Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 08:03Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Forests, Trees andLivelihoodsPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20
SUSTAINABILITY OFSUPPORT FOR COMMUNITYFORESTRY IN NEPALK. P. ACHARYA aa Department of Forest Research andSurvey , GPO Box 9136, Kathmandu , NepalE-mail:Published online: 04 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: K. P. ACHARYA (2003) SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORTFOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 13:3,247-260, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2003.9752461
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2003.9752461
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2003, Vol. 13, pp. 247-260 1472-8028 $10 © 2003 A B Academic Publishers-Printed in Great Britain
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL
K.P. ACHARY A
Research Officer, Department of Forest Research and Survey, GPO Box 9/36, Kathmandu, Nepal Email: kpacharyal @hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
A system of community forestry was developed during the late 70's to preserve the degraded hills of Nepal and to provide basic needs of forestry products to the rural people. The Community Forestry programme has received the highest priority within the forestry sector in Nepal and is regarded as one of the most successful development programmes in Nepal. However, recent studies are claiming that under Community Forestry; traditional users have lost their use rights and many of the poor have been marginalized - for example by way of fees and charges imposed to them. The issue of selfreliance to run the programme without external support is equally important. Currently only about 27 percent of potential community forest area has been handed over to the local communities, leaving a significant amount still to be handed over. Even so, the productive management of all of the forest areas already handed over is a great challenge requiring large amounts of current resources and a huge commitment from both the Government and the communities in the future. The paper discusses the issues of membership charges in community forests and the means to allocate the financial resources needed to run the programme. The creation of Forestry Development Funds in the districts could be a sustainable approach to running the Community Forestry programme in Nepal.
Key words: Sustainability, membership, use rights, service charges, community forestry fund
INTRODUCTION
Nepal has pioneered Community Forestry (CF) in its national forest policy. The CF programme was formally launched in Nepal in 1978 with the enactment of Panchayat Forest Rules and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules to support it. The CF policy and legislation have been continuously reformed since then. The policy has recognized the use rights of the local people and established them as potential forest managers. The process developed steadily and was provided with the necessary legal base by the Forest Act, 1993 that gave authority to the users for the management of their forest resources, and linked the resource managing institutions with the users. The community institutions, called Community Forest User Group (CFUGs), represent the users in the community, and are legally authorised to take management decisions. The Act recognised the dominant role of local people in the decision-making process and transferred the benefits from forest management to
Manuscript received 2.9.02: revision accepted on 24.2.03
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
248 ACHARYA
the local people. The spirit of the new CF legislation in Nepal is the development of a partnership between the organised local communities and the Government (Bartlett 1992, Karki, Karki and Karki 1994 ).
The CF programme has received the highest priority within the forestry sector in Nepal. It is regarded as one of the most successful development programmes in Nepal because it has resulted in improved forest conditions following the control of illicit felling and grazing (HMG 1989, Springate-Baginski eta/. 1999, Nightingale 2002, NPC 2001). However, at the same time, many believe that community forest management is protection-oriented with the main forest management activities limited to the removal of dead, dying trees and leaf litter. As a consequence the communities are getting sub-optimal benefits (Gilmour and Fisher 1991, Branney 1994, 1996, Chhetri and Pandey 1992, Karki, Karki and Karki 1994, Sowerine 1994, NPC 2001. Shrestha 2001, Acharya 2002). This situation has many negative impacts such as the degradation of nearby government forest; the forest capacity is not fully utilized and the forests are not regarded as renewal natural resources. Ultimately peoples' participation decreases through lack of direct benefits - even after the several years of protection and consequent hardship. Recently, it has been estimated that active forest management could increase supplies of forest products and removals of fuel wood by 100% (FFMP 2000) and in this situation community forest management will reduce the pressure on deforestation and degradation of forest resources. However, there are studies claiming that the forest management aspect in community forestry is undoubtedly a success e.g. Springate-Baginski, 1999.
The programme has attracted a lot of funds from aid agencies. Among many aspects of the sustainability of the programme - funding, equity in the distribution of benefits and the provision of professional support are important.
