Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-

Roads: Where Do We Go?

Narayan Kaji Shrestha

Women Acting Together for Ch ange (WATCH), Nepal

1. INTRODUCTION

Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Ever est and the Himalays is also is known as the Country of Community Forestry

Many issues and problems being raised Issues become significant in the context

that three agencies are vying for control of forest management

1.1 Contending Forces

Government forest agencies, local government agencies and user groups are contending and vying for power, authority, and control over and manage forestry resources in Nepal.

. The forest bureaucracy gets its power and authority to control and manage forestry resource through the state

The local government agencies through politics and election.

FECOFUN being a representative has to strengthen itself by improving credibility of users by setting up horizontal accountability among users themselves.

1.2 Background

Loot the Resource from People and Destroy Environment

Forest Destruction in Himalayan Country reached up to 3.9% per annum

“Eco-Doom” and “Tragedy of Commons” Himalayan Kingdom to be a Desert by

2000 Bureaucracy-Politicians-Contractors’

Nexus Destroyers of Forests People are Blamed

Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources? Historically, State and Rulers Encroached

upon Forest Resources of People Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward,

etc. Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s

Forest for Railway Slippers and others. By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land

Distributed to Elites and Powerful and Three-Fourth went to the Rana Families

1.3 Initiative after 1951

Nationalization of Private Forests Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration PP PPP PPP PPPPPP The Master Plan (1989) developed policy

to devolve rights of management to userP

P PPPPPPP PPP PP PPPPPPP PPP P PPPPPPPPPP Plan by consensus are requirement for h

PPP-PPPP

DFO is supposed to make sure cons ensus is reached

However, the process is not followe d and issues raised

The Change Process: Trusting People as Managers Moving from Resource Creation to

Institution Building and Strengthening

Focus on People Rather Than Trees Users as Managers and Forest

Officials as Facilitators Secure Rights of Users To Manage Decision Making by Consensus

Outcome:

The Forestry Officials are Reoriented Local Users Have Developed Ownership 18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million

Hectare of Forest Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction

is halted Community Development Activities

Initiated FECOFUN is Created

1.4 Statement of the Problem

Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field for rulers, politicians and bureaucrats.

Community forestry as a priority program

61% of forest is supposed to be turned into community forests

The forest bureaucracy backtracking with introduction of OFMP and CFM

The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law

The LGAs have rights to manage fallow l and, raise taxes and develop plans for re

PPPPPPP P PPPPPP PPP The Forest Department and the LGAs are

allying against users with provision of DF CC and allocation of 20% revenue

2. Analytical Framework

2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution Debate

2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights

2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors

3. Description of Initiative U PP PPPPPPPP: 3.1 Is There a Fish in the Bowl? 3.2 Did Pictures Speak? 3.3 What is the Goal? 3.4 Are User Groups Rooted

Enough? 3.5 Are Stems Strong Enough? 3.6 What Fruits User Groups

Require?

Perpetual Rights over Resources Integrated Resources Management Good Governance Consensus Participatory Democracy Social Justice Accountability

Transparency Accountability/Responsiveness Gender/Equity Power Balance Learning Organization

4. Analysis and Discussion 4.1 Actors and Their Playing Field:

Forest Bureaucracy, Local Government Agencies and FECOFUN

Deconcentration, Decentralization, and Devolution operational side by side

The Donors are under pressure to follow the Government

FECOFUN needs to improve its strength by improving effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.

The proper process of user group formation

FECOFUN played critical role in the recent movement 2006 by announcing itself with the democratic forces

However, they are paying the price

5. The Lessons Learned:

Resource Management Requires Active Participation by Users

Elites and Powerful Withheld Information from People to Control Them

User Group Formation Process with Consensus is a Time Consuming Process

Some Bureaucrats Can Change but Most of Them are Hard Nuts to Crack

6. Conclusions and RecoPPPPPPPPPPP The state itself is creating confusio

n by creating contending forces thr ough decentralization

CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory Democracy

Users need to practice consensus in their decision making process and good governance

FECOFUN needs to promote govern ance in their structures to bolster th

eir credibility as a lobbying organization

FECOFUN needs to develop a proce ss which can address issues of gove

rnance in the user groups

What’s There for Us

Your Support for CF is also Support for the Participatory Democracy

So-Called Experts are Trying to Destroy CF from Nepal, Please Help Us.

Nepal can Come Out of Poverty only by Managing Its Own Resources, Help Us in This. We do not Want to be a Beggar Nation.

CF will Lead Us to Democratic Republic, Please Stop Exploitative Forces to Undermine Our Aspiration of Being a Democratic Republic.

Namaskar!!

Please Let’s Develop Our Own Model of Democratic Republic Based on The Learning from CF

Let’s also Enjoy Freedom You Have been Enjoying

Please Help Us Thank You Very Much