|
|||
|
|
|||
|
COMMUNITY FORESTRY |
Government Vs Community As Nepal celebrated World Environment day stressing for clean atmosphere, the two decisions - suspending the registration of electric vehicles and intervening in the management of community forestry - have put the intentions and commitments of the government under question mark. When Nepal's participatory forest management system has been well recognized throughout the world as the successful people-oriented project, the recent government decision allowing District Forest Offices to have more say in the management of community forest has sent shock-waves among the users' groups By KESHAB POUDEL Nhuchhe Krishna Shrestha, 60, of Aryabhanjyang Village Development Committee of Palpa district - 500 kilometers west of Kathmandu -has witnessed the resurgence of otherwise disappearing forest in his village.
Shrestha one of the consumers of Raniban community forest had never imagined that the forest near his village could recover in such a short time. For the last ten years, he along with his community users group has been able to regenerate trees in 24 hectares of barren land. The green forest is not the result of few days work but that of the continuous hard work and commitment. "Twenty years ago forest was owned by the government and cutting trees was illegal. Now it is handed over to us and it is our responsibility to preserve and protect them," said Shrestha. District Forest Office at Palpa handed over the dwindling forest to the Raniban Users group in 1993 according to the community forestry act 1993. The act defines forest users group (FUG) - the grass root level organization formed to manage forest handed over to them by the government - as an autonomous and corporate body. While FUG operates like an autonomous body, the District Forest Office facilitates the functioning of the FUG and gives technical assistance if needed. (See Box) Thereafter, the villagers adopted rules and regulations set by their FUG comprising the traditional forest users. According to the act, FUG comprises households using or dependent on forest resources. They are identified by the District Forest Officers after house to house survey to check their dependence on the forest. Once the users' group is identified, it charts its own constitution and a five year plan for the management and protection of the forest. For the 200-member households living in Pragati Nagar users group in Lekhnath Municipality in Kaski district 200 kilometer west of Kathmandu, the community forestry brought prosperity to their villages. "Due to continuous supply of fodder from community forest, we small farmers are able to increase the milk production," said Shankar Bahadur K.C, one of the consumers. From Palpa to Kaski, the Community Forestry Management Group (CFMG) has increased the area of green cover all over the country. There is a big difference in the past and the present as most of the denuded forest areas are now turning greener and the users group have surplus fuel-wood and fodder. "The forest provides us with what we want," said Som Bahadur Karki, of Aryabhanjyang VDC. Some forest users groups are so rich that they are even running public schools and drinking water projects on their own. The money collected through the sale of surplus wood is used in small irrigation and building trails in the hills. The FUG also spends some money towards the management of the forest. In most cases, FUGs ask local people to take care of the forest management themselves to save money. In terai, though the areas covered by the users group are small in comparison to hills, some user groups are so rich that they accumulate more revenue than the range-post of District Forest Offices. That is why the present dispute on the sharing of resources has appeared. Unlike government protected forest, most of the forests managed by the community are opened for one month in a whole year, during which time local users are allowed access to collect fuelwood. Forest officials argue that when user groups close their forest local community fulfill their necessities by collecting fodder and fuelwood from nearby government forests in terai. Due to the active participation of people, new life has been injected into the disappearing forests in the country. Thousands of user groups have been protecting, managing and using the forests of the hills and terai. The story of government controlled forest in terai is different as the government forest is mismanaged and uncontrolled. From human encroachment to illegal timber trade, government forest is heaven for all. Past experiences have also shown that the forest is safe when it is under the management of the community. The government monopoly of the forest continued till 1978 when the World Bank Report predicted absolute deforestation in the hills by 1993 and in terai by 2000. It was then that the policy makers woke up to the problems of deforestation. Keeping all this in mind, the government first introduced the Panchayat Forest Regulation and Panchayat Protected Forest Regulation which limited the role of DFO to the technical assistance. When the concept Panchayat managing was not effective, the new concept of FUGs was brought out. The nearly two decade long efforts of community managed forestry program faced a jolt when the government took new decision recently. The recent cabinet decision