Cover Story (Spotlight Weekly)

COMMUNITY FORESTRY
Uncertain Future

Thanks to financial and technical support from donor communities and the joint participation of government and local communities, Nepal's forested areas, which were on the verge of extinction, have revived. They should be held up as a model project to the world. However, despite its success the project now faces renewed uncertainty following the government's decision to impose additional taxes on resources generated by user groups. Despite intense pressure from forest user groups, donor countries and environmental activists, the government refuses to withdraw the additional taxes it has imposed upon user groups. Even if the government were to revoke its decision, it would take decades to rebuild the confidence among people in community-managed forests.

By KESHAB POUDEL

Lele Village, 10 kilometres south of Kathmandu is in itself a community-managed forest success story. Swept away by a flash flood in 1987, the village of Lele was transformed by its inhabitants from a naked mountainside to a green forestry community.

Protected by their own efforts as well as technical support from the District Forest Office, the villagers were shocked when a ranger from the District Forest Office informed them in the first week of August that they have now to share 40 per cent of the annual income generated from the sales of forest products with the government.

This information prompted the villagers to call an emergency meeting. The user group was already in the habit of holding meetings to discuss the issues related to utilization and sharing of their forest as well as budgetary issues, but this meeting was different. The meeting was tense for every minute of the three hours it lasted. Community members were so frustrated and desperate that some members even proposed to destroy the forest.

Lele is not the only village to have called such a meeting; many other villages have done the same thing with a view to discussing ways of preventing the government from intervening in forest management.

Shocked by the government's decision, the Federation of Community Forestry Users' group Nepal (FECOFUN), an umbrella organization of community forestry user groups, summoned another consultative meeting on 22 August 2002 in Kathmandu to decide what steps needed to be taken in case the government did not back down from its position.

Over 60 stakeholders from different parts of the country took part. User group members vowed that they would defy the government's order and take any actions required to prevent the intervention. Some members, disturbed by the frequent interventions of the government, put forth more radical views and demanded that all trees be destroyed before the forest was handed over to the government. They also proposed to launch an agitation, violent if necessary, to assert their inherent rights. However, the majority of the speakers stressed the need to take more cautious, sober measures to protest against the government.

The two-day consultative meeting declared that the imposition of a 40 per cent tax was ëagainst the spirit of the constitution', the law and by-laws, and called for the removal of the tax as soon as possible.

"If the government will not listen to our peaceful protest, we will bring our members to the streets of the capital," said Bhim Prasad Shrestha, president of the FECOFUN." We have already conveyed this message to the prime minister and other officials concerned."

With the restoration of multi-party democracy and representative and accountable government at a local and central level, the community forestry user group concept was introduced. The programme was widely received and popular.

Like political institutions, the concept of user groups is also based on the concept of ìby the people, of the people and to the peopleî, a democratic attitude to the sharing of resources. Supported by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Denmark, the institution of community forestry groups has evolved through different phases. From Panchayat-managed forests to community-managed forests, the structure of the institution has evolved through laws and by-laws.

The current structure of community forestry and user groups also accommodates the traditional pattern of resources conservation and preservation. Since the government has had merely a supervisory role, the local communities are made responsible for preservation and resource mobilization.

In the past frequent efforts have been made to place many restrictions and limitations on the forest but only the user groups were able to implement such moves.

Source of Conflict

The conflict appears when the District Forest Offices find they have a negligible role in managing the country's forests. Traditionally, the government holds the view that the forest is its main resource and that it is the state's responsibility to control it. Despite the introduction of new liberal concepts, this view has not changed so there remains the problem of adjustments. This conflict of adjustments often surfaces in one way or other. The Forestry Act was passed when government bureaucracy was weak. As soon as it finds itself in a strong position, it tries to intervene in the process.

With the dismissal of the Deuba government and the expiry of tenure of local bodies, there is a lack of representatives and accountable government structures in all areas. With representative government still a far-off fantasy, the forest officials also see this as an opportunity to introduce certain interventions in community forestry.

Despite a court order, the government opted for other ways to put certain restrictions on the forest, ignoring its base and utility. The government even ignored the donor countries' huge financial and technical investment in creating the institutions.

