0747-C2
Dil Raj Khanal[1]
The process of community forestry development was legally recognized in Nepal almost ten years ago. In these ten years the Community Forest User Groups and stakeholders involved in the development of community forestry in Nepal have gathered abundant experiences. The processes of community forestry not only enable the people to manage the forest, natural environment and biodiversity, they also prepare them to exercise democracy and governance in the local communities. During this process many issues and challenges have emerged. The paper briefly analyses many of the challenges that community forestry in Nepal is presently facing.
The Kingdom of Nepal covers an area of 147,181 sq. km with predominantly young mountains: some 40 million years old (Jackson, 1994; MOPE, 2001). Nepal can be divided into three broad ecological regions: (1) Mountains, (2) hills and (3) Terai (low land) covering 35%, 42% and 23% respectively of the country's total area (CBS, 1999; MOPE, 2001). The country has a wide variety of climate ranging from subtropical in the south to alpine in the northern mountains due to its varied topography. Nepal is a multiethnic, multilingual and Hindu kingdom (HMG/N, 1990) and caste differentiation is a principal feature of Hindu societies. Nepalese people can be divided to two races: the Tibetan-Nepalese race and the Indo-Nepalese race. Nepal has recognized 59 casts as tribal people (HMG/N, 2001).
Out of total land area of Nepal, forest covers about 29.0% (4.27 million hectare) and shrub covers 10.6% (1.56 million ha). In the whole country, from 1978/79 to 1994, forest area has decreased at an annual rate of 1.7%, whereas forest and shrub together have decreased at an annual rate of 0.5% (DFRS, 1999). But many studies on the CF proved that the area of forest cover is increasing in mid-hill. One study on community forest notes that, the group of VDC with community forestry, high forest area increased by 77%, in comparison with 13% for VDCs without community forest. (Ambika P.Gautam, Edward L. Webb and Apisit Elumnoh, MRD, 2002).
The system of the Community Forest was developed by local communities for the livelihood of present generation and prosperity of the future generation in Nepal. This system was followed by the indigenous or customary practices of the community from ancient period. Local communities initiate continuously to manage their forest as a common property. The contributions of these systems were positive for the management of the forest and beneficial to the communities. The state legally recognized to the communities as user groups and the community forest system in 1993. It is legalized on the Forest Act 1993 and Forest Regulation 1995(HMG/N, 1995). In Nepal, we have long experience of customary practice and at least 15 years statutory exercise about the CF. The foundation of the recent concept and model of the CF process is depend on the local customs of villagers. These customs have been developed by the community to manage the forest and fulfill their basic forest products.
When Nepal adopts concepts of community forestry in all development processes, Nepal can become a country like Switzerland. (Tony Hagen, Himal June- July 1999). Both India and Nepal have community forestry program. And forest bureaucracy too. But the forests are greener on the Nepalese side because communities are given the forest to protect, manage and use. Nepal's "big brother" has a lot to learn from community forestry in the small Himalayan kingdom (Down to Earth Vol.8 No.19 Feb 29, 2000). Another introduction of Nepal is that it is the country of community forestry (Gorkhapatra: A national dally news paper, 8 Feb. 1999,). The diligence of forest user groups of the Kingdom of Nepal and their inter-relation to the forest resources constitutes the foundation for this reflection. The participatory processes envisaged in the MPFS 1998, Forest Act 1993 and Forest Regulations 1995 play an equally important role in this achievement. The Third National Workshop on Community Forestry held in 1997 has developed a clear vision of community forestry with the slogan of "Community forestry for everybody forever"(HMG/N, 1998). Following are some significant achievements associated to community forestry in Nepal.
Now in Nepal 11,860 CFUGs are managing 932,914 hector forest as community forest, where 1,312,064 households are involving (MIS, 2003). Denuded terrains of past decades clearly evidence that community forestry initiatives have contributed to greening of the hills and the plains and associated environmental amelioration. Not only can greening be seen, there are many instances that wildlife population is increasing and led to wildlife depredation problems among the farmers and surrounding residents. There are improvements in landslide prone areas as well (K. shrestha, 2001). There are marked improvements in the condition of handed over forests of the Terai region.
People's participation is an essential condition in community forestry that enhances the proper development and utilization of forests and the forest products. Wherever there is broader participation, there is a good record of community forest management and substantial increase in forest production. These can be seen throughout the country. Community forestry has materialized the people's participation in real terms and with certain exceptions there is a good use of the approach.