allows forest rangers to prohibit the users' groups from entering their own forests. The government decision, critics say, has suddenly reversed the situation bad. The decision, defends Aftab Alam, minister of state for Forest and Soil Conservation, is aimed at terai region where the FUGs are felling young Sal trees for commercial purposes. "It is not applicable to the hills." The terai has remained unsuccessful area for community forest. As the CFMG program enters the seventh year, the success in the hills is overshadowed by the failure in the terai. Terai forest, which accounts for 35 percent of the total forests area in Nepal, is yet to have real benefit of the concept. The government is always reluctant to hand over the forest to the communities. Of the 9091 FUGs in the country, 19 terai districts account for only 214 and occupies 33,880 hectares of land with 76,543 households involved. It seems that the government wants to wrest control of forests in terai. "As long as the nexus between forest mafia and politicians continues to exist, communities will not be allowed to manage the forest," said Hari Prasad Neupane, President of Federation of Community Forest Users Groups of Nepal (FECOFON) (see box). The policy makers are reluctant to hand over the forest to the users group in terai since it can be exploited for the political gain. "After successful experiment in terai, jealous forest bureaucrats instigated politicians to take the decision to control the forest," said Neupane. "After forest bureaucrats saw green trees flourishing within community forests in terai, they started campaign to discredit us." Following the government's decision, group of donors has already expressed concern over the intentions. As the community forestry program enters twenty years of implementation, it is threatened by the attitude of the same set of officials who initiated it. A recent cabinet decision, though the government officials claim as "just timely policy", has sent shock waves in the country whether the community forest will continue to be allowed under community control thereby making people to be the master of their own resources? Equally, the Local Self Governance Act is also threatening the spirit of community forestry. All former forest ministers in the last five years favor to keep the forest in terai under their own grip. They justify their argument citing some cases of misuse of forest by user groups. From Moti Prasad Pahadi, Rameswor Raya, Ananda Prasad Dhungana, Siddha Raj Ojha, Mahanta Thakur and present forest minister, all of them have one voice regarding the issue. "Government should retain the forest in terai" said former minister for forest and soil conservation and present MP Ananda Prasad Dhungana. "In hilly areas, they are highly successful but in Chure region it has failed." Officials argue that users group in hills need not worry about the decision. "It is the best decision. People will continue to get the fuelwood and fodder and DDCs and VDCs will get the resources," said Rabi Bahadur Bista, secretary at Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. "I am certain that if this decision is fully implemented, the forest in terai will regenerate." Consumers, however, see the decision to be against the spirit of the act and taken to control the community forest. "The new decision is the conspiracy of forest bureaucrats who want to control the wealth of people," said Shyam Thapa, member of Charpala consumer group of Rupandehi district. "No body can grab the sovereign rights of the people." Surprisingly, without presenting the report of joint technical review committees which include donors' representatives, the government took the major decision on community forestry. "The major policy reform came before the policy review process was completed," said an expert. With improved management, the production of forests has increased and there is no longer a shortage of essential forest products where the forest is run by users group. The encroachment of forest land, too, has diminished. "The new policy decision will help distribute the forest products equally among all the traditional user groups in terai," argues secretary Bista. The recent shift in government policy has created confusion. For the last two decades, community forest has remained a major forestry program of Nepal. About 47 percent of the total forestry budget is allocated for community and private forestry. According to a study, 61 percent of the total forests of Nepal are potential for community forests, in which 15 percent have so far been handed over to the communities. The success in the hills has earned a lot of international recognition also. Earning of forest has increased many folds over the years. According to a study, Nepal's shrublands and grasslands are being converted to more productive categories of forest land. The report shows forests in the hilly districts have increased immensely by average 3 percent. According to a study by Nepal Australia Community Research Management Project (NACRMP), in 1988-99, the five FUGs earned $34,445 (NRs. 1.6 million rupees) and generated employment worth $6,571. The villagers can sell the forest produce and spend the money on community activities without tax liability. On the one hand the government is forbidding community to collect fuel wood but on the other hand 500 hectares of forest