distributional inequality between community forest user group

8/9/2019 Distributional Inequality Between Community forest User group

1/72

DISTRIBUTIONAL INEQUALITY BETWEEN COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUPS IN KATHMANDU, BHAKTAPUR

AND LALITPUR DISTRICTS

A Thesis

Submitted to Central department of Economics

Faculty of Humanities and social Science

Tribhuvan University, kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

ECONOMICS

By

Bharat Poudel

Roll No.316/063

T.U.Registration No.

Central Department of Economics

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

May 2010

1


2/72

CHAPTRE - ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Nepals Community forestry is over 30 years old and well

established. By 2008, the government had handed over 1.23 million

hectares of forest land to 14,559 Community Forest User Groups

(CFUGs) involving 1.66 million households (Economic survey,

F/Y2008/09). Community forestry is considered quite a success story in

terms of improving the condition of forests and people in Nepal

(Pokheral, 2003).

Community forestry is the largest programme of the country that

has great contribution, directly or indirectly; to forest products need of

user households and local community development. From thesuccessful implementation of the 30 years of this programme, most of

the community forestry is now in the stage of production of sufficient

quality of valuable forest product besides benefits from the

consumption of products with in user groups level. Community forest

user groups are also getting good income from the sell of the surplus

timber and other forest products outside their community forest user

groups. The found collected from the sale of these products and other

sources are utilized in the form of expenses for different purposes at

local level. Users of different socio-economic classes are involved in

different forest management activities and getting benefits from

community forest in the form of different kinds of forest products.

2


3/72

Though there is a vital role of forest in the environmental aspect

with many indirect benefits that are, generally not considered in

planning and measuring the impact due to the difficulty in quantifying

them. The benefits that users feel important and get easily are the

obvious direct benefits like timber, fuel-wood, tree fodder and grasses,

leaf-litter and many other NTFP (CF Bulletin, 2008).

Community forestry in Nepal can provide billions of rupees to

national economy but the forest users and managers have not yet

realized the benefits that one can get from CF (Kanel and Niraula,

2004). Due to the unavailability of secondary data on environmental

valuation of Nepalese forestry, it is very difficult to give monetary

term, though users realize those values and importance. Most of the

studies in Nepal are focused on benefits of CF but economic aspect is

less focused. Economics is useful for valuation of forest products use

since it provide numeraire for making analysis quantities of a range of

differentially valued forest products (Richard et al. 2003).

The community forestry concept in Nepal is a courageous,

innovative and future oriented approach towards participatory forest

management by local people. Community Forestry Program is widely

celebrated as one of the most progressive policy examples of

devolving control over forest resources to community based user

groups, which has established a viable procedure for handing over the

forests to actual groups of users with a legal status as autonomous and

corporate institutions with perpetual succession, (Adhikari, 2001).

Nurse et al. (2005) has appreciated CF programme by heartily and said

that the basis for what is now the CF programme formally launched in

Nepal in 1978 as panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest

following twenty five years of implementation development of rural

people based on participatory resource management model.

Generally a CFUG collects its fund by selling timber, fuel wood,

bedding material, Herbs, NTFPs harvested in community forest. The

3


4/72

harvested amount of timber, fuel wood etc is known as Annual Average

Harvestable Forest Product (AAH) that is prescribed in CF operation

plan and approved by District Forest Office of the respective district.

For distributional and sell of harvested forest products, community

forest users are independent and have autonomous right. Selling or

consuming with in users group is based on their social need. Sometime

they export timber outside from the group. The fund expenditure is

allocated into various social development works. The user assembly

decides where to expense the fund.

In practices assessing economic contribution of CF is examining the

economic Values of the forest products and their important to the poor

livelihood. Forest products being the economic goods are important

sources of income that have direct influences on poverty alleviation of

rural communities Sharma (2000). Thus the current issue is what the

economic values of forest products are and its contribution in Poors

households in CFUG. Similarly, the analysis of the contribution of CF

household level income will produce insight regarding the

effectiveness of CF programme for household level. Estimating the

economic contribution of the derived income are the key steps towards

understanding the role of CF in rural peoples day life (Chhetri, 2006).

This study provides the HH information of the study area that can

be used to understand the distribution of forest products to the users.

This can guide to better address the problem of CFUGs in the similar

conditions and examine its effectiveness in the products flow

perspective. The findings of the quantitative analysis of the policy

makers and managers that guides for the improvement of community

forestry programme in hills of Nepal.

In this context, this study attempts to quantify the value of at least,

directly consumable products; and their contribution to forest users in

the financial terms support their household income and community

necessities in terms of development works. Besides this study also

4


5/72

measures the income inequality between rich, middle, poor categories

of users households and effect of community forest income to reduce

the income inequality gap.

1.2 Statement of the problem

It is believed that CF programme in Nepal is very successful

programme. At micro level several CFUGs are able to bring positive

change in society. The fund or benefits from CFUGs have been used for

poverty reduction activities and infrastructure development works.

People are getting more timber, fuel wood, leaf litter, NTFPs etc from

CF. (Sharma,2000 Pokheral,2003 Chhetri,2005 Kanel,2004) shows that

CFUGs are contributing to uplift poors status and livelihood. They have

made conclusion that CF programme is seem to be pro-poor

programme.

The research problem is that which seeks to explore to what extent

the poor are benefiting from forest products such as by timber, fuel

wood, bedding materials and other kinds of forest products. Is the

distribution of different forest products within the among rich, middle

and poor within the community forest user groups fair, equitable and

justifiable? How much are the poor Households getting benefit from

CF?

Although CFUGs have generated more goods and services in to society

but it is observed that poor are not able to capture in substantive

amount (Kanal and Niraula, 2004). Thus there may be possibility of

uneatable distribution of benefits from CF among the forest user

households. So this research tries to explore the magnitude of

inequality by measuring skewness of distribution using the Lorenz

curve and quantify the inequality using the Gini co-efficient in selected

three CFUGs.

5


6/72

1.3 Objective of the Study

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To determine the share of income derived from community forest

among different economic classes of users (i.e. rich, middle

and poor class) at household level.

2. To find the system of benefit distribution in the three selected

community forest user groups.

3. To identify the inequality co-efficient of the three selected

community forest user groups in- Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and

Lalitpur District.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The study intended to explore the situation of product flow,

users input and community development aspects in community forest

in the middle hill of Nepal. Existing share of income from community

forest and other sources in the users households and distribution

income level of different wealth classes of the users are explored. This

study also wants to explore the fact that the, how much benefit can

get poor household from community forest? Whether the distribution is

pro-poor or not? That helps to evaluate the community forest

programmes and status of social welfare and justice in micro level.

The information which comes from this study is considered to be useful

for decision makers, policy makers and managers.

1.5 Limitation of the Study

6


7/72

The limitation of the study is:

1 The study is mainly focused on computing the Gini co-efficients

and the Lorenz curves of income for three selected Community

forest user groups.

2 Only tangible benefits especially assessing for timber, fuel wood

and bedding materials are, consider in the analysis.

1.6 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis divided in to six chapters.

Chapter one covers the research background with problem statement

and justification, objective of the study, research questions, scope of

the study and limitation of the study. This chapter gives an overview of

the research context.

Chapter two describes with the literature related to the study starting

from the overview of community forestry in Nepal. It sequentially gives

an account of benefit of community forestry, contribution of

Community forestry in socio-Economic development with poverty and

income inequality in the context of community forestry. This chapter

tries to present the past studies related to Community forestry in CFUG

context.