"At a time when the country does not have representatives or accountable government, officials find that the time is ripe to attack a successful project that is only half a decade old" said Bhola Prasad Bhattarai, general secretary of FECOFUN.

It seems that the conflict will continue for many more years since the sources of the conflict lie in the core issues of decentralization of authority and the determining role of people in resources management.

In the last five years, several decisions have already taken by the government to control the resources. The Supreme Court has already declared illegal the decision to impose 40 per cent taxes on the resources accumulated through selling resources in Terai districts.

In 1980s the forest was on the verge of extinction under the government's protection. Panicked and helpless, the government reviewed its old concept and decided to hand over the forest areas to the community. Following the restoration of democracy in 1990, the pace quickened and the government invited the creation of many community forestry managed groups. In the past decade, the number of such groups has increased astronomically.

Government's Arguments

Government officials, however, do not see imposing taxes as an intervention. "The forest is one of the important resources of the country and it needs to be divided equally among all Nepalese citizens. Our aim is not to obstruct the process of community forestry but to seek some resources to divide it equally to citizens in other parts of the country," said Jamuna Krishna Tamrakar, Director General of the Department of Forestry in a discussion program organized by Nepal Forum for Environmental Journalists.

According to government sources, some user groups in the Terai have such huge resources that they are monopolizing them for their own interests. "How could user groups generate resources from a forest with hard wood such as Sal?," said a senior official on condition of anonymity. "If we don't impose certain taxes to such user groups, there will be disparity in the distribution of resources."

"We need certain budgets for the preservation of forests. The imposition of 40 per cent taxes will fulfil our requirements," said Tamrakar, Director General of the Department of Forestry in an interaction program organized by Nepal Forum for Environmental Journalists.

If there are abuses of the forest, this is not way to correct them. "The government must develop and formulate a plan so that local resources can be used in the overall development of local areas," said a community forestry expert.

PM Thapa and Forestry

Whether coincidental or not, each time Surya Bahadur Thapa becomes prime minister, he takes a controversial decision regarding the use of the forest. In one of his earlier tenures as prime minister in 1979 when the country was in trouble as it is now, Nepal's large forestry sector was destroyed and devastated. In 1984 when he was ousted in an impeachment motion passed by the Rastriya Panchayat, massive misuse of forest was one of the charges against him. The current finance minister Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani was one of bitter critics of Thapa then.

In his last tenure in 1997, his government's decision to give monopoly rights to the Timber Corporation of Nepal also created an uproar. This time too Thapa was prime minister and the country's forest user groups were resisting against the government.

Pressure Against The Decision

Following the announcement of the decision to levy a 40 per cent tax, the community groups across the country have already announced a series of programs.

Thanks to the pressure built up in the central level though the various groups, the majority of forest user groups hold the view that the decision may be withdrawn before the start of the harvesting period. "It is very difficult for us to convince the forest user groups that the forest now belongs to them. If the government sticks to its decision, many communities will cut the trees down before handing over to the government," said Bhola Prasad Bhattarai, general secretary of FECOFUN. "People have lost faith in the government. It takes decades to convince the people that forest resources are theirs."

There are 12,700 community forestry user groups in Nepal managing a total of 10,006,560 hectares of forest areas. These user groups are made up of 1.4 million households, which total 7 million people. The total population of Nepal is 25 (? according to latest UN figures) million. In 15 districts of the Terai, there are 301 user groups managing 43,572 hectares of forest in areas without forestry projects.

Community and Forest

Although the forest is always under the control of the community since they are the primary users of the forest products, the ownership shifted to the government following the nationalization of forests in 1957. The nationalization paved the way for the devastation of the forests.

During twenty three years of government control, Nepal's forest, known as the "green money" of the country, was substantially felled and turned into bushes. Realizing the need for the population's participation in forest management, the government decided to hand over to the community.

Out of the total land area of Nepal (14.72 million hectares), the forest covers about 4.27 million hectares. Twenty nine per cent shrub land covers 1.56 million hectares (10.6 per cent of the total land area). Forest and shrub land together cover 39.6 percent of the country's total land mass.

