Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Discussion Paper
Final Draft
Summary
Although community forestry is recognized as a successful programme in terms of
rehabilitating forest condition, its contributions to local community development are
not recognized adequately by the national policies, lagislations and regulatory
frameworks. Drawing on the results of a survey of 1100 community forest user
groups (CFUGs), rapid social analysis of 24 CFUGs and review of existing policies
and practices in wider sectors of local development, this article claims that the
organizational scope of CFUGs is not limited to forestry activities but encompasses a
wide range of development activities. In addition, the institution provides
opportunities of exercising political agency for democratic and equitable governance,
and could demonstrate the innovations on poverty reduction through community
forestry. This is demonstrated through an analysis of a) significant CFUG investment
in livelihoods/development sector outside of forest development, b) wide-ranging
collaborative actions between CFUGs and non-forestry stakeholders, and c)
innovative initiatives of poverty reduction, and inclusive and deliberative governance.
The finding presents a clear opportunity for development agencies and policy makers
to promote CFUGs as the institutional platform for pro-poor local development.
1
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3
3. Forest and Poverty in the Koshi Hills ..................................................................................... 6
4. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1. Increased growing stock and production of forest products within community forests 7
4.2. Income of the CFUGs increased from the sale of forest products ................................. 8
4.3. CFUG as an institution for wider community development and societal change .......... 9
4.3.1. Community development has been the focus ........................................................ 9
4.3.2. CFUGs increasingly addressing poverty reduction and inclusion agendas ........... 11
4.3.3. CFUGs have generated employment opportunities .............................................. 13
4.4. CFUGs harnessing expanded collaboration opportunities ........................................... 14
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 15
5.1. Collaboration between CFUGs and development agencies ......................................... 15
5.2. Compatibility between CFUGs and government forestry organizations ...................... 15
5.3. CFUGs and equitable local development ..................................................................... 16
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 17
7. References ........................................................................................................................... 18
2
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
1. Introduction
There is a widespread appreciation that community forestry is a successful programme of
Nepal in terms of rehabilitating forest condition. In addition, contribution of community
forestry in community development is also highlighted increasingly in the later phase of
community forestry (Pokharel 2006, Kanel et al. 2004). Though these claims on contribution
of CF in local development have been made based on the field level empirical materials, it
has not been recognized adequately in the national policy discourses. The researches have
created some awareness at the professional and practitioners' level but could not make a
comprehensive analysis at the larger scale to make it plausible enough and to influence
policies. Particularly, the appreciation has been low among other development agencies as
they place community forest user group (CFUG), the autonomous and perpetual institution
having all rights of mobilizing resources for the welbeing of communities at large, as narrow
groups related only to forest management and utilization. In practice, these CFUGs are
putting thrust on community development activities and, in some cases, they have put more
emphasis on hardware infrastructure development (Banjade and Paudel 2008; McDougall et
al. 2008). Looking at their high emphasis on the local development, sometimes giving less
attention for the development of the forest resource itself, community forestry guidelines
made it compulsory to spend at least 25 percent of CFUG income in forest development
activities. This implies that the CFUGs are putting a significant amount of resources in
community development activities.
This article presents the case of CFUGs as effective institutional platforms for local
development by analysing the investments made by them, which demonstrate that CFUGs
invest major chunk of their income in local development. The paper also discusses on how
and to what extent CFUGs collaborate with various development agencies for community
development activities such as construction of school buildings, supplementing
remuneration of school teachers and materials, construction of roads, water supply,
irrigation canals, etc. The response of policy on the practice that resembles the potential of
CFUGs to act as an effective institutional window for community development is also
discussed in the paper. Most of the data used in this paper are from secondary sources and
literature reviews, i.e. annual reports from the respective CFUGs, annual monitoring study,
and categorization study done by Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) of DFID. The
studies were conducted in more than 1,100 CFUGs in Koshi hills, i.e. in Bhojpur,
Sankhuwasabha, Terhathum and Dhankuta districts. In addition to the secondary sources,
the experience of the author for over 12 years is a key source for qualitative information.
2. Background
Livelihoods of majority of the rural people in Nepal depend heavily on forest resources.
Having resided into remote areas, they are largely deprived of the basic services from the
government. In addition, the forests also provide employment to them. Community forestry
provides additional platform for exercising agency for providing safety nets for livelihoods
strategies of the people or developing infrastructure in the communities. These
infrastructures are important ingredients of livelihoods of the people. In this way, the
community based forest management approach has emerged as a successful program to
improve the forest condition and livelihoods of people (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001;
Chakraborty 2001; Webb and Gautam 2001, Koirala et al. 2008).
3
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
There is very limited financial support mechanism to the rural and forest dependent
communities. For example, very limited fiscal budget is allocated by the government in these
areas; limited access of credit facilities exist in these areas because financial institutions
(Banks, etc.) have limited investment opportunities and weak infrastructural development to
set up these institutions; and, therefore, local rich people lend money in high interest rates
to the poor. With the limited supports and budget, the rural areas can hardly fulfil their
needs of development and poverty reduction. For this reason, they should rely on the
resources such as forest which is situated within their reach. If people can have the better
access to the surrounding forests, they can be the potential resources for development (KC
and Khatri 2005).
