NATIONAL 3 -(Spotlight Weekly)

Under Threat

The proposed Forest Act 1993 amendment bill imposes restrictions on the management of community forests

By KESHAB POUDEL

If the proposed amendment bill on community forestry passes in is original form, Nepal's forest sector will see the imposition of centralized ideas worse than those witnessed during the autocratic Panchayat period.

Even during the Panchayat days, policy makers realized the need to involve the community in the area of natural resources management. The realization came after the massive deforestation following the referendum of 1979, when more than one-third of Nepal's forest cover was cleared.

Terai forest : Still sparse

Even today, one can see clear differences between government-managed and community-managed forests in terms of production and protection. The forest managed by the government is declining day by day, while that managed by the community is flourishing.

At a time when forest areas controlled by the government continue to shrink and become unmanageable, the government is desperately making efforts to weaken the successes of community forestry. The recent controversy in Banke and Morang districts underscore the vulnerability of forest areas controlled by the government.

With backing from forest officials, forest products were illegally extracted in those two districts. When there is growing pressure on the government to hand over the forest in the inner terai and Chure areas, the rationale behind the government's intention to place the forest under its control cannot defies comprehension.

"The intention of the government is to gain control of forest products preserved by the community," said Hari Bhattarai, president of the Federation of Community Forestry Users Group. "We will fight till the end to prevent the government from interfering with community forestry."

If parliament passes the proposed Forest Act 1993 amendment bill, Nepal's two-decade-long efforts in successful community forestry will be relegated to history. According to the Community Forestry Division of the Department of Forest, until March 2001 9,874 forest users groups occupied 747,908 hectares of land.

At a time when the government-managed forest is totally on the path to destruction, the proposed amendment will discourage the community in managing the resource. According to the proposed amendment bill, the government gives powers to forest officials to intervene in the decision-making process of users groups to redefine the existing community groups.

Government officials argue that they need certain authority to regularize community forestry. "When the communities' members are exploiting the forest products on their own, we have no alternative to stepping in to prevent them from monopolizing the forest," said a senior official at the Ministry of Forest on condition of anonymity.

Others dispute that contention. They concede that some things may be going wrong in the management of community forests, but insist that the government's heavy hand is not the solution.

According to proposed Clause 2 (da), Community group means a group formed to use and manage the leased forest under Clause 31 (Cha) and users registered under Clause 42. This means the community forest user group has to register itself with the District Forest Office.

Under Clause 2, new sub clauses propose to limit community forestry in the terai and Chure regions and communities would not be allowed to manage forests within demarcated forest areas. The proposed clause defines demarcated forest as forest areas covering 50 hectares of land in the national forest of Terai, Chure and Inner Madhes. This clause limits the right of the community to manage the small portion of community forests in these areas.

The bill also proposes that forests within the terai, Chure and inner Madhes be managed under the guidance and supervision of the government. In the name of community participation, it offers limited opportunity for the local community. The government will seek the support of the community to contain smuggling of forest products, to put out fires and to manage grazing.

For the community, government officials would be empowered to issue a permit allowing them access to national forest areas to cut grass and fell trees freely.

In the sharing of resources, the government has set certain terms. The government will use 25 percent of the resources accumulated through forest management for the development of local communities. Ten percent of the resources would be given to District Development Committees and 15 percent would be allocated to community user groups or Village Development Committees with the concurrence of the forest officer.

In the terai, Chure and Inner Madhes, the government will hand over separate plots outside the demarcated forests. The government will prepare a procedure for the sale of such forests on the basis of annual production.

The forest users groups would have to deposit 40 percent royalty accumulated by selling the forest products in the account of district forest offices.

The bill also has a provision that would not allow community forests in areas adjoining national parks. All forests adjoining protected areas would fall under the control of the national park. Those areas which are handed over before the act comes into force should be handed over within six months to the concerned officials. The government can retake the community forests that do not function properly.

As community forestry is an example in encouraging democratic exercise in the grass-roots level, the intervention of the government would destroy the core democratic philosophy: for the people, by the people and to the people.