of 19
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
1/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
1
Discussion Paper
Community Forestry as an EffectiveInstitutional Platform for Local
Development: Experiences from the Koshi
Hills
January 2009
Final Draft
Authors: Neeraj Chapagain and Mani Ram Banjade
Discussion Paper Series Editor: Hemant R Ojha
Special editorial contributions: Binod Chapagain
Address for sending comments: [email protected]
Summary
Although community forestry is recognized as a successful programme in terms ofrehabilitating forest condition, its contributions to local community development arenot recognized adequately by the national policies, lagislations and regulatoryframeworks. Drawing on the results of a survey of 1100 community forest usergroups (CFUGs), rapid social analysis of 24 CFUGs and review of existing policiesand practices in wider sectors of local development, this article claims that theorganizational scope of CFUGs is not limited to forestry activities but encompasses awide range of development activities. In addition, the institution providesopportunities of exercising political agency for democratic and equitable governance,and could demonstrate the innovations on poverty reduction through communityforestry. This is demonstrated through an analysis of a) significant CFUG investmentin livelihoods/development sector outside of forest development, b) wide-rangingcollaborative actions between CFUGs and non-forestry stakeholders, and c)
innovative initiatives of poverty reduction, and inclusive and deliberative governance.The finding presents a clear opportunity for development agencies and policy makersto promote CFUGs as the institutional platform for pro-poor local development.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
2/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
2
Contents1.Introduction........................................................................................................................... 3
2.Background............................................................................................................................ 3
3.ForestandPovertyintheKoshiHills..................................................................................... 6
4.Findings
..................................................................................................................................
7
4.1.Increasedgrowingstockandproductionofforestproductswithincommunityforests7
4.2.IncomeoftheCFUGsincreasedfromthesaleofforestproducts.................................8
4.3.CFUGasaninstitutionforwidercommunitydevelopmentandsocietalchange..........9
4.3.1.Communitydevelopmenthasbeenthefocus........................................................ 9
4.3.2.CFUGsincreasinglyaddressingpovertyreductionandinclusionagendas...........11
4.3.3.CFUGshavegeneratedemploymentopportunities.............................................. 13
4.4.CFUGsharnessingexpandedcollaborationopportunities...........................................14
5.Discussion
............................................................................................................................
15
5.1.CollaborationbetweenCFUGsanddevelopmentagencies.........................................15
5.2.CompatibilitybetweenCFUGsandgovernmentforestryorganizations......................15
5.3.CFUGsandequitablelocaldevelopment..................................................................... 16
6.Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 17
7.References........................................................................................................................... 18
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
3/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
3
1. Introduction
There is awidespread appreciation thatcommunity forestry is a successful programme of
Nepal in terms of rehabilitating forest condition. In addition, contribution of community
forestry in community development is also highlighted increasingly in the later phase of
communityforestry(Pokharel2006,Kaneletal.2004).Thoughtheseclaimsoncontributionof
CF
in
local
development
have
been
made
based
on
the
field
level
empirical
materials,
it
hasnotbeenrecognizedadequately inthenationalpolicydiscourses.Theresearcheshave
createdsomeawarenessat theprofessionalandpractitioners' levelbutcouldnot make a
comprehensive analysis at the larger scale to make it plausible enough and to influence
policies.Particularly,theappreciationhasbeen lowamongotherdevelopmentagenciesas
theyplacecommunityforestusergroup(CFUG),theautonomousandperpetual institution
havingallrightsofmobilizingresourcesforthewelbeingofcommunitiesatlarge,asnarrow
groups related only to forest management and utilization. In practice, these CFUGs are
puttingthrustoncommunitydevelopmentactivitiesand,insomecases,theyhaveputmore
emphasisonhardwareinfrastructuredevelopment(BanjadeandPaudel2008;McDougallet
al.2008).Looking attheirhigh emphasisonthe localdevelopment,sometimesgiving less
attention forthedevelopmentof the forest resource itself,community forestryguidelines
made
itcompulsory
to
spend
at
least
25
percent
of
CFUG
income
in
forest
development
activities. This implies that the CFUGs are putting a significant amount of resources in
communitydevelopmentactivities.
This article presents the case of CFUGs as effective institutional platforms for local
developmentbyanalysingthe investmentsmadebythem,whichdemonstratethatCFUGs
investmajorchunkoftheir income in localdevelopment.Thepaperalsodiscussesonhow
and to what extent CFUGs collaborate with various development agencies for community
development activities such as construction of school buildings, supplementing
remuneration of school teachers and materials, construction of roads, water supply,
irrigationcanals,etc.Theresponseofpolicyonthepracticethatresemblesthepotentialof
CFUGs to act as an effective institutional window for community development is also
discussed
in
the
paper.
Most
of
the
data
used
in
this
paper
are
from
secondary
sources
and
literaturereviews, i.e.annualreportsfromtherespectiveCFUGs,annualmonitoringstudy,
and categorization study done by Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) of DFID. The
studies were conducted in more than 1,100 CFUGs in Koshi hills, i.e. in Bhojpur,
Sankhuwasabha, Terhathum and Dhankuta districts. In addition to the secondary sources,
theexperienceoftheauthorforover12yearsisakeysourceforqualitativeinformation.
2. Background
Livelihoods of majority of the rural people in Nepal depend heavily on forest resources.
Havingresided into remoteareas, theyare largelydeprivedofthebasicservices fromthe
government.
In
addition,
the
forests
also
provide
employment
to
them.
Community
forestry
provides additional platform forexercisingagency forproviding safetynets for livelihoods
strategies of the people or developing infrastructure in the communities. These
infrastructures are important ingredients of livelihoods of the people. In this way, the
community based forest management approach has emerged as a successful program to
improve the forest condition and livelihoods of people (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001;
Chakraborty2001;WebbandGautam2001,Koiralaetal.2008).
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
4/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
4
There is very limited financial support mechanism to the rural and forest dependent
communities. Forexample,verylimitedfiscalbudgetisallocatedbythegovernmentinthese
areas; limited access of credit facilities exist in these areas because financial institutions
(Banks,etc.)havelimitedinvestmentopportunitiesandweakinfrastructuraldevelopmentto
setuptheseinstitutions;and,therefore,localrichpeoplelendmoneyinhighinterestrates
to the poor. With the limited supports and budget, the rural areas can hardly fulfil their
needs
of
development
and
poverty
reduction.
For
this
reason,
they
should
rely
on
theresourcessuchasforestwhich issituatedwithintheirreach. Ifpeoplecanhavethebetter
accesstothesurroundingforests,theycanbethepotentialresourcesfordevelopment(KC
andKhatri2005).