Community forestry provides such an opportunity where people not only conserve forest for
their subsistence use but are gradually increasing income from the forest and invest in local
development initiatives. Likewise, there are opportunities exist to learn about the target
group focused (focus to the poor, women and marginalized groups) approaches (inclusive
targeting approach, for example), inclusive and democratic governance and equitable
benefit sharing mechanisms. Community forest user groups (CFUGs) have already
demonstrated one of the potential local institutions to formulate inclusive plan and
implement wider development activities. They have their own natural resource base and are
autonomous, legal and inclusive institutions. Although, the 'forestry' word is added in its
identity, it would be totally injustice if community forestry (CF) is perceived for only forestry
and the forest products. Pokharel (2005) has shown that CFUGs are performing the
responsibilities of as much as 16 line ministries of government of Nepal including Ministry of
forest and soil conservation, local development, law and justice, finance, home, and others.
According to the World Bank's widely used poverty benchmark of US$ 1 per capita per day
about 31 percent of people fall under severe poverty line. But the definition of this poverty
line doesn't show the real picture of Nepal as when we look at the situation of people based
on the standard of poverty as US$2 per day, more than 80 percent population fall under the
standard poverty line. Since more than 80 percent of the population of Nepal resides in the
rural areas (CBS 2004), the population within standard poverty line is extremely high in the
rural areas. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the poor people of these areas are largely
relying on common pool resources, particularly the forest for their livelihoods. So, any
agency that aims to reduce poverty significantly in Nepal should give its due attention in
rural areas.
Nepal has started the community forestry program since 1978. However, the devolution of
power to manage the forest has been geared up after 1993 with the promulgation of Forest
Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995). Currently, a total of 1,640,239 households (35% of
total population) are managing 1,187,000 hectares of forest (25% of total forest land) of
Nepal (Koirala et al. 2008) The Forest Act of 1993 and Forest Rules of 1995 provide strong
legislative back up for community forestry. The laws allow community forest user groups to
be defined as self‐sustained independent entities recognized by the District Forest Office
(DFO). Since CFUGs are legally recognized autonomous bodies, ideally they can make their
own rules, enforce them and sanction as appropriate. In practice, they are holding regular
meetings, preparing and amending rules, allocating the budget annually in different local
development initiatives and, in some innovative CFUGs, supporting to poverty reduction and
marginalized group focused activities. Fundamentally, constitution of a CFUG is a legal
document that defines decision making and benefit sharing mechanisms, as well as rights
and responsibilities of different user members and forums.
4
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
The issues of inclusion and equity including support to poverty reduction surfaced when the
earlier experiences of CF showed the promise to address them. As a result, the well‐being
ranking became mandatory during formulation of CF constitution since the second revision
on CF guidelines in 2000. However, it was fully practiced in line with the guidelines since late
2001. The well‐being ranking is a founding step to identify the assets of the users and
explore opportunity for their better livelihoods through community forestry. This also
provides basis for making special provisions for the poor and marginalized groups through
CF. As a result of the provisions in the guidelines and continuous advocacy from the CFUG
networks, NGOs, donors and government agencies, CFUGs have started including provisions
for poor and excluded groups of users in benefit sharing mechanism, income generation
activities, access to leadership and decision making forum, etc. While doing well‐being
ranking the CFUGs look at the aspects broader than a classical consideration of financial
aspect only and include social/institutional, physical, financial and natural aspects which fall
within the livelihoods framework defined by DFID. CFUGs themselves develop the criteria for
defining well‐being categories and conduct well‐being assessment exercise. The exercise is
supposed to be done periodically to allow redefining of categories and ranking of individual
households. Since communities define different well‐being categories based on their own
context, there is less likely that both the criteria and the status resemble the national
poverty criteria and status.
CFUGs are legally recognized autonomous institutions for the management and utilization of
community forests as per their operational plan and operate within their own constitution.
Moreover, they can pull the diverse resources from within the community and from external
sources, for example through collaboration with other agencies such as government, non‐
government and bilateral organizations. The collaboration also can create synergy for wider
development at local level. The CFUGs also offer an entry point and vantage for wide range
of service providers who would like to work within the communities.
As stated earlier, most rural people in Nepal depend on traditional agriculture and livestock
for their livelihoods. It is a major component that plays a vital role in rural livelihoods by
providing income, construction materials, and animal feed (Gilmour et al. 2005). To achieve
the national goal of poverty reduction and heavy reliance on agro‐based economy, Nepal
has to develop and manage the existing forest resources (GoN 2002). Integration of
agriculture with forestry is the reason why we observed indigenous mode of forest
management in remote rural areas, an attribute for strong realization of community based
forest management in the past. Therefore, initially, community forestry program has been
primarily initiated to conserve the forest and meet the basic needs of forest products
through local people's participation. Moreover, the Community Forestry Program in Nepal
has proved to be a very encouraging endeavour in the development of a constructive
partnership in forestry between farmers and the government. The essence of the
community forestry philosophy in Nepal, from its inception, has been the establishment of a
partnership between local communities and the staff of the DOF for the management of
locally accessible forests. The people's participation in forest management is a natural
outcome of decentralized planning (Sunderlin et al. 2006).