Community forestry approach in essence adopts participatory exercises since its inception right from the constitution of the forest user groups. Such practice is adopted during the development of the constitution and the community forestry work plans. In user groups that adopt participatory democratic approaches minor conflicts and differences have been reducing. Community forestry is established as a means to sustainable forest management.
Community forestry processes involve the disadvantaged factions of the communities since the formation of user groups and the views and concerns of such people are appropriately adjusted in the community forest work plan and user group constitution. To ensure this, they are encouraged to participate in all meeting and gathering associated to the process. These factions of the communities also learn their equal rights and associated responsibilities through deliberations in the mass meetings. Even if there is further scope of enhancing their meaningful participation, community forestry is the leading one that respects the values and concerns of such people (J. Grosen 2001).
The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector has adopted to balance the interests of both men and women. It is therefore emphasized that there should be equal access of men and women in decision making processes. There is greater evidence of increased women participation in community forestry processes. With respect to the collection and use of forest products women members are naturally more concerned in the management of forest resources. There are additional evidences that community forests managed solely by the women members are further good. Women are increasingly participating in user groups meetings and women members in the local bodies have contributed further to enhancement of community forestry. (P. Bird, 2001)
Community forest user groups are gradually involved in other infrastructure developments to benefit the communities. With the incomes raised through community forestry, the groups are making financial contributions to drinking water or in the construction of schools, health posts, roads, temples, dams, etc. and also have contributed to pay salaries to locally recruited school teachers. There are examples communities have been able to community development at minimal costs. In these cases, the user groups themselves prioritize and plan the development activities.
Local communities themselves are the major contributors of the community forestry management program. Despite that the role of donor agencies is also significant in community forest program. The master plane of the forest sector is allocates 46% budget to the community forestry program. Few funding agencies such as; DFID (1993-2000), USAID (1996-2002), Danida (1999-2002), USAid (1997-2002), GTZ (1998-2001) and SDC (1996-2000) respectively are funding US$ 11 million, US$ 8.8 million, US$ 6 million, US$ 6.2 million, US$ 2.7 million and US$ 2.7 million (Report of the Joint Technical Review Committee of CF, Feb. 2001). By this process, now the community forestry program is being donor depend program.
Upon transfer of ownership of forests to the communities, there have been positive indications in the livelihoods and socioeconomic development of the communities. Being based on democratic values and socioeconomic equity community forestry led to greater public awareness and enhanced community control over maneuvering of the forestlands. This has been uncomfortable to forestry officials. Some influential officials within the MoFSC initiated processes to gradually cut off rights earlier vested to the communities. For instance, the right to penalize committee members of user groups has been taken back. Now there have been attempts to further cut off user group rights that jeopardizes community forestry concepts. Some of the attempts made against concepts of community forestry follow:
User groups themselves were mandated to penalizing committee members of the respective groups whenever they are found involved in forest offenses. With the first amendment in Forest Act in 1998, this provision was deviated and the right to penalize committee members is also vested to the district forest officer. It could be noted that the amendment process proceeded in an improper manner even with opposition of the civil society (NHDR, 2001).
MoFSC and the DoF both have time to time issued certain orders that discourage and harass the communities in their regular businesses. Mostly these orders contradict the prevailing regulatory provisions and petitions against them are under consideration in the Supreme Court. Recommendations of the Parliamentary committees are neglected, whereas illegitimate orders are instantly implemented. Such moves of government authorities are strongly opposed at the local levels.
In May 2000 the Council of Ministers passed a conceptual framework that was developed through singularly perspectives. This involves a seven-point decision that mostly oppositely relate to community forestry. Out of the decisions, the seventh decision intends to collect 40% incomes of selling the timber for the commercial purpose of the user groups as government royalty (HMG/N, 2000). It is in one hand illegal given the existing regulatory provisions, and on the other negatively affects the speed of community forestry activities.
In January 2000, the Department of Forests made an amendment on Community Forestry directive to introduce the provision of inventory and these provisions were also applied to community forests that were earlier handed over (MoFSC, 2000). Community forests with terms terminated and those without inventory of growing stock were taken back. This marks a conspiracy to take back community forests.
