutions found
in the handmade paper industry were primarily
the result of ‘‘external’’ ideas. While, yes, as
most cases of innovation, there has been and
continues to be contact with outside ideas, virtually none of the institutional innovations we
have documented here (or in our group development study) were solely the direct result of
a project, a program, or a policy.
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
(ii) The degree of diversity and complexity of
institutional innovation
The handmade paper case study shows
that there is no single institutional model of
social responsible behavior. There are many
sources of innovation. We certainly do not
find that there is any one source or idea that
is being ‘‘scaled up.’’ Our confidence that socially responsible behavior will continue in this
industry is based on the depth and diversity of
the organizations, management practices, and
codes of conduct that exist now, and which
are continuously changing to address the
changing social and economic contexts.
(iii) The role of the UNICEF/CHDP project
Clearly, the CDHP project played an important role in helping to rejuvenate the handmade
paper industry, starting in the early 1980s. The
introduction of handmade paper to the world
by UNICEF, in its popular Christmas Card
series, was a remarkably successful act of social
marketing. Because the project was designed to
build upon and strengthen local institutions,
especially those of a socially responsible kind,
the project can be seen as successful in doing
just that. However, subsequent institutional
innovations, such as those needed to keep the
industry abreast of international markets and
create new socially responsible codes of conduct, have come not from the project staff,
but from the private and social entrepreneurs
in the larger industries and actors in the government.
(iv) Sources of innovation
Many people think of innovations originating from a research center, or from a project
and then being ‘‘scaled up’’ or spreading. Agricultural research and extension systems often
promote this view of the world, with improved
varieties being developed in (public sector) research stations, and the useful ones then being
adopted by farmers as a result of ‘‘scaling up’’
by promotional work of extension agencies.
In the case of the handmade paper industry,
we see, as regards institutional innovations,
things are far more complex than that. Yes,
there was great interaction of the industry and
with the project in the earlier years, but more
than that: the project based its management
methods at the village level on local group
practices. The design of the community
development side of the CDPH project was also
largely based on institutional structures
‘‘adopted’’ from local traditions of community
1837
development. It was because of this sensible approach to project design that the early days of
the project were such a success. In the larger
industries, local social entrepreneurs have continued to use, and more importantly to change
and adapt these local socially responsible institutions, to changing local and international
conditions. Consequently, what we find in the
industry today, are not institutional innovations emanating from the project; rather, they
are a range of innovations emerging from within the wider industry. The awarding of the first
FSC certification in Asia for community-based
NTFPs to FECOFUN is just one of the recognitions by an international agency of recent
local institutional innovation in Nepal.
Another observation is that these emerging
institutional innovations are not ‘‘fixed’’ or
‘‘static,’’ but are continually being changed by
social entrepreneurs to address today’s everchanging situations. This observation also
means that we have a completely different social process taking place compared to situations
where people speak of the ‘‘institutionalization’’ of a new policy, or ‘‘the implementation’’
of a new set of codes of conduct, or the ‘‘scaling
up’’ of the results of a ‘‘special project,’’ or a
‘‘demonstration.’’ In this study, it has been
instructive to see that the human agency behind
socially responsible innovations came from
within Nepal. The original project was successful because it was based on long established
traditions of community development and
more macro level traditions of social development behavior (Yadama & Messerschmidt,
2004).
Concerning the source and spread of technical innovations, we saw that one of the major
technical innovations in the industry, the introduction and use of Japanese technology for
processing recycled paper, was first used in
the private sector and then was adopted by
the project’s production unit, the BCP.
(v) The importance of individual personalities in
innovation processes
We have tried to avoid mentioning the specific names of individuals in this paper. We
have found, however, that the names of certain
effective persons kept on coming up. These are
individuals who are, indeed, ‘‘positive deviants’’ within the larger society. Some of the
most important social entrepreneurs have
worked on being effective in this arena since
the 1970s. It is possible that while some actors
in the government and political arenas spend
1838
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
a lifetime working their way up in an institutional hierarchy, there are other individuals
who spend their lives being innovative in socially responsible ways; though, of course, there
is inevitably some overlap among these groups.