At local level, the CFUGs have shown a great promise through annual investments and
participation in forest conservation and development activities contributing directly in
achieving national and millennium development goals. Despite the contribution of CFUGs in
resource management, community development and livelihoods enhancement, there is still
little appreciation of such significant development contribution and potentials by
development agencies. This is reflected in the practice as different development agencies
5
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
form other local institutions when they initiate any development activities within the
communities. Yet, there is still lack of coordination and collaboration among the two
government offices such as District Forest Office (DFO) and District Soil Conservation Office
(DSCO) operating under the same ministry having the similar purpose of supporting
conservation and development. Since most of the members of the communities are
organized within CFUGs, it would be more effective and efficient to working with them
rather than investing a lot of time and resources in creating new institutions by every
development agencies working in the same area. Therefore, question arises on why
adequate congruence could not be reached in recognizing existing institutions in the
communities, and why different organizations would like to develop their own sets of
institutions. Consequently, same person is holding several key positions in each community
wasting their valuable time in coordination and institutionalization processes.
3. Forest and Poverty in the Koshi Hills
In Koshi Hills which includes Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Terhathum and Dhankuta districts of
eastern hills of Nepal, the LIvelihood and Forestry Programme (LFP) of DFID has started in
April 2001, building upon the experiences and lessons learnt from the Nepal UK Community
Forestry Programme, which was implemented in the seven hills of Nepal (east and west)
from 1993 to 2001. LFP aims to contribute to reduced vulnerability, and improved
livelihoods of the poor and excluded rural people through the financial, social and technical
intervention. While DFO is the key partner to deliver technical forestry activities, local NGOs
are responsible to deliver social component. The programme purpose is to enhance the
assets of rural communities by promoting more equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of
forest and other natural resources.
In reference to the Koshi hills, altogether 1396 CFUGs have been formed until July 2008.
Likewise, more than 85% of the total households are managing 82%of total forest which
comes into 83% of the potential CF area. Out of the total households involved in the CFUGs,
about 49% of them are categorized relatively as poor from participatory well‐being criteria.
Regarding the ethnic composition, the majority of are from disadvantage groups (58%)
which includes 9% from dalit community. The categorisation study shows that out of the
total CFUGs, majority of the CFUGs (i.e. 61%) are found in active/moderate categories when
assessed in terms of resource management, institutional development, social inclusion and
access to livelihoods opportunities. Likewise, 25%, 47% and 28% CFUGs are categorised in
active, moderate and less active categories respectively in terms of forest management.
The plans of the CFUGs for 2008/9 and CFUG monitoring studies reveal CFUGs as one of the
best institutions to collaborate for synergy and effectiveness of development efforts. As the
existing achievements made by the CFUGs are encouraging in terms of contribution in wider
development activities, more possibilities are seen from the plans which are important to
enhance effective, efficient and creative environment through collaboration with other
agencies. The partnership with different stakeholders can foster mutual understanding,
increase acceptance of community, maximise the effectiveness and leverage of resources,
and avoid the duplication of programme within same geographical areas.
6
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
4. Findings
4.1. Increased growing stock and production of forest products within
community forests
In the context of Koshi hills, the community forestry programme so far has resulted in
increasing the growing stock and harvestable amount of forest products. Since CFUGs are
gradually managing their forests actively, the income from the products is also increasing
significantly over a period of time. This has been the result of devolution of power of forest
resource management to the local forest users. A study in four eastern hill districts showed
that the total number of stems per hectare has increased by 51%, and basal areas of forests
has increased by 29% (Branney and Yadav 1998). When we analyse the data from the Koshi
hills, 51% of the CFUGs are managing their CFs actively (CFUG categorisation study 2006). In
regards to the perception of CFUG on the condition of the forest in terms of greenery,
availability of forest products and status of biodiversity, more than 93% of them have
reported that the condition of forest has been radically improved after handing over to the
communities. Reports from other areas also have shown the similar improvements. For
example, in the Kabhre and Sindhupalchok districts of central Nepal, a study found that
shrub land and grassland have been converted into productive forests increasing forest area
from 7,677 hectares to 9,678 hectares (Jackson et al. 1998, Kanel et al. 2005).
Table 1: Changes in forest condition over the 7 years as per Operational plan (same CF
formed upto 2001)
Forest condition 2001 2008
Number of CFUGs Percent Number of CFUGs Percent
Good 679 60% 760 67%
Average 405 36% 326 29%
Degraded 51 4% 49 4%
Total 1135 100% 1135 100%
The regular monitoring study reveals that the trend of the forest condition has been
gradually improving as a result of the efforts made by the users. Furthermore, the barren
and degraded CF lands have also been re‐vegetated through plantation and natural
regeneration. As a result of community efforts, more than two‐third of CFs fall under the
good category. Likewise, more than one‐forth (28%) and less than 5% CF respectively fall in
the average and degraded category. Similarly, the recent resource assessment shows that
30% bio‐mass has increased over the period of 14 years in the Koshi hills.
The area is also potential in terms of NTFP promotion. More than 60% CFs are found
potential for the promotion of NTFPs.
More than 60% CFUGs are implementing specified silvicultural operations as planned in the
CFUG operational plans. About 27% CFUGs have reported that they received technical
support from external agencies while implementing such operations. Additionally, as a result
of partnership, about 0.6 million seedlings of different NTFP/fodder species has been
planted by the CFUGs. Similarly, they are producing more than 100 thousand seedlings every
year. Although, DFO is exclusively responsible to deliver the technical support to the CFUGs,
local resource persons (LRP Technical) trained and mentored through a collaborative efforts
between DFO, Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN) and other line
agencies also play vital role to enhance technical skills among the users.