According to ìForest Resources Of Nepal 1987-1998î, a report published by Department of Forest Research and Survey, and which compares Land Resources Mapping Project results from 1978/1979, the main conclusions are that forest and shrub cover have changed; in the Terai and the plains, the forest area have decreased at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent from 1978-1979 to 1990-1991.

In hilly areas, forested areas have decreased at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent from between 1978-1979 to 1994 whereas forest and shrub together have decreased at an annual rate of 0.2 to 0.3 per cent. Throughout the whole country, between 1978-79 to 1994, forested areas have decreased at annual rate of 0.5 per cent. Nepal's accessible forest area is 2.18 million hectares, about 52 per cent of total forested area.

Frequent Interventions

Despite the government's commitment to handing over forest projects to the community, the process in the Terai is slow compared to the hill areas. In hill areas, the government often makes efforts to intervene in the process.

It is not the first time the government has tried to intervene in a community forestry project. There is a long history of tug of war between the government and community over the management of forest products.

"Once bureaucracy is denied the chance to visit, they want to go there even more. Forestry is a lucrative sector. Once the community forestry is handed over to the community, the forest officials do not have any jobs left," said a retired forest official on condition of anonymity.

If the government sees that there is centralization of resources in certain user groups, it can develop a modality so that the additional resources generated from the forest user groups are channelled to the village development committees (VDCs) and district development committees (DDCs).

Most landslide prone mountains are today covered by green trees and the forested areas continue to increase. At a time when different countries in the world are trying to copy the successful model of community forest management in Nepal, the government decision to restrict the right of community is a strange and surprising development.

Major Set back

With the imposition of a 40 per cent tax on community managed forests by the Nepalese government, Nepal's successful community forestry programme faces a major setback and rampant destruction.

Among user groups, western donor countries and environmentalists, there is wide criticism of the government's argument that its decision is part of the state's intervention in a community managed forest.

While the Maoist insurgents were destroying a great deal of the country's infrastructure in the last seven years, the community forestry program continued to expand, even during the worst periods of the insurgency. In the last three years alone, the government has handed over 10,000 hectares of forest land to more than 800 forest user groups in different parts of the country. The local community stands as a safeguard against deforestation.

In Dolkha District, one of the districts most affected by the Maoists, 150 kilometres east of Kathmandu, the local forest office registered 23 forest user groups handing over 300 hectares of forest in the last two months. Many government forest posts and forest offices were destroyed by the Maoist insurgents but there have only been sporadic attacks against community forestry and members of user groups.

Forests Prevent Disasters

Traditionally forest management lies in the hands of the community. Following the nationalization of Nepal's forests in 1957, the government took control of all the forest mountain, hill and plain ecological zones, paving the way for rampant deforestation resulting in frequent land-slides, flash floods and heavy losses of soil. Government studies have shown that the total loss of soil from Nepalese land is 240 million cubic meter annually and that deforestation is one of major reasons for the acceleration of soil erosion.

Between the 1970s and 1980s, Nepal lost thousands of hectares of green forest and experienced hundreds of landslides. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the country recorded an average of 300 deaths a year??? in landslides in the 1980s but that number dropped drastically to 150 deaths a year??? in the 1990s.

"Along with protecting forest products, the user groups help to stabilize many landslide prone mountains. In return, the villagers have generated some financial resources and use it to build schools buildings, health posts and rural roads," says Amrit Lal Joshi, senior technical expert at the Department of Forestry.

"Is this the way in which the government wishes to reward motivated user groups, by levying a tax of 40 per cent on their annual income? The community user groups are already using 25 per cent of their resources for the preservation of the forest. The additional 30 percent will increase the burden. Who will take care of the forest without control of resources?" asks Joshi, a top official in the ministry.| ìThe decision is a major setback in the history of community forestry," he adds.

According to the national survey conducted by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, the forest areas now cover 29 percent of total land as compared to 37 percent in 1988. With the implementation of community forestry, the depletion of forest areas has fallen in comparison to previous decades. The country lost almost 14 percent of its forest between 1978 and 1988.

