persistence and change › wp-content › exported... · thank the community forestry user group...

Persistence and ChangeReview of 30 years of community forestry in Nepal

Executive Summary

Government of NepalMinistry of Forests and Soil Conservation

Published by:Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP)

Services Support Unit (SSU)Ekantakuna, Lalitpur, Nepal

Tel: 977-1-5551702, Fax: 977-1-551701E-mail: [email protected],

www.msfp.org.np

The MSFP aims to improve livelihoods and resilience of poor men and women anddisadvantaged people in Nepal. It will also strengthen the contribution of Nepal’s forestry

sector to inclusive economic growth, poverty reduction and tackling climate change.

© 2012Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP)

Design, Layout and Productionblueprint integrated pvt. ltd.www.blueprintintegrated.com.np

DisclaimerThis report is an outcome of an independent study commissioned by the Ministry of Forests

and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Government of Nepal (GoN) and funded by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and UK’s Department for International Development

(DFID). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the consultant authors, and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the MFSC, GoN or the funding agencies, which does not

assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness of anyinformation, data, methodologies, analysis and conclusions.

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK

Structure of the Book

“Persistence and Change: Review of 30 years of Community Forestry in Nepal” is the first national study of the impacts of community forestry since the initiation of community forestry over 30 years ago. The study draws on a wealth of data and analysis and represents an important milestone for community forestry. The data collected during national surveys of community forestry user groups and individual households has been used to show some of the major changes that have occurred at household level through the building of community forestry user institutions.”

Authors of the study

Services Support Unit (SSU) of the Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP) under the guidance of study “Task Team” formed by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation has taken this initiative to present this publication, “Persistence and Change: Review of 30 Years of Community Forestry in Nepal” in the form of both e-book version and a series of hard copy of chapters. It is hoped that this series will make it easier for the interested readers to download the materials and to benefit from the wealth of data and information that the authors present. Altogether, there are ten separate chapters of the book. Readers are requested to refer to the Executive Summary chapter for the overall context and linkage of each chapter to the whole study.

http://www.msfp.org.np

Chapter 1: Background to StudyChapter 2: Conceptual Framework for Understanding ChangeChapter 3: The Emergence of Community ForestryChapter 4: The Organisational Context for Community ForestryChapter 5: Basic Facts about CFUGSChapter 6: Livelihood ContextChapter 7: Robustness of CFUGS as Institutions-The Quality of GovernanceChapter 8: Conversion of Natural Capital- Changes in Livelihoods from community ForestryChapter 9: Whose Voice, Whose Knowledge, Whose Response ?Chapter 10: Returning to the Conceptual FrameworkReferencesAnnexes

CONTENTSAcronyms and Glossary iAcknowledgements iiExecutive Summary 1 Key Findings 3 Next Steps and Conclusions 14 Notes 17

ACRONYMS

GLOSSARY

i

Brahmin/Chettri: Within the Hindu caste system Brahmins belong to the caste that professionally belong to the priest class. Brahmin caste is also considered the highest. Chettri caste professionally falls under the ruling and soldier category and is second in ranking in the caste system.

Dalits: The Dalit caste includes various professions including: blacksmith, leather work, tailoring, sweepers and butchers. Dalits fall into the untouchable category and is considered the lowest caste. Within Dalits also there are categories which also have levels.

Janajati Other: Janajati is the term for indigenous people. The “Other” indicates indigenous groups other than Newars.

Janajati Newars: Newars are considered the indigenous people of the Kathmandu Valley.

Other Backward Class: Other Backward Class includes marginalized groups with reference to economic, geographic and categories other than caste.

Terai: Terai is the local term for the plains belt of Nepal that stretches from the east to west on the southern border to India.

CIDT Centre for International Development and TrainingCFD Community Forest DivisionCFUGs Community Forestry User GroupsDFID Department for International DevelopmentDDCs District Development CommitteesFECO Federation of Community Forest Users NepalGDP Gross Domestic ProductGoN Government of NepalHURDEC Human Resource Development CentreIGA Income Generation ActivitiesLFP Livelihood and Forestry ProgrammeMFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil ConservationMSFP/SSU Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme/Services Support UnitNSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forestry ProjectNTFPs Non Timber Forest ProductsSDC Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationVDCs Village Development Committees

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has been extremely challenging because the scope was so vast and the geographical coverage extensive. At the same time it has been very satisfying because it is the first time that such robust nationally acceptable data and analysis has been done since the start of community forestry in Nepal 30 years ago. We, a small study team composed of people who had extensive experience in community forestry, evaluations and assessments but not of large scale research, would not have achieved this without the support of many others.

Our first words of appreciation are of course for the women and men in the rural forests of Nepal who have worked tirelessly to give Nepal this well–acclaimed model of community forestry. We specially thank the community forestry user group members who gave us their precious time in responding to long questionnaires and participated in our case study consultations.