7. CONCLUSION
We argue in this paper that there is a broad
range of different types of socially responsible
institutional behavior in Nepal’s handmade
paper industry. These innovations are embedded in many of the long-held cultural values
of Nepalese society. The depth and diversity
of these current institutions constitutes the
robustness of such behavior in the industry.
This positive deviant behavior is in contrast
with situations where there is a high use of child
labor and lack of health facilities, etc., as in
other industries. Although this is an exploratory study, we feel we have presented sufficient
evidence to support our arguments. While we
all know of development projects and program
evaluations that have purposively gone out to
collect ‘‘the good news’’ in order to show that
a particular development intervention has had
a ‘‘successful’’ impact, we do not think we have
fallen into that trap. At the start of our study,
we were curious to find out what was happening in the handmade paper industry since the
first impressions of success on the UNICEF
funded CDHP project. What we encountered
were the positive indicators and processes that
we have described and analyzed here. When
asked why this is happening, we see two main
reasons: First, there is an international demand
for handmade products produced under
socially responsible conditions. In this, both
Nepalese and international social entrepreneurs
are being innovative in opening up and maintaining markets. Second, there are Nepalese social entrepreneurs who have been committed
for years to developing business practices that
encourage this type of behavior, which leads
to continued growth of the industry.
NOTES
1. For an early review of alternative innovation theories, see Biggs and Clay (1988). There are many
empirically based critiques of the linear and pipeline
frameworks of agricultural and natural resources
approaches to technology generation and diffusion
(Biggs, 1990; Douthwaite, 2002; Gurung & Menter,
2004).
2. Details of changes in the SFDP, the creation of
Small Farmers Co-operatives, and the restructuring of
the ADB, Nepal, are given in Wehnert and Shakya
(2003) and Koch, Maharajan, Sharma, and Wehnert
(2004). As far as we know there have been no publicly
available overall long-term studies of the changes in and
outcomes of the UNICEF part of the original CDHP
project.
the great majority of handmade paper in Nepal. A
complimentary study that needs to be done, but was
beyond our resources, is an analysis of the value added
shares in the industry that go to different social groups
such as lokta cutters, gatherers of recycled cotton and
paper waste. Such an analysis would need to be done
carefully as, for example, lokta harvesting is sometimes
conducted by villagers who are also members of local
forest users groups, handmade paper cooperatives, or
local private handmade paper enterprises.
5. Production processes are described in Trier (1972)
and Messerschmidt (1988, 1995).
6. The ‘‘group approach’’ to development in Nepal is
more thoroughly discussed in Biggs, Gurung, and
Messerschmidt (2004), and for the handmade paper
industry by Messerschmidt (1988, 1995).
3. See note 30.
4. As with all ‘‘low cost’’ exploratory studies such as
this, there is a wide range of issues where critics can say
that the data presented are inadequate to support the
arguments. We accept some of these criticisms, but hope
we have provided sufficient information to sustain our
qualified findings. We purposely concentrated on the
socially responsible behavior of the units that process
7. All major acronyms used in this paper are listed in
Table 3.
8. For a recent analysis of the outcomes of social
mobilization and other components of groups based
strategies across all sectors of Nepal (see Biggs et al.,
2004).