Progress to date
The achievement of CF in terms of number of CFUGs formed and forest area handed over to the CFUGs in Nepal until the end of the August, 2002 is presented in Table 1.
TABLE I
Status of community forestry in Nepal
Total land area of Nepal Total forest area Potential community forest area Forest area under community forestry Total no. of CFUGs Total number of households Percentage of potential forest area handed over
(Source: DoF, 2002a)
14.7 million ha 5.5 million ha 3.5 million ha 905,143 ha 11.500 1,270,566 27. o/c.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 249
Current issues in CF
The numberofCFUGs formed up to the mid-term review of Ninth Five Year plan is less than expected. The reason mentioned is that people have shown little interest in CF (NPC 2001 ). This is a serious issue and the underlying reasons need to be exposed. A significant proportion of the forest area still has to be handed over and the planning and developing strategy to tackle this situation must receive priority. Currently CFUGs are concerned with managing their forests to maintain a wide ranges of outputs such as grasses, fodder, leaf litter, medicinal and aromatic plants, fruits, besides timber and firewood. The production of such a variety of products complicates management and necessitates forest management systems that are responsive to local needs and conditions. The potential of CF will only be realized if the control system is flexible and local managers are encouraged to adopt a range of silvicultural operations to meet the needs of the local situation.
The Joint Technical Review Committee (JTRC) 2000, formed by the Ministry of Forests and Soil conservation has identified eleven different issues within the community forestry policy and practices (JTRC 2000). The Committee had made recommendations over these issues to the Government of Nepal. The issues identified are presented in Table 2. However, JTRC have not identified the sustainability of support for community forestry as an issue.
The paper aims to discuss the sustainability of CF as an issue in order to bring into the discussion a wider audience for more debate. This paper draws attention to the amount of donor support given to community forestry and, at the operational level. to the problems of membership fees and use rights. Recommendations are made to solve problems of sustainability within the community forestry through the concept of District Forestry Development Funds and an approach to involve local users and define their use rights is outlined.
The issue of sustainability of community forestry is both complex and dynamic. The recent and controversial concept paper introduced by the government of Nepal has already created confusion among all the stakeholders of community forestry through its comments limiting the recognition of CFUGs as independent bodies recognised by the Forestry Act, 1993. Also the ban on felling green trees for five years and the restrictions on free harvesting and the transport and marketing of
TABLE 2
Issues of community forestry in Nepal
I. Protection versus active management 2. Basic needs versus commercialisation 3. Income generation and NTFP management 4. Support services 5. Governance, monitoring and evaluation 6. Partnership and autonomy
(Source: Joint Technical Review Committee 2000)
7. Income, taxes and subsidies 8. Livelihoods, equity and gender 9. Community forestry in the Terai
I 0. High altitude forest management II. Policy and legal frameworks
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
250 ACHARYA
forest produce from community forests has added to the confusion and is promoting passive management of community forests. Other points in this paper that have raised controversy and concern are:
• Large block forests in Terai and Siwaliks will be managed as Governmental forests. Barren forest and shrub land will gradually be handed over to locals' population as community forests. (Existing policy and legal documents allow the handing over of forest to community without such restrictions)
• A collaborative forest management approach will be adapted in the Terai. (What is this collaborative approach that has not been mentioned before)
• The mandatory provision for the estimation of annual increment before any kind of felling in CF. (Highly technical and unrealistic under the present situation in Nepal).
• 40% of the income from the selling of forest products outside CF shall be transferred to the government. (This is against the existing policy)
• 25% of the income from the government-managed forests will be provided to local government.
MEMBERSHIP FEES AND USE RIGHTS
Membership fees refer to any kind of cash (or grain) or services required by CFUGs to maintain use rights of members. Raising membership fees is not practised all over Nepal but is common in some parts. It has been inherited either from an indigenous forest management system as in Lumjung district (with a total of 199 CFUGs) or has been introduced in sponsored community forestry projects as in Kathmandu district (a total of 136 CFUGs). In both of these districts around 80% percentages of the CFUGs have the system of charging annual membership fees. The charges range from NRs 1 25 to 120/year in Kathmandu and NRs 25 to 500 in Lumjung district (NB. The 1996 Living Standard Survey Report gives the average per capita income in the western Terai as just over NRs 7 ,000).