Communityforestryprovidessuchanopportunitywherepeoplenotonlyconserveforestfor
theirsubsistenceusebutaregraduallyincreasingincomefromtheforestandinvestinlocal
development initiatives. Likewise, there are opportunities exist to learn about the target
group focused (focus to the poor,women and marginalizedgroups) approaches (inclusive
targeting approach, for example), inclusive and democratic governance and equitable
benefit sharing mechanisms. Community forest user groups (CFUGs) have already
demonstrated one of the potential local institutions to formulate inclusive plan and
implement
wider
development
activities.
They
have
their
own
natural
resource
base
and
are
autonomous, legal and inclusive institutions. Although, the 'forestry' word is added in its
identity,itwouldbetotallyinjusticeifcommunityforestry(CF)isperceivedforonlyforestry
and the forest products. Pokharel (2005) has shown that CFUGs are performing the
responsibilitiesofasmuchas16lineministriesofgovernmentofNepalincludingMinistryof
forestandsoilconservation,localdevelopment,lawandjustice,finance,home,andothers.
AccordingtotheWorldBank'swidelyusedpovertybenchmarkofUS$1percapitaperday
about31percentofpeoplefallunderseverepovertyline.Butthedefinitionofthispoverty
linedoesn'tshowtherealpictureofNepalaswhenwelookatthesituationofpeoplebased
onthestandardofpovertyasUS$2perday,morethan80percentpopulationfallunderthe
standardpovertyline.Sincemorethan80percentofthepopulationofNepalresidesinthe
ruralareas(CBS2004),thepopulationwithinstandardpovertyline isextremelyhigh inthe
rural areas. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the poor people of these areas are largely
relying on common pool resources, particularly the forest for their livelihoods. So, any
agency that aims to reduce poverty significantly in Nepal should give its due attention in
ruralareas.
Nepalhasstartedthecommunityforestryprogramsince1978.However,thedevolutionof
powertomanagetheforesthasbeengearedupafter1993withthepromulgationofForest
Act(1993)andForestRegulation(1995).Currently,atotalof1,640,239households(35%of
total population) are managing 1,187,000 hectares of forest (25% of total forest land) of
Nepal(Koiralaetal.2008)TheForestActof1993andForestRulesof1995providestronglegislativebackupforcommunityforestry.Thelawsallowcommunityforestusergroupsto
be defined as selfsustained independent entities recognized by the District Forest Office
(DFO).SinceCFUGsare legallyrecognizedautonomousbodies, ideallytheycanmaketheir
ownrules,enforcethemandsanctionasappropriate. Inpractice,theyareholdingregularmeetings, preparing and amending rules, allocating the budget annually in different local
developmentinitiativesand,insomeinnovativeCFUGs,supportingtopovertyreductionand
marginalized group focused activities. Fundamentally, constitution of a CFUG is a legal
document that definesdecision making and benefitsharingmechanisms, aswell as rights
andresponsibilitiesofdifferentusermembersandforums.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
5/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
5
Theissuesofinclusionandequityincludingsupporttopovertyreductionsurfacedwhenthe
earlierexperiencesofCFshowedthepromisetoaddressthem.Asaresult,thewellbeing
rankingbecamemandatoryduringformulationofCFconstitutionsincethesecondrevision
onCFguidelinesin2000.However,itwasfullypracticedinlinewiththeguidelinessincelate
2001. The wellbeing ranking is a founding step to identify the assets of the users and
explore opportunity for their better livelihoods through community forestry. This also
providesbasis
for
making
special
provisions
for
the
poor
and
marginalized
groups
through
CF.Asaresultoftheprovisions intheguidelinesandcontinuousadvocacyfromtheCFUG
networks,NGOs,donorsandgovernmentagencies,CFUGshavestartedincludingprovisions
for poor and excluded groups of users in benefit sharing mechanism, income generation
activities, access to leadership and decision making forum, etc. While doing wellbeing
ranking the CFUGs look at the aspects broader than a classical consideration of financial
aspectonlyandincludesocial/institutional,physical,financialandnaturalaspectswhichfall
withinthelivelihoodsframeworkdefinedbyDFID.CFUGsthemselvesdevelopthecriteriafor
definingwellbeingcategoriesandconductwellbeingassessmentexercise.Theexercise is
supposedtobedoneperiodicallytoallowredefiningofcategoriesandrankingofindividual
households. Since communities define different wellbeing categories based on their own
context, there is less likely that both the criteria and the status resemble the national
poverty
criteria
and
status.
CFUGsarelegallyrecognizedautonomousinstitutionsforthemanagementandutilizationof
communityforestsaspertheiroperationalplanandoperatewithintheirownconstitution.
Moreover,theycanpullthediverseresourcesfromwithinthecommunityandfromexternal
sources, for example through collaborationwithotheragenciessuchasgovernment,non
governmentandbilateralorganizations.Thecollaborationalsocancreatesynergyforwider
developmentatlocallevel.TheCFUGsalsoofferanentrypointandvantageforwiderange
ofserviceproviderswhowouldliketoworkwithinthecommunities.
Asstatedearlier,mostruralpeopleinNepaldependontraditionalagricultureandlivestock
for their livelihoods. It is a major component that plays a vital role in rural livelihoods by
providingincome,constructionmaterials,andanimalfeed(Gilmouretal.2005).Toachievethe national goal of poverty reduction and heavy reliance on agrobased economy, Nepal
has to develop and manage the existing forest resources (GoN 2002). Integration of
agriculture with forestry is the reason why we observed indigenous mode of forest
managementinremoteruralareas,anattributeforstrongrealizationofcommunitybased
forestmanagement in thepast.Therefore, initially,community forestryprogramhasbeen
primarily initiated to conserve the forest and meet the basic needs of forest products
through localpeople'sparticipation. Moreover, theCommunityForestryProgram inNepal
has proved to be a very encouraging endeavour in the development of a constructive
partnership in forestry between farmers and the government. The essence of the
communityforestryphilosophyinNepal,fromitsinception,hasbeentheestablishmentofa
partnership between local communities and the staff of the DOF for the management of
locally accessible forests. The people's participation in forest management is a natural
outcomeofdecentralizedplanning(Sunderlinetal.2006).At local level, the CFUGs have shown a great promise through annual investments and
participation in forest conservation and development activities contributing directly in
achievingnationalandmillenniumdevelopmentgoals.DespitethecontributionofCFUGsin
resourcemanagement,communitydevelopmentandlivelihoodsenhancement,thereisstill
little appreciation of such significant development contribution and potentials by
development agencies. This is reflected in the practice as different development agencies
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
6/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
6
form other local institutions when they initiate any development activities within the
communities. Yet, there is still lack of coordination and collaboration among the two
governmentofficessuchasDistrictForestOffice(DFO)andDistrictSoilConservationOffice
(DSCO) operating under the same ministry having the similar purpose of supporting
conservation and development. Since most of the members of the communities are
organized within CFUGs, it would be more effective and efficient to working with them
rather
than
investing
a
lot
of
time
and
resources
in
creating
new
institutions
by
everydevelopment agencies working in the same area. Therefore, question arises on why
adequate congruence could not be reached in recognizing existing institutions in the
communities, and why different organizations would like to develop their own sets of
institutions.Consequently,sameperson isholdingseveralkeypositionsineachcommunity
wastingtheirvaluabletimeincoordinationandinstitutionalizationprocesses.