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
9. Accounts of ‘‘successful’’ project initiatives in the
rural development literature were, and remain, relatively
rare. We say ‘‘rare’’ not because ‘‘successes’’ are not
there but because quite often aid actors need ‘‘problems’’
and ‘‘failures’’ to ‘‘fix’’ in order to justify new development initiatives. (Successes are discussed later in the
paper.) We recognize that ‘‘success’’ is in the eyes of the
beholder, and that it is a term used extensively and
selectively by various development actors wishing to
effect ongoing policy processes and development practices. An example related closely to the focus of our
study is the array of alternative views of Nepal’s
community forestry (CF) program that promotes decentralized CF user groups. There are some who present the
CF program as an internationally renowned success that
has promoted true social and economic development in
Nepal’s villages. Others see it as a program that has
resulted in well-recognized improved forest management, but at the expense of social equity, in which many
development goals are not achieved and where the social
and economic circumstances of some of the poorest and
most marginalized groups in Nepal have actually been
made worse. For a discussion of alternative perspectives,
see Biggs and Messerschmidt (2003) and Biggs et al.
(2004).
10. The overall loan and community development for
small farmers, a major underpinning of the original
project, reached its highest point in 1995–96, but
declined thereafter as ADBN was restructured under
an institutional development program. The responsibilities of ADBN’s subproject offices (SPO), which previously organized and administered the SFDP in rural
sites, were recently transferred to the Small Farmer
Cooperative Limited (SFCL), owned and administered
by local farmers. ADBN still gives loans to lokta
producers as a normal part of the new SPO/SFCL
activities, but there is no longer a special lokta program
as there was during the early 1980s (ADBN, 2002). GCO
buys 90% of BCP’s handmade paper output, under an
exclusive contract. BCP has also searched for alternative
markets, especially since the 1996–97 season when the
GCO unexpectedly (temporarily) canceled its orders.
The privatization of BCP has also been discussed. At the
time this study was conducted in 2003–04, however,
links with UNICEF continued to dominate BCP.
11. In recent years, an alternative fiber called argeli has
also been developed for paper making, with Japanese
support. The result is basically a one-product paper,
used almost exclusively for printing Japanese paper
currency, the Yen. Argeli paper is made from a fast
growing Daphne-related shrub called Edgeworthia chrysantha. A small argeli harvesting industry now flourishes
in Nepal but, under a special arrangement between the
two governments, the raw material is shipped from
Nepal to Japan for processing. Buyers of nonrecycled
1839
waste products, however, prefer pure lokta-based paper
over argeli-based paper, for lokta’s greater tensile
strength and durability.
12. Japan has had a long established tradition of its
own for manufacturing handmade paper crafts using
lokta fiber-based paper, about which Nepalese producers were initially only vaguely aware. In 1985, the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA) approached
the Nepal government to suggest that it introduce
Japanese technology to the Nepalese producers, and
interested Nepalese entrepreneurs were taken to Japan
for training.
13. It is interesting to note that one of the most
important technical innovations in the industry was the
adoption of new Japanese technology for recycling lokta
wastes and other fibers. In this instance, it was GPI, a
private company, that first took it up and only subsequently did BCP, as part of the CDHP project, adopt it.
14. There is now a broad-based industry with many
producers, traders, and buyers. In Kathmandu, some
traders have substantial stocks of handmade paper,
which helps to address problems of fluctuating supplies
of fiber.
15. Locally in Nepal, corporate ‘‘social responsibility’’
is defined to include providing education to the children
of workers, wages as per the law, and health insurance
for employees, often with concern for empowering
women. Some firms do much more in this regard. This
fits within international codes of conduct that assure the
implementation of welfare activities to company
employees and their children. The Fairtrade Foundation
(2004), for example, emphasizes social responsibility as
including offering disadvantaged workers a chance to
‘‘increase their control over their own future, have a fair
and just return for their work, continuity of income, and
decent working and living conditions through sustainable development’’ (Fairtrade Foundation, 2004, quoted
in Raynolds, Murray, & Taylor, 2004; see also Young,
2003). For examples of analysis of the issues involved in
drawing up and ensuring compliance to codes of
conduct see Barrientos, Dolan, and Tallontire (2003)
and Nadvi (2003).
16. Several LH companies are also involved in the
woolen carpet industry, each of which follows the
voluntary global labeling initiative called ‘‘RUGMARK,’’ dedicated to ending child labor and providing
educational opportunities to those children who previously worked in the industry. Other Lotus-associated
companies provide conventional business services, but
always under the codes of conduct of CSR.