of Sarnath area was handed over to an industry belonging to Golchha organization. Unlike national forests, it is not easy to cut trees in community forests. Like in Sarnath, only a one stroke of pen is enough to hand over such government forest. In all community forests, villagers are much concerned about their forest products. This is the reason they themselves guard the forests. Even in terai, the community managed forests are growing fast. But, the problem with them is how the distribution to all community members be managed. As the areas of terai community forests are larger than hills, there is always a conflicting situation while distributing the resources said experts. Many forest areas were highly denuded before they were handed over to the communities in hills and plains. The community forests are today appreciated for their high density. The difference between government and community forests now is the rate of growth. While government forests still face deforestation, community forests are becoming denser by the day. Admits K.B. Shrestha, director of community and private forest Division at the Department of Forest. "Community forests are dense and regeneration is very high. In case of terai, community are destroying the nearby government forest to retain their own." Lele Ban FUG of Lalitpur district has been selling trees to hotels in Kathmandu every year. The money earned thus is used for village development like repairing schools and supplying drinking water. Some users groups are even supporting the government schools. Kakitar Village of Lalitpur district has spent $ 2044 for irrigation purposes and getting potable water. In many places community-protected forests are yet to deliver economic returns but the trend is very positive. The forests are reaching harvesting stage in some villages and FUGs are already planning how to spend the money earned from the sale of timber and other forest products. FUGs are becoming the hub of community activities and are also setting the development and other agendas of the villages. One of the main achievements of the community forest management is that it injects the sense of ownership over the resources. The User Group bank accounts have increased and like forest owners in other countries they are earning good amount of money. Surplus funds from forestry activities have helped develop the local community with a new school here and a new bridge there. Community forest management is practiced in 74 districts. The forest land under forest user groups is 621,942 hectares. The government is considering to hand over an estimated 3,561,600 hectors of forest - 61 percent of Nepal's total forest area to the people. Not only Pragarti Nagar, Lele and Aryabhanjyang, the people of village of different districts see a great future ahead of them. Famous for the management of community forest, Madan Pokhara is now a densely-forested hill. Few years ago the place was completely denuded. The distribution of forest system is quite efficient and the verification process is also strong. If any member wants wood to build house, he has to apply to the committee. After the verification by the committee, the person is allowed to cut tree. Sustainable management is one of the important characteristics of the community forest. The harvesting is also done in a sustainable manner in all community forests. In Pragati Nagar, for instance, the FUG has divided the forest into five blocks. "The FUG decides which should be harvested and which one need plantation depending on the rate of generation," says Dadhi Kandel, assistant forest officer of Kaski district. With the regeneration of forest, birds and wild animals like leopard have been spotted in the forest areas of Kaski district and elsewhere. "We see leopards frequently in the forest areas," said a local resident. "Local people are very scared of the leopard as they sometimes kill our cattle." Kaski and Palpa are two examples of community forest movement in Nepal. On the face of rapid deforestation, the Nepalese government had handed over all accessible forest, irrespective of political and administrative boundaries - to traditional forest-users for their protection and management. The relation between people and forest broke after the introduction of Private Forest Act 1957. This gives absolute forest right to the government and alienated the local community from forest. The present community and private forestry sector policy are based on the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector. Approved by the government in April 1989, the master plan strongly advocates the participation of communities in forest management. If the government decision is not changed, the future of novel concept which is based on the principle for the people, of the people and by the people is under threat. The Recent Controversial Govt Decision In the Terai Community forest 40 percent of the resources generated will be owned by the government and only the rest 60 percent be handed over to the community. The 25 percent of the whole resources generated through the forest should be handed over for the community development. This is not for particular user group. The government will not hand over the dense forest. It will only hand over the sparsely forested land to the users in small patches. What is Forest User Group (FUG)