We thank the District Forest Officers of the 47 districts covered in this study for providing us information as required.

The Task Force, chaired by Mr. Ram Prasad Lamsal, was extremely supportive and guided us constantly. Mr. Harihar Sigdel, Task Force member when he was the Deputy Director General of Forests, was very approachable and responsive. A core team composed of Mr. Anuj Joshi, Mr. Hem Aryal, Mr. Narendra Chand, Mr. Pashupati Koirala and Mr. Shyam Prasad Sharma (and earlier Mr. Resham Dangi as Community Forest Division/

CFD head) worked with the study team to prepare the questionnaires and reviewed data findings and initial drafts, which the study team appreciated sincerely. Ms. Munni Gautam of CFD provided support for the management of the study.

Mr. Suman Aryal, Director, Central Bureau of Statistics, supported the design of the study and ensured its statistical validity. A special word of appreciation has to be for Mr. Prahlad Ghimire who worked tirelessly to validate, compile and analyse the huge amount of data that were collected in the survey and responded so efficiently to all our demands for complex combined tables.

For the literature review which formed the basis for the national case study, providing a backdrop to understanding historical change and emergence of key issues to frame the study, we would like to thank Mr. Peter Branney for his insights and contributions, as well as to Dr. Bimala Rai Paudyal for agreeing to let us use her recent work on gender and social inclusion in forestry. Both have enhanced and deepened the analysis and contributed to the strength of the national case study which we drew on for the main study. We would also like to thank Dr. Bharat Pokharel, Mr. Netra Timsina and Mr. Ramu Subedi for their insightful guidance on the historical evolution of community forestry and their inputs to the analysis of institutional changes in the forest sector.

We thank Ms. Kanti Risal (from the former Livelihood and Forestry Programme-LFP)Dr. Bharat Pokharel (from the former Nepal

ii

Swiss Community Forestry Project-NSCFP) and Dr. Bimala Rai Paudyal (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation-SDC) for being so patient, as sponsors of the study, with the time taken in the preparation of this study which had very ambitiously targeted to be completed within a year. We really appreciate the support Mr. Peter Branney gave to the study, first from LFP and then later from Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT). In the beginning he gave substantive advice for the development of the conceptual framework and later for reviewing draft chapters and providing inputs to them.

Our greatest thanks must go to the full Human Resource Development Centre (HURDEC) team, especially Ms. Deepa Sakya, who as programme coordinator, kept the various aspects of the project under control, Mr. Sumit Sakya for working over a long period to prepare a comprehensive database on NVIVO software and other HURDEC colleagues for understanding and supporting this massive study during what were as well deeply traumatic personal times for one of the study authors.

iii

Mary Hobley & Associates

Persistence and Change: Reivew of 30 years of community forestry in Nepal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nepal’s path breaking achievements since the 1980s in community forestry and participatory protected area management are globally recognized as best practice models. Forests account for approximately 40 percent of the total national land area in Nepal (nearly 5.5 million hectares). It is one of the major productive resources and contributes around 10 percent to Nepal’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)1 and from which the Government of Nepal (GoN) generates a large amount of cash revenues every year2. Community forestry alone occupies nearly 23 percent of national total forest (over 1.2 million hectares) reaching over 1.6 million households through 17,685community forest user groups (CFUGs) throughout the country (Department of Forests database consulted 2011).

The major advances in community forestry are tempered by strong evidence that exclusion on the basis of income, location, class, caste, ethnicity and gender persist for some at community, household and within household levels and outcomes remain unequal in the forest sector. There is a continued persistence of major structural problems particularly those associated with social exclusion and inequity. This study, commissioned by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Department for International Development (DFID) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), aimed to understand these issues, document the evolution of community forestry, capturing what livelihood impacts have occurred, for whom and to evaluate how and why livelihoods have changed.

The objectives of the study were to: a) evaluate the impact of community forestry on household livelihoods across Nepal; including a specific focus on most disadvantaged households; b) link an evaluation of household livelihood changes to the capacity and capital of CFUGs; c) support the development of policy and practice. These three objectives (a, b and c) were the subject of this study. There was an additional objective: d) provide a data management system and baseline study for future evaluations of community forestry development.

Two statistically valid surveys (designed with the support of the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Government of Nepal) covered 137 CFUGs in 47 districts and 2,068 member households. Five case studies were conducted: a national case study (including a literature review of 30 years of community forestry practice); one district, two CFUGs, 16 households of different well-being categories, two project-supported and one non-project CFUGs. A database was developed where all available print and audio-visual materials on community forestry which could be accessed by the study team were uploaded in one database system using NVIVO software (almost 740 articles/documents have been uploaded).

The conceptual framework of the study was based on the livelihoods and social inclusion and sustainable livelihoods framework followed by DFID within a rights-based approach. The framework captured changes in three domains:

1


1) assets and services- natural capital, financial capital, physical capital;

2) voice and influence- social capital (networks, trust, reciprocity), human capital, political capital (inclusion, voice and power); and

3) rules of the game/social inclusion policy and institutions. The two surveys and case studies were constructed around this conceptual framework.

