 |
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
|
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
Challenges After more than two and
a half decades of implementation, Nepal's community forestry program - a successful model
for community mobilization in forest management - has reached into another stage - on
issues of sharing benefits, which is going to be more complicated and difficult. There are
many ambiguities regarding the role of community user groups and the government. There is
no law to define whether the community user groups are just implementing institutions or
they have the right of ownership. This confusion has already resulted in a number of
disputes between the government and user groups recently. As forests are just beginning to
reach the mature stage of generating resources, there will be more such disputes in the
future on the matter of sharing benefits. The challenges that lie ahead is how to prevent
confrontation in the process of community forest management By KESHAB POUDEL
A group of villagers from Taruka
village in Nuwakot district, 60 kilometers west of capital, were discussing to elect a new
leader. As their forest is now at the productive stage, members of the user group wanted a
leader capable of utilizing the benefits for the broader interest of community - one who
can make tough bargains with the district forest office. Although Maoist insurgents asked
the local people to boycott the meeting, a large number of them attended it. Following the expiry of the tenure of
representatives of the local bodies (VDCs and DDCs) two years ago, the community forestry
user groups are the only representative institutions at the grassroots level functioning
in many parts of the country. Although intensification of insurgency has created a number
of problems, user groups have been able to keep their institution intact. Thanks to the
threat issued by the Maoists, many user groups have abandoned the election process but
many like Taruka villages still hold the meetings and decide the leadership. Since forest product is lifeline of local
population, any hindrance in the utilization of the forest can harm their broader
interest. Although it is difficult for them, user groups continue to organize meetings and
decide the way out for resource mobilization. "Of course, there are sporadic cases
of looting and killing of members of forest user groups. But the community forestry
program is not badly hurt as other programs in the rural areas," said a senior
official at the Ministry of Forest. Although Maoist insurgents have recently
started targeting forest offices in various districts destroying forest posts and range
offices in plain and hill areas, only a few user groups were dissolved under Maoist
threat. "Problems are there as Maoists are demanding the benefits of community
forestry with local population. In many cases, user groups provide certain percentage of
total amount of money generated from selling the products to them," said an office
bearer of the Federation of Community Forestry User Group of Nepal. "We are facing
real challenges on sharing the benefits of forest resources." When depleting forests were handed over to
user groups two decades back, most of the forests areas were no more than a patch of
bushes. Thanks to the commitment shown by local groups, the situation has changed now as
regeneration of the various trees has increased green cover across the country. "Our forest produces enormous quantity
of fodder and other products fulfilling more than 50 percent of the requirement of the
local population. We collect the fodder from our own forest," said Rishab Khanal, a
member of Tarkua Forest User Group. "Thanks to the road link with the village, we can
sell our product in the market in the capital city." Following the intense pressure and court
battle, the forest user groups were able to force the government to lessen the imposed
tax. However, they still have to pay certain amount of money to insurgents now. In many
parts of the far western districts, insurgents have reportedly started to collect the
resources from community user groups. Following intense pressure from the
community forestry user groups, the government deducted 40 percent of taxes it planned to
levy on total income generated by the users group leaving only 60 percent to them. The
government deducted it to 15 percent. Evolution of the CFUG This is not a unique case of forest
management and preservation through the mobilization of people at the village level.
Following a massive deforestation in 1980s, the government introduced community forestry
programs with an aim to retain the greenery and preserve traditional forest. Initially, it was managed by the local
bodies. With the restoration of democracy in 1990, new elected government enacted new
forest act giving the implementation role to the community retaining the ownership on it. Under the act, the government handed over
depleting forest controlled by it. After the handover of forest, the user groups were
given the right to manage the forest and distribute resources among them. Be in Taruka village of Nuwakot or
Begnastal of Kaski or Rampur in Palpa, community user groups have already shown that they
can manage the forest in order to benefit larger segment of the population. With the
implementation of community forestry program, thousands of hectors of depleting forest
have already been revived now. According to the Community Forestry
Division of Department of Forest, more than 11,13,171 hectares of forest areas have
already handed over to 13,538 forest user groups till November 11, 2004 covering 15,28,032
household. Forest for Poverty Alleviation Experiences have shown that resources
generated from forest can be used to alleviate the poverty. In many rural areas, living
standards of the people are better in the areas where there is abundance of forest and
fodder products. Forest provides water resources to grass
and fuel wood to the people. In the areas of abundant forest resources, people have easy
access to all these products. If forest products are available nearby, women do not have
to walk for hours just to fetch water. The National Planning Commission (NPC) has
also realized the need to preserve the forest and use it for poverty alleviation.