6. It has a fund of its own, can get grants from the government and other sources. However, it is mandatory for the FUGs to spend at least 25 percent of the funds on forestry development. The rest can be spent on other community activities. ‘The Government's Decision Will Strengthen Users Groups’ — K. B. Shrestha
K.B. Shrestha, Deputy Director at the Department of Forest, has a long experience in the community forest development. Shrestha spoke to SPOTLIGHT on the recent development in community forestry. Excerpts: How do you see the present state of community forestry? Well, it is going very well as the concept of community forestry is not a new one but an improved version of indigenous management system that prevailed for a long time in the hilly regions of the country. Earlier forest policies of the government portrayed the forests as national property. But the current forest policy considers forest also as the property of communities. Is the recent government decision not against the spirit of community forestry? The forest act has recognized the Forest Users Group as a social institution and legal entity. One cannot change their status. The recent decision of the government is taken to strengthen FUGs and their role in conservation efforts. The decision has nothing to do with the community forestry in the hill region. Then, why are some of the users groups criticizing the decision? I don't understand their arguments. As you know, the loyalty of such groups is more towards politics than the communities. Whenever the government takes any decision, they will criticize us. I think it is their ritual to criticize. How do you see the development of community forestry in the Terai? There are two models in the terai whereas the hills have only one model. In the terai, USAID and GTZ are taking up the projects. The donors community have certain reservation over the decision but we have made clear that it will not be applicable to terai. Then why are communities speaking against the recent decision? People should disagree with us since they have been enjoying large areas of resources on their own. Do people need such a large number of forest areas as community forest is a matter of concern. People will definitely be happy if they get the forest. The question is do they need 2000-4000 hectares of forest? The objective of community forestry is not to accumulate money by selling the forest products. One of the aims of community forestry is to fulfil the basic needs of the people. According to our master plan, communities are allowed to operate the community forestry in the hills and government managed forest in the terai. In the terai, the master plan suggest for the production forests. We now want to manage the forest through the participation of the people. We will provide patches of forest which people will manage. We have been engaging in the community forest in the terai for the last 20 years. Why did the World Bank pull out from the community forestry project two years back? At a time when we have been getting bilateral support from different organizations, there is no question to go for loan. We approached the World Bank to get support for government managed forests in the terai which generates resources. World Bank withdrew when we failed to fulfill conditions put forth by them. We were allowed to manage forests in Bara and it could have been a model for the country. People and NGOs opposed the project which was finally withdrawn. ‘The Decision Is Against The Spirit Of Community Forestry’ — Hari Prasad Neupane
HARI PRASAD NEUPANE, President of Federation of Community Forest Users' Nepal (FECOFUN), claims that the aim of his organization is to protect the rights of the community forest users. Neupane spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issues regarding the right of community forest users. Excerpts: How do you see the latest cabinet decision on the community forest? It is against the spirit of community forestry in the country. We have already opposed the decision. The present policies prepared by the government are against the forest act. The clause 43 of Forest Act clearly explains the role of community and community forestry but the recent policies of the government define the community forestry differently. How can a decision of the cabinet contradict the clause of the act? There are certain ways to amend the act. Cabinet cannot amend the act nor can it interpret it on its own. What is the decision all about? The decision authorizes district forest office to enter into the community forests and intervene in the affairs of the community. Even the government is trying to create misunderstanding between the community forest users groups and local VDCs by allowing the share of community forests to the VDCs. FECOFUN will carry out the programs to protect the rights of 4000 members and other user groups. If the government does not withdraw its new policy, what will your organization do? We will take all necessary steps to press the government including demonstration and other means. Our one point demand now is that the government must withdraw the decision. After the decision by the government, all 4000 users group are now very much worried. Government officials argue that they need some kind of authority to prevent disputes. Do you agree? I don't think such situation ever arises as the community groups are set up from the