2


Key Findings

Overall changes in the enabling environment and institutional structures

A radical approach for change: Over the last thirty years community forestry has emerged into a radical approach for local level change, shifting from a protection oriented form of forestry through to a property rights regime that delivers multiple benefits from improved forest quality, to changes in the rights of individuals to claim forest benefits and a host of other social and non- forest benefits.

The quantum of change: There are now 17,685 CFUGs with over 1.6 million households as members (equivalent to about 33 percent of the total rural population). Forty-five percent of existing community forests were handed-over in the five years between 1993-97. Only four percent were handed over before 1993. In the subsequent five year period 1998-2002 - 34 percent were handedover followed by another 17 percent after 2002. Most community forests in the Terai were handed over before 2002. Seventy five percent of community forests lie in the middle hills, 16 percent in the high mountains and nine percent in the Terai. The Terai is thus under-represented in terms of the forest area covered. The average area of community forests is largest in the Terai (74.3% are more than 100 ha) compared with the hills (24.6% are more than 100 ha).

Local democratic exemplar: Community forestry user groups, in the absence of elected local government, have

fulfilled many of its roles, acting as a local development node, providing an institutional space in which democratic decision-making happens and acting as anexemplar for future local-level democratic processes.

Persistence and change in state institutional structures: There has been both persistence and change in the main state organisations with some significant and profound changes in the policy and legal frameworks enabling community forestry. At the same time some of the deeply embedded cultural and behaviouralpractices that condition Nepali society remain within forest organisations and continue to be a significant barrier to change.

From single to multiple voices: There have been important changes in the wider forest sector, driven to a large extent by the effectiveness of community forestry at legitimising multiple voices. These voices are now recognised to have a legitimate role, as service providers, as consumers and citizens and as advocates of policy change. Much of this shift away from state monopoly on policy processes has developed as Nepali society has opened up to multiple voices and interests. This is recognised in the new national multistakeholder forestry programme that explicitly recognises the importance of multiple interests and voices and provides legitimate spaces for dialogue and deliberation that negotiate trade-offs between these interests.

3


Overall Contributions to livelihood changes

Livelihood improvements: Irrespective of community forestry there has been livelihood improvements for most wellbeing classes and ethnic/caste groups. Community forestry has played a small but significant role in improving the livelihoods of rural people. Households have invested relatively small amounts of their labour time in community forestry activities to gain a range of benefits.

Donor and government monies: Donors have provided at least US$ 237,021,562 over the last 30 years to community forestry and Government of Nepal funding over 20 years has been at least US$ 8,152,110 . These monies have supported and primed the changes, but now CFUGs are significant repositories of money acting as an institutional mechanism to translate natural capital into a host of private household capital gains.

Changes in levels of inclusion over time: Overall the representation of different caste-ethnic groups in CFUGs is in rough proportion to their proportions in the general populations in the three ecological regions. Prior to 1993 there was a high proportion of Dalits and Janajatis (excluding Janajati Newars, 64 percent) in CFUGs, reflecting the strong focus on inclusion in these early days of community forestry. This may also reflect the fact that earlier CFUGs tended to be located in more accessible locations such as district centres where proportionately

certain groups such as Janajati Newars are more numerous. Interestingly this decreases to 38 percent for the period from 1993- 1997, with an increase in percentage of Brahmin/Chettri households from 37 percent to 52 percent. Again this could be interpreted as a result of historical and geographical trends since almost all of the earliest CFUGs were in eastern or central Nepal where the proportions of Janajatis in the general population tend to be higher. Subsequently the community forestry programme expanded to the Mid-west and Far-west where the proportion of Brahmin/Chettri households in the general population is higher. Changes in Dalit membership are even more startling from 2003 onwards where relatively their proportion has declined to only 9.5 percent of the total membership from the initial high of 22 percent. It is difficult to interpret this given the increasing emphasis on social inclusion – especially during and after the conflict period.

Size of forest and user group: The study has confirmed the findings from other studies (see Persha et al. 2010) that there is a critical size of forest and user group that determines the outcomes for households. Forests greater than 100 ha and user groups of under 100 members tend to have more successful outcomes than larger groups or smaller forest areas. It appears these larger forests have the potential for benefit flows greater than the costs households incur in participation in community forestry.