3. Forest and Poverty in the Koshi Hills
InKoshiHillswhichincludesSankhuwasabha,Bhojpur,TerhathumandDhankutadistrictsof
easternhillsofNepal,theLIvelihoodandForestryProgramme (LFP)ofDFIDhasstarted in
April2001,
building
upon
the
experiences
and
lessons
learnt
from
the
Nepal
UK
Community
Forestry Programme, which was implemented in the seven hills of Nepal (east and west)
from 1993 to 2001. LFP aims to contribute to reduced vulnerability, and improved
livelihoodsofthepoorandexcludedruralpeoplethroughthefinancial,socialandtechnical
intervention.WhileDFOisthekeypartnertodelivertechnicalforestryactivities,localNGOs
are responsible to deliver social component. The programme purpose is to enhance the
assetsofruralcommunitiesbypromotingmoreequitable,efficient,andsustainableuseof
forestandothernaturalresources.
In reference to the Koshi hills, altogether 1396 CFUGs have been formed until July 2008.
Likewise, more than 85% of the total households are managing 82%of total forest which
comesinto83%ofthepotentialCFarea.OutofthetotalhouseholdsinvolvedintheCFUGs,
about
49%
of
them
are
categorized
relatively
as
poor
from
participatory
well
being
criteria.
Regarding the ethnic composition, the majority of are from disadvantage groups (58%)
which includes 9% fromdalit community. The categorisation study shows that out of the
totalCFUGs,majorityoftheCFUGs(i.e.61%)arefoundinactive/moderatecategorieswhen
assessed intermsofresourcemanagement, institutionaldevelopment,social inclusionand
accessto livelihoodsopportunities.Likewise,25%,47%and28%CFUGsarecategorised in
active,moderateandlessactivecategoriesrespectivelyintermsofforestmanagement.
TheplansoftheCFUGsfor2008/9andCFUGmonitoringstudiesrevealCFUGsasoneofthe
bestinstitutionstocollaborateforsynergyandeffectivenessofdevelopmentefforts.Asthe
existingachievementsmadebytheCFUGsareencouragingintermsofcontributioninwider
developmentactivities,morepossibilitiesare seen from the planswhichare important to
enhance effective, efficient and creative environment through collaboration with other
agencies. The partnership with different stakeholders can foster mutual understanding,
increaseacceptanceofcommunity, maximise the effectivenessand leverage of resources,
andavoidtheduplicationofprogrammewithinsamegeographicalareas.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
7/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
7
4. Findings
4.1.Increasedgrowingstockandproductionofforestproductswithin
communityforestsIn the context of Koshi hills, the community forestry programme so far has resulted in
increasing thegrowingstockand harvestableamountof forestproducts. SinceCFUGs are
graduallymanaging
their
forests
actively,
the
income
from
the
products
is
also
increasing
significantlyoveraperiodoftime.Thishasbeentheresultofdevolutionofpowerofforest
resourcemanagementtothelocalforestusers.Astudyinfoureasternhilldistrictsshowed
thatthetotalnumberofstemsperhectarehasincreasedby51%,andbasalareasofforests
hasincreasedby29%(BranneyandYadav1998).WhenweanalysethedatafromtheKoshi
hills,51%oftheCFUGsaremanagingtheirCFsactively(CFUGcategorisationstudy2006).In
regards to the perception of CFUG on the condition of the forest in terms of greenery,
availability of forest products and status of biodiversity, more than 93% of them have
reportedthattheconditionofforesthasbeenradicallyimprovedafterhandingovertothe
communities. Reports from other areas also have shown the similar improvements. For
example, in the Kabhre and Sindhupalchok districts of central Nepal, a study found that
shrublandandgrasslandhavebeenconvertedintoproductiveforestsincreasingforestarea
from7,677
hectares
to
9,678
hectares
(Jackson
etal.1998,Kaneletal.2005).
Table1:Changesinforestconditionoverthe7yearsasperOperationalplan(sameCF
formedupto2001)
The
regular
monitoring
study
reveals
that
the
trend
of
the
forest
condition
has
beengradually improvingasa resultoftheefforts madeby theusers.Furthermore, thebarren
and degraded CF lands have also been revegetated through plantation and natural
regeneration. As a result ofcommunityefforts, more than twothirdof CFs fall under the
goodcategory.Likewise,morethanoneforth(28%)andlessthan5%CFrespectivelyfallin
theaverage and degradedcategory.Similarly, the recent resourceassessmentshows that
30%biomasshasincreasedovertheperiodof14yearsintheKoshihills.
The area is also potential in terms of NTFP promotion. More than 60% CFs are found
potentialforthepromotionofNTFPs.
Morethan60%CFUGsareimplementingspecifiedsilviculturaloperationsasplannedinthe
CFUG
operational
plans.
About
27%
CFUGs
have
reported
that
they
received
technicalsupportfromexternalagencieswhileimplementingsuchoperations.Additionally,asaresult
of partnership, about 0.6 million seedlings of different NTFP/fodder species has been
plantedbytheCFUGs.Similarly,theyareproducingmorethan100thousandseedlingsevery
year.Although,DFOisexclusivelyresponsibletodeliverthetechnicalsupporttotheCFUGs,
localresourcepersons(LRPTechnical)trainedandmentoredthroughacollaborativeefforts
between DFO, Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN) and other line
agenciesalsoplayvitalroletoenhancetechnicalskillsamongtheusers.
Forestcondition 2001 2008NumberofCFUGs Percent NumberofCFUGs Percent
Good 679 60% 760 67%
Average 405 36% 326 29%
Degraded 51 4% 49 4%
Total 1135 100% 1135 100%
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
8/19
4.2.In20
millio
of to
millio
42%
2004;
we f
raisin
over
thee
Simil
activi
fores
millio
perso
In th
achie
TableTota
Bro
Fore
Fees
Exte
Exte
ncomeof02, theannu
nandtotalb
al forest ar
n)which is
ftheannual
Koiralaetaund that in
g income th
heperiodof
rlierestimat
rly, the us
ies.Forexa
relatedacti
nrupeescal
nperday(K
e Koshi hills
ementsdue
2:
Annual
in
lIncomeghtforward
stresources
,fine,intere
rnalfunding
rnalfunding
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
Areainha
igure1:StatheCFUGsal incomeof
udgetwasN
a, had gene
igherthant
budgetoft
.2008).Fro
addition to i
rough forest
time,theC
esshown
ab
rs are cont
ple,theysp
itiesinayea
culatedusin
nelandNira
, the regula
toincreasin
omeand
ex
frompreviou
t,etc.