Generally Operational Plan for the CF is made for five years but it is not well mentioned in the Forest Act in any form. Half of the operational plan of CF is seem to be over by now. Although to some extend it is technical and is largely depends on the social policy on constituting the operational plan of CF. But the Inventory Guideline made to inventory the resources in making CF operational plan in Nepal is technically complicated which even the technician themselves can not go along with it and therefore it is making burden on Local Communities (H. ojha, 2002). Having it unable to amend it has created a dilemma for the simplification of the Inventory Guideline is at the high rate.
All the Nepalese who are related with the forest area all over the country are governed with the rights to manage their community forest by the forest act of Nepal. It is natural to have this kind of management under the equal constitutional rights that all the Nepalese share. Under this constitutional provision and Forest Act rights local communities began to manage the forest area as community forestry. But the forest administration of Nepal does not seem to agree to handover terai (Plain area) and high altitude forest area as a community forest, expect the middle range forest. These terai and high range forest areas are of great important because of its valuable timber and medicinal & aromatic herbs respectively. On one hand, the demand of community forestry by the local community is at large stake in these areas but on the other hand the forest administration is not willing to handover as such. As a result the conflict between forest administrant and local communities is taking place (Pokheral, 2001). One of the prime reasons behind the reluctance to handing over of such forests to maintain control over the resources and to perpetuate the source (Khanal, 1998).
There is great consensus between different stakeholders on the CF program in the hill. But there are different contradictory perspectives on CF program in the plain area. Based on the available literatures, there are six different perspectives that can be identified as model of forest management in the plain area. First perspective is local community should manage the Terai forest and second is the government should manage the Terai forest. Perspective third is both community and government should manage the Terai forest in collaboration and perspective forth is extension of the current protected area to adjacent remaining forest of Terai and Inner-terai. Perspective five is wise utilization of matured forest of Terai and gradual conservation of the existing degraded Terai forest into agriculture land and sixth perspective is further experience should be gained through pilot studies before choosing best perspective or models (Pokheral, 2001). But the experiences and the initiation of local communities show that the community forest user groups are the best manager of the lowland (Terai) forest in Nepal.
There are many valuable Eco-regions in Nepal, which are well recognized by the word. These regions are known to be important for the conservation of bio-diversity and for grassing. Although these regions need to be conserved and the issue arises on how it should be done. As per the experience of CF it would be well managed if it comes to the under of community forestry. The government wants to keep these areas under its strict control and management declaring it as Protected Area. At present these forests are been conserved and managed by the community forestry and it should continue. On this regard the conflict is created between the local communities and the Forest administration.
The poor people contribute to amelioration of environment through conservation of forests or planting of barren lands, yet the same people are blamed as threats to forests, environment or biodiversity (Poudel, 2002). Nine National Parks, three wildlife reserves, one hunting reserve, three conservation areas and five buffer zones cover around 26,666 sq. km of land, constituting 18.33% of Nepal's total area (DNPWC, 2001). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 has been amended four times, and there are three regulations made under the Act to make arrangements more conducive to fulfilling vested interests of concerned authorities. Now the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) has been prepared and declared in a similar line.
Nepal is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in 1992 and is required to develop a framework of policy, laws and programs towards conservation of biological diversity. In order for developing and implementing such policies, regulations and programs, they are required to be amenable to foster effective participation of local communities and be based on good governance (including items such as transparency, legitimacy and accountability). The convention has also paved way for developing a legal framework to ensure ownership of local communities in the conservation of biological diversity. However, NBS prepared without proper consultation process and against the interests and welfare of the community forest user groups. But, the forest administration claming that it was prepared with wider consultation (NBS, 2002).
Now the HMG/N is going to implement the 10th plan. According to the evaluation of NPC, CF development program is one of the successful programs in Nepal from last 10 years. But now the government is trying to implement Collaborative Forest Management program in the Terai region and this concept is included in 10th plan (HMG/N, 2002). There is no any clarity about these kinds of forest management system in any policy and legal document in Nepal. It will also create challenge to CF process in the Terai. So the Forest Communities of the Terai region are not satisfied with this kind of concept.
The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation once made attempts to lease a dense and vast forestland of the Terai, Inner Terai and the Siwaliks to foreign companies. It was started in the district of Bara, whereas there are government-sponsored Operational Forest Management Plans (OFMP) in other districts of the region. Such leasing was strongly opposed by local communities and the civil society and therefore dropped (N kaji shrestha & C. Britt, 1997). After that attempts are underway to constrain community forestry and cut off user group rights.