All CFUGs in the mid hills region, raise voluntary labour contributions for all activities, but elsewhere, especially in the Terai, activities may be carried out by paid labourers. In many instances members have to pay cash to receive forest products obtained during forest silviculture and management operations. These different types of fees are imposed in order to generate funds in the CFUGs that, ultimately, are expended on local development works. In general membership fees at the time of formation of CFUGs are nominal or zero, but increase for new members as social barriers and to limit access for new comers. This is a rational decision because, as benefits emerge, many more individuals see the advantages and want to secure use rights in the community forests. On the other hand, the community people who have really worked and suffered from hardship want to limit the membership. For example, in Bharkhore CFUG in Parbat District there is
1NRs is Nepalese currency and I GBP(£) equals to NRs 118.00 in September. 2002.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 251
no annual membership fee, but the user group charges NRs I 00 for a new member emerging from breaking up a family and NRs 5000 to a new comer to the village who wants to become a member. The higher entrance fee to new members can be justified, but the poor should not be marginalized through membership fees and other CFUGs charges. The case study below illustrates the kinds of membership fees in a CFUG from Western Nepal. This information was gained through a survey in the locality using informal discussions and individual interviews.
Case study from Siddha Binayak CFUG, Kohalpur, Banke
The Siddha Binayak CFUG was formed in 1999 and the forest, a 23.5 ha sissoo plantation 14 years old, was handed over to this group. The forest is protected through a paid watcher. There are 159 households in the user group with a total population of 776. There is a total ban on increasing the number of members.
The CFUG levies a monthly membership fee of NRs 20/month/hh to pay the watcher. Users have to pay NRs 100 per year to share in the fuelwood collection during harvesting operations. Similarly, NRs 5/month/hh is charged for cutting grass during the rainy season. More than one hundred traditional tharus (members) have withdrawn because of these charges.
One interesting but informal features of this CFUG is selling of use rights. Existing members can sell their use rights to others in the nature of an open market. Once a rights' holder is ready to sell his/her own use right, a buyer can purchases it. The present purchasing rate is around NRs 3000, but has reached NRs 8000. In addition, the buyer must register their use rights with the CFUG by paying NRs I ,600. These buying and selling practices are far beyond the capacity of poor and traditional families. Migrants, who are mostly alternative energy users and do not need firewood, now control this forest and local users have withdrawn their membership because, even if they were still members, they would have been unable to have the forest managed in their best interest because they are illiterate and remained outside the power block that formed the management committee. The withdrawal of community forest membership has not changed their needs and energy use patterns. Being poor families they have no alternative but to depend on fuelwood as their main source of energy. Consequently, they have to walk further and longer to cut wood in a national forest (Baral and Subedi 1999, Shrestha 2001, Acharya 2002). The richer families ask the poor families to contribute labour for CFUG activities in place of those from the richer households and obtained half of the forest products that they collect. This is the only benefit that the poor receive from the community forest.
Commentary arising from the case study
Maharjan ( 1998) found practices similar to those of the case study in eastern Nepal. Dongol eta! (2002) argued that charging for all forest products and high prices were
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
252 ACHARYA
indicators of a successful CFUG but this may not be relevant or true for all CFUGs. A CFUG with that has accumulated a large amount of capital should be examined in order to determine how that capital had been raised and who is benefiting and by what means.
Maintaining access to common resources for poor families and preserving their traditional use rights is a great challenge and raises the issue of equity in and the sustainability of community forestry.
Why be a member of a CFUG or purchase use-rights?
The case study presented raises some serious questions such as
• why people are paying such high prices to become a member of a CFUG with a small forest that cannot give a high return on the purchase price.
• how to achieve equity and preserve use rights of traditional users and poor families?
The village survey investigated the motives of members;
• maintaining social prestige by being general or committee member was the first reason. In this CFUG the election of the committee aroused more interest, sound and emotional than the local government election.
• achieving political advantages arsing from committee membership is the second reason. The present chair lady has been offered, it is believed. the post of village leader in local government.
• securing use rights to nearby forest and preserving the forest from being encroached was the third reason.