4


Conversion of natural capital into financial capital: CFUGs on average (over the last three financial years) are making a total income of NRs. 290,000 per CFUGs per year which equates to NRs. 4,225,590,000 (or US$ 49,103,100/ year) for all CFUGs (based on 14,571 CFUGs). The average expenditure per CFUGs is NRs. 179,000 which equates to NRs. 2,608,209,000 (or US$ 30,308,500 per year). The average balance per CFUGs is NRs. 81,000 or for all CFUGs NRs. 1,180,251,000 (or US$ 13,715,000). Per CFUG household member this equates to a spend of US$ 137 per household per year (accepting that this expenditure includes reinvestment in the forest and some costs of running the CFUGs). This compares to a total donor spend over the last 30 years (accepting that this figure does not include all funds) of US$ 237,021,562 or US$ 8 million per year (or an equivalent per household investment of US$ 36 per household per year). This provides an interesting insight into the way in which donor money invested over the long term can leverage larger amounts of investment through local labour and the growth of biomass. It also raises some interesting questions about the future role of donor funds to the sector and how they can best be used to further increase the rate of local investment as a result of group capital gains from community forestry and how and to whom these investments can best be targeted.

Changes in CFUG capitalaccumulation

Group capital accumulation: Community forestry user groups have built natural, financial and social/institutional group capital which, through the ways in which decisions are made, leads to a series of household benefits and private capital gains. Overall the combined group capitals indicate that CFUGs have accumulated all three capitals.

Natural capital: There have been overall improvements in forest condition since handover to CFUGs (86% of CFUGs indicated improvement in forest condition).Those forests which were handed over much earlier have a higher density of trees and crown cover than those more recently handed over; although it is forests handed over between 1998 to 2002 that show the highest density of tree cover and rates of natural regeneration. Community forests handed over prior to 1993 are not in such good condition and post 2003 are in the worst condition. The CFUGs in the hills have experienced the highest change in the availability of all forest products (except for Non Timber Forest Products-NTFPs) after handover. For the CFUGs in the mountains and the Terai the biggest change has beenin the availability of NTFPs. Natural regeneration and biodiversity have both improved the greatest amount in hill community forest areas. Mountain CFUGshave significantly increased the area of land under forest. In the Terai, changes in the condition of natural capital indicate a low level of natural capital accumulation.

5


Another important factor concerns the length of time a CFUG has existed, with the older CFUGs showing higher levels of improved product supply (for timber and fuelwood) than those formed since 2003.

Social/institutional group capital gains that the survey shows, reveals that there has been substantial accumulation of social and institutional group capital that has resulted in institutions that are capable of making robust decisions using fair processes. Project-supported CFUGs show higher translation of provisions for pro-poor allocations into implementation. Mostly decisions are taken through a combination of the general assembly and executive committee. The mechanism used for decision-making relates to the nature of the decision. The executive committees are dominated by Brahmin/ Chettri men and the middle classes but a practice of consultation with women, poor and excluded has evolved with provisionsto consult through tole level members and other groupings, prior to proposing any policy level amendments.

Accountability mechanisms such as review of operational plans, public audit, public hearing, financial audit and reporting are practised by CFUGs but there are large differences in project supported and non–supported districts, indicating that facilitation is still necessary for such governance systems to become a part of routine functioning of CFUGs. Forty-seven percent of all CFUGs hold public audits, this rises to 91 percent in CFUGs in project-supported districts; public hearings

are held by 18 percent of the CFUGs, rising again to 55 percent in project-supported districts; nearly 90 percent of the project district CFUGs complete financial auditing compared to only 40 percent of non-project groups. A similar pattern emerges for annual reporting to the District Forest Office and 81 percent of project supported groups submit reports compared to 41 percent of non-project groups.

Financial group capital gains: From the CFUG survey a higher average of 640 person days employment per CFUG are generated, which at an average wage of NRs. 200 per day (for unskilled manual labour) equates to an income contribution of NRs. 128,000 per CFUG to its members. Most CFUGs have 100 to 150 members, on a per household basis this equates to a direct transfer of NRs. 850-1280 (or 4-6 days of occasional unskilled labour per household). Larger forests (more than 100 ha) provide more employment particularly for Dalits and extreme poor (this is probably due to large forests requiring more forest watchers).

Community forestry fund and size of forest area: The fund levels vary across size of forest areas. There are major differences between the fund sizes for large forest areas of more than 100 ha and for those under 100 ha; it appears that a community forest of 100 ha or more is the size that is required to generate substantial levels of income (average of NRs. 366,077 per CFUG), below 100 ha there is no appreciable difference between incomes (incomes are about NRs. 25,000 per

6


CFUGs). This has important policy implications for decisions on allocation of forest areas to CFUGs, if these forests are to be used both as sources of funds for reinvestment in the forest and for investment in local development activities.

Community forestry fund expenditure: The major blocks of expenditure across allthree regions are forest development and community development, with income generation and training and workshop activities absorbing the third largest amount of money. The amount reinvested in forest development varies from 28 percent in the mountains, 34 percent in the hills and 53 percent in the Terai. It may be that the economically valuable Terai forests provide such high levels of reward to the CFUGs that it makes sense to invest more of the fund back into the forests to continue to ensure a high-level of flow of benefits. These expenditure patterns reveal an important additional dimension of the community forestry groups which is their role as development organizations at the local-level. Investment in forest development allows the groups to invest in developmental activities that will support their members’ livelihoods in a range of different ways.