7
ForesstAction Disccussion Pap
per 2009/2
700000 653,904
600000
500000
400000
Area in ha
300000 264,796
200000
135,939
110,952
100000
40% 24,987
51% 82%
0 18%
Total area Forest Area Potential CF CF handed Remaining
area over
F
Figure 1: Statu
us of commun
nity forestry in Koshi hill diistricts
4.2. IIncome of tthe CFUGs iincreased ffrom the sa
ale of forestt products
In 20002, the annual income off the Departm ment of Forest was Nepalese Rupees (NRs.) 550
million and total budget was NR Rs. 680 million, but the Coommunity Forrestry which is only 25%
of tottal forest are
ea, had geneerated the income of abo out 740 millio
on (more thaan US$ 10
million) which is h higher than th he annual bu udget of the Department of Forest and d is almost
42% o of the annual budget of th he Ministry off Forest and SSoil Conservaation (Kanel aand Niraula
2004;; Koirala et all. 2008). From m the study o of the income of the CFUGs from Koshi hills alone
we foound that in addition to improving thee forest conddition the CFUGs have beeen able to
raising income thrrough forest products salle. Since the income of the CFUGs is increasing
over tthe period off time, the CFFUGs' overall income from m the CFs musst be much h higher than
the eaarlier estimattes shown abo ove.
Similaarly, the useers are conttributing their significantt time in thhe forest devvelopment
activitties. For exam mple, they sp pend more than 2.5 million n person days of voluntaryy labour in
forestt‐related activvities in a yeaar. The value o of this volunttary labour coontribution is about 164
million rupees calcculated usingg a conservattive value forr opportunityy cost of 65 rupees
r per
persoon per day (Kaanel and Niraula 2004).
In thee Koshi hillss, the regulaar monitoringg shows that there is encouraging status
s and
achievvements due to increasingg trend of income each yeaar.
Table 2: Annual inccome and exp
penditure status (FY 2064//065)
Totaal Income 57,9
929,208 10
00%
Brouught forward from previou us FY 25,8
826,334 4
45%
Fore
est resources 14,3
378,858 2
25%
Feess, fine, interesst, etc. 3,769,927 7%
External funding ‐‐ LFP 3,307,294 6%
External funding ‐‐ Others 10,6
646,796 1
18%
ForesstAction Disccussion Pap
per 2009/2
Total Expenditure e 30,635,148
8 100%
Forest developmeent 4,883,822
2 16%
Targeted Activitiees (to the poo
or and excludeed) 8,498,515
5 28%
Instittutional Dev. 3,039,807
7 10%
Comm Development 14,213,005
5 46%
Balan nce to the ne
ext year 27,294,061
1 47%
The reecent monitooring study (2
2007) shows that the totaal income perr year of CFUUG is found
NRS 5 00 (Total CFUG 1063, Deviation 48,688
5,79,29,208.0 8, Maximum income 20,00 0,298 and
minimmum income 500) and the e expendituree areas in wid ment is NRS 30,635,148.
der developm
The eexpenditure amount becam me 95% of thhe income exccluding the laast year savin
ng and 52%
includ
ding the both (current inco
ome plus the last year balaance).
4.3. C
CFUG as an
n institution
n for wider communityy developm
ment and so
ocietal
channge
4.3.1.. Community developmen
nt has been th
he focus
Some e of the co ommunity de evelopment activities arre directly rrelated to Millennium
M
Development Goals (MDGs). For example, in eastern Nepal, forest user groups have been
able to
t invest US$ $327,000 gen nerated by the sustainab ble use of forrests over teen years in
formaal school ed ducation, informal literaccy programss for women n and the poor, and
scholaarship for poo or students (TThies and von Pfeil, cited in Mayers 20007). This is aan example
of Coommunity Fo orestry contributing to tw wo of the MDGs:
M i) achieve universal primary
educaation, and ii)) promote geender equalitty and empo ower women n (ibid). Seveeral impact
studiees of CF across the countrry have concluded that CFF has brough ht significant favourable
alteraation in the socio‐econom mic status of tthe communiity (Schereierr et al. 1994; Virgo and
Subbaa 1994). Som me Community Forests havve contributeed in construction and maaintenance
of roaads, schools, irrigation canals, health posts, etc. which
w has cau used several direct and
indireect positive im
mpacts upon llivelihoods.
30
Millions NRS
25
20
15
10
0
Forest mgt
F Comm. Deev Ins. Dev P
Poor focus
Furthermore, CF has brought supportive influences on agriculture production, income and
employment generation, biodiversity conservation, social unity and literacy in society. So, CF
has brought a change of great socioeconomic significance in rural society (Branney and
Yadav 1998; Malla 2000; Pokharel 2004; Pokharel et al. 2005).
A study of over 1100 CFUGs of Koshi hills indicates how wide the CFUGs are working in terms
of community development (see box 1).