Chapter three deals with study area including country background,

description of the district, community forestry programme in theselected CFUGs with brief description, presenting with the map.

Chapter four presents research methodology which is the central part

of the study. It includes selection criteria of CFUGs and sample

households for the study, design of questionnaire, methods and tools

7


8/72

used in data collection & analysis and methods for calculating

household income with valuation of the products in local context.

Chapter five presents results and discussions. It is the main body of

the research that includes socio-economic condition of the

respondents, income of respondents from different sources, share of

CF income to the households income, benefit distribution system of

CFUGs, current practices of CFUG fund mobilization, description of

inequality between forest user groups according to household

categories.

Chapter six consist conclusion and recommendation.

8


9/72

CHAPTER -TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Community Forestry in Nepal

Nepal is one of the pioneer countries to hand over the managementresponsibility of government owned forest area to local community

forming a forest user group as an autonomous body for forest

management and utilization. Though Leasehold Forestry programme for

the poor is the first priority programme of Forestry sector of Nepal, CF had

received the highest priority in the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of

Nepal (1989) and is regarded as the most successful (Acharya and Oli,

2004). The Panchayat Forest (PF) and Panchayat protected Forest (PPF)

rules allowed for the transfer of responsibility for forest management from

the government to the local Panchayat as PF and Panchayat Protected

Forest PPF (Joshi 1993; Bartlett 1992). The promulgation of Panchayat

Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules 1978 provides a convenient

bench mark for community based forest management in Nepal. After

democracy was restored in 1990, the government framed the Forest Act

of 1993, which focused on sustainable management of forest resources

under community-based property rights regimes. The Forest Act vestedmore legal authority in Forest User Groups (FUGs). The Master Plan for the

Forestry Sector 1989, the Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of 1995,

the Operational Guidelines of 1995 and Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)

provide the current legal and operational framework of Nepals

community forestry (Pokharel & Nurse, 2004). These instruments have

9


10/72

legitimized the concept of the Community Forest User Group (CFUG) as an

independent, autonomous and self-governing institution responsible to

protect, manage and use any patch of national forest with a defined forest

boundary and user group members.

The policy of the government originally intended to meet the basic

requirements of the communities through the active participation of

individuals and communities in forest development and management.

After years of protection, growing stocks and potential yields of

community forests have increased. Surplus of forest products for

commercial sale is now available (Kanel, 2004). Later it was expanded to

include the mobilization and empowerment of the CFUGs in the

development of their local communities. Although, community forestryprogram has halted the trend of forest degradation since handing over of

the community forest to local people, second generation issues such as

livelihood and social justice, good governance and active

forest/biodiversity management have also to be resolved as we further

move on improving community forestry in Nepal (Kanel and Kanel, 2003).

Community forestry in Nepal has developed rapidly over the last

decade and about 22.5 percent of potential forests covering the area

by 12,30,000 hectares land have been already handed over to 14,559

FUGs for management and utilization about 16,60,000 households are

benefiting from the implementation of community forest operation

plans in Nepal(Economic Survey, F/Y2008/09).

2.2 Benefits of Community Forestry

Studies have claimed that CFUGs have been established as a grass

root level institution for managing forest resources in order to improve the

economic status of forest users of Nepal (Malla 2001; Acharya 2002;

Acharya 2004). However, at the same time many believe that community

forest management is protection-oriented where the main forest

management activities are limited to the removal of dead and dying trees,

and leaf litters. As a consequence, the users are getting sub-optimal

10


11/72

benefits (NPC 2001, Shrestha 2001; Karki et.al. 1994; Chhetri and Pandey

1992; Gilmour and Fisher 1991).

Community forestry may be able to provide a lot of opportunities to

the rural poor for their poverty reduction to some extent (Niraula, 2004)

and increase local funds for community development (Dev et al., 2004).

There is a lack of information on the share of community forest income

relative to the total income of a household in Nepalese context (Chhetri,

2004). CF has been an effective example of community-based resource

management (Arnold, 1998; Baland and Platteau, 1996) but beset with its

own problems concerning the creation and distribution of benefits to

beneficiary members (Ojha, 2004).

Dev et al. (2003b) describes various benefits of community forests as: Improved flows of forest products on a sustainable basis.

Development of a local community planning institution.

Improvement in community infrastructure such as schools and

roads.

Opportunities such as NTFP collection and credit facilities.

Graner 1999 described these three main patterns of CF benefits in the

Middle hills:

For most households agriculture is the primary activity, based on

the ownership of small terraces of irrigated and / or un-irrigated

farmland. Middle-class households commonly have land-holdings

and cattle, but only modest private tree resources and grazing

land. They tend to be heavily dependent on inputs to their farming

systems from common forest land.

Poorer and landless households depend on non-land based

activities such as laboring, artisanal work and NTFP collection. To

pursue these they have specific needs from the forest distinct

from the other wealth-rank groups; such as charcoal for

blacksmithing, and fuel wood and medicinal plants for and sale.

11


12/72

Richer households may supplement farming with incomes from

local businesses or service employment. They often have land

outside the village and may spend only part of the year in the

hills. They commonly have irrigated as well as un-irrigated

Due to the limited size of land-holdings, hill agriculture systems

depend on interdependence between arable land, livestock and forest

components. Broadleaf forests, particularly Katus-Chilaune (and hill Sal in

some CF), supply the most useful range of products for agriculture, such

as fuel wood, fodder, leaf litter, foliage, small poles and fence-sticks.

In addition to agricultural needs, virtually all households depend on

forests for a variety of domestic needs such as fuel and construction

material. Furthermore, forests support certain rural household benefits,e.g. as a source of charcoal for blacksmiths, fodder for livestock, berries

for alcohol distilling, medicinal plants and so on. Community forestry has

been criticized as a poor policy for poor people (Graner 1999).

The heterogeneity of households within FUGs is rarely if ever reflected

in the way FUGs manage their community forest resources and distribute

forest products. Wealthier households tend to benefit most from the

status quo, and since it is these same households which dominate the

decision-making processes and assimilate most information about

community forestry through organized events, they have very little

incentive to alter anything or to change any of the rules governing the

way the FUG operates. Therefore, although certain actions are required to

make sure that poorer households benefit more from community forestry,

it seems unlikely that these actions will be initiated by the elites who

dominate FUG committees (Malla et al. 2003).

2.3 Contribution of Community Forestry in socio-

Economic development and poverty alleviation

Many studies have been conducted on various dimensions of

community forestry that are mainly focused on social and policy aspects.

12


13/72

Studies on assessing overall contributions of CF in Nepal is limited,

Acharya and Oli (2004).

In many places CFUGs have become the vehicle for rural development

and at present CFUGs are the main democratically elected local

institutions in place. For many poor rural people, CFUGs also act as rural

banks and source of revenue and income. Pokharel et. al. (2006)

describes CFUG as vehicle for rural development for the following reasons:

CFUGs manage their finances and give loans to villagers.

CFUGs support their members for income generating activities such

as vegetation farming, livestock, horticulture, fishery and bee

keeping.

CFUGs contribute to the construction and maintenance of physicalinfrastructure such as irrigation canals, drinking water schemes,

community buildings, wooden bridges, etc.

CFUGs invest in scholarships for poor children, teachers salaries,

school buildings and furniture.

CFUGs invest their funds and labor in the construction of roads and

trails.

CFUGs promote eco-tourism and nature awareness by constructing

picnic and recreational spots, temples and eco-clubs.

CFUGs invest in health posts and medical equipments.

