Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go? Narayan Kaji Shrestha

1
Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads
Where Do We Go?Narayan Kaji Shrestha

• Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal

2
1. INTRODUCTION

• Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Everest 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

3
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

4

• 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.

5
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

6
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 Nepals 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

7
1.3 Initiative after 1951

• Nationalization of Private Forests
• Forest Act 1961 Dual Admonostration
• PF and PPF failed
• The Master Plan (1989) developed policy to
  devolve rights of management to users
• Development of Charter and Operational Plan by
  consensus are requirement for hand-over

8

• DFO is supposed to make sure consensus is reached
• However, the process is not followed and issues
  raised

9
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

10
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

11
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

12

• The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are
  empowered by Law
• The LGAs have rights to manage fallow land, raise
  taxes and develop plans for resources management
• The Forest Department and the LGAs are allying
  against users with provision of DFCC and
  allocation of 20 revenue

13
2. Analytical Framework

• 2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and
  Devolution Debate
• 2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights
• 2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors

14
3. Description of Initiative Undertaken by
FECOFUN

• 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?

15

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

16

• Transparency
• Accountability/Responsiveness
• Gender/Equity
• Power Balance
• Learning Organization

17
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

18

• 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

19
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

20
6. Conclusions and Recommendations

• The state itself is creating confusion by
  creating contending forces through
  decentralization
• CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory
  Democracy
• Users need to practice consensus in their
  decision making process and good governance

21

• FECOFUN needs to promote governance in their
  structures to bolster their credibility as a
  lobbying organization
• FECOFUN needs to develop a process which can
  address issues of governance in the user groups

22
Whats 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.

23
Namaskar!!

• Please Lets Develop Our Own Model of Democratic
  Republic Based on The Learning from CF
• Lets also Enjoy Freedom You Have been Enjoying
• Please Help Us
• Thank You Very Much