LFP
Others
Totalarea
653,904
sofcommuncreasedtheDepart
s.680millio
rated the in
eannualbu
eMinistryo
thestudyo
mproving th
products sal
UGs'overall
ove.
ributing the
endmoreth
r.Thevalue
aconserva
ula2004).
r monitorin
trendofinc
endituresta
sFY
ForestArea
264,796
40%
Fore
ityforestryiromthesaentofFore
n,buttheCo
come of ab
dgetofthe
Forestand
ftheincome
forestcon
e. Since the
incomefro
ir significant
an2.5millio
ofthisvolunt
ivevalue fo
shows tha
omeeachye
tus(FY
206457,
25,
14,
3,
3,
10,
PotentialCFarea
135,939
51%
tAction Dis
nKoshihilldileofforeststwasNepa
mmunityFor
ut 740milli
Department
SoilConserva
oftheCFUG
ition theCF
incomeof t
theCFsmu
time in th
personday
arylabourc
opportunit
t there is e
ar.
065)
29,208 1
826,334
78,858
769,927
307,294
646,796
CFhandedover
110,952
82%
ussion Pa
strictsproductsleseRupees
estrywhichi
on (more th
ofForestan
tion(Kanela
sfromKoshi
UGshavebe
heCFUGs is
stbemuchh
e forest de
sofvoluntar
ntributionis
costof65
ncouraging
0%
5%
5%
7%
6%
8%
Remaining
24,987
18%
er 2009/2
(NRs.)550
sonly25%
anUS$ 10
isalmost
ndNiraula
hillsalone
enable to
increasing
igherthan
elopment
ylabourin
about164
upeesper
tatus and
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
9/19
Ther
NRS
mini
Thee
inclu
4.3.cha
4.3.1.Some
Devel
able
form
schol
of C
educ
studi
altera
Subb
of ro
indir
Tota
Fore
Targ
Insti
ComBala
ecentmonit
,79,29,208.0
umincome
xpenditurea
ingtheboth
FUGasageCommunityof the co
opmentGoa
o investUS
l school e
rshipforpo
mmunity Fo
tion, and ii)
sofCFacro
tion inthes
1994).Som
ds, schools,
ctpositive
i
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MillionsNRS
lExpenditurstdevelopm
etedActiviti
utionalDev.
mDevelopm
ncetothene
ringstudy(
0 (TotalCFU
500)andth
mountbeca
(currentinc
institutiodevelopmenmmunity d
ls (MDGs).F
$327,000 ge
ucation, inf
orstudents(
restry contr
promote g
ssthecount
ocioeconom
eCommunit
irrigation ca
pactsupon
l
Figure 2
orestmgt
ent
s(tothepoo
ent
xtyear
007)shows
G1063,Dev
expenditur
e95%ofth
meplusthe
forwiderthasbeentvelopment
orexample,
erated by t
ormal litera
hiesandvo
ibuting to t
nder equali
yhaveconc
icstatusof
yForestsha
nals,health
ivelihoods.
: Collaboration a
Comm.DeFUG
randexclud
Fore
thatthetot
iation48,68
areasinwi
eincomeex
lastyearbal
communit
efocusactivities ar
ineasternN
he sustainab
cy programs
nPfeil,cited
o of the
y and emp
ludedthatC
hecommun
econtribut
posts,etc.
t local level by
v Ins.Others To
ed)
tAction Dis
lincomepe
,Maximum
erdevelop
ludingthela
nce).
develop
e directly r
epal, forest
le use of fo
for wome
inMayers20
DGs: i) ach
werwomen
Fhasbrough
ity(Schereie
d inconstru
hichhas ca
FUGs (FY 2008
Dev
tal
ussion Pa
yearofCFU
income20,0
entisNRS3
styearsavin
entands
elated to
usergroups
ests over te
and the
07).Thisisa
ieve univers
(ibid). Seve
tsignificant
etal.1994;ctionandm
sed several
/9)
oorfocus
30,635,14
4,883,82
8,498,51
3,039,80
14,213,0027,294,06
er 2009/2
G isfound
0,298 and
0,635,148.
gand52%
cietal
illennium
havebeen
n years in
poor, and
nexample
al primary
ral impact
favourable
Virgoand
intenance
directand
100%
16%
28%
10%
46%
47%
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
10/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
10
Furthermore,CFhasbroughtsupportive influencesonagriculture production, incomeand
employmentgeneration,biodiversityconservation,socialunityandliteracyinsociety.So,CF
has brought a change of great socioeconomic significance in rural society (Branney and
Yadav1998;Malla2000;Pokharel2004;Pokhareletal.2005).Astudyofover1100CFUGsofKoshihillsindicateshowwidetheCFUGsareworkinginterms
ofcommunitydevelopment(seebox1).
Box:1.AglimpseofongoingCFUGactivitiesforthecurrentfiscalyear(Koshihills) 30% of the studied CFUGs implement silviculture treatment in line with the block
managementsystemin2334ha.Likewise11%CFUGsareintensivelyinvolvedinplantationof
311haofbarrenland,
Altogether8029HHwillbebenefited fromthedifferent IGAschemes through therevolving
fundin426CFUGs,
230haoflandwillbeallocatedwithintheCFareastothe767poorhouseholdsforconducting
IGAs(67CFUGs),
InadditiontotherevolvingfundandCF landallocation,additional319poorhouseholdsare
benefitedfromthedifferentIGAs.(26CFUGs),
23 CFUGs implement health and sanitation related activities where 177 households will
directlybebenefited,
Likewise,26
CFUGs
construct
and
distribute
a
total
of177
improved
cooking
stoves
where
82%oftherecipientswillbefromthepoorhouseholds,
Toenhancecapacityofthepoorusers inordertoenhancesustainable livelihoods,atotalof
130 events are organised where altogether 1011 poor households can benefit from self
employmentopportunities,
Altogether 167 CFUGs implement drinking water schemes, which benefit total of 12480
householdswhere68%arefromthepoorcommunity,
Itisexpectedtomaintainandestablish22KMirrigationchannelwhere7217householdsare
directlybenefitedwhere65%ofthem willbefromthepoorcategories(41CFUGs),
Altogether 136.5 KM trail road will be maintained, which will help ease the access to the
market(297CFUGs),
67CFUGssupportschoolsbyprovidingremunerationofschoolteachers,
907 households from 10 CFUGs are benefited from electrification where 52% are from the
poorcommunity,
5CFUGsconstruct15woodenbridges,
30CFUGsconstructnewofficebuildings,asteptowardsinstitutional development,
TostrengthentourisminCF,5CFUGshaveplannedsomekindofactivities(developingpicnic
spots,etc.).