CFUGs establish forest based enterprises.

CFUGs and their members have increased access to financial assets

from group funds. Increased access to forest dependent households to

basic services such as education and information has been shown. There

is development of physical infrastructure at community level andincreased community awareness and ownership over policy making

process and community development. However, these positive benefits

have usually been disproportionately captured by wealthier CFUG

members-often at the expense of more disadvantaged members (Malla et

al. 2003).

13


14/72

Kanel and Niraula, (2004) has made a nation wide study on

expenditure & income of CFUG. They have estimated that Rs. 747 million

has earned by 14000 CFUG in Nepal during F/Y 2003. The figure of

earning is 69% by the sell of timber, 18% by Fuel wood and 10% by

bedding materials. That study has further shown that all CFUGs have

made 28% expenses in forest protection, 36% in social infrastructure and

only 3% in pro-poor programme, while total expenditure done 740 million

& 7 million has deposited as capital saving.

Pokheral (2008) in his study carried out in Lamjung, Tanahun and

Gorkha describes that 55% of the annual investment of CFUGs is in public

infrastructure, 22% in pro-poor activities, 17% in forest development and

6% in administration.The 4th National Workshop on Community Forestry recommended

to allocate at least 25% of CFUG fund for pro-poor activities, legal

provisions for allocating community forest land to the poor, capacity

building program for the poor and disadvantaged, develop effective

forest land use planning which addresses land allocation to the poor

under community forestry and leasehold forestry, social mobilization to

sensitize the elites and others about pro-poor issues, plan livelihoods

improvement programs based on wealth ranking of CFUG members

and promote pro-poor research and training (DoF, 2004).

Like wise several other socio economic studies related to CFUGs have

shown that CF programme in Nepal has brought positive contribution in

micro level. Further more CFUGs are playing significance role to reduce

poverty by enhancing livelihood of poor people. As mentioned above

various researches have in lighted similarly that the positive contribution

of CFUG has brought socio economic change at micro level.At the same time some other studies have shown that there is still

prevailing discrimination in benefit distribution among user groups under

the different economic classes of society. Pokheral and Nurse, (2004) has

mentioned that there are various issues & challenges on CFUG benefit

distribution context. They have shown poor user are not capable to

14


15/72

capture benefits in equitable manner although poor are sharing much cost

in CF protection & management. Poor people are excluded in decision

making process by capturing the key decision post of CFUG committee by

elite people. The leadership status is also lower for poor people. The poor

people are also excluded in training and human resource development

due to low level of education.

K.C. Arun, (2004) has mentioned in his study paper carried out in

pyuthan district in 2003 that small farmers (poor) are getting lowest

benefits from NTFPs extracted from CFUG, i.e. poor have earned NRs

11815 in comparison to middle farmers NRs 18730 and higher farmer

(Rich) NRs 20496 respectively. He has further discussed that the gross

Value of NTFPs goes maximum toward middle farmer and rich farmers.Poor farmer are less benefited due to inequality of NTFPs distribution.

Similarly Dahal, (2006) has mentioned in his Ph.D. thesis that there

is a significant inequality of benefit distribution among several ethnic &

economic classes of society. Marginal poor, Dalit and Ethnic deprived

households have been mostly suppressed during benefit distribution in

CF. his study shows that the poor income HH were more dependent on CF

than non poor HH. That study has found average gross value of forest

used & cost of management for each ethnic stratum of society in term of

monetary valuation which was NRs 5837 for Brahmin/ chhetri, NRs 4297

for Newar, NRs 6393 for Janjati and NRs 4164 for Dalit. Similarly B/C ratio

for Newar & Janjati was 1.07 & 1.02 respectively which is positive while

B/C ratio of Brahmin/chhetri was 0.94 and for Dalit it was 0.96. Thus he

had concluded that poor income HH failed to internalize the benefit from

CF as per the total gross cost incurred by them. The middle income group

was able to equalize gross benefit and rich income group was getting

more benefit from CF.

Ojha and Bhattrai, (2001) have shown that poor are less benefited

by distributed material of CF because of unequal distribution of timber,

fuel wood and bedding materials. Their study of two CFUGs from

Dhankuta & Terhathun districts has shown that the B/C ratio for poor was

15


16/72

0.94, for middle class HH 1.17 and it was 1.1 for rich HH. Thus they

conclude that poor are getting negative benefit from CFUG.

Sharma, (2000) conducted a research on 42 households of Badikhel

VDC of Lalitpur district and quantified the contribution of community

forest on farm household income in order to assess the impact on poor-

rich gap. The study revealed that community forestry income contributes

12% and 3% of farm household income of poor and rich households

respectively. His one important finding is that while narrowing poor rich

gap community forestry simultaneously increases within-group

inequalities; hence, total inequalities remain the same.

Pokheral Ridish K. (2008) has mentioned in his working paper

carried out in 100 CFUGs in three different mid. Hill districts, Lamjung,Tanahu and Kaski. This studies main objective is, to verify whether CF is

indeed enabling the self financing of local public goods and to measure

how much of the investment made through CF really reach the poor

( through pro-poor programme). That study finds that the income from

community funds increase local development resources by about 25% and

over all 74% of the annual benefits of CF funds accrue to non- poor while

only 26% accrue to the poor.

Thus literature review shows us there is a knowledge gap to

measure the inequality in the context of distribution of benefit flown from

CFUG. To know the skewness of distribution and finding Gini co-efficient

and skewness of Lorenz curve of three selected CFUG in Kathmandu,

Bhaktapur and Lalitpur districts for inequality assessment.

16


17/72

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY AREA

3.1 Kathmandu Valley

Kathmandu valley is made up the Kathmandu district, Lalitpur

district and Bhaktapur district. The valley consists of one metropolitan,

one sub metropolitan and three municipalities. The Kathmandu valley

is a cultural and political hub of Nepal.

3.2 Kathmandu District

Kathmandu district lies in Bagmati zone of Central Development

Region of Nepal. Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. It covers an area of

395km2. This district comprises of 57 VDCs, 1 metropolitan city and 1

municipality. The altitude of the district ranges between 1262 m to

2732 m above the sea level.

17


18/72

The forest area is distributed over the hilly regions in sloppy

landscape. The forest type of Kathmandu is dominated by Alnus

Nepalensis (Utis). The major species tree find in Chilanue, katus, bajh

and pine. According to the DFO record, the total number of community

forests user groups in the district is 148 with total area 4684 hectares.

Total number of household benefited from CF is 18589 which comprise

of 855094 populations (DFO, Kathmandu 2008). According to CBS

(2001), the total population is 1081845, male 576010 and female are

505835, where average family size is 4.6. Main castes found in the

district are Newar, Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Malla

Thakuri, Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.

3.2.1Community forestry in Kathmandu District

Community forestry programme was initiated in the district in

the year 2050/051 B.S. with major objective of fulfilling the forest

products needs of the local people on sustainable basis and to

improve the ecological condition of the area. This programme is

recognized as the first priority programme in the forestry sector in the

district that is in line with the government priority programme. Among

the total potential community forest area in the district, 148 CFs

comprising a total area 4684 hectare is handed over to the CFUGs till

date from which a total 18589 users households and 855090

population of the district are benefited.