• obtaining forest products from the forest was the reason given the lowest ranking but, of course, this would be prime object for the local traditional users or thaurs.2
Why this system prevails
61 percent out of the 5.5 million ha of Nepal's forest has been identified as potential community forest (Tamrakar and Nelson 1990). Up to the end of August 2002 a total of 27 % of the potential area have been handed over to 11 ,500 CFUGs (DoF, 2002a). A very large number (perhaps 30,000) of user groups still have to be formed. Consequently it is not surprising that the situation described in the case study is common, for the following reasons:-
• The first and most important reason is that all the required social consultation
~Tiwrus are traditional inhabitants low land of Nepal.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 253
processes for CFUG formation are not completed and traditional users are excluded during the CFUG formation process. Consequently, the rules adopted disadvantage traditional users.
• The second reason is the misuse of the powers of the DFOs during the hand over process eg failure in users' identification, bias in determining forest area and boundaries, incomplete debate prior to the adoption of the CFUGs constitution, rules, preparation ofthe Operation Plan (OP) and their amendments. DFOs have been under pressure to complete the process of handing over forests, so the onerous and time consuming process of forming user groups that will protect the needs of the poor has, on occasions, been bypassed.
• Thirdly, lack of an effective supportive system of the government or from other agencies. It has been believed by many supporting agencies that once a CFUG has been formed their responsibility ceases. In any real sense their responsibility has just begun. The Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project in the three middle hill districts - Dolkha, Ramechaop and Okhaldunga- is using NGOs as service providers. Extension of the use of professional service providers from NGOs or local government would help to provide the support needed by forest user groups.
• Fourthly, there is no monitoring and evaluation system and hence no feedback mechanism and consequent chance for improvement. In some cases CFUGs have misinterpreted the legal basis to suit the local elite persons and reserved the benefits for these few - as was been the case in the case study presented.
• Finally, this situation is the result of a lack of responsibility and accountability that are basic elements in good governance. In the last eighteen months the security situation has certainly hampered both the hand-over progress and the provision of effective professional support to forest user groups.
Donor supports and its sustainability
Since the formal launching of community forestry in 1978, donor support in terms of technical and financial matter has been maintained at a high level. Consequently Nepal; is an "aid addict" dependent on foreign aid. Presently, the contribution of foreign aid to support community forestry is about 70% (as shown by the Government budget analysis of the different projects). In addition some projects are using direct funding which is not included above. In all the Nepali Government is probably contributing less than 10% of the expenditure on community forestry. The allocation of capital investment is far from simple, especially where the costs and benefits are spread over a long time period and many are indirect, outside the market economy or intangible. The indirect costs and benefits, especially the environmental benefits, have not been evaluated for community forestry. Nevertheless, it is a time to review the process and mechanisms being employed and analyse how much money is being expended on community forestry, its source and how sustainable are these flows.
Table 3a lists aid projects supporting the Department of Forests in the area of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
254 ACHARYA
community forestry. Table 3b lists other aid projects with elements of support to community forestry. The data may not be accurate but indicate the level of expenditure during the periods of the formation of CFUG and their post-formation early years. One can argue that this amount is for capital formation. On the other hands many other costs, such as the cost incurred by the Government of Nepal, support-areas cost such as research and support through Non-Governmental organisations, are not included. Certainly, it clearly indicates that the overall expenditure per CFUG is far higher than a poor country like Nepal can tolerate and support with its own resources, even though it is thought that the direct expenditure delivered to the user groups is extremely low - central overhead expenditures making up the difference.
CFUGs are seen by some as passive and protection-oriented in managing the forest and that this has resulted in fewer benefits, lower revenues and the need for continued support. One of the reasons for passive management is a lack of sufficient post-formation technical support to the user groups. If this is correct, then the allocation of resources between user group formation and support activities has been sub-optimal; successful user groups have been left unsupported in spite of the level of donor funding.
A recent study by ActionAid Nepal (2002) claimed that donor assistance in Nepal has not reduced poverty and aid has inadequately focussed on the needs of the majority of the people. Similarly, Malia (1999) claimed that donors' unstated objectives are to influence policies and maintain their presence. The ActionAid study also claimed that most technical assistance flows back to donors in the form of salaries and perks of expatriate consultants and experts, and that this raises the costs per CFUG.