Thevariousmonitoringstudiesshowthatthecommunityforestryareabletocoveratleast
67%ofthetotalhouseholdsinwiderdevelopmentactivitieswhoareinvolvedincommunity
forestry. Income generating activities are provided to at least 17% of the poor users
annually.Particularlyinthehills,mostofthehouseholdsaroundaCFareincludedwithinthe
respectiveCFUGs,thuscreatingaplatformforinterestnegotiationandpoliticalengagement
forallpeoplelivingwithinageographicalconstituency.
Atlarge,theCFUGsareprovidingpublicservices.Forexample,whentherewerenopolitical
institutionsin
the
rural
areas
for
democratic
deliberations
during
the
time
of
insurgency
in
Nepal (19952005), the CFUGs served the purpose (Banjade and Timsina 2005). In the
context of Koshi hills, more than 85% of the total households are involved in CFUGs as
members. So far, throughdirect financial intervention,CFUGs inKoshihillshaveprovided
supportinincomegeneratingactivitiestomorethan20,000householdsaimingtoenhance
theireconomicconditions.Thedatashowsthattheemphasisandprioritygoestothedalit
communityasmorethan80%ofthedalitsfallbelowthepoverty line.Likewisemorethan
3,500and 14,000poorhouseholdshave been benefitted fromskills development training
andinfrastructuresupportrespectively.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
11/19
4.3.2.
Inad
have
fiscal
them
bene
skills
figur
Thetarge
hous
At th
inclu
CFUGsincreitiontothe
provisions t
year (both
werebenef
ited hous
institutional
4).Thisdoe
inding show
ed activitie
holdsannua
e end of th
ing 27% w
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BenefittedHH(000)
Fi
Fig
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
19
asinglyaddrsubsistences
directly su
he poor an
ited from fo
holds got
developmen
snotinclude
s that thes while CFU
llythroughd
e fiscal year
men and 5
FD
40.89
gure 3: HH ben
ure 4: Participati
IGA E
%
55%
26%
ssingpoverupplyoffore
port tomo
nonpoor).
estdevelop
the bene
(ID)andinc
thebenefits
CFUG's inter
Gs are abl
ifferentoppo
2008/9 th
% poor wil
CD
74.99
HHbenefiited
fitted from differ
on of communit
nterprises
%
75%
21%
Dalit
Fore
yreductionsts,theCFU
e than33%
Out of the
ent (FD).Si
fits from
omegenera
receivedfro
vention isto cover
rtunities(CF
CFUG plan
l be involve
ID
12.22
Areas
upto2007asper
ent wider devel
at lcoal level in
Infra
16%
38%
45%
Dis.JJ Other
tAction Dis
andinclusiosinthepro
of the total
otal househ
milarly,75
community
ingactivities
mtheuseof
eing intensi
ore than
Gplan206
s envisage t
in forest
IGA
10.30
FPdatabase
pment activities
percentage (FY
SkillDev.
17%
49%
33%
s
ussion Pa
agendasosedplans(
households
olds benefit
,12%and
developm
(IGA)respe
revolvingfu
ely focusse
nethird of
/066).
hat more th
evelopment
upto FY 2064/6
2008/9)
Total
13%
51%
3
er 2009/2
FY2008/9)
during the
d, 41% of
0%of the
nt (CD),
tively(see
dforIGA.
d towardsthe poor
an 40,000
activities.
6%
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
12/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
12
Likewise, about75,000users will be involved aspaid labourof which more than 70% are
from the poor and onethird from women. So far, already women representation in the
decisionmakingforumsis35%intheKoshihills.
The
above
presented
figure
shows
that
the
representation
of
ethnicity
in
decision
making
procedureisproportionate.
Reflecting on the earlier community development activities where some CFUGs invested
their income in unproductive areas such as temple, the LFP facilitated to shift the focus
towards livelihoodsenhancementparticularlytheactivitiestargetedto thepoorandmost
marginalizedgroups.Theconceptof'revolvingfund'wasthen introducedwiththesupport
of LFP. The fund is targeted for the economic upliftment of the poor and marginalized
membersoftheCFUGs. Initially,LFP, through itspartners, facilitatedtoestablishabasket
fundandprovidedsomeinitialseedmoneysothattheCFUGssosupportedcouldshifttheir
trends of investing more in physical infrastructures towards the activities that generate
incomedirectlytotheindividuals.Therecentmonitoringstudy(2008)showsthatoutofthe
directbenefitedmorethan13,000households,20%ofthepoorhouseholds included, are
additionally
benefited
afterthe
introduction
of
revolving
fund
beyond
the
direct
financial
supportofLFPoverthefiveyears.
Table3:TotalbenefitstohouseholdsfromIGAsandrevolvingfund
FromDirectfinancialintervention(HH) 13241
Afterrevolvingfund(HH) 10242
TotalbenefittedfromIGA(HH) 23483
TotalPoorHHs(fromwellbeingranking) 49605
%poorHHbenefittedfromIGA 20%
IntheKoshihills, inaddition,hundredsofCFUGshaveallocatedcertainportionoftheirCF
landtotheidentifiedpoorasameansofsustainableincomeforthem.About600CFUGs(i.e.
43%ofthetotalCFUGs)arefoundpotentialtoallocateCFlandtothepoorusers,ofwhich
46percentCFUGshaveallocated336hectaresof landtomorethan2200poorhouseholds
for different income generating activities aiming to enhance their sustainable income. As
observedduringthefieldmonitoringandCFUGsprogressreports,itclearlyshowsthatsuch
initiativeshavebeencontributingtoboostoftheirselfrelianceintermsoftheirlivelihoods.
A study has been carried out in 2008 in the selected CFUGs of Koshi hills where the
AnimationProgramofLFPhasbeenlaunchedsince2002.The2700householdsofrandomly
sampled 26 CFUGs were included in the analysis where data were collected through
structured surveys, focus group discussions and reflection of the local leaders and
Figure 5: Proportionate representation in decision making
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
5%4%3%2%1%0%1%2%
3%4%5%6%
InF UG 9% 54% 37%
InC ommittee 8% 50% 42%
P roportionate 1% 4% 5%
D alit Dis .J anjati O thers
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
13/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
13
animators.Duringthestudy,rewellbeing rankingwasconducted inthesampledCFUGby
usingthesamecriteriaandprocedureusedaboutfiveyearsago.Thestudyshowsthat46%
poor users (very poor and poor) have crossed the relative poverty line largely because of
their engagement in the CFUGs who directly supported their livelihoods improvement
related activities and capacity building events. Likewise, 35% of the total very poor
householdshavemovedtothepoorcategory.Followingtableisthesummaryoftheanalysis
wherestatus
of
well
being
shift
has
been
included.