"It takes decades of efforts to generate awareness in communities that the forest is their own resource and that its preservation will help them. The imposition of taxes will send a message that they are not the owner of the forest," said Dr. Tirthaman Shrestha, a botanist working with IUCN Nepal, the World Conservation Union.

"We have preserved the forests in the hope that some amount of money generated by selling the forest will be used to carry out development activities in our community," said Nir Bikram Kirati, chairman of a community forest user group in Morang district, 500 kilometres east of Kathamandu.

Promoted and supported by western donors countries including the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark and others, community forestry is based on the concept of management and conservation of the forest by the local communities. Once the government hands over national forests adjoining the settlements to the local communities, the local level community forestry user group takes on all the responsibilities involved in managing and preserving it, including the annual harvest of timber.

"The community forestry program has halted the forest degradation and increased the areas of greenery. We handed over 74 percent of forests in good condition to the communities and it is natural to demand some percentage of their profit," says Keshav Raj Kanel, deputy director general of the community forest division at the Ministry of Forestry." There is nothing to panic about and the decision is not intended to discourage community participation."

The government sanctioned US$ 10 million to the Department of Forest and generated US$ 8 million in revenue last year. Half of the budget goes to the community forest which generates US$ 500,000.

The forest is Nepal's major natural resource as it provides 81 per cent of total fuel and more than 50 per cent of fodder for livestock.

If the government will not revoke its decision to ignore the interests of local community, Nepal will face far-reaching consequences and lose its forest areas.

"It has minimized the number of landslides. Even during the heaviest recent rainfall, there were only a few landslides. This is a major achievement. It is the initiative of the people which has saved the country from disaster," said an expert.

"If People Lose Interest To Protect Them, Destruction Of Forest Will Take Place"

— Bhola Prasad Bhattarai

BHOLA PRASAD BHATTARAI, general secretary of Federation of Community Forestry User Group, a umbrella organization of the forest user groups, is these days busy launching various programmes pressuring the government to withdraw its recent decision. Bhattarai spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issues regarding the present controversy and the stand of the groups. Excerpts:

How do you see the decision of the government to impose additional taxes?

The decision is unconstitutional, illegal and against the concept of community forestry programmes. I don't understand why the government is in such a hurry to impose taxes on us. The government has already filed a case in the Supreme Court to review the court's order, so what prompts the official to announce the tax through the finance ordinance, which will expire in six months? Our demand is that the government should withdraw the decision using another clause in the financial bills.

Why does the decision need to be withdrawn?

It is against the spirit of the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 which says that the people are sovereign. At a time when the country does not have elected representatives on all levels, how can it announce major policy decisions? This decision is not only against the constitution but it is also against the policy of decentralization and five year plans.

Government officials are arguing that the forest user groups are accumulating huge sums of money from the government forest and using them for benefit of certain interest groups.

This accusation is one hundred percent wrong. Forest user groups collect a certain amount of money from their members. How can a forest user group accumulate a huge amount of money by collecting amounts of one and two rupees from its community members? Since the user groups are formed by law and the user groups have to follow certain legal procedures, it is impossible for them to use the money to benefit certain individuals.

You mean the user groups don't have any money?

We have been spending 25 per cent of our income on forest preservation; if this 40 per cent tax is levied, we will be left with just 35 per cent in our hand. What do the users get for maintaining the forest? The user groups are now managing and preserving the forest and paying additional money to use the forest product.

How are the forest user groups spending their resources now?

The user groups are spending the money to benefit the community members. Many forest user groups are supporting education by providing the resources to construct school buildings and recruit additional teachers.

If the government does not withdraw its decision, what will your organization do?

We have already ordered user groups not to pay money to the district forest office. If the government does not take us seriously, we will not abide by the law. If people do not abide by a law, then what is its use?

How do you see the state of community forestry today?

People have shown that their participation is important in the forest preservation program. Everyone knows what state the forest was in during the 1980s and how it changed in the 1990s following the active participation of the people. We have preserved the forest and protected it. Instead of thanking us, the government is punishing the community.

What will be the long term impact?

If the government does not withdraw its decision, forest conservation will suffer. If people lose interest, the destruction of forest will take place. The government must realize that forest preservation is impossible without the participation of the people.