1840
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
17. These figures are based on official export statistics
from HAN. These percentages would be a little lower if
the exports of BCP were included in the official statistics.
The BCP exports are not included in HAN’s figures as
BCP exports still come under a special UNICEF
agreement with the government of Nepal. In 2003–04,
GPI is the fastest expanding exporter.
18. For examples, see www.catgen.com/home/mguthi,
www.handmadepaperproduct.com, www.khadi.com,
www.nepalipaperproduct.com.np, www.peoplink.org/
Hastakala, www.thebodyshop.com, www.acp.org.np,
and others.
19. The Nepalese members of IFAT are FTGN, ACP,
Women’s skill Development Services, Pokhara, GPI,
and BCP.
20. The Small Industry Promotion Program (SIP-P) is
a joint project of the government of Nepal and Swisscontact (a Swiss NGO). The SIP-P facilitates small
industry cooperation with local chambers of commerce,
trade associations, producer groups, and service delivery
organizations for the development of selected sectors
including handicrafts. Although the seminar concentrated on lokta handmade paper, the meeting covered
issues related to all handmade papers.
21. Concern with quality products for international
markets has been heightened by recent problems in other
areas of Nepalese handicraft production. For example,
the popular pashmina woolen shawl industry of Nepal
has suffered from problems of overproduction and lax
quality control.
22. The lokta resource estimates are from Nepal Paper
Products (NPP), P. Ltd. Current industry concerns with
resource management are discussed in Acharya (2003).
HANDPASS has also lobbied the Department of
Forests to consider establishing stronger measures to
further protect lokta resources at the source. Technically, the Department of Forests issues licenses to lokta
harvesters for cutting in specific areas to protect the
resource and raise revenues. The regulations are difficult
to enforce, however, especially in remote locations and
given current security concerns related to a nationwide
Maoist insurgency. Under current circumstances, it is
difficult to monitor or police them effectively.
23. ‘‘Alternative forest resources’’ or AFRs (also called
NFTPs, or ‘‘nontimber forest products’’) are defined as
forest-derived substances that serve as the raw materials
for value-added commodities production and may include
timber-based resources (Messerschmidt & Hammett,
1998). The distinction is between the raw resources and
their value-added products. For example, lokta fiber is
the forest resource from which handmade paper is
processed. Similarly, while big timber is used for
building materials and furniture, alternative timberbased forest resources such as scraps and leftover after
milling become the raw material for making wooden
toys, tool handles, and sawdust for fuel. Other AFRs
include, for example (there are far too many to list),
babiyo grass from which a kind of rope is woven, and a
complex of forest resources called jaributi that are
refined and processed into a variety of medicinal
products.
24. For examples of user group management of lokta
resources see DOF and UNICEF (1984), Lama, Robinson, and Rai (1996), Malla, Shakya, Karki, Mortensen, and Subedi (1999), and Shiva and Mathur (1996).
For a comprehensive early account of lokta and paper
making see Trier (1972). For details on the effective
management of lokta for the Malika Handmade Paper
Private Ltd. of Bajhang District, Nepal, see Subedi et al.
(2002, pp. 56–60). Comparatively, for problems arising
in lokta management in Parbat, one of the early CHDP
Project districts, see Subedi et al. (2002, pp. 10–13). For
an overview of community forestry in Nepal, see Biggs
and Messerschmidt (2003).
25. The license system for Daphne extraction has
favored large companies and militated against community based enterprise development engaging in the
handmade paper market independently. Often licenses
are allocated in a highly nontransparent manner. The
lokta extraction license structure, which relates to the
right to export lokta collected in national forests (and
not community forests) has in practice been used to
monopolize all exports of lokta out of districts, with the
District Forest Officer’s support. This obstructs a free
market and price competition, and also makes it difficult
for small units within the district to get an assured
supply of lokta. (Reviewer’s comments on an earlier
draft of this paper.)