3.3 Bhaktapur District

Bhaktapur is the smallest district of Nepal which lies in Central

Development Regions of Nepal. It is the third largest city in Kathmandu valley

and was once the capital of Nepal during the great Malla Kingdom until the second half

of the 15th century. It consist 16 VDC and 2 municipalities. The total land

area of Bhaktapur is 138 sq. km. of which 14 percent area is covered

18


19/72

by forest. The total forest area in Bhaktapur is 1994.20 hectare. The

forest area is distributed over the hilly regions in sloppy landscape. In

forest area found major species are: - chilaune, katus, guras, khasru,

uttis and pine species. District forest office is main responsible

government authority for forest monitoring and management.

Total population of Bhaktapur is 225461 where Male is 114804

and female is 110657 (DFO Bhaktapur). The average family size is 4.8.

The districts are multi caste society where the people belong to different

caste. Main castes found in this district are Newar, Brahmin, Chhetri,

Gurung, Tamang, Malla Thakuri, Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.

3.3.1 Community Forestry in Bhaktapur

Most part of the forest area (i.e. 94.3 percent) handed over to 56

CFUGs in Bhaktapur. There are 56 number of user groups involved in

Community forestry management in this district. 8334 number of

households is benefited from community forest. 1832 hectare is covered

by community forest in this district. Since 2051 B.S., DFO Bhaktapur has

started to handover forest area as CF to near by inhabitant people

according to Forest Act 1993 and Forest Rule 1995.

3.4 Lalitpur District

Lalitpur district lies in Bagmati zone of Central Development

Region of Nepal. According to the population census 2001, total

population of Lalitpur district is 337785 of which 172455 were male

and 165330 were female. There are 68922 households. The average

household size is 4.9. The districts are multi-caste society where the

people belong to the different caste/ethnic groups such as Brahmin,

Chhetri, Newars, Rai, etc. and some other occupational castes; Kami

and Damai. The average literacy rate in this district is 70.77% (CBS,

2003). The area has a sub- tropical and temperate climate

19


20/72

3.4.1 Community Forest in Lalitpur District

There are altogether 175 community forest user groups in

Lalitpur district. The total area of community forest handed over to

local communities is 9839 hectare. 30363 households are taking

benefits from CF. DFO Lalitpur has started to handover forest area is

since 2049 B.S. In terms of the organizational and spatial hierarchy of

the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation the forest resources fall

under the District Forest Office (DFO) Lalitpur which administers,

community forests management activities in the area.

3.5 Description of Selected CFUGs

Three CFUGs from middle hill area are selected for study.

Thadopakho CFUG from Jitpurphedi VDC in Kathmandu district, Padali

CFUG from Lamatar VDC in Lalitpur district and Chameli CFUG from

Dadhikot VDC in Bhaktapur district are selected. Brief description of these

CFUGs is presented below.

20


21/72

Table 1: An overview of the studied CFUGs

Particular Thadopakho

CFUG

Padali

CFUG

Chameli

CFUG

Address Jitpurphedi-3 Lamatar-6 Dadhikot-2

Handover date 3/23/2057 2/30/2052 10/28/2051Area (hectare) 60 46 34No. of household 82 121 185User population 481 630 920User sex Male 230 326 458

Female 251 304 462Ethnicity of HH Brah/

Chhetri

46 81 115

Janajati 25 26 52Dalit 11 14 18

Wealth Status Rich 12 12 17

Middle 38 63 96Poor 32 46 72

Size of Executive

Committee(EC)

11 11 13

Sex wise

Representation

in EC

Male 8 7 6Female 3 4 7

Caste wise

representation

in EC

Brah/chhetr

i

7 8 6

Janajati 3 2 5Dalit 1 1 2

Wealth status

wise

representation

in EC

Rich 4 2 2Middle 5 6 9Poor 2 3 2

(Source: Field survey, 2009)

3.5.1 Thadopakho CFUGThis CFUG is situated in ward no. 3 of Jitpurphedi VDC which lies in

the northern part of Kathmandu district.The area of CF is 60 hectares and

dominated by Alnus Nepalensis (Utis). The major species tree is found

in Chilanue, katus, bajh and pine. 82 HHs are benefited from this CF.

This CF is handed over to the users in 2057 B.S. by DFO Kathmandu.

21


22/72

This CFUG also rewards first Prize by DFO Kathmandu in 2061 B.S.

among the 148 CFUG.

The CFUG is heterogeneous in ethnic composition. Most of the

HHs is related to Brahmin and Chhetri ethnic group. The major ethnic

group comprises Brahmin, Chhetri, Newar, Gurung, Damai, Kami and

Tamang.

3.5.2 Padali CFUG

This CFUG is situated in Ward no. 6 of Lamatar VDC which lies in the

southern part of the district and near to Bhaktapur district. The area of the

CF is 21.9 ha and the forest is situated in southern and southern aspect.

121 HHs take directly and indirectly benefit from this CFUG. Major species

of the forest is Alnus nepalensis (UTIs), Schima Wallichi (chhilaune) and

Pinus roxburghil (pine). This CF is handed over to the users in 2052 B.S.

by DFO Lalitpur.

This area found multi caste society where the people belong to the

different ethnic groups. Brahmin is dominated in this area. Major ethnic

group in this CFUG include Brahmin, Chhetri, Newar, Gurung, Magar,

Tamang, Sarki, Damai and Kami.

3.5.3 Chameli CFUG

Chameli CFUG is situated in Ward no. 2 of Dadhikot VDC of

Bhaktapur district which lies in the southern hilly side of the district near

in Lalitpur district. The area of the forest is 13.16 ha and situated south-

west aspect. 185 HHs is benefited from this CF. Chameli CFUG rewards

first prize in 2063 B.S by DFO Bhaktapur among all CFUG of Bhaktapur.

The type of CF is sub-tropical. The major species of forest is Alnus

nepalensis (UTIs), Schima Wallichi (chhilaune), Pinus roxburghil (pine),

katus and kafal. This CFUG is handed over to the CFUG in 2051 B.S. by the

concerned DFO. The majority of the users in this CFUG belong to Brahmin

22


23/72

ethnicity. Other ethnic groups are Chhetri, Newar, Magar, Sarki, Kami,

Damai and Tamang.

District map of the study area

23


24/72

24

Thadopakho

CFUG

Chameli

CFUG

Padali

CFUG


25/72

CHAPTER- FOUR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Selection of the study area

There are 148 CFUG in Kathmandu, 56 community forest user groups in Bhaktapur

and 175 community forest user groups in Lalitpur district (C.F. Bulliten, 2008). For

comparative study, among them one community forest from Kathmandu, one community

forest from Bhaktapur and one community forest from Lalitpur district are selected based

on the following criteria.

CFUGs handed over at least before 5 years.

CFUGs having the heterogeneous community in respect of household income

status.

CFUGs having more than 50 households.

CFUGs representing the average management performance as per the District

Forest Office (DFO) evaluation record.

The study area is selected because of the following reasons:

Community forestry has been implemented in this area

This kind of research has not been yet done in this area.

Researcher is interested and familiar with the area.

Have good record keeping system.

Have contributed significantly in country development work.

Based on above reason, following three Community forest user groups has been selected

for the study:

1. Thadopakho community forest user group, Jitpurphedi V.D.C.-3 Kathmandu.

2. Chameli Community Forest user groups, Dadhikot V.D.C.-2 Bhaktapur.3. Padali Community Forest user groups, Lamatar V.D.C. 6 Lalitpur.

4.2 Wealth Ranking

25


26/72

The primary objective of this research is to obtain the magnitude and extent of

inequality which presence in several socio-economic classes in three CFUG households.

Indeed, this research wants to see obviously how much quantity of CF benefit i.e. timber,

fuel-wood and bedding material been captured by poor class households of the society.