TABLE 3a
List of Community Forestry Projects, duration and total project costs
No of Avg. Total us$ CFUGs Cost/ CFUGs in
S.N. Projects Duration ('000) formed CFUG US$ Project Area
Nepal-UK Community July 93 to Forestry Project Jan. 2001 11175 1673 6700 1937
2 Nepal Swiss Community July 96 to Forestry Project Oct 2000 2700 220 12000 489
3 NARMSAP- CPF July 98 to component July 2003 7800# 1031 ** 4500 6587
4680 * Overall cost/CFUG 7700
(Source: DoF 2002a; ROE 2001 ), #Project budget for five years.* Proportionate estimation for first 3 years. ** CFUGS formed in first three years.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 255
TABLE3b
List of other forestry development projects with elements of support to community forestry
Total us$
Projects Starting Ending Donor ('000)
Environment and Forest July 96 June 02 US AID 8840 Supports DOF, Enterprise Activity DSCWM and DNPWC Natural Resource Management Sector Feb 98 Jan 2003 DANIDA I458 Assistant MFSC Central Support Nepal Biodiversity Landscape Project Project Dec 00 Aug 02 UNDP/GEF 281 formulation phase Terai Arc Landscape Project July 01 July 06 WWF/N 6000 Supports DoF and
DNPWC Strengthened Governance of Sept 01 Aug 06 US AID 2400 Natural Resources and Selected Institutions Churiya Forestry Development Project III Phase Jan 02 March 04GTZ 3000 Dhading Resource Management Project Sept 00 July 02 UMN 600 Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Dev. Project July 96 June 03 IFAD 9072 TAwas completed in 2001 Livelihoods and Forestry Program March 01 Feb II DFID 26882 NARMSAP July 98 July 03 DANIDA 17284 Nepal Australia Community Resource Mgt Project May 97 Jan 03 AusAid 6210 Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project July 00 July 04 SDC 2721 Bagmati Integrated Watershed Mgt Project July 97 July 03 EEC 22500
Total 107,248
Source: Project Profile, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, June 4, 2002.
There is need to analyse a posteriori, the programme's costs and benefits and identify the perspectives of the different stakeholders in order to provide a clear picture of the successes and failures of the community forestry programme to date, and its future requirements. Most analyses done by donors have been done prior to project start ups.
THE OPTIONS
Now is the time to ask "When shall Nepal be self-dependent and able to regulate the community forestry programme without outside interference?" Closing the pro-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
256 ACHARYA
gramme due to lack of resources is unthinkable. Nevertheless the financial burden of supporting community forestry increases daily with the continued expansion of the community forestry programme. The issue of how to reduce the financial burden on the public administration has a very high priority in the present fiscal year but, at the same time, the burden on the government from the forestry sector is increasing (DoF 2002b ). Community forestry is the largest land user in the country. Why should a renewable resource like forests be supported from the revenues collected from other sectors in the country, or by continued donor supports with no end in sight?
Possible options are:
• Continue government support. • Abandon the programme. • Enforce service charges for user groups to make the programme self-supporting.
The first option would provoke a crisis as the present government expenditure and tax earning capacity in the country are unbalanced. Even if supported, the coverage and extent of the programme would have to be greatly be reduced and likely to result in closure.
The aim of this paper is to discuss the last option; the possibility of demanding user groups to support the community forestry programme. Taxing user groups will be fiercely opposed by those who claim on behalf of the poorer and weaker elements in society - that the indirect benefits of the forest are enjoyed by all, not just the user group members. Moreover, the funds generated by the user groups are presently invested in rural development works that tend to benefit the wealthier households more than the poor. For example, Bhairabhadanda CFUG in Makawanpur District invested its average (1997-2001 -Wagle 2002)) expenditure as below:
Forest management Administration Forest products utilisation Rural Development
NRs 38,000 54.000 46,000
168,000
12% 18 15 55
It can be argued that a major national asset- the forest- is utilized by few people so tax will balance the costs and benefits between resource users and non-users (Grosen 2001).