Rules of the game are determined by the interplay between the natural and financial capital available to the group, the robustness of the social and institutional capital and the effectiveness of the voices of the users to not just to participate in decision-making processes, but to be listened to and to influence the outcomes.

The results from the study show that upper class households have the highest levels of active participation and influence over decisions in executive committee, with Janajati Newars and Dalits showing lower levels of influence. The survey results indicate: 1) there is no clear pro-poor targeting for forest product distribution with benefits accruing across all well-being classes with upper classes benefiting more from discounted forest products than other classes; and 2) there is evidence of targeting of income generating activities (IGAs) and credit facilities to poor and extreme poor households.

Changes in household private capital: Household access to natural capital

Increased household access to natural capital: Over the last 30 years of community forestry there has been a substantial increase in numbers of trees on private lands. The survey findings support recent studies showing that tree numbers on private land have increased across all caste/ethnic groups and wellbeing categories (including the extreme poor). Households have access to a national average of 0.7 ha of community forest per household. There is still a large gap between supply and demand for all forest products. In the mountains supply reaches 75 percent of demand, in the hills 49 percent and in the Terai only 40 percent. There is differential access to forest products across wellbeingclasses, with the middle and upper classes meeting more of their demand for timber

7


than the poor and extreme poor. Charcoal is mainly a product used by Dalits and particularly by the blacksmiths as a critical input to their livelihoods. Shortfalls in forest products are felt across all well-being classes but is particularly acute for extreme poor households that generally require access to public lands or are forced to purchase products. For wealthier households with access to private supplies these shortfalls are not as serious.

Household access to financialcapital

Acquisition of financial capital: Upper class households have the lowest levels of acquisition of financial capital through direct employment, reflecting a lesser degree of need for such employment or a more active targeting by CFUGs of jobs away from the upper classes.

Types of employment: The extreme poor have the highest percentage of households with forest watcher jobs but are least benefited from positions that require higher levels of literacy and other skills. Men have the highest rates of employment in all categories except office assistant and facilitator. There is no targeting of formal employment to highly excluded households such as those of Dalits.

Quantity of employment: From the CFUG survey a higher average of 640 person days employment per CFUG are generated, which at an average wage of NRs. 200 per day (for unskilled manual labour) equates

to an income contribution of NRs. 128,000 per CFUG to its members. Most CFUGs have between 100 to 150 members, thus on a per household basis this equates to a direct transfer of NRs. 850-1280 (or 4-6 days of occasional unskilled labour per household). Forests over 100 ha provide over 60 percent of all the employment days.

Access to non-forest funds and services: Extreme poor households have the highest percentage reporting income generation activity (IGA) support. The upper class households benefit the least from access to funds and services. The majority of the services and funds are taken up by the poor and extreme poor. Women have greater access to revolving funds than men and also take up a higher proportion of IGAs and leasehold land.

Household access to humancapital

Leadership and other skills – the training allocation: There are few discernible overall trends in the allocation of training across caste/ethnic groups, well-being classes and gender. However, institutional training which focuses on development of leadership skills is taken up by more middle class households. Skill development training and educational support are more focused on the extreme poor households. Brahmin/Chettri households take up more of the forest management training.

8


Household access to social andpolitical capital

Knowledge of rights and entitlements:Across all caste and ethnic groups there is a relatively low level of knowledge of the broader policy and legislative provisions. 60 percent of households have knowledge of user rights, but there are still 40 percent of households who do not, which after 20 plus years of implementation of community forestry is high. This rises to 80 percent of all Other Backward Class households. Upper class households have a higher level of knowledge across all categories, reflecting their better access to information networks and time available to acquire knowledge. Extreme poor households show a much lower level of knowledge in areas that are not directly related to their own targeted needs. There are few differences in knowledge betweenwomen and men.

Voice within the household remains dominated by men. Irrespective of caste/ethnic group or well being class men are more likely to take community forestry decisions within the household than women except for the extreme poor where it is more evenly balanced between women and men.

Voice within the CFUG: There is generally high overall presence of all caste/ethnic groups, women and men and well-being classes in CFUGs. This is slightly lower for extreme poor households which reflects the greater difficulty they face to find the time to attend meetings. This is already

an effective barrier to their influencing decisions, because if they cannot attend meetings it is very difficult to influence decisions taken at the meetings through other channels, particularly for households that tend to have weak networks of influence. Brahmin/Chettri and Janajati Other households are significantly more active in meetings than Dalits or Janajati Newars. There is a similar pattern of extreme poor households being much less active than other well-being classes, with a large percentage of households indicating they are inactive or quiet. For women there is a slightly higher percentage who remainquiet than men. In terms of influence over decisions there is a significantly higher percentage of extreme poor and Dalit households that indicate they have no influence over decisions even though their views are listened to.