Table4.Aglimpseofchangedwellbeingstatus
Caste
Nochange Change(+) Change()
VPVP PP OthOth VPP VPOth POth PVP OthP OthVP
Dalit 58% 43% 100% 29% 13% 51% 6% 0% 0%
JJ 53% 67% 100% 36% 11% 32% 1% 0% 0%
AC 55% 59% 100% 36% 7% 39% 1% 0% 0%
Total 56% 61% 100% 35% 9% 37% 1% 0% 0%
VP=Verypoor,P=Poor,Oth=Others4.3.3.
CFUGs
have
generated
employment
opportunities
In reference to the Koshi hills, CFUGs have generated an employment of about 1,50,000
person days per year. In addition, CFUGs are paying to about 200 teachers per year but
surprisingly the records of the CFUG contribution is not maintained even in the District
EducationOffice.
Table5:AnnualemploymentopportunityinCF(24days 1month)
Area CFUG Female Male Total P.days/FUG Person
1
month
3
Month
6
Month
9
month
Forest
management
510 40% 19,294 44,594 63,888 125.19 2,662 887 444 296
Community
development 340
27%
3,350 6,061 9,411 27.66 392 131 65
44
Office
management/
office
secretary
161 13% 4,700 4,452 9,153 56.97 381 127 64 42
Teachers 172 14% 11,624 27,513 39,137 226.92 1,631 544 272 181
Enterprises 95 7% 5,775 10,161 15,937 168.64 664 221 111 74
Total 256 20%* 44,744 92,782 137,526 537.99 5,730 1,910 955 637
1month=24daysThe key areas where employment has been generated by the CFUGs include: forest
management and harvesting operations, community development, office management,
paymentsto
school
teachers,
forest
based
enterprises,
etc.
(see
table
5).
From
the
gender
analysis of the employment we can see that women are getting onethird of the
employmenthithertogenerated.Whilewomenaremoreinofficemanagementrelatedjobs,
theywereleastinvolvedasteachers.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
14/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
14
4.4.CFUGsharnessingexpandedcollaborationopportunities
ThebudgetoftheplannedactivitiesoftheCFUGsstudies(carriedoutin82%of1160CFUGs)
forthecurrentfiscalyear (2008/9) isestimatedasNRs.3,70,60,291tospend inthewider
development.WhiletheyhaveestimatedanincomeofNRs.3,27,000,00fromtheCFs,they
are expecting to
get the rest from
other
sources
such
as
support from
development agencies.
This is a realistic
estimate looking at the
previous year's figure
whentheycouldmanage
about NRs. 3,22,00,000
(about 40% of the total
budget) from the other
organisations.
To
pull
the
resources
from
diverse
sources
and
increase
collaboration
of
various
development agencies, an innovative concept of establishing and strengthening Forest
DevelopmentFund is also inpractice inKoshihills. The objectiveof the fund is tosustain
forest and community development initiatives in future according to the need and
aspirationsoftheusers.VDCscanclaimNRs.20,000to40,000fundsfromLFPaspertheir
collaborative efforts,i.e.basedonthesizeoffundgeneratedthroughcollaborationatlocal
level.
Box:2.ForestDevelopmentFund(Koshihills)Basiccriteria
AlltheCFUGshouldbeaffiliatedintheVDCnetwork
TheVDCnetworkshouldhaveinclusivedecisionmakingbody.
All the CFUGs affiliated in the network, should be committed to provide 5% of the
totalannual
income
to
VDC
network.
TheVDCnetworkshouldbereceivedatleastsomeamountfromVDC.
TheVDCnetworkshouldprepareafundmobilization guideline.
Note:TheVDCnetworksareencouraged toallocateorspend their fund inOPamendment,enterprisedevelopmentandIGAs,officemanagementandmanagementoflocalfacilitators.
Sofartheestablishmentandstrengtheningofforestdevelopmentfundasabasketfunding
approach inVDCs isfoundasan initiativetosustaintheirgoodpracticesandtoextendan
opportunity for collaboration with wide range of stakeholders at local level. In this way,
CFUGs are expanding their networks, often including stakeholders beyond the forestry
sectorthatareworking inthecommunitydevelopment initiatives.Ultimately,aCFUGacts
asanentrypointforwiderdevelopment.ThedatafromtheKoshihillsshowsthattheCFUGs
arecapable
of
pulling
asignificant
mount
of
resources
from
outside
the
CFUG.
For
example,
the current monitoring study shows that CFUGs are getting more than 50% of the total
investmentfromnonforestrysectorannually.Mostlytheresourceavailabletothemwasto
supportpropoorinitiatives,incomegenerationactivitiesandcapacitybuildingevents.
Table3:TrendofCFUGfundmobilisationstatus
2001 2007 Differences
Basedon#FUG 1211 1061 150.00
TotalIncome 4967117.63 32102874.55 27135756.92
Income/FUG 4101.67 30257.19 26155.52
Tot.Expenditure 3537797.00 30635147.50 27097350.50
Expenditure/FUG 2921.38 28873.84 25952.46
PoorFocus 95948.00 8498514.50 8402566.50
PoorFocus/FUG 79.23 8009.91 7930.68
Poorfocus% 3% 28% 25%
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
15/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
15
5. Discussion
Many literatures claim that conservation goals of Community Forestry (CF) have been
achieved because of the devolved resource management responsibilities down to the
community level (Kanel 2004; Malla etal. 2003, Malla 2000). This claim is rooted in theobvious changes observed in community forests because of local people's efforts in
conserving
forest.
However,
the
CF
programme
has
yet
to
show
adequate
livelihoods
impacts. This paper and other earlier literatures have shown the promise of CF in
contributingsignificantlyincommunitydevelopmentandlivelihoodsimprovementagenda.
5.1.CollaborationbetweenCFUGsanddevelopmentagencies
Chapagainetal.(2008)foundthroughtheuseofparticipatorytoolsthatifthere isnotanyinteractionbetweenthetargetgroups(i.e.thepoor,womenandmarginalized)andservice
providers at local level the claim of achieving twin goals of conservation and poverty
reduction through community forestry will be only onethird of the total possible
achievements regarding the real need, demand and expectations of local people. It is,
therefore, highly desirable to explore the appropriate mechanisms of enhancing
collaboration,
identifying
relevant
collaborators,
and
developing
effective
means
ofcommunication and coordination. Use of the specific tools for increasing communication,
developingcommongoalsandmutualunderstanding,andpromotingsharingandreflection
can improve partnerships among different stakeholders. When a tool called Conflict,
Legitimacy, Interest and Power (CLIP) was used in Koshi hills (visit www.SASPM.com for
moredetailsonthetools),itshowedthattheunderstandinglevelhasincreasedamongthe
partners.
