FORUM (Spotlight Weekly)

‘Local Bodies and Local People Should Be Involved In Forest’

By ESA HURTIG,
Charge d’affaires, Finnish Embassy

Ten years of hard work is done. National forest inventory has been completed. Congratulations to the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and to the Consultant, Finnish Forest and Parks Service. We have at hand a publication, which is one of the most important documents in Nepal this year.

The actual presentation of the Report was made earlier by Director General Mr. Joshi. I will not touch on the actual figures. They are as they are. I will try to present a vision, how these figures are read by a foreigner.

Firstly, I would start by comparing the earlier presented figures to the previous inventory figures. This gives an impression whether the forestry policy has worked well. The inventory shows that Nepal's forest area has gone down from 38 % to 29 % in 16 years; the scrub area has increased in the same proportion; the average mean volume in the remaining forests has increased by some 50 %; and the trees in the existing forests are getting old.

It appears that the forestry policy has not worked as expected. Forest areas have been converted to other land use categories. This has not been a deliberate policy decision. Costs of the deforestation can be characterized by a simple calculation made on my request by the Project Co-ordinator:

If total stem volume of the existing Nepalese reachable forests is monetized using the TCN round log prices, and this is divided by total area of reachable forests, the calculation shows, that the value of an average forest hectare in Nepal is presently 450,000 rupees (= 4.5 lakh rupees). A total of 1.3 million hectares of forest land has been deforested in 16 years between the two last land-use assessments. If the deforested area - 1.3 million hectares - is multiplied by the average stem value of a hectar presented above - 450,000 rupees - , the result is that timber worth 585 billion rupees has been taken out from Nepalese forests in 16 years. If this amount is divided by 16 years, the outcome is, that 36.5 billion rupees (= 3,650 chrore rupees) worth timber has been taken out annually from Nepalese forests. This figure gives the magnitude of the deforested property. This amount is half of the Government budget of 1999 (= 77 billion rupees). In other words, if the logs annually removed from Nepalese forests were sold using the TCN-price list, half of the state budget could have been financed annually by this revenue (36.5 billion rupees). For comparison it may be mentioned, that the Government revenue received annually from forestry has been 1 % of this amount, some 300-400 million rupees.

The yearly harvested logs worth 36.5 billion rupees have not disappeared. They has been utilized by people. The national economists may assess, whether this asset have been utilized wisely, either by investing it in the Nepalese economy, used for private or community consumption, exported or what? And the politicians may assess, whether the benefits of this used wealth of 36.5 billion Rupees annually have been divided between the people in an acceptable manner. One we do know: the public revenue receivable from this public property has been and still is negligible compared to the potential revenue. What does this indicate? For a policy planner it indicates that the the forest management system has not been functioning as it should.

Let's go to another theme in my presentation, visioning. The Inventory provides lots of up-to-date information to the National Planning Commission and Ministry of Forests regarding the status of Nepalese forests. What do the Nepalese forests would look like, lets say, in the year 2010, 10 years from now. Will the forest area be further reduced to 20-22 %? This might be the case, if the deforestation continues at the present or even faster rate. What are the other alternatives? And the needed policy decisisons? Would it be most appropriate to make the toughest decisions: to stop all activities in forests, to close the forests? Or would it be better to start making timely decision on efficiently managing the forests? But how they should be managed? And for who's benefit, central government's, local government's, community's or private benefit? Wouldn't there be reasons to get back to the issues presented some years ago by the Finland-supported Forest Management and Utilization Development Project and Bara-initiative regarding forest management? Those issues are still relevant.

The inventory data indicates, that existing reachable forests, some 2 million hectares, are getting over-mature. And when trees get over-mature, they start developing to rot, which reduces the economic value of the trees. Lots of over-matured forest stands indicate that Nepal has implemented passive forestry management. A common forestry expertise tells, that the forest area will be further reduced, if the past passive management method continues. The local bodies and local people have to be involved in forest management. And the community forestry is not the only way to do this.

But the future will not be easy, even if the steps of active - incentive based and participatory - forestry are followed. There is no scarcity of information regarding this alternative. Lots of informations were, for example, in a separate study named Strategic Guidelines for Forest Utilization financed as part of this Forest Inventory Project. Hopefully the study is utilized, and not only collecting dust in the libraries of Forestry Ministry.

National Forest Inventory Report published today is a piece of national information for policy planning. Several other pieces of information do already exist. I would like to cite a common proverb regarding a horse and carts. The carts are now full of information, but without a horse the carts will not move. The Ministry is like a horse. If the Ministry is not pulling the carts, they may even start rolling backwards, if there is a slight uphill. Consequences of that we do know well. There will be a disaster. In forestry we have lots of uphills, because the question is about politically hectic land property management.

Finally, it is important to say that the future of Nepalese forestry is not necessarily as gloomy as the above presented picture may indicate. Trees and forests are a renewable resource. By good management the value of forests increases, and vice versa, by poor management the value goes down. The only problem is that, if the forests are converted to agricultural land, changing them back to forest land is practically impossible in developing countries. But changing scrub back to forest is very much possible by using appropriate policy measures. Please note, that no foreign funds are needed for that change, only planning and policy decisions. And it is important to see that the stem volume of existing forests has gone up by some 50 % in 16 years. This indicates that forestry - if the management system is developed - can still be very important asset for the Nepalese economy and people in the coming days.

On behalf of the Government of Finland, I would like to thank the Ministry of Forests and its implementation unit - Department of Forest Research and Survey - for good cooperation during the entire 10 year project implementation period. I would like to thank also the project consultant, Finnish Forests and Parks Service, for high-level services offered to Nepal. I remember that before the Finnish Forests and Parks Service started project implementataion in January 1994, the project had difficult times. But under your skilled management the project has now been timely completed for our full satisfaction. Thank you very much for both cooperating partners.

Since the completed National Forest Inventory Project is the only remaining forestry project financed by Finland in Nepal, I would like to thank all Nepalese foresters who have worked with us in past 15 years of our cooperation. We have together completed many important projects, for example, Forestry Master Plan Project, Hill Forest Project, Forest Management and Utilization Development Project, and this Forest Resources Information Systems Project. We have also made important studies, like Sagarnath Study and the well-known Bara-Study. Our common duty has been the provision of information for the decision makers. I feel that this duty we have fulfilled well. I wish all the best to the Ministry of Forests in managing the forest resources of Nepal.