26. The project is known as the BDS MaPs Project
(Business Development Services—Marketing, Production and Services). It is led by the International
Development Enterprises (IDE) with Winrock International, ANSAB, Lotus Opportunities, and the World
Wildlife Fund Nepal Program as development agency
partners. It is funded by USAID and DFID.
27. In order to be totally confident that the industry is
sustainable for environmental considerations, a detailed
study of the industry would be necessary. What we are
arguing here is that there is adequate evidence that
environmental sustainability issues are being addressed
by major companies, CFUGs, and HANDPASS, the
industry’s business organization (see Subedi et al., 2002).
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
28. By helping to find and develop international niche
markets, Nepalese social entrepreneurs are being ‘‘rewarded’’ by consumers who also want to keep socially
responsible behaviors, such as not using child labor, in
the production processes.
29. For a full analysis of the social distribution of
‘‘value added’’ throughout the production and consumption chain, a large and expensive study, well
beyond the scope of our exploratory study, would be
needed.
30. ‘‘Second generation’’ issues in forestry are ‘‘those
associated with the challenge of converting. . . newly
secured forest resources into assets for social and
economic development’’ (White & Martin, 2001, p.
1841
24), with special attention to poverty reduction and
livelihoods enhancement, social equity and rights advocacy, resource, and product marketing, and good
governance (i.e., beyond sustainable management and
resource conservation). See also Chhetri, Sigdel, and
Malla (2001) and Winrock International (2002).
31. An example of negative reporting in the handmade
paper industry is the often cited ‘‘over cropping’’ of
lokta resources. These reports in the newspapers and
sometimes in development reports, give evidence from
specific cases. While we do not dispute their information,
what is often lacking is balanced reference, including
industrywide actions that are already in practice (refer to
HANDPASS, above) and earlier references to case
studies where good practices are already in place.
REFERENCES
Acharya, D. (Ed.) (2003). Two-day seminar on lokta
production and handmade paper making in Nepalproblems and way out, May 9–10, 2003, at Lalitpur,
Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Handmade Paper Association, Handicraft Association of Nepal and Small
Industry Promotion Program.
ADBN (1982). Small Farmer Development Program in
Nepal. Kathmandu: Agricultural Development Bank
of Nepal, Institutional Division.
ADBN (2002). Small farmers development program: At a
glance. Kathmandu: Agricultural Development Bank
of Nepal, Small Farmers Development Center.
ANSAB (2003). In Proceedings of the non-timber forest
products in Nepal: National policy workshop, July 4–
5, 2003, Nagarkot, Nepal. Kathmandu: Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources.
ANSAB (2005). In Proceedings of the conference on
certification and sustainable marketing of non-timber
forest products: Private Public Alliance, January 11,
2005, Kathmandu, Nepal. Kathmandu: Asia Network
for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources.
Barrientos, S., Dolan, C., & Tallontire, A. (2003). A
gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct
in African horticulture. World Development, 31(9),
1511–1526.
Bhattarai, M. (1994). Using local resources to fight HIV/
AIDS in Nepal. AIDScaptions, 13–15.
Biggs, S. D. (1990). A multiple source of innovation
model of agricultural research and technology promotion. World Development, 18(11), 1481–1499.
Biggs, S. D., & Clay, E. J. (1988). Generation and
diffusion of agricultural technology: A review of
theories and experiences. In I. Ahmed & V. W.
Ruttan (Eds.), Generation and diffusion of agricultural
innovations: Role of institutional factors (pp. 19–67).
Aldershot: Gower.
Biggs, S. D., Gurung, S. M., & Messerschmidt, D.
(2004). An exploratory study of gender, social inclusion and empowerment through development groups
and group-based organizations in Nepal: Building on
the positive. A report to the Gender and Social
Exclusion Assessment (GSEA) study. Kathmandu:
National Planning Commission, World Bank and
UK Department for International Development.