Voice outside the CFUG: The most influential caste/ethnic groups in all positions are the Brahmin/Chettris and Janajati Others. Men have the major roles in all areas of external influence except obviously within women’s networks. In local government (Village Development Committees -VDCs/ municipalities and District Development Committees- DDCs) there is a domination of positions by Brahmin/Chettri men and women and Janajati Other men. Dalits only have dominance within their own Dalit network and here the majority of people are Dalit women.

9


Response of forest institutions to forest users

Responsiveness of service providers: Assessment of services received from government forest technicians indicates that most CFUGs consider the level of service to be fair (69%), with 25 percent rating it as good. Only five percent of CFUGs rated the services as poor. Within CFUGs there is a reasonable level of satisfaction with the current mechanisms of benefit-sharing, across caste/ethnic groups and well-being classes. The only difference being the upper class who show lower levels of satisfaction than the other classes.

Moving from welfare to rights-based approaches: 45 percent of CFUGs carry out some rights-based related activities, including networking with Federation of Community Forest Users Group (FECOFUN) on particular issues. Internally this translates into taking action against discriminatory practices seen amongst user group members, and ensuring that legal provisions on targeted support are complied with. Changes to behaviour and institutional barriers felt by women, poor and excluded reveal some of the minor effects of community forestry user groups in dealing overtly with issues of discrimination. There have been high levels of decrease in all areas of discriminatory practices. Overall 50 percent of CFUGs (almost 70% in the mountains) consider that community forestry has had a small but positive contribution to changes in discriminatory practices. In some areas

CFUGs report an increase in some types of discriminatory practices. Overall the Terai has more evidence of increases in discriminatory practices.

Bringing together the three domains of change: access to assets, voice and changes to ruleof the game. Who bears the costsand who gains the benifits?

Who bears the costs of community forestry? Middle class Brahmin/Chettri households bear the highest proportion of the costs through giving their voluntary labour to forest management activities, participation in operational plan and constitution preparation processes, attending general assemblies and other meetings. Overall extreme poor Dalits bear high costs but amongst all the Dalits from all well-being groups, it is only the extreme poor who get more benefits than costs. For Brahmin/Chettri extreme poor their costs exceed their benefits.

Which households benefit more than the costs they have incurred? There are clear caste/ethnic group and well-being differences as to which households benefit. All households have accrued more benefits than costs except the Dalits and Other Backward Class households. For the Dalits there is a very serious cost benefit deficit, but not across all well-being groups. Interestingly, extreme poor Dalits have greater benefits than costs, whereas poor, middle and upper class Dalits are in serious deficit with significantly less benefit

10


than the costs they have incurred. Extreme poor Brahmin/Chettri households have higher costs than benefits, whereas poor, middle class and upper class households all have more benefit than costs incurred, with the middle classes showing the highest benefit rate. Janajati Others overall benefit far more than their costs across all well-being classes. There are only minor differences for Janajati Newars who benefit slightly overall.

In which domain are there the greatestbenefits? The highest benefit to households has been from the access to assets and services domain, followed by benefits in the voice domain and the least benefit through changes to the rules of the game domain. The households in the Terai have benefitted the most in accessing assets but the least in terms of changes to the rules of the game. Households in the hills and mountains have gained the most in strengthening their voice and the mountain and hill households have gained the most in changing the rules of the game. This is not an unsurprising result since changes to voice take longer to build than handing out assets to households. Changes to rules of the game signify real structural transformation and require that voice has been built and that there is response to the voice that leads to some form of change.

Which households have gained in the different domains? For access to assets and services, overall Brahmin/Chettri households have gained the highest benefits, followed by Janajati Others. Poor Dalit households do less well than either

poor Janajati Other or Brahmin/Chettri households. The poor and middle class households get the highest benefits; the extreme poor and upper classes have the lowest shares of the benefits. This does show that the upper classes are not disproportionately benefiting from assets but it also shows that the extreme poor are also not being well-targeted. For voice the pattern is as follows: Brahmin/Chettri and Janajati Other households have the greatest benefit from voice. Middle class Brahmin/Chettri households are the most benefitted in all classes and ethnic/caste groups, with middle class households having the highest level of voice benefit amongst all households. Amongst the extreme poor there are low levels of voice benefit with Dalits and Janajati Others having the highest acquisition of voice benefits (but at a very low level). Together the poor and middle class households have the greatest accumulation of voice benefits, reflecting again the low levels of change for the extreme poor.

The third domain is changes to rules of the game. The patterns here are similar although with a slightly higher level of gain for the extreme poor households, a result perhaps of the pro-poor targeting of provisions in constitutions and operational plans. However the main gains are accrued by middle class Brahmin/Chettris.