The community forestry programme has increased the total area of forest under users' management. So "why should not the owners/managers of this high proportion of the total land of the country pay something towards the cost of running the supporting institutions?" Private and government organizations are taxed on sales of forest products while user groups enjoy tax exemption (Grosen 2001). The object of the community forest programme was to ensure that the forest contributed to the basic needs of the poor. If user groups are to be taxed or asked to contribute in some way to the costs of running the community forestry programme, then the poor in the communities must be protected.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 257
Service charges
The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC) is providing free services to all the user groups in different stages of formation and post-formation activities of the CFUG, albeit the standard of these services is often low and far from what is required. One of the possible ways to collect money is through charging for regulatory services such as user group registration, Operational Plan preparation and constitution drafting, hammer registration, and for other technical assistance: a land tax on the forest area or a tax on earnings might be imposed. The Local SelfGovernance Act 1998 provides for local governments (Village Development Councils/District Development Councils - VDC/DDC) to tax forestry products. The MoFSC has yet to co-ordinate different taxing systems and develop a unified system of service charges. Any service charge system introduced must be constructive and be based on transparent and acceptable criteria developed after wider discussion.
Criteria for Service charges
Service charges must be based on the capacity of the user group to pay and sustainability. Possible criteria might be;
For example :-• newly formed users should be exempted; • user groups with a large forest should be charged more than one with a smaller
resource; • groups with a cash surplus charged more than groups with a current deficit; • user groups with mature natural forest charged more than those with plantation
forest; • Terai forest user groups charged more than hills and high mountains forest user
groups; • khair (Acacia catechu) tree owners should pay more than those with less
profitable crops.
A small forest land charge would generate a significant amount of money, For example charging NRs I 0.00 per ha/year would generate around 9 million rupees per year. This would dissuade users also from claiming excessive areas of forest.
A Forestry Development Fund
It would be logical and sensible to establish District Forestry Development Funds to support and promote community forestry and other forest development activities from the funds generated through user group service charges. Other contributions could be sought from local governments sources such as district development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
258 ACHARYA
boards and from the sales of forestry products. The formation of such a fund may not be opposed by the stakeholders of community forestry programme and would promote the community forestry programme. The problem of who should regulate the collection and dispensation of the funds remains.
The latest CFUG database shows that on average each user group earns NRs 150,000 per year. A 5% charge on earnings would generate some NRs 90 million a year. However the consultation with stakeholders, organisation and administration of such funds within the districts would be onerous.
A programme of awareness creation for the needs and extension of community forestry charging must be initiated, and all stakeholders involved in the discussion and debate. Improved stakeholders co-ordination and involvement will help in designing a widely accepted scheme. The CFUGs are only likely to support it if the details of the scheme are well known and the funds are:
• Accessible • Transparent
• Responsive
• Participative
CONCLUSION
details available and funds controlled locally; all know how the fund is generated because they organise and controlled it;. used for supporting the local community forestry and other local forest developments; all know how the fund is used because they participate in deciding on allocations.
Forestry is the dominant land use and community forestry has been the major forest policy of the Government since late 80s. There has been continuous donor support for this programme that has been regarded as one of the most successful development efforts in the country. Forestry, being a renewable resource, should be able to generate revenue in addition to environmental benefits. In a poor country like Nepal, it should fund itself, contribute to national development and not be a burden on the Government.
At present, if donor support for community forestry was withheld, the programme would collapse due to lack of funds. This must be avoided. The possibility of raising funds through various forms of charges on the community and making community forestry self supporting is already under discussion within community user groups and districts. Schemes for raising funds must be selective to protect the poor forest users. The cost for bringing the remaining forest areas into active community forest management and providing post formation support is a daunting challenge, as competition from other developments for government resources is intense. This issue needs wide discussion and debate among the different stakeholders in the context of a clear and unequivocal statement of the past costs and benefits to Nepal.
One of the options is to tax community forestry and generate funds locally at the user group and district level. In this way community forestry may become self-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
SUSTAINABILITY OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL 259
supporting. The establishment of a Community Forestry Fund would provide an opportunity to promote the community forestry programme and reduce donor dependency. Locally generated and controlled funds should be used more effectively than donor funds.