Biggs, S. D., & Matsaert, H. (1999). An actor oriented
approach for strengthening research and development capabilities in natural resources systems. Public
Administration and Development, 19, 231–262.
Biggs, S. D., & Messerschmidt, D. (2003). The culture of
access to mountain natural resources: Policy, processes and practices. LSP Working Paper No. 7.
Rome: Livelihood Support Programme, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN. Available from
http://www.fao.org.
Buscell, P. (2005). The power of positive deviance. The
organization: A practicing manager’s quarterly (Kathmandu), 8(1), 38–42.
Chhetri, R. B., Sigdel, H., & Malla, Y. B. (2001).
Country profile (Nepal) prepared for the forum on
The role of forestry in poverty alleviation. Rome: UN
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Dangol, B. D. (2003). Problems in operation and export
of Nepali handmade paper and paper products. In D.
Acharya (Ed.), Two-day seminar on lokta production
and handmade paper making in Nepal: Problems and
way out, May 9–10, 2003, at Lalitpur, Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Handmade Paper Association, Handicraft Association of Nepal and Small Industry
Promotion Program.
Development Associates (1997). Lokta resource management plan of Baglung, Myagdi and Parbat Districts: A
report and plan submitted to Bhaktapur Craft Printers. Bhaktapur, Nepal: Bhaktapur Craft Printers.
Dhakal, S. (2004). Lokta: Paper of the future. ECS
Magazine (Kathmandu), 32, 42–45.
Dhaubhadel, R. K. (2003). Dyeing natural dyes. In D.
Acharya (Ed.), Two-day seminar on lokta production
and handmade paper making in Nepal-problems and
way out, May 9–10, 2003 at Lalitpur, Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Handmade Paper Association, Handicraft Association of Nepal and Small Industry
Promotion Program.
1842
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
DOF & UNICEF (1984). Lokta (daphne) and craft
paper-making in Nepal. A series of papers presented
at the HMGN Department of Forest and UNICEF
Lokta (Daphne) Forestry Policy and Planning
Workshop-Seminar. Kathmandu: Department of
Forest and UNICEF.
Douthwaite, B. (2002). Enabling innovation: A practical
guide to understanding and fostering technological
change. London: Zed Books.
Fairtrade Foundation (2004). The Fairtrade Foundation.
<http://www.fairtrade.org.uk>.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic
performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Frances
Pinter.
FTGN (2003). Report on fair trade con-e, November
2003. Kathmandu: Fair Trade Group, Nepal.
Gurung, B., & Menter, H. (2004). Mainstreaming
gender-sensitive participatory approaches: The CIAT
case study. In D. Pachico (Ed.), Scaling up and out:
Achieving widespread impact through agricultural
research. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacial de
Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).
Hall, A., Bockett, G., Taylor, S., Sivamahan, M. V. K.,
& Clark, N. (2001). Why research partnerships really
matter: Innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development, 29(5), 783–798.
Hall, A. J., Yoganand, B., Sulaiman, R. V., Rajeswari,
S. R., Prasad, C. S., Naik, G. C., & Clark, N. G.
(Eds.) (2004). Innovations in innovation: Reflections
on partnership, institutions and learning. Patancheru,
Andra Pradesh and New Delhi, India: Crop PostHarvest Programme/South Asia, International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics,
and National Center for Agricultural Economics and
Policy Research.
Harrison, L. E., & Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) (2000).
Culture matters: How values shape human progress.
New York: Basic Books.
ILO (2004). Economic security for a better world.
Geneva: International Labor Organization.
Jain, P. S. (1994). Managing for success: Lessons from
Asian development programs. World Development,
22(9), 1363–1377.
Jain, P. S. (1996). Managing credit for the rural poor:
Lessons from the Grameen Bank. World Development, 24(1), 79–90.