Therefore it is required to classify total households of CFUGs into three wealth ranking

classes (Rich, Middle and Poor) of the users households; wealth ranking is carried out in

all 3 selected CFUGs. We can gather all information about wealth ranking from

community forest user groups Committee. We can found all selected 3 CFUGs have

already classified wealth being classes of the total users households. For wealth ranking,

all selected 3 CF, community forest user group Committee have been used Participatory

Rural Appraisal (PRA) technique which is following.

Table 2: wealth ranking criteria adopted to categorize Users HH in the study area

Wealth group I (Rich

class)

Wealth group II (Middle

Class)

Wealth group III (Poor

class)

Surplus cereals

(12+)

> 15 Ropani land

Monthly income

is >Rs 10,000

Saving in the

bank

Many HH assets,some luxuries

No family

members doing

wage labor

Year round food

security

5-15 Ropani land

Monthly income Rs

3000-10,000

No saving in the

bank

Non-gazette levelservice at least of a

family member

Seasonal or chronic

food insecurity

Lacking basic

necessities

Sell>3 months oflabor per year

< 5 Ropani land

Monthly income 15 4 8 14 26 33.4

5-15 7 6 12 25 32

15 Ropani land where as 32%

have 5-15 Ropani and 34.6% have


37/72

livestock and type of livestock determines the wealth status of the household in the rural

community.

Table 11: Livestock holding status of the sample households

Livestock Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Cattle 40 24 32 96 13.2Buffalo 12 19 26 57 7.8

Goat 139 119 235 493 67.8

Pig 22 21 38 81 11.2

Total 213 183 331 727 100

(Source; field survey, 2009)

In the study area, the percentage of the goat is found dominant in terms of number, and

then followed by Cattle, pig and lastly buffalo.

5.1.8 Wealth Status of the Respondents

Rich, Medium and Poor class households were purposively selected by simple

random sampling after wealth ranking. There fore the figure shows somewhat equal

number of respondents from 3 classes.

Table 12: Wealth status of the selected sample households

Household Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Rich 4 8 14 26 33.4Middle 7 6 12 25 32

Poor 6 10 11 27 34.6

Total 17 24 37 78 100


Among the sampled household, 33.4% household belong to rich class. 32 % belong to

middle class and 34.6% belong to poor wealth class.

5.2 Household Income of the Respondents

The household economy in the rural society depends on the income derived from

different sources like, Agriculture, livestock, non farm income (remittance, service rent

etc.) and Community Forest income.

5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household

37


38/72

Agriculture is one of the most important sources of the subsistence economy in

rural households. Main agriculture product is the study area has paddy, maize, wheat and

fruits and vegetable.

Table 13: Annual agriculture incomes per sampled household according to household

categories

Income

source

HH

type

Total

income

Average

income Minimum Maximum Percentage

Agriculture Rich 5,61,435 21,593.65 14,800 36,170 54.6

Middle 2,99,350 11,974 6,830 20,500 29.1

Poor 1,66,715 6,174.62 3,280 7,820 16.3

Total 10,27,500 13173 3280 36170 100


In the study area income of the household from agriculture varies from NRs 3,280 to NRs

36,170. Table 13 shows that the annual average agriculture income of a rich class

household has more than the other. Annul average income of rich class household have

NRs. 21593.65, middle class household have NRs. 11974and 6174.62 annual average

income of the poor household..

5.2.2 Livestock Income of the Respondents

Livestock rearing is a common practice in rural area for manure, milk and cash

income. Rich class households have practiced to rear more cattle than middle and poor

class households, middle class households have more than goat, buffalos and Pigs than

other class household in the study area (Table 14) which indicate the livestock rearing

pattern of different wealth class of households. Middle class households were found to

have a relatively higher number of livestock than the poor and rich class households. This

may be because the middle class household is more dependent on agriculture farming for

which the Livestock are reared as source of manure and they also earn from the sale of

milk and goat products.

Table 14: Livestock holding status of per household according to household categories

Livestock

Type

Livestock No. of

Rich Class

Livestock No. of

Middle Class

Livestock No. of

Poor Class

Cattle 46 35 15

Buffalo 21 24 12

Goat 179 187 127

38


39/72

Pig 18 36 27

Total 264 282 181


Table 15: Annual livestock income per household according to household categories

Income Source

HH

type

Total

income

Average

income Minimum Maximum percentage

Rich 3,10,475 11,941.36 2,700 32,500 35.6Livestock (Cattle, Buffalo,

Goat, Pig and milk selling) Middle 3,04,040 12,161.06 4,510 26,500 35

Poor 2,56,125 9,486.61 3,645 24,210 29.4

Total 8,70,640 11162 3645 32500 100


In the study, income from livestock includes the monetary value derived from the sell of

livestock and its products in a year in the household. The monetary value is given also to

the products consumed in the households themselves. The income of the livestock per

household in the study area varies from NRs.2700 to NRs32500. The average livestock

income is the highest to the middle class household (NRs.12161.06 per annum) and the

lowest for poor class household (NRs 9486.61 per annum).

5.2.3 Non Farm Income of Respondents

In this study, the income other than from agriculture, livestock and forest are

classified as non-farm income of the household which include income from government

and non-government service, remittance from foreign job, business, pension, wage labor,

interest, rent etc.

Table 16: Annual income per household from non- farm sources according to household

categories

Income

Source HH type

Total

Income

Average

Income Minimum Maximum Percentage

Rich 1519460 58440.76 35750 200000 57.7

Non-farm Middle 656000 26240 10000 70000 25

39


40/72

Poor 456500 16907.4 4000 42000 17.3

Total 2631960 33743 4000 200000 100


Above table 16 shows that the non-farm income of the user household in the study area is

derived minimum NRs 4000 from to maximum NRs 200000. Non farm income of therich class household is more than other two classes of households because most of the

rich class households are involved business and foreign job.

5.2.4 Community Forest Income of the Respondents

In this study Community forest (CF) income implies the income derived from the

use and sell of forest product like timber, fuel-wood, fodder, bedding materials etc. from

CF. Income from CF is, therefore, the monetary value of the products consumed and sold

by the users. In the study area it is found that most of the forest products derived from the

CF are consumed in the household and not sold outside the CFUGs. So we can convert

consumed forest product by HHs level is into local market price, to find out the HHs

income from CF. Annul income from the CF according to household categories are

shown following table.

Table 17: Annual income of household from Community Forest according to household

type

Income Source HH type

Total

income

Average

Income Minimum Maximum percentage

Community Forest Rich 17180 660.76 320 1075 39.7

Middle 15015 600.6 275 840 34.7

Poor 11030 408.51 140 835 25.6

Total 43225 554.16 320 1075 100


Table 17 show that the rich class households take more benefit from CF than the other

class household, where rich class household derives NRs.660.76, poor class derives NRs.

408.51 and a middle class derives NRs 600.6 per annual average income from the CF.

The reason behind this may the fact that the poor households have less land and livestock

ownership and so use less quantity of fuel wood or bedding materials. Also the poor class

households use very low quantity of timber because they are not involved in CF product

distribution committee. Rich class household use more timber than other so they earn

40


41/72

more in CF because they have in power of distribution. Middle class people have more

livestock than other so they consume more Bedding materials than others.

5.2.5 Total household Income of Respondents

Total household income means income from various sources ( agriculture,

livestock, non-farm) including community forest, which income directly help to the

economy of the sampled household of three wealth categories from three CFUGs.