Community forestry and other forestry activities should go hand in hand. The community forestry should not serve the interest of wealthier families or become a formal and legal mechanism to marginalize traditional users and extinguish their use rights and benefits. It should incorporate mechanism to reserve benefits for the poor and disadvantages people.
REFERENCES
Acharya K.P. 2002. Twenty-Four Years of Community Forestry in Nepal. International Forestrv Review 4(2): 149-156.
ActionAid Nepal. 2002. A brief review o.fforeign aid in Nepal, CPWF and ActionAid, Nepal. Baral J.C. and Subedi B.R. 1999. Is community forestry of Nepal's Terai in right direction? Banko
Janakari 9(2): 20-24. Bartlett A.G. 1992. A review of community forestry advances in Nepal. Commonwealth Forestry
Review, 71(2): 95-100. Branney P. 1996. The New Silviculture: India and Nepal. In Hobley, M. Participatory Forestry: The
Process o.f Change in India and Nepal. ODJ, London. CBS 1996. Nepal Living Standard Survey Report, main findings volume 2, Central Bureau of
Statistice. Kathmandu, Nepal. Chhetri R.B. and T.R. Pandey 1992. User Group Forestry in the Far- Western Region of Nepal: Case
Studies from Baitadi and Achham. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Dongol C.M., Hughey K.F.D. and Bigsby H.R. 2002. Capital Formation and Sustainable Community
Forestry in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22(1): 70-77. DoF 2002a. Our Fore.lfs. Department of Forests, Kathmandu, Nepal. DoF 2002 b. Management Information System, Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest,
Kathmandu, Nepal FFMP 2000. Supply and Demand Relationships in Community Forests, FFMP Discussion Paper no
4, Forest User Groups Forest Management Project, International and Rural Development Department, University of Reading, Reading UK.
Gilmour D.A. and Fisher R.J. 1991. Villagers. Forest and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu, Sahayogi Press. 212 pp.
Grosen J. 2001. Issues of Income, Taxes and Subsidies In Proceedings o.f the Workshop 011
Community Based Forest Resource Management, Godawari, Lalitpur 20-22 November 2002 HMO 1989. Forestry Sector Policy: Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of Nepal. Ministry of Forest
and Soil Conservation, HMG/ADB/FJNNIDA, Kathmandu. JTRC 2000. Proceedings of the Workshop on Community Based Forest Resource Management,
Godawari, Lalitpur 20-22 November 2002. Maharjan M.R. 1998. The flow of distribution of costs and benefits in the Chuliban Community
Forest, Dhankuta district, Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Network 23e London. Malia, Y.B. 1999. Stakeholders' Responses to Changes in Forest Policies, in Pluralism and
Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development: Proceedings of an International Workshop, Rome, 9-12 December /997, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
NPC 2001. Mid-term evaluation (!f the Ninth Five Year Plan, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nightingale A.J. 2002. Participation or Just Sitting In? The Dynamics of Gender and Caste in Community Forestry, Journal o.f' Forest and Livelihood 2( I): 17-24.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
260 ACHARYA
ROE 2001. Strategy for Danish-Nepalese Development Cooperation: The Natural Resources Sector. Royal Danish Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Shrestha K. 2001 Protection versus active management of Community Forests. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Community Based Forest Resource Management, Godawari, Lalitpur 20-22 November 2002.
Sowerwine D. 1994. Forest Sector Potential and Constraints. The Forestry Model and Report prepared by consultant, Unpublished Report, Kathmandu.
Springate-Baginski, 0., Soussan, J., Dev, O.P., Yadav, N.P. and Kiff E. 1999. Community Forestry in Nepal: Sustainability and impacts on common and private property resource management, report on first phase of field research, Environmental Centre, Leeds University/NRIINUKCFP, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Tamrakar S.M. and D.V. Nelson 1990. Potential Community Forestry Land in Nepal. Field document No. 16. HMG/FAO/UNDP, Kathmandu.
Wagle S. 2002. Contribution of community forestry to the livelihood of local participants in the middle hills of Nepal: A case study of Makawanpur district, An M. Sc thesis submitted to the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
03 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