"Forest sector is an integral part of agriculture development and poverty
alleviation. Community forest and leasehold programs, (there are over three million h.a of
land needing regeneration at present - more than the total agriculture land area in the
country), are an important source of livelihoods and income generation for the rural poor,
especially rural women. Forestry is also an important source of manure for field crops,
fodder for animals, and fuel wood and timber for households. In addition, forest
conservation helps to improve rural environment by checking soil erosion and
flooding," writes Program Report on Poverty Reduction an Assessment of the Tenth Plan
(PRSP) Implementation. Poverty Reduction Strategy and Tenth Plan
have attached high priority to the forestry sector especially to community forestry and
leasehold forestry programs. Donors Contribution
Along with the local community, the
successful implementation of community forestry program in Nepal is a result of combined
efforts of government and donor agencies. Denmark is the largest donor country supporting
community forestry program in 38 districts through Natural Resources Management Sector
Assistance Program under DANIDA. Livelihood Forestry Project under DFID,
GTZ, Australia, Switzerland, Netherlands and CARE-Nepal has also been supporting
implementation of community forestry programs. Thanks to their technical and financial
support, local people were able to develop the institutional mechanisms. At a time when the country does not have
elected representatives at the Village and district level, the community user groups are
the only institutions with elected representatives. Billions of rupees have already been
spent by donor agencies to make the institutions at the grass root level democratically
functional. The First Phase Whereas the first phase of the project was
confined to the preservation of the forest project, the second part is going to be more
complicated and difficult. Under the community forestry program, the villagers protected
the forest and managed it in early days. As the forest areas are now in productive stage,
the challenge now is how to share the benefits among different stake holders. Despite
their given role as implementers, the forest user groups are demanding ownership rights as
well. "Actually, the communities are the
owners and the government has nothing to do with it. The forest areas were traditionally
with community. Following the nationalization of forests in 1957, the government took
control of forest ownership," said a forest user group member. "We are not only
the implementer of the project but also the owner of our own land." Following the handing over of the
government forests, the community, too, showed their strong faith and attachment with the
forest areas. Till the government held the forest, there was no one to take care of it. As
soon as user groups were formed, the people took the responsibility to take care of the
forest. "Denuded areas have regenerated, the
condition of the forest has improved, and the users themselves decide the level of forest
extraction. Income from sale of forest products is used in community development and
forest management activities are based on the decisions of the users themselves,"
said Keshav Raj Kanel chief of Community Forest Division of Department of Forest. (See
box) "The initial phase of the community
forestry was geared towards assigning responsibilities and rights of local forest
management to the village level political bodies," said Kanel. "It was based on
protecting and planting trees to meet the forest product needs of the local people based
on the principle of gap analysis. Following the introduction of forest act in 1993,
institutionalization of forest user groups (FUG) as an independence and self-governing
entity begun. The FUG was given the utilization and management rights and District Forest
Officers were made the gate keepers of community forestry." Despite all this, only a few forest users
groups have made efforts to commercially exploit the forest products. In the hill areas,
there is no market to sell the products. The forests - which have access to roads - have
the most commercial values. In the remote parts of Nepal, consumers are buyer as well as
the members of the community forestry. Income from Forest Products
One of the visible results of
successful community forestry is that the price of timbers remained stagnant in the last
one decade as compared to the other construction materials. The prices of wood remain same
as it was a decade ago. Thanks to the abundant supply of wood, there is high competition. The total annual income from the sale of
forest products from community forest is about Rs.747 million. In calculating the
proportion of the value of forest products, timber generates the highest percentage (69
percent) followed by fuel wood 18 percent and grass and fodder and bedding materials 10
percent. According to a study conducted by Kanel,
CFUGs are spending 28.5 percent of their income in forest protection and management.
Community development comprises the highest proportion of CFUG expenses (36 percent),
which includes school support, road construction and other community infrastructure
development. Although it is very low at 3 percent, the CFUGs are also spending their money
on pro-poor programs. The total annual budget of the Department of Forest was about Rs 680
million, and the annual income of the Department was about Rs.550 million in 2002. "Till now, the community forestry
program has focused on the protection of greenery and the management side is weak and
ineffective," said Amrit Lal Joshi, Technical Adviser to NARSMP. "The main
challenges now are the forest management and income generation." It is easier said than done. There were
already a number of frictions between the government and users groups. Just a year ago,
the forest user groups forced the government to rebuke its policy to take 40 percent
resources generated from the community forestry. "Community should be given more
freedom to work. If the government makes efforts to control the community forestry, it
will have negative effect in the overall community forestry program," said Joshi.