Koch, E., Maharajan, R. C., Sharma, J. K., & Wehnert,
U. (2004). A decade of pro poor institution building in
Nepal: Innovations and lessons learned from the Small
Farmer Cooperatives Ltd. (SFCLs). Working Paper
6. Kathmandu: Rural Finance Nepal.
Lama, S., Robinson, P., & Rai, C. (1996). Daphne and
herbs trade: A case stuffy of a Napali hill district. In
M. P. Shiva & R. B. Mathur (Eds.), Management of
minor forest produce for sustainability (pp. 328–340).
New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
Lewis, D. (1998). Non-governmental organizations,
business and the management of ambiguity, case studies of Ôfair-trade’ from Nepal and Bangladesh. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(2), 135–151.
Limbu, R. (2002). Getting crafty: Blending trendy design
with social development in Nepal. Change Makers
Journal (June), Available fromhttp://www.ashoka.
org/changemaker.
Malla, S. B., Shakya, P. R., Karki, B. R., Mortensen, T.
F., & Subedi, N. R. (1999). A study on non timber
forest products in Banjura district. Kathmandu: Care/
Nepal.
Messerschmidt, D. A. (1988). Success in small farmer
development: Paper making at Pang and Nanglibang, Nepal. World Development, 16(6), 733–750.
Messerschmidt, D. A. (1995). Success in small farmer
development: Paper making at Pang and Nanglibang, Nepal Reprinted with addendum. In Development studies. In D. A. Messerschmidt
(Ed.).
Bibliotheca Himalayica Series IV (Vol. 1,
pp. 71–99). Kathmandu: EMR Publishing House.
Messerschmidt, D. A., & Hammett, A. L. (1998). Local
knowledge of alternative forest resources: Its relevance for resource management and economic development. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 7(1/2), 21–55.
Messerschmidt, D., Yadama, G., & Silwal, B. (2005).
History and significance of NDS (National Development Service): Creating Ôcivic space’ and commitment to service in Nepal during the 1970s. Occasional
Papers in Sociology and Anthropology, 10, Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University.
Nadvi, K. (2003). The cost of compliance: Global
standards for small-scale firms and workers. IDS
Policy Briefing, 18(May).
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National system of innovation: A
comparative study. New York: Oxford University
Press.
New ERA (1995). Impact study on community development through production of Nepali handmade paper,
greeting cards and other paper products. Research
Report submitted to UNICEF/Nepal. Kathmandu:
New ERA Pvt. Ltd.
Newar, N. (2003). Nepali kagaj: Now popular all over
the world. Nepali Times (Kathmandu), 171(November 21–27), 8–9.
NRI (1998). Ethical trade and sustainable rural livelihoods. In D. Carney (Ed.), Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? (pp. 107–
129). London: Department for International Development.
Nurse, M., & Paudel, D. (2003). Rural entrepreneur
development: A pro-poor approach to enterprise
development through community forestry. NSCFP
Discussion Paper 2/03. Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss
Community Forestry Project.
Pokharel, B., Nurse, M., & Hem Tembe, K. (2004).
Forests and peoples’ livelihoods: Benefiting the poor
from community forestry. NSCFP Discussion Paper
1/04. Kathmandu: Nepal Swiss Community Forestry
Project.
Poudyal, H. R., Oli, K. P., & Gautam, R. (1996).
Economic and environmental assessment of Lokta
harvest: A case study of Tarakhola VDC, Baglung
District, Nepal. Agricultural Credit ATRI (Agricultural Development Bank, Nepal), 28.
Poudyal, A. (2004a). Lokta: Gift from Nepali forests.
The Kathmandu Post (city post), (September 18).
Poudyal, A. (2004b). Sustainability of local hand-made
paper (Nepali kagat) enterprises: A case study of
PAPER INDUSTRY OF NEPAL
Dolakha district. Journal of Forest and Livelihood,
4(1), 64–69.
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Taylor, P. L. (2004).