Annual total income of the selected sample households are shown following table,

Table 18: Annual income of sampled household according to household Categories

Income

source

Total income of

Rich Class HHs

Total income

of the Middle

Class HHs

Total income

of the poor

class HHs

agriculture 561435(23.32) 299350(23.49) 166715(18.72)

Livestock 310475(12.89) 304040(23.86) 256125(28.77)

Non-farm 1519460(63) 656000(51.48) 456500(51.27)Community

forest 17180(0.72) 15015(1.17) 11030(1.24)

Total 2408550(100)

1274405(100

) 890370(100)(Source; field survey, 2009)

Table 18 shows that the non-farm source of the income (mostly income from in country

and foreign services) is the major source of the sampled household which comprises 63%

of rich, 51.48% of middle and 51.27% of poor total household income. The high share of

income from non-farm sources is due to the high rate of foreign employment from most

of the households. Community forest contributes less than other source, where it

comprises 0.72% of rich, 1.17% of middle and 1.24% of poor to the total householdincome. This is because the poor people are more depend on the forest product at

household level than the rich and middle HHs.

41


42/72

5.3Share of Community Forest Income in Total Household Income of

Respondents

Community forest is one of the major sources of timber, fodder, fuel wood,

bedding materials and leaf litter to the users. Besides community forest provides several

indirect benefits to the users household such as water, fertilizers, etc. contribution of

community forest income to the household income of the total sample household is found

NRs 43225 where rich households getting a total of NRs. 17180; middle class households

get NRs. 15015 and the poor class households are getting NRs. 11030( Table 15).

Table 19: Annual community forest income per user household and its share in the total

household income according to household type

Household

Type

Number of

household

Community

forest

income (NRs)

Total household

income(NRs)

Share of CF

income in total

household

income (%)

Rich 26 17180 2408550 0.71

Middle 25 15015 1274405 1.17Poor 27 11030 890370 1.23

Total 78 43225 4573325 3.11


The finding shows that community forest supports 3.11% in the total household

income. Poor class household is receiving 1.23%, middle class households 1.17 and rich

class households are receiving 071% of their total household income from CF (table 19).

The finding also shows that the Poor households are more depend on community forest

than other households people in the study area.

42


43/72


44/72

products, other products such as grass, litter, leaf etc. are not including for the study

because of time constraint. Therefore include distribution of timber, fuel-wood and

bedding materials in this study with the help of informal discussion of user, interview

with the respondents and Community Forest Committee member (CFCM) of selected

three CFUG.

a. Timberdistribution: -

There has been traditional pattern of benefit distribution in the context of timber

product in all three CFUG. Timber is considered valuable forest product thus it is sold

higher price than other forest products. The capable user i.e. rich class users have taken

more benefits from timber. The selling system of timber is open auction bid type. The

user who have more money he can bye only because the price of timber is high. In some

cases limited users were compete in sell. The technical support in valuation of timber

quantity has been provided by DFO staff. Generally timber is sold NRs 100/- per Cft.

The provision of equitable sharing of benefits has not serving to poor people. For

instance, the rate of timber is not affordable by poor user and rate for richer and mid-

wealthier users are enjoying very much. Using of timber is generally for house building,

Furniture etc.

b. Fuel wood Distribution:-

All three CFUG have same rule to distribute fuel wood. Fuel wood is collected

from dead, dying and diseased tree. Small shrubs also are used fuel wood purpose. There

is great demand of fuel wood for cooking in the study area.

The system of fuel wood collection is very traditional. Generally CFUG

committee meeting decides to open forest in winter season. It is generally in Saturday

holiday. Every household require paying NRs. 35 for per bhari fuel wood, which is the

market price of fuel-wood.

c. Bedding material distribution:-

In the study area, main occupation of users has agriculture, so there is more use of

bedding material for making compost manure. Bedding material contributes to

44


45/72

agriculture production. All three CFUGs generally open every week of holiday for

collection of bedding material. User need to pay NRs 5 per bhari, which is the local price

of bedding materials.

d. Grass, litter, fruits, leaf

In general these all products are not strictly prohibited. Like wise litter collection

is often schedule to open during spring and summer season. Litter, leaf and grass are

distributed free of cost.

e. Other type of Benefits

Some time CFUG distributes special kinds of benefit in cash or material from

within its users. These are prize, reward, elder recognition, training, seminar etc. In the

study are researcher found community forest user group committee are annually

rewarded that person who involve in social sector bye the fund of CFUG. Also give the

prize of student, who takes the good mark in S.L.C. exam among these CFUGs. CFUGs

member also can take the benefits, participation of tours, training and seminar, through

the CFUGs fund. We find in the study areas, this type of distribution is decided by CFUG

committee meeting. The leadership is mainly responsible for it. Poor people have low

access in this kind of benefit capture.

5.4.1 Distribution of benefit among Sample Household of selected all CFUG

During field survey we have taken interview with sample respondent HH family

head member about the amount of distributed timber, fuel wood, bedding material. Each

sample HH were asked how much quantity they have bought or taken from CF. the

answers they had filled up in questionnaire then updated their benefit value and quantity.

Generally all samples HH have taken some extent of timber, fuel wood and

bedding materials. Few have taken benefit, i.e. training, participation in seminar etc,

which is provided by DFO, INGO and NGO. All benefits were taken by sample

45


46/72

household with household categories of all three CFUGs for one year data are shown in

following table and diagrams.

Table 21: Involvement in different programme from selected three CFUG members in

2008, according to household categories

Name of CFUG Training Seminar

Rich Middle Poor Rich Middle Poor

Thadopakho 2 1 2 - - -

Padali 1 3 1 1 1 -

Chameli 3 1 1 3 1 1

(Source: field survey, 2008)

Table 21 shows that the there are less participation in training and seminar from poor

class member of CFUG. This is because there are less participation of poor in committee

of forest in 2008, 40% of rich, 34 % of middle and only 24% of poor class people are

participate in training programme from 3 CFUG. In seminar programme 57% of rich,

29% middle and only 14% of poor class people are participate from Chameli and padali

CFUG but no one are participate from Thadopakho CFUG.

5.4.1.1 Distribution of benefit of forest products of selected sample household in

Selected three CFUGTable 22: Annual average benefit distribution of forest products per sampled household

according to household categories of selected three CFUG

Name of

CFUG

Household

categories

No. of

sample HH

Average Benefit Quantity

Timber

in (Cft)

Fuel-wood

in (Bhari)

Bedding

materials in

(Bhari)

Thadopakho

Rich 4 3.50 3.50 38

Middle 7 4 4.28 31.85

Poor 6 0.70 5.50 35.33

Padali

Rich 8 2.25 1.75 39.62

Middle 6 1.33 2.50 46.83

Poor 10 1.40 3.90 8.5

Chameli

Rich 14 5.10 2.50 31.85

Middle 12 3.16 4.83 24.83

Poor 11 2.27 4.36 19.00

46


47/72


Table: 23 Average community forest incomes per household by type of forest product

according to household categories (NRs) in Thadopakho CFUG

Household

categories

Average income from community forest by type of forest product

(NRs)

Timber Fuel-wood Bedding

materials

Total

Rich 350

(52.83)

122.50

(18.49)

190

(28.68)

662.50

(100)

Middle 400

(56.40)

150

(21.16)

159.20

(22.440

709.2

(100)

Poor 66.66

(15.29)

192.50

(44.18)

176.60

(40.53)

435.76

(100)Total 816.66

(45.18)

465

(25.73)

525.80

(29)

1807.46

(100)


Above table 23 shows that the rich and middle households people can got more timber

from CF so these household are more benefit than poor. Annually in mean value of

community forest product, rich can earn NRs 662.5, middle earns NRs 709.2 and poor

earn only NRs 435.76. In Thadopakho CFUG middle are more benefited among poor and

rich. This is because middle class household have more livestock. Which is also show in

following bar diagram.