From this study and authors' decade long experiences show that CFUGs can harness the
benefits of collaboration. The immediate need is that policy and regulatory frameworks
shouldprovideeffectivestrategyfor increasingcollaborativeeffortsat locallevel.Similarly,
using the tools such as CLIP would be an effective way to enhance synergy among
collaborative partnerswithoutextraeffortsandresources.
5.2.CompatibilitybetweenCFUGsandgovernmentforestryorganizations
Despite the communities' readiness and success of resource conservationand community
development through community forestry, government has not yet provided amicable
environmenttopromoteefficiency,effectivenessandinnovationatlocallevel.Whenpeople
living inremote ruralareasaredeprivedofgovernmentservices,thegovernment forestry
organizations at various levels should facilitate the processes of developing linkages of
CFUGs with wider development agencies. Can we expect this within the currentmodusoperandi?Thequestionarisesinthecontextwhentwoorganizations,namelyDistrictForest
OfficeandDistrictSoilConservationOffice,underthesameministry(MinistryofForestand
Soil Conservation) do not have clear coordination and collaboration strategy to enhance
samepurpose
and
same
goal.
Other
development
organizations
also
do
the
same,
i.e.
the
organizations working in the communities also form their own institutions though
communitiesandindividualsbenefitedfromtheinitiativescouldbethesame.Although,the
issuesofcoordinationandcollaborationareraisedoccasionallyathigher levelsbutyet to
enhanceanyconcretemechanismtoeffectlocallevelcollaboration.
ItiswidelyvisiblethatCFUGsareinvestingalotofefforts inthedevelopmentareaswhere
government is supposed to be fully responsible. The CFUGs are contributing in health,
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
16/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
16
education,localinfrastructuredevelopment,capacitybuildingandlivelihoodsimprovement
programsbygeneratingtheirownresourcesthroughcommunityforestryorthroughwider
networking with other service providers. This is recognized by the individuals within
Department of Forest (i.e. the line department)buthas notyetsufficiently recognized by
otherlineagencies.Therefore,theissuesofduplication,lowlevelofcommunityownerships
andefficiency,etcareobservedinthefield.Thequestionisraisedonwhoisresponsibleto
encouragesuch
initiatives
of
working
with
local
institutions
like
CFUGs?
When
CFUGs
have
showntheircapacityandpotentialofworkingindiversesectorsofcommunitydevelopment,
the government should come up with clear policy and strategy in supporting these local
initiatives. Indeed, the CFUGs should be considered as the umbrella institutions for all
development initiatives. To begin with, the government should develop a clear practical
policy and strategy to incorporate CFUGs plan into VDC/DDC aiming to flag CFUG
contributioninnonforestrysectorwidely.
5.3.CFUGsandequitablelocaldevelopment
CFUG can be an effective vehicle for equitable local development as many of them have
already demonstrated moves towards inclusion and equity. However, mainstream
developmentpractices
have
not
fully
respected
the
needs
and
concerns
of
local
people
and
impose prescriptions from outside. Consequently, ownership remains low within the
communitiesandmanydevelopmenteffortsbecomea failure. Inothercases, theexisting
policyandpracticemighthavedisempoweredthecommunitiesbypromotingpatronclient
relationships between service providers and the community members. To change the
situation,thedevelopmentagenciesshouldrespectthe local institutionsandbuildontheir
programs based on the needs and demands of the communities. We should note that
despitebeingresourcefulcommunityinstitution,wecannotconcludethatCFUGs'plansand
investmentswillbepropoorandequityoriented.Forinstance,theactivitiesthatarebeing
implemented by CFUGs such as school, trail construction, irrigation channels, community
buildings,temples,cookingstovesarefoundinfavourofwealthierhouseholdsatlocallevel
(Acharyaetal.2008;AdhikariandGhimire1998,Gental2000,Kanel2004).
Oneof theaimsof communityforestry is to increase theaccessand inclusivenessofwomen,poorandmarginalizedgroupsinthegovernance,managementandutilisationofforestsandtobringthesegroupsasourceofincome.However,ithasbeenobservedthatlocalelitesmakemostofthedecisionsandcapturemostofthebenefitsfromtheforests.Inmanycases,CFUGshavebecomewealthy,but thehouseholds themselveshavenotbeen able to reap the benefits. It is especially so with the poor, women anddisadvantagedgroups(DouglasGreig).
The exclusion of women in the resource management process has serious negative
consequencesnotjustforgenderequity,butalsofortheefficientfunctioningandlongterm
sustainability of these initiatives, and for womens empowerment (Agarwal 1997).
Therefore,aconsciouseffortofsensitizingandpersuadingmightbeneededfromexternal
agencieswhenvoicesofthelocalpoor,womenandmarginalizedgroupsarenotconsidered.
InKoshi
hills,
however,
the
representation
of
different
ethnicity
is
towards
proportionate
figure and the involvement of women and poor are also found in positive trend. The
formation of subgroups, often organizing the poor, women and marginalized groups as
separate groups, persuasion for getting priority by their agenda into planning and
implementationhasaffectedpositivelyfor inclusionandequity intheCFUGs.InKoshihills,
more than 25,000 different members are organized in different sub/interest groups (e.g.
women,poor,dalit,NTFP,saving/creditetc).
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
17/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
17
One of the burring issues of the social inclusion is equitable development and benefit
sharing.Regardingequitabledistributionsystem,itisquiteencouragingtrendwithinCFUGs
which is increased by double over the 2 years, i.e. 26% of CFUG are practicing equitable
distributionsystem,althoughitisstillaweekareaascomparedtotheachievementsmade
at local level in community development through community forestry. Therefore, all the
developmentagenciesshoulddrivetheirfocusofdevelopmentforensuringsocialinclusion,
povertyreduction
and
equity.
A
consorted
effort
and
harmonization
among
the
different
interventionsbythedevelopmentagenciescouldhavebetterresultsinthisline.
Thoughcollaborativeeffortsarehighlightedforeffectivedevelopment inthecommunities,
thereare likely fourscenariosofsuchcollaborationsurging foracautious remarkson the
effectivenessofcollaborationinadevelopmentinitiative:a)higheffortandlargeoutcomes,
b)higheffortbutlessoutcomes,c)lesseffortbuthighoutcomes,andd)lesseffortandless
outcomes. However, there should not be any doubt that the collaborative model,
approachingCFUGasanentrypoint, isoneofthe imperativemechanismtoenhance large
outcomeswithevenanominaleffort.