Box: 1. A glimpse of ongoing CFUG activities for the current fiscal year (Koshi hills)
• 30% of the studied CFUGs implement silviculture treatment in line with the block
management system in 2334 ha. Likewise 11% CFUGs are intensively involved in plantation of
311 ha of barren land,
• Altogether 8029 HH will be benefited from the different IGA schemes through the revolving
fund in 426 CFUGs,
• 230 ha of land will be allocated within the CF areas to the 767 poor households for conducting
IGAs (67 CFUGs),
• In addition to the revolving fund and CF land allocation, additional 319 poor households are
benefited from the different IGAs. (26 CFUGs),
• 23 CFUGs implement health and sanitation related activities where 177 households will
directly be benefited,
• Likewise, 26 CFUGs construct and distribute a total of 177 improved cooking stoves where
82% of the recipients will be from the poor households,
• To enhance capacity of the poor users in order to enhance sustainable livelihoods, a total of
130 events are organised where altogether 1011 poor households can benefit from self
employment opportunities,
• Altogether 167 CFUGs implement drinking water schemes, which benefit total of 12480
households where 68% are from the poor community,
• It is expected to maintain and establish 22 KM irrigation channel where 7217 households are
directly benefited where 65% of them will be from the poor categories (41 CFUGs),
• Altogether 136.5 KM trail road will be maintained, which will help ease the access to the
market (297 CFUGs),
• 67 CFUGs support schools by providing remuneration of school teachers,
• 907 households from 10 CFUGs are benefited from electrification where 52% are from the
poor community,
• 5 CFUGs construct 15 wooden bridges,
• 30 CFUGs construct new office buildings, a step towards institutional development,
• To strengthen tourism in CF, 5 CFUGs have planned some kind of activities (developing picnic
spots, etc.).
The various monitoring studies show that the community forestry are able to cover at least
67% of the total households in wider development activities who are involved in community
forestry. Income generating activities are provided to at least 17% of the poor users
annually. Particularly in the hills, most of the households around a CF are included within the
respective CFUGs, thus creating a platform for interest negotiation and political engagement
for all people living within a geographical constituency.
At large, the CFUGs are providing public services. For example, when there were no political
institutions in the rural areas for democratic deliberations during the time of insurgency in
Nepal (1995‐2005), the CFUGs served the purpose (Banjade and Timsina 2005). In the
context of Koshi hills, more than 85% of the total households are involved in CFUGs as
members. So far, through direct financial intervention, CFUGs in Koshi hills have provided
support in income generating activities to more than 20,000 households aiming to enhance
their economic conditions. The data shows that the emphasis and priority goes to the dalit
community as more than 80% of the dalits fall below the poverty line. Likewise more than
3,500 and 14,000 poor households have been benefitted from skills development training
and infrastructure support respectively.
10
ForesstAction Disccussion Pap
per 2009/2
80% 75%
70%
55%
60%
51%
49%
50% 45%
38% 36
6%
40% 33%
30% 26%
21%
19%
16% 17%
20% 13%
10% 4
4%
0%
IGA Enterprises Infra Skill Dev. Total
Fiigure 3: HH bene
efitted from differrent wider develo
opment activities upto FY 2064/65
5
4.3.2.. CFUGs incre
easingly addre
essing povertty reduction and inclusion
n agendas
In add dition to the ssubsistence ssupply of foreests, the CFUG Gs in the prop posed plans (FY 2008/9)
have provisions to pport to morre than 33% of the total households during the
o directly sup
fiscal year (both the
t poor and d non‐poor). Out of the total
t househo olds benefiteed, 41% of
them were benefiited from forrest developm ment (FD). Siimilarly, 75 %
%, 12% and 10%
1 of the
beneffited houseeholds got the beneefits from community developmeent (CD),
skills//institutional developmentt (ID) and inccome generatting activitiess (IGA) respecctively (see
figuree 4). This does not include the benefitss received from the use off revolving fun nd for IGA.
The finding
f show
ws that the CFUG's
C interrvention is being
b intensivvely focussed towards
targetted activitiess while CFUGs are ablee to cover more
m than oone‐third of the poor
house eholds annually through different oppo ortunities (CFU UG plan 2065 5/066).
80 74.99
Benefitted HH (000)
70
60
50
40.89
40 HH benefiited upto 2007 as per LLFP database
30
20
12.22 10.30
10
0
FD CD ID IGA
Areas
Figu
ure 4: Participatiion of communityy at lcoal level in percentage (FY 2008/9)
At the end of the fiscal yearr 2008/9 thee CFUG planss envisage that more th
han 40,000
ding 27% wo
includ omen and 55 5% poor will be involved development activities.
d in forest d
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
Likewise, about 75,000 users will be involved as paid labour of which more than 70% are
from the poor and one‐third from women. So far, already women representation in the
decision making forums is 35% in the Koshi hills.
60% 6%
5%
50% 4%
3%
40% 2%
1%
30%
0%
20% ‐1%
‐2%
10% ‐3%
‐4%
0% ‐5%
D alit D is . J anjati O thers
Table 3: Total benefits to households from IGAs and revolving fund
From Direct financial intervention (HH) 13241
After revolving fund (HH) 10242
Total benefitted from IGA (HH) 23483
Total Poor HHs (from well‐being ranking) 49605
% poor HH benefitted from IGA 20 %
In the Koshi hills, in addition, hundreds of CFUGs have allocated certain portion of their CF
land to the identified poor as a means of sustainable income for them. About 600 CFUGs (i.e.
43% of the total CFUGs) are found potential to allocate CF land to the poor users, of which
46 percent CFUGs have allocated 336 hectares of land to more than 2200 poor households
for different income generating activities aiming to enhance their sustainable income. As
observed during the field monitoring and CFUGs’ progress reports, it clearly shows that such
initiatives have been contributing to boost of their self reliance in terms of their livelihoods.