Fair trade coffee: Building producer capacity via
global networks. Journal of International Development, 16, 1109–1121.
Rossi, B. (2004). Order and disjuncture: Theoretical
shifts in the anthropology of aid and development.
Current Anthropology, 45(4), 556–560.
RSS (2002). ÔLokta’ plant on the verge of extinction. The
Kathmandu Post, (November 15), 3.
Sharma, S., Koponen, J., Gyawali, D., & Dixit, A.
(Eds.) (2004). Aid under stress: Water, forests and
Finnish support in Nepal. Kathmandu: Himal Books.
Shiva, M. P., & Mathur, R. B. (Eds.) (1996). Management of minor forest produce for sustainability. New
Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
STC (2003). What is positive deviance? Positive Deviance
Bulletin, 1(1).
Sternin, J. (2002). Positive deviance: A new paradigm for
addressing today’s problems today. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 5, 57–62.
Sternin, J. (2003). Practice positive deviance for extraordinary social and organizational change. In L.
Carteret (Ed.), The change champion’s fieldguide best
practice publications: Strategies and tools for leading
change in your organization (pp. 20–37). Waltham,
MA: Best Practices Institute.
Sternin, J., & Choo, R. (2000). The power of positive
deviance. Harvard business review, (January–February), 14–15.
Subedi, B. P. (2004). Linking plant-based enterprises and
local communities to biodiversity conservation in
Nepal Himalaya. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation,
Kumaun University, India.
Subedi, B. P., Ojha, H. R., Nicholson, K., & Binayee, S.
B. (2002). An assessment of community based forest
enterprises in Nepal: Case studies, lessons and implications. Kathmandu: Asia Network for Sustainable
Agriculture and Bioresources and SNV/Nepal.
Tendler, J. (1997). Good government in the tropics.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Trier, J. (1972). Ancient paper of Nepal: Results of ethnotechnological field work on its manufacture, uses and
1843
history—with technical analysis of bast, paper and
manuscripts. JAS publication 10. Copenhagen: Jutland Archaeological Society.
Tripathi, B. (2004). Handmade paper helps in better
livelihood. The Kathmandu Post, (August).
Wehnert, U., & Shakya, R. (2003). Microfinance and
armed conflict in Nepal: The adverse effects of the
insurgency on the Small Farmers Cooperatives Ltd.
(SFCLs). Working Paper 3. Kathmandu: ADBN/
GTZ/Rural Finance Nepal.
Uphoff, N., Esman, M. J., & Krishna, A. (Eds.) (1998).
Reasons for success: Learning from instructive experiences in rural development. West Hartford, CN:
Kumarian Press.
UNICEF (1980). Community development through
production of UNICEF greeting cards. Draft project
document. Kathmandu: UNICEF.
UNICEF & APROSC (1981). Small farm family program: A program formulation report. Kathmandu:
UNICEF and Agricultural Projects Research Center.
White, A., & Martin, A. (2001). Strategies for strengthening community property rights over forest: Lessons
and opportunities for practitioners. Washington, DC:
Forest Trends, Available fromwww.forest-trends.
org/documents/publications/Strat_Comm_Prop.pdf.
Winrock International (2002). Emerging issues in community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Winrock
International in collaboration with the Ford Foundation.
Yadama, G. N., & Messerschmidt, D. (2004). Civic
service in South Asia: A case study of Nepal.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4/
Suppl.), 98s–126s.
Young, G. (2003). Fair trade’s influential past and the
challenges of its future. Report prepared for the
conference Fair Trade, an asset for development: An
international dialogue, Brussels, May 28, sponsored
by the King Baudouin Foundation. Available from
http://www.kbs-frb.be.
Yunus, M., & Latifee, H. I. (1975). A report on Bamoil
Co-operative Farm, Comilla. In Locally sponsored
development programme series. Report 3. Dhaka,
Bangladesh: Ministry of Cooperatives, Local Government and Rural Development.