DespitethefactthatthedevelopmentagenciesworkingatlocallevelintheKoshihillsmade
effortsofincorporatingCFUGplanintoVDCplan,therehasnotbeenadequatesuccessdue
todifferentplanningperiodofMinistryofForestandSoilConservationandMinistryofLocal
Development.
Since
overwhelming
majority
of
the
population
is
already
involved
in
communityforestry,abottomupplanningprocessappliedintheCFUGscouldhelpbringthe
needs,expectationsanddemandsofallthepeople.Whenlocalgovernmentsrecognizethis
aspectanddevelopeffectivecoordination linkageswiththeCFUGsandothernonforestry
sectors,theresultingdevelopmentoutcomeswillbemuchhigherthantheexistingones.
6. Conclusion
This article presented the case of CFUGs as effective institutional vehicle for local
development.Although,communityforestryisnotrecognisedasadevelopmentinstitution
adequatelyin
the
non
forestry
sector
at
national
level,
the
achievements
and
progress
have
already been proved CFUG a broadbased institution and a sustainable vehicle for wider
development. Drawing on the experiences from the Koshi hills, the paper presented
evidence on how CFUGs have conducted a wide range of nonforestry development
activitieswithvaryingdegreesofcollaborativelinkageswithseveraldevelopmentagencies.
ItisalsoshownthatthesedevelopmentactivitiesofCFUGshaveledtoincreasedlivelihood
opportunitiestothelocalcommunitiesingeneral,andthepoorandmarginalisedgroupsin
particular.Givensuch institutionalcapabilityofCFUGs,thedevelopmentagencieshavean
opportunitytoapproachCFUGasanentrypointforlocaldevelopment.Inaddition,withits
three decades of experience, community forestry could be a learning centre for wider
development actors on institution and governance, resource management, local
developmentinitiatives,livelihoodsenhancement,andinclusiveandequitabledevelopment.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
18/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
18
7. References
Acharya, K.P., Adhikari, J. & Khanal, D. 2008. Forest Tenure Regimes and their Impact onLivelihoodsinNepal.Journalofforestandlivelihoods,7(1).
Banjade,M.R.&Timsina,N.P.2005.ImpactofArmedConflictinCommunityForestryofNepal.ETFRNNews43/44.
Bhattarai, B. & Dungana, S.P. 2005. How Can Forests Better Serve the Poor? A Review ofDocumented Knowledge on Leasehold and Community Forestry in Nepal: Forest Action,
Kathmandu incollaborationwithCenterfor InternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR)Bogor,
Indonesia.
Branney, P. & Yadav, K.P. 1998. Changes in Community Forestry Condition and Management199498: Analysis of Information for the Forest Resource Assessment Study and Socio
EconomicStudyoftheKoshiHills.ProjectreportG/NUKCFP/32,Kathmandu:NUKCFP.Chapagain, B. 2007. Participatory well being ranking: Effective in propoor targeting and
monitoringtheimpact.LFP.
Chapagain,N.2007.PovertyDynamicsandPossibleFutureOutcomes(Draft).Chapagain,N.2008.IsitPossibletoIncreasetheExistingAcceptanceLeveloftheTwoPartywith
theSame
Resources
and
Existing
Support
Strategy
(Draft).
Chapagain,N.,Chapagain,B.&Kafle,G.2008.ReviewofPoorSupportStrategyandtheExistingCollaboration Efforts: are the Achievements became Intact in Favour of P&E Needs and
Priorities:ACasefromtheEastHillsofNepal(Draftabstract).
Chapagain,N., Kafle, G. & Chapagain,B.2008.MeasuringPoverty:DeterminantstoChange inHouseholdWellbeingStatusduetoMemberofCommunityForestry(Draftinprogress).
Chapagain,N. & Ojha,P.2006.ADecadeoftheFUGFormedbeforethe1994,LFPNewsletter(West).
Douglas,G.ScottishExecutiveEnvironmentandRuralAffairsDepartment,ForestryintheWiderRuralContext.
Kanel,B.R.&Subedi,R.2004.PropoorCommunityForestry:SomeInitiativesfromtheField.InProceedings
of
Fourth
National
Workshop
on
Community
Forestry.
Department
of
Forests,
Kathmandu,Nepal.
Kanel,K.R.,Podudel,R.P.&Baral,J.P2005.NepalCommunityForestry2005.Kanel, K.R. & Niraula, D.R. 2004. Can Rural Livelihood be Improved in Nepal thorough
CommunityForestry?BankoJanakari,14(1):1924.Kanel, K.R. 2004. Twenty five years of community forestry: contribution to Millenium
DevelopmentGoals. Fourth National WorkshoponCommunity Forestry.Proceedingof theFourth workshop on community Forestry, Dec. 2004. , Kathmandu, Nepal: CommunityForestryDivision,DOF.
Rajendra,K.C.&Khatri,A.2008.ContributionofCommunityForestryinReducingRuralPovertyin Nepal: Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural ResourceManagement
and
Rural
Development,
University
of
Hohenheim,
October
7
9,
2008.
Koirala, R., Giri, K. & Pokharel, B.K. 2008. Development and Status of Community ForestryGovernanceinNepal.
LFP2004and2006.FindingsfromFUGcategrisationfromKoshiHill.LFP2007.LFPLogicalframeworkreview:howweachievedsofarandhowweexpectforthree
years:byreviewingoftheoriginalandmodifiedindicatorsKoshiHill(Draft).
LFP2007and2008.AnnualReportandLSIreportingfromEast.LFP2007.aglimpseofFUGplanningfortheFY065/66fromKoshiHill.
8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills
19/19
ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2
LFP2007:Completionreport2001to2007fromKoshiHill(Draft).LFP2004and2007.FindingsfromSAGAandpreMTRstudyKoshihills.LFP2008.AglimpseofFUG'sfundmobilisationareasandsourceofincomefromKoshiHills.LFP2008.FAQs:Disaggregatedbycaste,ethnicity,genderandpovertylevelfromKoshihills.LFP2009.ComponentreportfromKoshiHills(Draft).LFP2006.ContextualinformationfromPCO,LFP.Ojha,PandChapagain,NFebruary2004LFP.Poorfocusedrevolvingfundforincomegenerating
activitiesinBaglungdistrict:Processandprogresssofar
Pokharel, B.K. 2005. Community forest user groups: institutions to protect democracy andvehiclesforlocaldevelopment.JournalofForestandLivelihood,Vol4(2).
Poudel BC 2006.Contribution of community forestry tosustainable livelihoods:an example offorest ethics in action. A discussion paper submitted to Mr. David Gritten for the
requirementoftheseminarperiodfromJanuary9thtoFebruary12th,2006.
Subedi R, Chapagain, N and MacDonald 2005. Community forestry in Dhaulagiri area: Ananalysisofsomecharacteristicsandtrendofthelastfiveyears,NUKCFPLFP.