Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal:Community Forestry on the Move

Keshav Raj KanelNepal

Country BackgroundRational and Evolution of Community

ForestryForest Tenure and Governance in CFUGsMajor Achievements Lessons Learned Conclusions

Overview of the Presentation

NEPAL

China

India

India

India

High Mountain

Middle Hills

Churia Hills

Terai

High Himal

China

India

India

India

High Mountain

Middle Hills

Churia Hills

Terai

High Himal

China

Cross Section of Physiographic region in Nepal

Country BackgroundParameter Unit Status

Total population number 27 million

Literate population percent 54.1

Population dependent on agriculture percent 6

Total land area hectare 14.7 million

Total forest area percent 39.6

Total arable land percent 21

Contribution of Ag and Forestry to GDP ($ 12 Billion)

Percent 32

Integrated farming system with forestry as an important component

Nationalization alienated the local people from forests

Forest agency was not capable to conserve and manage the forests

Dilemma in forest management◦Who has the access and control over the

forest?◦How to regulate the extraction of forest

products? Forests became de-facto Open access

Resource leading to accelerated D and D

Rational for Community Forestry

Hills and Mountains had some crude form of local participation in forest management before nationalization

It was not democratic, but had a system of people guarding the forests, and control over the harvest of the forest products

Some of the champions of forest officials were tired of being blamed, and were looking for ways to involved local people in forest management – Support from the politicians

Learning by doing led to the present model of CF

Rational for Community Forestry

Before 1957: Some forests were administered as private property

1957 - 1990: Forest was controlled as state propertyPrivate forest nationalized Concept of participatory forestry emerged (1978)Some form of forest management rights

deconcentrated to local political bodies 1991 onward: Forests have been managed by the

community as Community ForestForest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulations, 1995

provided conducive environment to devolve management rights to CFUGs.

Evolution of Community Forestry

Forest Tenure and Governance in

CFUGs

COMMUNITY FOREST

Community Forest is the part of the National Forest handed over to the Community Forest User Group (CFUGs) for its development, protection and utilization.

•Land belongs to the government•Use and management of CF by the CFUG•Regulation by CFUG and DFO•CF is the high priority program

Forest Act and Forest Regulations Provide the Framework of Forest Tenure

New Community Forest Program Guidelines (2009) Further Elaborates the Rights of the CFUGs

CFUG is Registered at the District Forest OfficeGroup of traditional forest users (HHs)

adjoining a forestThey have a charter of association

Users have Access, Withdrawal, Use and Management Rights, but not the right over the land

Tenure Arrangements

General Assembly of the Users makes major decisions to be implemented by Exe. Committee

Inventory of Forest is taken with the Assistance of DFO

Operation Plan (OP) of CF is Prepared by CFUG with the Support of DFO Front Line Staff

The OP is a Contract Between CFUG and DFO. It is of 5 to 10 Years Duration.

Forest Management Schedules are Performed by CFUG as Per the OP

Sales and Distribution of Forest Products Done by CFUG

Tenure Arrangements

CFUG has a Fund From the Sale of Forest Products and others. It is Used for Forest Management (25%), Livelihood Promotion (35%), and Community Development.

Annual Report has to be Given to DFO.DFO is the Gate Keeper of Forest. Can take

Various Actions Against the CFUG and Its Members.

FECOFUN is Strong in Advocating the Rights of Forest Users

Tenure Arrangements

CF Implementation ProcessCFUG Formation and CF Hand Over Process

Networks Established

Local Bodies

Poor

NRM sector

Line agencies

Women

NPC

CFUG

FederationUniversities

Nations

Media

Global

National

District

LocalDalit

FUGs

NGOs

Federation

Service center

Major Achievements

Total number of CFUG = 14,439Number of women only CFUG = 795Households involved = 1.66 mill. HH (39 %

of the total population )Total area of community forests handed

over = 1.23 mill. ha (30 % of the total national forest)

Total area of community forests managed by women leadership only = 23,257 ha

Status of Community Forestry

CFUG Formation and CF Handover Trend

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

<198

719

87/8

819

88/8

919

89/9

019

90/9

119

91/9

219

92/9

319

93/9

419

94/9

519

95/9

619

96/9

719

97/9

819

98/9

919

99/2

000

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

F isc a l Yea r

CFU

G #

/CF

Are

a

F UG Num ber C F Are a "00"

Jiri after 32 years

1968

2000

Learning From the Past

Biomass and C-stock by forest type (tones/ha) 1994-2008

All types Sal forest Katus-chilaune forest

Pine forest

Biomass

Carbon Biomass

Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass

Carbon

1994 193 91 242 114 199 93 143 672008 232 109 260 122 249 117 190 89% change + 21% + 21% + 7% + 7% + 25% + 25% + 33% + 33%

Notes:• Includes only ‘tree’ carbon (above and below ground) i.e. not shrubs/litter and

soil organic C

Conclusions• All forest types have increased their biomass (and carbon) significantly from

1994-2008

• Large differences between forest types e.g. Pine>Katus-chilaune>Sal

Capacity of the Users Strengthened

Eco-Tourism Promoted

Contribution to Community Development

Annual Income of CFUG[Total Annual Income = US $ 14 Million]

Forest Product

83%

Fine/ Punishment

1%

GO/NGO Grants

1%

Membership Fee1%

Entrance Fee1%

Other Income13%

Annual Expenditure of CFUG

Infrastructure Development

36%Harvesting and

Silvicultural Operation

18%

Operational Cost14%

Forest Watcher10%

Pro-poor Program

3%

Training/Study Tour2%

Miscellaneous17%

Lessons Learned from Community Forestry

Unbundling the Functions of Forest Agency is Essential

Community Forestry is More an Institutional Building Process

CFUGs Responsible for Forest and Fund Management

Forest Agency Responsible for Monitoring and Regulation

Transferring Regulatory and Fiscal Rights to CFUG Brings Innovation and Motivation to Users

Lessons

Reorientation of Forestry Staff, and Capacity Building to CFUG is Necessary

Reform is not a Linear Process, but is an iterative and muddling through Process

Reform and Partnership Building are Continuous Processes

Negotiations and Building Consensus Among Forest Agency, CFUGs is Important to Change the Role of Forest Agency

Lessons

Forest Condition Improves with CFContribution to Livelihood – QuestionableCommunity is not Homogeneous, - Inclusion

of Decision Making and Benefit Sharing a Challenging Task for Governance

Contextual Factors are Important in CF Management

Lessons

The Significant Problems We Face Cannot Be Solved By The Same Level of Thinking That Created Them

Albert Einstein

Conclusion

Thank You