"To manage the forest and income generation, both should move side by side." As the communities have already protected
the forest and it is now time reap the financial benefits, it seems certain there is going
to be some sort of confrontation between the user groups and the government. "We have sacrificed all our life in
protecting the forest. Nobody will tolerate the intervention of the government. The issue
of taxation should be left to the user groups," said a member of a user group. Change in Life Style
Maila Khatri, 46, a resident of Lele,
had not realized that the hills around his village would transform in such a manner within
a decade. About two decades ago, a torrential rainfall had washed away the entire village
of Lele but now with the success of community forestry, the denuded hills have all turned
green and the threat of landslides have subsided. With the first 25 years of implementation
of community forestry program over, local population has developed institutional
mechanisms for forest management. The challenge ahead is how to sustain the forest and
greenery as well as generate the resources. The government, too, has to make up its
mind whether the community is just implementer or ownership. The issue of ownership must
be decided soon. Although the officials claim that this is just a management modality but
not ownership, the user groups see the process as handover of ownership. To show its
ownership, the government has already taxed the forest. The official line is that the
community should be given benefit not ownership. "The government should be clear on
management responsibility. Benefit sharing is one thing and claiming the ownership is
another," said a senior official at the Ministry of Forest. The first two and half decades of community
forestry program has taught that the sustainable forest management is possible in case the
user groups at the grass root level are accountable to the people. Despite intensification
of insurgency resulting in the disruption of voting exercise at the central and local
level, forest user groups - another elected institution at the grass root level - are
still functioning; managing the forest for the benefit of a large segment of the
population. As applied in the earlier phase, the forest
is for the people, by the people and of the people. If the total ownership is delivered,
the people would take right decision on right time. "Now We Want To Manage It So
That People Can Get More Benefit Out Of It" — Keshav Raj Kanel
KESHAV RAJ KANEL, Division Chief of
Community Forestry at the Department of Forest, is a well-known resource economist. Kanel
spoke to SPOTLIGHT on various issue related to the community forestry. Excerpts: How do you find the present
situation of the Community Forestry? Community Forestry is a program directed to
the utilization of forest resources through the participation of local community. We are
building democratically elected local institutions - which can work with local
administrative system. Community forestry is a paradigm shift in conservation development.
Initially, it was to create the natural resources. Now we want to manage it so that people
can get more benefit out of it. What was the priority of the first
phase? More than 1.1 million hectares of forest
land (25 percent of the total land) has so far been handed over to over 13 thousand
Community Forest User Groups, which constitutes around 35 percent of the total population
of Nepal. Denuded forest areas have regenerated, the condition of the forest has improved,
and the users themselves decide the level of forest extraction. Income from the sale of
forest products is used in community development, and forest management activities are
based on the decisions of the users themselves. In first phase, the aim was to create
greenery in the hills, which was too much degenerated. We were successful in reviving the
greenery in the region. What are the challenges for
community forestry? The challenges lie in increasing the
productivity of these forests, streamlining the benefits from forests towards livelihood
promotion (particularly poverty alleviation), and strengthening good governance for
equitable performance. The next stage of the program should be focused on livelihood
promotion, good governance and sustainable forest management. How do you see the support of
various donors working in the community forestry? Donors are very positive on community
forestry program and they are proud to be a partner of Nepal's successful program. How much money do the CFUGs
generate annually? The total annual income from the sale of
forest products from community forest is about Rs.747 million. Forest user groups consume
a major portion of forests products - about 79 percent within the groups. Where do the CFUGs spend their
money? Community development comprises the highest
proportion of CFUG expenses (about 36 percent), which includes school support, road
construction and other community infrastructure development. Operational cost is the third
biggest area of CFUG's expenditure. Although it is very low, CFUGs are spending three
percent of their money on pro-poor programs. We can see that the CF program generates
substantial income; the distributional effects of this program are being raised. Our
studies have shown that the poor users. About 25 percent of national forest is now being
managed by more than 35 percent of the total population of Nepal. Elected representatives
or about 143 thousand committee members (of which 35 thousand are women) make day-to-day
decisions about forests, funds, and other development activities. Their leadership
capacity has substantially increased with the result that many of them have taken
leadership positions in District Development and Village Development Committees. How do you settle the issues
related to distribution of resources generated by the Community Forest User Groups among
local bodies, the government and community forest user groups? Our Ministry considers that the sharing of
revenue generated from Community Forest among the CFUGs, local political bodies and the
government should be resolved through a consultative process. What are your views on the
evolution of community forest? Community forest was legalized in 1978.
Since then, it has evolved from protection forestry to institutional innovation with a
strong focus on devolution of management authority to local communities organized and
legitimized as a self governing unit. From institutional building to resources
mobilization, one can see a lot of change in the sector. From managing small amount of
resource, CFUGs are now managing huge amount of money. This is a major transformation. At
a time when the country is focusing on poverty alleviation, the well-developed mechanisms
of community forestry should be exploited to benefit large segment of the population. Do you see any possibility to
increase the income? Community forests are generating
substantial amount of forest products and income. There is also a substantial potential of
further generating income from the better management of community forests. These funds can
be better utilized to benefit the poor and marginal groups. There are multiple avenues of
channeling resources through CFUGs in alleviating poverty in the rural areas of Nepal.
CFUGs will be assisted to tap these resources for the benefit of poor and disadvantaged
groups. |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spot@mail.com.np |