Who gains most across all three domains? Aggregating all of these benefits for all households across the three domains, it is middle class Brahmin/Chettri

11


households that gain the most benefits, followed by Janajati Others. Dalits and the Janajati Newars are far behind. Across well-being classes it is the poor and middle classes that accrue the majority of the benefits.

Most extreme poor do less well across all domains: A clear conclusion from this assessment is that the cost that households put in to community forestry contributes to the increase in the capitals of the CFUGs and mostly this translates into benefits for households. Middle class Brahmin/Chettri households have paid the highest cost but have also received the highest benefits. The extreme poor have done less well across all the domains. The survey results show the importance of focusing on people’s agency to take action i.e. for the extreme poor their ability to take opportunities and to express their voices in meetings is much more circumscribed than for the poor. For the extreme poor, in general, with much higher levels of insecurity and vulnerability there is a much lower capacity to take risks and invest in the types of collective action that might bring benefits in the future. It seems however, that extreme poor Dalits have gained slightly more from community forestry than the costs they have incurred.

Effects of project support

Positive effects of projects: The survey does reveal some interesting differences between project supported CFUGs and those without project support. The main differences concern higher levels of good

governance practices in project supported CFUGs, both in terms of ensuring provisions that are laid down in the operational guidelines are acted upon by the CFUGs and actually implemented. Users also show higher levels of awareness of rights and there are higher levels of pro-poor and pro-women targeting in project supported CFUGs.

Although there has been significant progress over time in all CFUGs, it will be important to look in detail at the practices of the project supported CFUGs to identify what levels of support are required in non-project CFUGs to replicate the good governance practices and pro-poor targeting of the project-supported CFUGs. This will continue to support a shift to the more transformative approaches where forest user group members have the capacity to have a voice that is effective, particularly for women and for the poor and excluded households.

Effects of conflict

Effects on natural capital: Conflict has been an overwhelming driver of recent change in Nepal and it also has had discernible effects on the degree to which community forests can respond to user demands. The clearest effects of conflict are on natural capital and availability of forest products. In high conflict areas both timber and fuelwood have decreased in supply. Interestingly there is little reported difference due to high levels of conflict in forest condition, except for productivity

12


which is lower than in less affected conflictareas.

Social and institutional capital changes illustrate different patterns, with CFUGs in districts more affected by conflict showing high levels of use of accountability mechanisms compared to low conflict districts. This is probably a response to conflict where the demands for accountability and transparency may be greater and of more consequence than in low conflict areas. High conflict districts were more affected by the pressure of the Maoists to ensure fairer distribution of assets and services to poorer people and strong pressure for transparency and accountability. Pro-poor targeting in

high and medium conflict areas again appears to be more prevalent than in low conflict areas. Deeper analysis and further research is necessary to identify the exactfactors that drove these differences.

Importance of understanding conflict effects: Conflict casts long shadows over current practice and understanding its effects on community forestry user groups is an important element of building more robust institutions in the future. Both the lessons of the 10 year Maoist conflict and the lessons of previous understandings of intra-group conflict still resonate today and consideration should be given to these lessons whilst planning for future support to CFUGs.

13


Next Steps and Conclusions

Taking the study forward

This first national survey represents an important milestone for community forestry. The wealth of data collected during the surveys has been drawn on in this study to show some of the major changes that have occurred at household level through the building of community forestry user institutions.

Policy decisions: The study and its data should be used for a series of policy discussions with key policy actors (government and non-government) to reflect on the findings of the study and the implications for operational practice, for policy and even legislative change. The discussions should be facilitated through a deliberative process where everyone at the discussion is well-informed of the study findings and has had time to internalise and reflect on the findings.

Baseline: The study team considers that the conceptual framework using the three domains of change provides a robust conceptual foundation for a baseline and future monitoring system. It is recommended that the study and data is used as a baseline for the new national multi stakeholder forestry programme.

Monitoring indicators: The study team has provided a list of indicators, tested during the study, that are the most useful and robust to evaluate change in livelihoods in each of the three key domains of change. These need to be discussed and further evaluated by those involved with

the design of the monitoring framework for the new national multi stakeholder forestry programme. Economic modelling: A full analysis of each of the pathways presented in the logic model underpinning communityforestry (Figure 10.2, Volume 8) and the way in which CFUG capital gain is converted into individual household gain can only be obtained using an economic modelling approach. This was not part of the scope of this study but the study team recommends that as a next step and follow-up action to this study, a modelling exercise is conducted to tease out which parameters have significant effects on accumulation of group capital and the relationships to private capital gain. This could include modeling different outcomes under different parameters (including age of CFUG, size of membership of CFUG, size of forest area, condition of forest and levels of conflict).

Research: The database and the wealth of secondary material collected by the study team provide an important research resource that should be made widely available to researchers and students so that further work can be done with the material and a whole new host of research programmes can be generated.