A study has been carried out in 2008 in the selected CFUGs of Koshi hills where the
Animation Program of LFP has been launched since 2002. The 2700 households of randomly
sampled 26 CFUGs were included in the analysis where data were collected through
structured surveys, focus group discussions and reflection of the local leaders and
12
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
animators. During the study, re‐wellbeing ranking was conducted in the sampled CFUG by
using the same criteria and procedure used about five years ago. The study shows that 46%
poor users (very poor and poor) have crossed the relative poverty line largely because of
their engagement in the CFUGs who directly supported their livelihoods improvement
related activities and capacity building events. Likewise, 35% of the total very poor
households have moved to the poor category. Following table is the summary of the analysis
where status of well‐being shift has been included.
Table 4. A glimpse of changed well‐being status
No change Change (+) Change (‐)
Caste VP‐VP P‐P Oth‐Oth VP‐P VP‐Oth P‐Oth P‐VP Oth‐P Oth‐VP
Dalit 58% 43% 100% 29% 13% 51% 6% 0% 0%
JJ 53% 67% 100% 36% 11% 32% 1% 0% 0%
AC 55% 59% 100% 36% 7% 39% 1% 0% 0%
Total 56% 61% 100% 35% 9% 37% 1% 0% 0%
VP=Very poor, P=Poor,Oth=Others
4.3.3. CFUGs have generated employment opportunities
In reference to the Koshi hills, CFUGs have generated an employment of about 1,50,000
person days per year. In addition, CFUGs are paying to about 200 teachers per year but
surprisingly the records of the CFUG contribution is not maintained even in the District
Education Office.
Table 5: Annual employment opportunity in CF (24 days ‐1 month)
Area CFUG Female Male Total P.days/ Person
FUG
1 3 6 9
month Month Month month
Forest 510 40% 19,294 44,594 63,888 125.19 2,662 887 444 296
management
Community 340 27% 3,350 6,061 9,411 27.66 392 131 65 44
development
Office 161 13% 4,700 4,452 9,153 56.97 381 127 64 42
management/
office
secretary
Teachers 172 14% 11,624 27,513 39,137 226.92 1,631 544 272 181
Enterprises 95 7% 5,775 10,161 15,937 168.64 664 221 111 74
Total 256 20%* 44,744 92,782 137,526 537.99 5,730 1,910 955 637
1 month=24 days
The key areas where employment has been generated by the CFUGs include: forest
management and harvesting operations, community development, office management,
payments to school teachers, forest based enterprises, etc. (see table 5). From the gender
analysis of the employment we can see that women are getting one‐third of the
employment hitherto generated. While women are more in office management related jobs,
they were least involved as teachers.
13
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
4.4. CFUGs harnessing expanded collaboration opportunities
The budget of the planned activities of the CFUGs studies (carried out in 82% of 1160 CFUGs)
for the current fiscal year (2008/9) is estimated as NRs. 3,70,60,291 to spend in the wider
development. While they have estimated an income of NRs. 3,27,000,00 from the CFs, they
are expecting to
Table 3: Trend of CFUG fund mobilisation status get the rest from
2001 2007 Differences other sources such as
support from
Based on # FUG 1211 1061 ‐150.00 development agencies.
Box: 2. Forest Development Fund (Koshi hills)
Basic criteria
• All the CFUG should be affiliated in the VDC network
• The VDC network should have inclusive decision making body.
• All the CFUGs affiliated in the network, should be committed to provide 5% of the
total annual income to VDC network.
• The VDC network should be received at least some amount from VDC.
• The VDC network should prepare a fund mobilization guideline.
14
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
5. Discussion
Many literatures claim that conservation goals of Community Forestry (CF) have been
achieved because of the devolved resource management responsibilities down to the
community level (Kanel 2004; Malla et al. 2003, Malla 2000). This claim is rooted in the
obvious changes observed in community forests because of local people's efforts in
conserving forest. However, the CF programme has yet to show adequate livelihoods
impacts. This paper and other earlier literatures have shown the promise of CF in
contributing significantly in community development and livelihoods improvement agenda.
5.1. Collaboration between CFUGs and development agencies
Chapagain et al. (2008) found through the use of participatory tools that if there is not any
interaction between the target groups (i.e. the poor, women and marginalized) and service
providers at local level the claim of achieving twin goals of conservation and poverty
reduction through community forestry will be only one‐third of the total possible
achievements regarding the real need, demand and expectations of local people. It is,
therefore, highly desirable to explore the appropriate mechanisms of enhancing
collaboration, identifying relevant collaborators, and developing effective means of
communication and coordination. Use of the specific tools for increasing communication,
developing common goals and mutual understanding, and promoting sharing and reflection
can improve partnerships among different stakeholders. When a tool called Conflict,
Legitimacy, Interest and Power (CLIP) was used in Koshi hills (visit www.SAS‐PM.com for
more details on the tools), it showed that the understanding level has increased among the
partners.
From this study and authors' decade long experiences show that CFUGs can harness the
benefits of collaboration. The immediate need is that policy and regulatory frameworks
should provide effective strategy for increasing collaborative efforts at local level. Similarly,
using the tools such as CLIP would be an effective way to enhance synergy among
collaborative partners without extra efforts and resources.
