Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

Community Forestry And Its Challenges

By DR. RAJ BAHADUR SHRESTHA

Indigenous Forest Management System has historical roots in Nepal. After the nationalization of forests in 1957, this system virtually disappeared, as the government took over the responsibility of administration of national forests. Due to various reasons, the government had to revert to the Indigenous Forest Management System, but with a different name and strategy. In 1978, this management system acquired legal status when the government introduced Community Forestry Program under the framework of Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest Regulations (1978), which were based on the Forest Act (1961). This was indeed a dynamic step taken by the government toward sustainable management of natural forest resources.

The Community Forestry Program has stepped into its third decade. About 854,389 hectares of national forests have been handed over to 1,208,943 households. The success of this new approach to the management of forest resources has been acknowledged within the country and abroad. It has gained popularity among the people as an effective means of protecting and restoring the forest eco-system, particularly in the hilly region. Despite these positive results, the program faces key obstacles.

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the government started handing over patches of national forests to user groups. Since 1996/97, sudden changes were seen in the hand-over process. The trend is now declining. Three reasons have been attributed to the slowdown: decrease in national forest areas available for hand-over; wrong predictions on potential community forest areas; and inefficiency in program administration. The first reason is unacceptable, since 61 percent of total national forest areas are considered as potential community forests. Only about 18 percent of the national forest areas have been handed over to the users groups.

The second reason, too, is unacceptable, unless new projections become available. The third factor is more plausible, because the District Forest Office (DFO) has lowered the target of user-group formation and hand-over of national forests. Now, one DFO handles about 12 to 15 groups annually. If this trend continues, it would take more than 15 years to hand over all potential community forest areas to user groups. Slower hand-over means
often means greater torment for the people.

Irregularities have become a serious problem in community forestry. They occur when user groups deviate from the operation plan and the objectives of community forestry. Besides, if any individual member - ordinary or executive - seeks to advance personal gain, it inevitably harms the entire initiative. Such irregularities can be found everywhere, but more so in the terai. The first such case happened in the Jalbire Women's Forest User Group of Gorkha district. The most controversial case was that of Koidum Forest User Group of Tanahu district. Such anomalies are being published frequently in newspapers. Controlling such irregularities has become a complicated task for the DFO. If the crime is committed in the forest, then the DFO can punish offenders according to its rules and regulations. But the problem emerges when irregularities take place in office management and within the user groups. Moreover, penalizing user groups does not provide a long-term solution.

In recent years, there have been sudden changes in the government's policy on terai forests. The government has clearly mentioned that only scattered and small patches of national forests will be handed over to the people as community forest. The rest would be kept under the block management system regulated by the government. Similarly, Churia forests would be kept under protection regime. This means the Community Forestry Programs in the terai and inner-terai are being run along different strategies.

According to the Local Governance Act (1998) and Regulation (2000), all the natural resources in the village belong to the Village Development Committee (VDC). Similarly, it has clearly mentioned the right of the committee to sell fuelwood, timber, and other products from the forests within its purview. This would lead to confrontation between VDCs and forest user groups in future.

User groups are mobilizing their funds mainly for community development works. For this reason, they need more funds. That can be raised only if they sell timber. User groups, therefore, must convert the present forest into high forest from where large volumes of timber can be harvested for commercial purposes. The main objective of the Community Forestry Program could transform into the commercialization of forest products. It might be then impossible to meet the demands of the poor and deprived members. Besides, user groups cannot sell the products because of inaccessibility and market competition. In accessible areas, wood contractors would extend their grasp to more user groups and corrupt the whole Community Forestry Management system.

Existing challenges like delinquency of disadvantaged groups and women's participation in planning and decision making will persist. Likewise, boundary disputes between private landowners and forest user groups will recur. Accordingly, conflicts may escalate. Members of user group will become more closely affiliated to political parties for patronage, which might put the whole process in jeopardy. Deprived communities would remain far behind in getting benefits from community forests, since elite communities would continue to hold sway. Another key challenge would be in getting technical assistance regularly from the DFO where the number of field staff is static irrespective of number of forest user groups.

Whatever the obstacles and challenges, history has proved that Community Forestry Program is the appropriate approach to managing Nepalese forests properly and effectively. This is not a destination, but rather a milestone. Greater effort needs to be made to reach the destination, since the Community Forestry Program is still fragile. What it required is greater commitment from all sectors to the empowerment of the local people. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to make this program more dynamic so that the poor can attain a better life through sustainable management of forest resources.