Voices of the CFUG members – learning from their experience: The survey of CFUGs is an opportunity to learn from the groups what works, what does not and what needs to be changed. It provides best practice lessons across three areas that should be factored into future policy dialogues:

14

kanti.risal

Highlight


1) support to women, poor and excluded groups; 2) enhancing good governance; and 3) improving forest quality. Overall CFUGs agree there has been a major improvement in forest quality and biodiversity and this is considered to be the main gain from community forestry. The legal framework for communities to access and use forest products has had important livelihood benefits. There are high levels of recognition for the changes brought about through the focus on social, gender and religious inclusion and the effects this has had in terms of poverty reduction particularly for excluded groups.

There are still many challenges to be addressed most of which are derived from low levels of capacity of individuals as well as institutional capability. Inactive executive committees and the lack of defined operational plans and constitutionsare major institutional barriers to improvingcommunity forestry implementation and were areas of concern for 20 percent of CFUGs. Low availability of skilled human resources are also causing problems for active forest management and ensuring there is good access to information and programmes for development of forest conservation. The gap between demand and supply remains a major problem both for the supply of forest products as well aslivelihood services. This is underlined for those CFUGs that have insufficient funds to meet the demands for IGAs in particularfrom members. Outside the CFUGs the continued political uncertainty over the future structure of Nepal together with political pressure are important external

factors that frame the institutional context for CFUGs and increase some of the internal pressures.

The future of community forestry? Social change is slow and social transformation at the local-level difficult to catalyse and sustain. This study has shown several important areas of social and political change as well as impressive gains in natural resource, although there is still persistence of much that has created barriers to change in the past. The institutional structures created are both robust and fragile with the continued political uncertainties more likely to undermine the gains of the past. What we see from the study is much to be positive about with some areas of emerging fragility.

The improvements in forest condition, quality and extent, including an increased supply of forest products is a remarkable achievement given the dire predictions of degradation and deforestation of the 1970s. The picture of barren hillsides has been transformed into one of verdant forested landscapes. These forests have formed the basis for a remarkable process of change acting as the catalyst for a host of governance and social changes in rural areas that would have been less likely to have occurred without community forestry.

The CFUGs have demonstrated that they are able to move beyond simple delivery of forest benefits, to become institutions that can play a transformative role in redistributing the benefits from the natural capital to bring about changes in the

15


livelihoods of the poor and excluded. They have emerged as a model for local development that can provide the illustration for how elected local government could function in the future, as well as a model for institutional responses to climate change adaptation. Natural capital has become the catalyst for a range of changes to rules of the game that lie far outside just the forestsector.

Community forestry has been remarkably resilient to wider political change. However, the current political processes, the emergence of identity politics and the contested future nature of the state all addsignificant uncertainty at the local-level. All aspects of life in Nepal have become increasingly politicized as a means to capture state and private resources and maintain the all important patronage networks. A major target for all parties are the Village Development Committee (VDC) and District Development Committee (DDC)budgets, with the all party mechanisms (which have recently been dissolved) retaining strong control and influence over resource allocation decisions at the local-level. This reinforces some of the strong messages of proponents of community forestry that CFUGs should retain their autonomy and capability to make their own resource allocation decisions. However, wherever there is decision-making and capacity to favour one group over another there is politics.

The 30 year history of community forestry as an active model enshrined in policy and legislative frameworks, supported by government and donor funds, shows that the continuity of support and resources is a necessary part of transformational change. The study has also underlined the continued importance of project and external facilitation to affect change in the internal governance functions of the user groups, particularly to strengthen the pro-poor provisioning of the groups. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the future of community forestry rests on the interests and presence of the next generation - the young people who are currently migrating out of the hills and Nepal for work. Their interest in maintaining livelihoods rooted in the land, trees and livestock is diminishing. The challenge will be to maintain collective action in the face of these massive social changes and to ensure that community forests can drive rural economic growth sufficient to retain interest and incentives to invest human capital in the reproduction of the forests and the flow of benefits consequent to this.

We must continue to aim for persistence in the maintenance of the forests but at the same time push for continued change in the ways in which the flows of benefits are directed into the local economies to ensure that these changes are transformative and do not continue to reproduce old patterns of wealth creation and acquisition.

16


Notes

The GDP estimates vary greatly and no actual assessment has been made yet. Official statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics is 5 percent of GDP; recent MFSC study (Approach paper to 3-year interim plan 2011-2013) indicates it is over 10 percent. The economic potential is far more than these actual GDP estimates.

In fiscal year 2065/66 alone, the sector generated NRs 590,537,050 (i.e. equivalent to nearly US$ 8.5m) as revenue from tax and sale of forest products (MFSC, 2010).

During the survey period the database had a total of 14,571 CFUGs and the sample for the CFUG selection was based on this number.

Both these levels of funds are probably significantly lower than actual spend, but it was not pos-sible to get all the details either from donors or GoN.

17

01.

02.

03.

04.

persistence and change › wp-content › exported... · thank the community forestry user group...

Documents