5.2. Compatibility between CFUGs and government forestry organizations
Despite the communities' readiness and success of resource conservation and community
development through community forestry, government has not yet provided amicable
environment to promote efficiency, effectiveness and innovation at local level. When people
living in remote rural areas are deprived of government services, the government forestry
organizations at various levels should facilitate the processes of developing linkages of
CFUGs with wider development agencies. Can we expect this within the current modus
operandi? The question arises in the context when two organizations, namely District Forest
Office and District Soil Conservation Office, under the same ministry (Ministry of Forest and
Soil Conservation) do not have clear coordination and collaboration strategy to enhance
same purpose and same goal. Other development organizations also do the same, i.e. the
organizations working in the communities also form their own institutions though
communities and individuals benefited from the initiatives could be the same. Although, the
issues of coordination and collaboration are raised occasionally at higher levels but yet to
enhance any concrete mechanism to effect local level collaboration.
It is widely visible that CFUGs are investing a lot of efforts in the development areas where
government is supposed to be fully responsible. The CFUGs are contributing in health,
15
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
education, local infrastructure development, capacity building and livelihoods improvement
programs by generating their own resources through community forestry or through wider
networking with other service providers. This is recognized by the individuals within
Department of Forest (i.e. the line department) but has not yet sufficiently recognized by
other line agencies. Therefore, the issues of duplication, low level of community ownerships
and efficiency, etc are observed in the field. The question is raised on who is responsible to
encourage such initiatives of working with local institutions like CFUGs? When CFUGs have
shown their capacity and potential of working in diverse sectors of community development,
the government should come up with clear policy and strategy in supporting these local
initiatives. Indeed, the CFUGs should be considered as the umbrella institutions for all
development initiatives. To begin with, the government should develop a clear practical
policy and strategy to incorporate CFUGs plan into VDC/DDC aiming to flag CFUG
contribution in non‐forestry sector widely.
5.3. CFUGs and equitable local development
CFUG can be an effective vehicle for equitable local development as many of them have
already demonstrated moves towards inclusion and equity. However, mainstream
development practices have not fully respected the needs and concerns of local people and
impose prescriptions from outside. Consequently, ownership remains low within the
communities and many development efforts become a failure. In other cases, the existing
policy and practice might have disempowered the communities by promoting patron‐client
relationships between service providers and the community members. To change the
situation, the development agencies should respect the local institutions and build on their
programs based on the needs and demands of the communities. We should note that
despite being resourceful community institution, we can not conclude that CFUGs' plans and
investments will be pro‐poor and equity oriented. For instance, the activities that are being
implemented by CFUGs such as school, trail construction, irrigation channels, community
buildings, temples, cooking stoves are found in favour of wealthier households at local level
(Acharya et al. 2008; Adhikari and Ghimire 1998, Gental 2000, Kanel 2004).
“One of the aims of community forestry is to increase the access and inclusiveness of
women, poor and marginalized groups in the governance, management and utilisation of
forests and to bring these groups a source of income. However, it has been observed that
local elites make most of the decisions and capture most of the benefits from the forests.
In many cases, CFUGs have become wealthy, but the households themselves have not
been able to reap the benefits. It is especially so with the poor, women and
disadvantaged groups (Douglas Greig)”.
The exclusion of women in the resource management process has serious negative
consequences not just for gender equity, but also for the efficient functioning and long term
sustainability of these initiatives, and for women’s empowerment (Agarwal 1997).
Therefore, a conscious effort of sensitizing and persuading might be needed from external
agencies when voices of the local poor, women and marginalized groups are not considered.
In Koshi hills, however, the representation of different ethnicity is towards proportionate
figure and the involvement of women and poor are also found in positive trend. The
formation of sub‐groups, often organizing the poor, women and marginalized groups as
separate groups, persuasion for getting priority by their agenda into planning and
implementation has affected positively for inclusion and equity in the CFUGs. In Koshi hills,
more than 25,000 different members are organized in different sub/interest groups (e.g.
women, poor, dalit, NTFP, saving/credit etc).
16
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
One of the burring issues of the social inclusion is equitable development and benefit
sharing. Regarding equitable distribution system, it is quite encouraging trend within CFUGs
which is increased by double over the 2 years, i.e. 26% of CFUG are practicing equitable
distribution system, although it is still a week area as compared to the achievements made
at local level in community development through community forestry. Therefore, all the
development agencies should drive their focus of development for ensuring social inclusion,
poverty reduction and equity. A consorted effort and harmonization among the different
interventions by the development agencies could have better results in this line.
Though collaborative efforts are highlighted for effective development in the communities,
there are likely four scenarios of such collaborations urging for a cautious remarks on the
effectiveness of collaboration in a development initiative: a) high effort and large outcomes,
b) high effort but less outcomes, c) less effort but high outcomes, and d) less effort and less
outcomes. However, there should not be any doubt that the collaborative model,
approaching CFUG as an entry point, is one of the imperative mechanism to enhance large
outcomes with even a nominal effort.
Despite the fact that the development agencies working at local level in the Koshi hills made
efforts of incorporating CFUG plan into VDC plan, there has not been adequate success due
to different planning period of Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and Ministry of Local
Development. Since overwhelming majority of the population is already involved in
community forestry, a bottom up planning process applied in the CFUGs could help bring the
needs, expectations and demands of all the people. When local governments recognize this
aspect and develop effective coordination linkages with the CFUGs and other non‐forestry
sectors, the resulting development outcomes will be much higher than the existing ones.
