NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

‘The People Will Continue To Be Part Of Forest Management’

-- RABI BAHADUR BISTA

RABI BAHADUR BISTA, secretary at the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, has had a long innings in the area of nature conservation. Bista spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues related to the ongoing controversy over community forestry. Excerpts:

How do you assess the ongoing community forestry program?

Community forestry is going on very well and the ministry is whole-heatedly committed to implementing the national community forestry program. We have already said that we want to hand over roughly 3 million hectares of Nepal's forest to local communities by forming users groups. The whole program is going on very smoothly with the commitment of the government and the people's participation.

But some NGOs are accusing the ministry of trying to interfere in forestry programs. How do you see the accusation?

That is not true. Our forestry policy explicitly says, with regard to the community forestry in the hills, that all accessible hill forests will be handed over to the users groups to the extent they are able to use. The policy does not say anything about the low-land forests.

Then what prompted this outcry?

The government has recently outlined the policy statement regarding community forestry in the terai. In the terai, there are many community forestry. Community forestry has been streamlined in the case of low-land forests as well. It has been doing well. Not only that, the whole forest of Nepal at present is one of the resources managed through a participatory approach. So whether we talk of national parks or national forests, Shiwalik forest and community forest, where we have a strong involvement of the people.

What is your experience in the terai in comparison with the hills?

In the hills, forest and settlements are intermingled. So you can rightly say who forms the users group of a particular forest. With regard to the terai, where all forests are accessible and that people are depending on the forest, it is very difficult to identify the users. The forests are only in the north and settlements are on the south. The forests of the terai are important for other reasons -- for regulating the water discharge from the Shiwalik as well as protecting the land of south. We have to protect valuable wildlife like tigers, rhinos and the entire bio-diversity. In the terai, commercial forestry is possible so its utilization needs to be looked from the national perspective.

How do you see the scope for community forestry in the terai?

There is scope for community forestry, but it is not in the manner and style we have envisaged in the hills. In the terai, the community forestry is little modified in the sense that people would continue to receive their requirements, including the income from the forest. We cannot say, as we can in the hills, who the users would be because the resources need to go all the way to the southern areas. That is why the government, through its decision, explicitly spelled out how to manage the forests. First of all, the forest needs to be categorized and the best way to protect and manage it scientifically must be found.

Will the people still be part of forest management?

The people will be made part and parcel of forest management. This means the people will continue to receive fuelwood, fodder and small timber. In addition to all this, we are in the process of distributing the income we get from the forest equally to the VDCs, DDCs and forest management committees. They are better off. We want to implement collaborative forest management in terai.

What was the concept of community forestry when it was introduced two decades ago?

The philosophy of community forestry was developed when there was an influx of people from the hills to the terai. With an aim to stop the migration to terai, policy-makers introduced community forestry to make possible a modest livelihood in hills. So the terai forests were left alone. That is the reason the policy does not say anything about the terai.

Do you mean users groups will not be allowed to cut trees for commercial purposes?

The underlying principle of community forestry is that it provides basic forest products as per the need of the household. It is not the aim of community forestry to cut green trees from national forests and sell them in the market. When the forest is managed in a sustainable way, the community can get the products they need and they may have some surplus. When one group has some surplus, it can definitely go to the market. The market is not considered the primary focus of community forestry. In many areas in the terai, commercial motives have taken precedence. So much so that extensive areas are handed over to the community. Misguided principles have created some confusion. We want to bring some control in the terai. The whole philosophy is not to go commercial.

What is the mode of decision making?

The decision of community forestry should be based on consensus. In the hills, every household gets an equal share. The users group selects the user community that undertakes day-to-day activities and decides on the continuation of community forestry. The effort is to ensure that the task is performed in best democratic traditions. This should also apply to the terai. There is no conflict when it comes to community forests. The other aim is to encourage the community to produce more forests to reduce dependency on government forests.

It is said that frequent changes of forest officers in the terai discourages accountability among the officers. After being transferred they do not have to bear any responsibility even in the case of mismanagement. How do you look at this complaint?

On the whole, the job of any forest officer is difficult because even if a tree is cut in the middle of the night, he is blamed. Forest officials are only custodians but the resource belongs to the people. It is under certain regulatory mechanisms and certain legislation that district forest officers are managing the forests and controlling illegal activities. I was told that one forest officer has to look at the forest of the whole VDCs. It is beyond his means. It is impossible to manage the forest without the cooperation of the people. On the whole, most forest officers are working 12-18 hours. They have their own limitation.

Why has the government-controlled national forest continued to shrink?

Due to uncertainty and deteriorating law-and-order situation, most of our armed guards are not actively employed and engaged. Basically, we have people that does not know what is right and wrong. Our job is just to encourage that everybody obeys the law and maintains order. Forests need to be managed and cut so that they fulfill domestic demand. If possible the products can be exported. We are working to improve the quality of the forests of Nepal as well as to manage it accordingly and to conserve the bio-diversity. We know the basic demands.

The forest is said to be one of the precious resources of the country. How can you prove this when your ministry is itself surviving on a subsidy budget?

It is not true that our ministry is surviving on a subsidy budget. We are one of the most organized sectors. If there were no forests, land would be washed away in the hills and terai. They are also needed for internal security. There will be no water resources if there are no forest. Talk of tourism, we absorb 60 percent of tourists. We support agriculture and we provide 75 percent of the energy requirement of the country. If you look at these in terms of their value, it will be much higher. If it is stock forest, we are unable to harness the resources. First we have to see that our forest is best conserved and preserved. It means they are well used.

What is required to utilize forests for the benefit of the country?

We need to improve the quality and intensity of the forest as well. To that extent, you have to wait another five years. We have 29 percent forest and 10 percent is sub-land or degraded forest. Put together in five years, we can reach 40 percent forest cover with the quality of Europe. Productivity will be four times that of Europe. But now we need a moratorium. So are forbidding the cutting of green trees. We have about 2.8 million cubic feet in leftover of logs .We want to use. In five years time, when the forests will be full of stock, we can talk of utilization of forests. For the time being, a moratorium is the best way.