Figure no: 1 Average annual community forest benefit per sample household by type of

forest according to household categories of Thadopakho CFUG

47


48/72


according to household categories (NRs) in Padali CFUG

Househ

old

categor

ies

Average income from community forest by type of

forest product (NRs)Timber Fuel-wood Bedding

materials

Total

Rich 225

(46.45)

61.25

(12.65)

198.12

(40.90)

484.37

(100)Middle 133.34

(29.30)

87.50

(19.24)

234.16

(51.46)

455

(100)Poor 140

(43.90)

136.50

(42.90)

42.40

(13.29)

318.90

(100)

Total 498.34

(39.60)

285.25

(22.67)

474.68

(37.73)

1258.27

(100)


Above table 24 shows that the rich households people can got more timber from CF so

rich household are more benefit than poor and middle class HH. Annually mean value of

forest product of rich can earn NRs 484.37, middle earns NRs 455 and poor earn only

NRs 318.90.Which is also show in following bar diagram.

Figure no. 2: Average annual Community forest benefits per household by type of forest

product according to household categories in padali CFUG

48


49/72


according to household categories (NRs) in Chameli CFUG

Household

categories

Average income from community forest by type of forest product (NRs)

Timber Fuel-wood Bedding

materials

Total

Rich 514.28

(67.58)

87.5

(11.49)

159.28

(20.93)

761.06

(100)

Middle 316.67

(51.92)

169.16

(27.73)

124.16

(20.35)

610

(100)

Poor 227.28

(47.80)

152.73

(32.13)

95.45

(20.07)

475.46

(100)

Total 1058.23

(57.30)

409.39

(22.18)

378.89

(20.52)

1846.52

(100)(Source: field survey, 2009)

Above table 25 shows that the rich households people can got more benefits from forest

products so these household are more benefit than poor and middle. In Chameli CFUG

annually mean value of the rich can earn NRs 761.06, middle class HH earn NRs 610 and

poor HH earn only NRs 475.46. This is because rich and Middle HH are more benefited

from timber. Which is also show in following bar diagram.

Figure 3: Average annual community forest benefit per sample household by type of

forest according to household categories of Chameli CFUG

5.5 Source of CFUG Fund and Socio economic contribution

49


50/72

5.5.1 Source of Fund

CFUG collects money received from various sources in its group fund. The major

sources of Forest user Group (FUG) fund includes the sale and distribution of forest

products, collecting membership fees, levying penalties, bank interest of fund, grants/

donation etc.

Table no.26: Total revenue of Thadopakho CFUG in 2008 from various sources

S.N. Description Source Total Amount in

(NRs)

Percentage of

the total

income

1 Forest products Timber 5550 16.23

Fuel wood 8610 25.18

Bedding material 1640 4.792 Others Membership fee 2050 5.99

Penalty 635 1.86

Interest 712 2.08

Grants/ donation 15000 43.87

3 Total - 34197 100

Table no.27: Total revenue of Padali CFUG in 2008 from various sources


(NRs)

Percentage of

the total

income


Fuel wood 12705 41.18

Bedding material 2420 7.84

2 Others Membership fee 2200 7.12

Penalty 15 0.04

Interest 1018 3.23

Grants/ donation 4500 14.59

3 Total - 30858 100

Table no.28: Total revenue of Chameli CFUG in 2008 from various sources


(NRs)

Percentage of

the total

income


50


51/72

Fuel wood 24605 44.40

Bedding material 5120 9.24

2 Others Membership fee 4625 8.35

Penalty 545 0.99

Interest 816 1.47

Grants/ donation 2500 4.513 Total - 55411 100

In the study area main source of forest user group is fuel wood and timber. More than

25% of total fund are collected in fuel wood. This is because in this area main source of

cooking energy is fuel wood, more than 80% of respondents are using forest wood for

cocking their food. And more than 15% annual total fund is collected from selling timber.

Membership fees also the other important source of revenue of CFUG. Community forest

management committee also takes NRs 25 per household for renew their membership per

year.

5.5.2 Status of CFUG Fund Expenditure/Mobilization

Generally the CFUG can utilize their fund in various community development

activities of the community besides forest development works. Community development

activities are essential to improve the quality of life and to empower the local people.

Community development program directly address the needs and benefits of the groups

by increasing access to basic services. During the study, it is found that CFUGs has

launched limited number of community development in the study area from the FUG

fund or the income of the community forest. List of annual total expenditure in various

area of selected sample CFUGs are following;

Table No. 29: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Thadopakho CFUG

S.N. Description Invested amount in

NRs

Percentage of total

expenditure

1 Community development 10000 48.782 Institutional development 7000 34.15

3 Infrastructure development 2500 12.19

4 Income generation activities - -

5 Miscellaneous 1000 4.88

6 Total 20500 100

51


52/72

Thadopakho CFUG spent in community development activities 48.78% fund of the total

expenditure fund in 2008(Table 29), which more than other. Community development

means road construction, school support, temple building etc which particularly related in

community. For institutional development they spent 34.15% of total expenditure and

infrastructure development they spent only 12.19% fund in 2008 but in income

generation activities they have not spent any amount.

Table No. 30: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Padali CFUG


NRs

Percentage of total

expenditure

1 Community development 7203 57.37

2 Institutional development 1350 10.75


4 Income generation activities - -5 Miscellaneous 1000 8

6 Total 12553 100

Above table 30 shows that the Padali CFUG also expenses huge amount in community

development activities (57.37% of total expenditure) in 2008. In this study area for

institutional development they spent NRs1350 (10.75% of total expenditure) and

infrastructure development they spent NRs 3000 (23.88% of total expenditure) only. For

income generation activities in 2008 they have not spend any amount.

Table No. 31: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Chameli CFUG


NRs

Percentage of total

expenditure

1 Community development 12500 40.42

2 Institutional development 7200 23.29


4 Income generation activities 4500 14.55

5 Miscellaneous 1500 4.85

6 Total 30925 100

Above table 31 shows that the Chameli CFUG also expenses NRs 12500 (40.42% of total

expenditure) in 2008. In this study area for institutional development they spent NRs

7200 (23.29% of total expenditure) and infrastructure development they spent NRs 5225

(16.89% of total expenditure) only. For income generation activities in 2008 they spend

52


53/72

NRs 4500 (14.55% of total expenditure amount). An income generation activity means

that type of activities which directly help to improve people income like Training, loan

etc.

5.6 Measuring Income Inequality between Household Categories

The measurement of dispersion of tangible benefit with in all selected three CFUG is our

core objective. What kind of inequality of distribution of timber, fuel wood and bedding

material is occurred? How far (sharp or smooth) and to what extent of distributional

inequality be observed in those selected CFUGs? These are our research problem to be

solved. Thus finding the extent of inequality is our prime concern.

In this study we have applied two methods for measuring the inequality, they are:-

Lorenz curve method

Gini co-efficient method

5.6.1 Lorenz curve for selected CFUGs

The income inequality of the household can be shown by drawing the Lorenz

curve and calculating the Gini co-efficient. The departure of the line below the line of

equality (straight line) in the Lorenz curve shows the inequality (diagonal line) to the

household income. Farther the line from the line of equality, greater is the inequality it

represents.