6. Conclusion
This article presented the case of CFUGs as effective institutional vehicle for local
development. Although, community forestry is not recognised as a development institution
adequately in the non‐forestry sector at national level, the achievements and progress have
already been proved CFUG a broad‐based institution and a sustainable vehicle for wider
development. Drawing on the experiences from the Koshi hills, the paper presented
evidence on how CFUGs have conducted a wide range of non‐forestry development
activities with varying degrees of collaborative linkages with several development agencies.
It is also shown that these development activities of CFUGs have led to increased livelihood
opportunities to the local communities in general, and the poor and marginalised groups in
particular. Given such institutional capability of CFUGs, the development agencies have an
opportunity to approach CFUG as an entry point for local development. In addition, with its
three decades of experience, community forestry could be a learning centre for wider
development actors on institution and governance, resource management, local
development initiatives, livelihoods enhancement, and inclusive and equitable development.
17
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
7. References
Acharya, K.P., Adhikari, J. & Khanal, D. 2008. Forest Tenure Regimes and their Impact on
Livelihoods in Nepal. Journal of forest and livelihoods, 7(1).
Banjade, M.R. & Timsina, N.P. 2005. Impact of Armed Conflict in Community Forestry of Nepal.
ETFRN News 43/44.
Bhattarai, B. & Dungana, S.P. 2005. How Can Forests Better Serve the Poor? A Review of
Documented Knowledge on Leasehold and Community Forestry in Nepal: Forest Action,
Kathmandu in collaboration with Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor,
Indonesia.
Branney, P. & Yadav, K.P. 1998. Changes in Community Forestry Condition and Management
1994‐98: Analysis of Information for the Forest Resource Assessment Study and Socio‐
Economic Study of the Koshi Hills. Project report G/NUKCFP/32, Kathmandu: NUKCFP.
Chapagain, B. 2007. Participatory well being ranking: Effective in pro‐poor targeting and
monitoring the impact. LFP.
Chapagain, N. 2007. Poverty Dynamics and Possible Future Outcomes (Draft).
Chapagain, N. 2008. Is it Possible to Increase the Existing Acceptance Level of the Two Party with
the Same Resources and Existing Support Strategy (Draft).
Chapagain, N., Chapagain, B. & Kafle, G. 2008. Review of Poor Support Strategy and the Existing
Collaboration Efforts: are the Achievements became Intact in Favour of P&E Needs and
Priorities: A Case from the East Hills of Nepal (Draft abstract).
Chapagain, N., Kafle, G. & Chapagain, B. 2008. Measuring Poverty: Determinants to Change in
Household Well‐being Status due to Member of Community Forestry (Draft in progress).
Chapagain, N. & Ojha, P. 2006. A Decade of the FUG Formed before the 1994, LFP Newsletter
(West).
Douglas, G. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Forestry in the Wider
Rural Context.
Kanel, B.R. & Subedi, R. 2004. Pro‐poor Community Forestry: Some Initiatives from the Field. In
Proceedings of Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry. Department of Forests,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kanel, K.R., Podudel, R.P. & Baral, J.P 2005. Nepal Community Forestry 2005.
Kanel, K.R. & Niraula, D.R. 2004. Can Rural Livelihood be Improved in Nepal thorough
Community Forestry? Banko Janakari, 14(1): 19‐24.
Kanel, K.R. 2004. Twenty five years of community forestry: contribution to Millenium
Development Goals. Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry. Proceeding of the
Fourth workshop on community Forestry, Dec. 2004. , Kathmandu, Nepal: Community
Forestry Division, DOF.
Rajendra, K.C. & Khatri, A. 2008. Contribution of Community Forestry in Reducing Rural Poverty
in Nepal: Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource
Management and Rural Development, University of Hohenheim, October 7‐9, 2008.
Koirala, R., Giri, K. & Pokharel, B.K. 2008. Development and Status of Community Forestry
Governance in Nepal.
LFP 2004 and 2006. Findings from FUG categrisation from Koshi Hill.
LFP 2007. LFP Logical framework review: how we achieved so far and how we expect for three
years: by reviewing of the original and modified indicators Koshi Hill (Draft).
LFP 2007 and 2008. Annual Report and LSI reporting from East.
LFP 2007. a glimpse of FUG planning for the FY 065/66 from Koshi Hill.
18
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
LFP 2007: Completion report 2001 to 2007 from Koshi Hill (Draft).
LFP 2004 and 2007. Findings from SAGA and pre‐MTR study Koshi hills.
LFP 2008. A glimpse of FUG's fund mobilisation areas and source of income from Koshi Hills.
LFP 2008. FAQs: Disaggregated by caste, ethnicity, gender and poverty level from Koshi hills.
LFP 2009. Component report from Koshi Hills (Draft).
LFP 2006. Contextual information from PCO, LFP.
Ojha, P and Chapagain, N February 2004 LFP. Poor focused revolving fund for income generating
activities in Baglung district: Process and progress so far
Pokharel, B.K. 2005. Community forest user groups: institutions to protect democracy and
vehicles for local development. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, Vol 4 (2).
Poudel BC 2006. Contribution of community forestry to sustainable livelihoods: an example of
forest ethics in action. A discussion paper submitted to Mr. David Gritten for the
requirement of the seminar period from January 9th to February 12th, 2006.
Subedi R, Chapagain, N and MacDonald 2005. Community forestry in Dhaulagiri area: An
analysis of some characteristics and trend of the last five years, NUKCFP LFP.
19