A democratic government is supposed to recognize the processes of decentralization and democratization adopted in community forestry processes. Whatever amounts of resources investments made to forest management, it is unlikely to be sustainable unless there are mechanisms of democratic processes, good governance, rule of law and meaningful people's participation.
There has been tremendous success and gain in the process of CF policy though having many issues. This success indicates that this CF policy should be the Guidelines for the sustainable development of Nepal and its poverty elimination program. It has also been proved as well that the CF policy is the right system in conservation of Forest, Environment and The Bio-diversity. Therefore, there is the need of solving the issues step by step by all the partners coming together to put forth the process of CF policy.
Ambika P.Gautam, Edward L. Webb and Apisit Elumnoh, 2002, GIS Assessment of Land Use Cover Changes Associated With Community Forestry Implementation in the Middle Hills of Nepal, Mountain Research and Development, Berne, Switzerland, P.68
FECOFUN (2001), Souvenir (Smarika) of Federation of Community Forestry users, Nepal, Kathamandu, Nepal.
HMG/N, 2001, State of the Environment Nepal (Agriculture and Forest), Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal, P.7-10.
HMG/N, 1990, The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, Law Books Management Board, Kathamandu, Nepal, P. 3.
HMG/N, 2001, National Population Census, 2001, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal P.2.
HMG/N, 1999, Forest Resources of Nepal, (1987-1998), Department of Forest Research and Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal. P.9.
HMG/N, 1993, Forest Act 1993, (Nepal Gazette) Vol. 42 No. 55(E) 2049 (1993), Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, Kathmandu, Nepal, P.2
HMG/N, 1988, Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal, Main Report 1988, HMG/Asian Development Bank/Finnish International Development Agency, Kathmandu, Nepal, P.93.
HMG/N, 2002, Tenth Five Years Pan (draft), 2002-2007, National Planning commission, Kathmandu. Nepal,
HMG/N, 2001, Annual report, 2000-2001, Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathamndu, Nepal,
J. Grosen, 2001, Policy and Legal Issues: in community Forestry in Nepal: Proceeding of the Workshop on Community Based Resource Management, Nov. 20-22,2000, P.170, Joint Technical Review Committee, Kathmandu, Nepal.
J.K. Jackson, 1994. Manual of afforestation in Nepal, Volume 1, Kathmandu, Nepal, Forest Research and Survey Center, 2nd edition. 5 p.
Khanal, D.R. 1999, Rhetoric and Reality of Community Forestry in the Terai: A Study Report (in Nepal), FECOFUN, Kathmandu, Nepal.
K. shrestha, 2001, Protection Vs. Active Management of Community Forestry: in community Forestry in Nepal: Proceeding of the Workshop on Community Based Resource Management, Nov. 20-22,2000, P.170, Joint Technical Review Committee, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nepal Human Development Report, 2001, Poverty Reduction and Governance, United Nation Development Program, Kathmandu, Nepal, P.105.
Pokherl B.K., 2001, Community Forestry Management Issue in the Terai: in community Forestry in Nepal: Proceeding of the Workshop on Community Based Resource Management, Nov. 20-22,2000, P.170, Joint Technical Review Committee, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Poudel, N.S., 2002, Integrating People and Nature: A Perspective for Environmental Conservation and Livelihoods in the Context of Nepal, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, Forest Action, Kathmandu, Nepal, P.62-66
P. Bird, 2001, Livelihoods, Equity and Gender Issues in Community Forestry: Gaining Perspective on Poverty in community Forestry in Nepal: Proceeding of the Workshop on Community Based Resource Management, Nov. 20-22,2000, P.170, Joint Technical Review Committee, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Richard Mahaptra, 2000, Community Forestry Management: The Nepales Experience, Down to Earth Vol.8 No.19 Feb 29, 2000, India. P.31-45.
Shrestha N. kaji & C. Britt, 1997, Another 'Balanced Overview' An equation with more money, Forest Trees and People, NEWESLETTER, No.32/33, February 1997, P. 34-37.
| [1] Federation of Community
Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN), G.P.O. Box: 8219, Kathamandu, Nepal. Email:
[email protected] |