local community. There is a certain process to choose the committee. It is an argument intended to cover up their malafide intention. The disputes will appear only in those forest areas which are run by some individuals with the backing of District Forest Offices. Larger the community's involvement better the management. How do you see the role of government in preserving forest areas? Everyone knows what the condition of forests were when it was under the government. Now, from Terai to hills, one can see dense forests only in those areas where it is under the management of the community. In the last 10 years, participation of the community has changed the overall status of forest areas in the country. How do you see the distribution of resources in the community? The community distributes forest resources according to their own decisions. There is no question of unequal distribution in the community forest. The Local Self Governance Act 1999 has already declared that the local resources including forest areas fall under the VDCs and DDCs. Is it not disputable? The community members are set up under the Forest Act and they are also the members of concerned VDCs. Since the local people elect their representatives of VDCs, how can they declare that they are different? I don't think there is anything to dispute. It is also accused that your organization is politically motivated. How do you look at it? This is just the propaganda of officials at the Department of Forest to discredit us. The organization has members in 65 districts and we do not allow anyone to follow ideals of particular political party. But one of your senior vice president recently resigned charging that you were promoting ideas of a particular political party? Some people are always bent on destroying the organization. One of my vice presidents did it in Gorkha when we were holding the convention. Frankly speaking, I am not even an ordinary member of the party. What is the financial source of your organization? We largely depend on membership fees and some donations from INGOs. ‘There Is No Alternative To Community Forest’ — Amrit Lal Joshi
Amrit Lal Joshi is one of the experts of community forestry programs in Nepal. A former first class forest officer at the Ministry of Forest, Joshi has long been associated with the community forest programs. Joshi is now a technical adviser to the Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Program HMG\DANIDA. Excerpts: How do you see the community forestry program? It was started nearly two decades ago by the government but the practice was followed by the people long before the formal announcement. One of the visible changes in the community forestry in the last one decade is that it is now also a source of income to the rural people. After the implementation of community forest programs, people have started plantation and preservation of the natural forest. In most parts of the country, the forests are now covered with green trees. Forest is now a part of local community. The new act also authorizes the community to reap benefits from their own forests. If the program was so successful, what prompted the officials to intervene then? The people in the center are now jealous because the community is making money from forests. The policy-makers do not recognize the hard labor of the community who have spent such a long time in the area of community forest development. All policy makers just look at the forests in terms of income. No body cares about the labor and hardship of the people who have sacrificed a lot to regenerate forests. Who is responsible for the success of community forest? Unfortunately, we forget the contribution of the community who have turned the country into a green place. Nepal's community forestry is today one of the examples for the world. No one sees the contribution of community forestry in preventing land-slides, flood and regeneration of watershed. Why does the government want to interfere? The only thing the authorities now seem to notice is the amount of resources generated by the communities. An interesting part is that, political leaders always appreciate this because there is the involvement of the community. The new government decision allowing District Forest Offices to have more say in the affairs of community forestry has created more confusion regarding the shares/distribution pattern of the community forestry. How do you see the future of present policy? We know the failure of joint forest management system in India. If our authorities want to repeat similar mistakes, that could be disastrous for forest management. In the last ten years, we have made many positive changes in forestry sector. If government makes any effort to intervene in the community forestry, that could negate the changes. What is the reason behind frequent changes in policies? The policies are introduced in order to bring positive signs but we fail to clear our intentions. We always seem to be in mist about what needs to be done. Is there any alternative to the community forestry? There is no alternative to it. We had a long experience of government managed forests and its implications in the forest. People should be allowed to take care of their own resources. |
Coverstory
| Safa
Tempos | Thai
Airways | Propaganda | Interview
| Economy |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