Table No. 32: Distributional summary statistics of three CFUGs with 10 quantile group

Quantile

Group

Thadopakho CFUG Padali CFUG Chameli CFUG

% of

Median

income

Cum% of

HH

Media

income

Cum% of

HH

Median

income

Cum% of

HH

1 80.65 8.03 37.58 5.72 51.91 7.24

2 83.87 20.67 60.40 8.02 59.54 12.34

3 86.02 25.01 77.85 16.45 76.34 20.53

4 91.40 29.63 85.91 22.78 87.79 30.39

5 100.00 39.66 99.33 30.13 100.00 38.77

6 112.90 51.00 107.38 41.88 102.29 50.46

53


54/72

7 135.48 57.84 134.23 51.33 107.63 68.71

8 154.84 72.71 169.13 69.61 112.21 71.93

9 177.42 89.58 181.21 82.99 128.24 86.00

10 - 100.00 - 100.00 - 100.00

Figure 4, Lorenz curve of total annual CF income selected 3 CFUG members

Lorenz Curves

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cum % HH

Cum%Income

Line of Equal Dist

CF1

CF2

CF3

Above figure 1, shows that the Lorenz curve for CFUG 1(Thadopakho CFUG) and

CFUG 3 (Chameli CFUG) is close and smooth to the line of equal distribution where as

Lorenz curve for CFUG 2 (Padali CFUG) and is farther from line of equal distribution.

54


55/72

So we can conclude that the distribution of forest products between community forest

user group member in Thadopakho CFUG and Chameli CFUG is less inequal. But it is

far inequal in Padali CFUG.

Table no 33: Gini co-efficient for selected three CFUG

S.N. Name of CFUG Agriculture

income

Non- farm

income

Community forest

income

1 Thadopakho CFUG 0.36 0.44 0.17

2 Padali CFUG 0.29 0.50 0.28

3 Chameli CFUG 0.26 0.42 0.17

Table 33, shows that the Gini co-efficient for three different source of household income

in three community forest user group. In Thadopakho CFUG has more inequality (Gini

co-efficient 0.36) of agriculture income between CFUG member than Padali and Chameli

CFUG. As the value of G.C. on agriculture income of Chameli CFUG is 0.26, there is

less income inequality between CFUG member than Thadopakho and Padali CFUG. The

Gini co-efficient of non-farm income in the study are found that the Thadopakho CFUG

has, 0.44, Padali CFUG has 0.50 and Chameli CFUG has 0.42(table 32). This result

shows that value of G.C. of Padali CFUG is greater than other two CFUG so there is

more Non-farm income inequality between community forest user group members. The

value of G.C. of Chameli CFUG has lower than other two CFUG so there is less non-

farm income inequality between CFUG members. The Gini co-efficient of CF income in

Thadopakho CFUG is 0.17, Gini co-efficient of Padali CFUG is 0.28 and Chameli CFUG

is 0.17. The result clearly indicates that the Gini co-efficient of Padali CFUG is relatively

higher than the other two CFUG so there is more CF income inequality between the

community forest user group members. The researcher found that in Padali CFUG has

traditional system of distribution forest product, means first-come-first basis system.

They are not following scientific system means equal distribution system. Poor household

can get less forest product among the middle household and rich household (Table 16),

this is because the poor are less represents in CFUG committee.

5.7 Is community Forestry Pro-Poor programme?

55


56/72

There has been long discussion in an issue whether CF programme is pro- poor or

not. Government of Nepal has considered it is a pro-poor programme, thus this

programme is emphasized at rural level, where the more poverty is found. So government

has made conducive policy Acts, Rules as well as mentioning in 9th, 10th and three years

interim plan that CF programme is pro-poor programme.

Department of forest (2007) has stated that the primary objective of community

forestry is to fulfill forest product in sustainable basis for local people to reduce rural

poverty through providing much benefits to poor household of society.

In the context of Interim plan of government have given highest priority to reduce

poverty and thus undertaken the CF program as a tool to reduce rural poverty. In this

regard, the question more frequently is raised whether CF programme and CFUGs

activities are sufficiently contributing in poverty reduction in Nepal.

To some extent CFUGs are contributing in upliftment of various socio-economic

variables in rural area of the country. Several research reports, study paper are supporting

it. More fund of CFUG has been used to reduce poverty, to increase education level, to

construct development structure in society. In spite of contributing in socio-economic

development, several studies on another hand have shown that benefit distribution of

CFUGs are still unfair, unjustifiable and inequal & the poor users have less access in

CFUG benefit sharing.

This study on Thadopakho, Padali and Chameli CFUG shows that there is still

inequality of benefit distribution. Only rich and middle class users are getting more

benefit and poor user are getting low benefit while having low access in timber, fuel

wood, bedding materials etc. the Gini co-efficient of all three CFUG shows the presence

of inequality in all CFUG. Making CF programme pro-poor, it is required to smooth

equal distribution of benefit within CFUG member.

5.8 How Inequality is Constraint in Poverty reduction?

Generally poverty and inequality are considered as synonyms in various studies,

but are different. World Bank report (1990) has defined that poverty is concerned with

the standard of living in society but inequality measures relative living standard across

56


57/72

the whole society. Absolute poor are those who are below one U.S.doller per day income.

Those have also not good fair living standard, life expectancy, education, caloric food

and proper needy materials. In this context World Bank has given the suggestion to Least

Developed countries (LDC) like Nepal to adopt the policy of providing more benefits

towards the poor for reducing poverty.

In this context, CFUGs can flow more benefits towards the poor society for

upgrading the poor users livelihood where inequality is a detrimental factor, which be a

constraint to flow more benefits in poor people.

World Development report (2002) has clearly mentioned that major hurdle in poverty

reduction is unequal distribution in LDC, so it has been suggested to lower the inequality

co-efficient for the better access of poor in community benefits. (Sen, 2001) has proposed

Sens Index of poverty, shows the poverty gap. He has used Gini co-efficient as prime

factor to calculate poverty gap. Thus the inequality has been considered a major factor of

poverty in poor nation like Nepal.

Tiwari, (2004) has mentioned that income based poverty in Nepal is more

common. The sharing of income or consumption of lowest 20% poor population is 5.3%

where as higher 20% rich have 50.3%. The Gini co-efficient of Nepal in 1985 was 0.24

but it was 0.34 in 1996 and 0.42 in 2003/04. Like wise the GDP growth rate of Nepal is

also not pro-poor. He has further pointed out growth of GDP cant contribute in poverty

reduction, while reducing the inequality is more important.

Wagle, (2009) states in his report that Nepal has possessed the highest inequality

co-efficient of income distribution in Asia when we are saying loudly poverty is reduced

from 42% to 31% in 2006 (NPC report 2006). He has mentioned the more recent data of

Gini co-efficient for Nepal is 0.47. This shows more inequality of income distribution

among people. The inequality is sharp in rural area.

The above discussion shows that growth and production only cant cope poverty,

if inequality persists there. Our study shows us the production and growth of forest

resources is being increasing but distribution is still inequal. The Gini co-efficient for

Thadopakho CFUG is 0.17, Padali CFUG is 0.28 and Chameli CFUG is 0.17. In

Thadopakho and Chameli CFUG has found less CF benefits distributional inequality

57


58/72

between household Categories so there is less income inequality but Padali CFUG has

more distributional inequality between household categories so there is sharp and skewed

distribution. Thus the Value of G.C. shows that there is still presence of inequality in the

distribution of CF benefit generated through timber, fuel wood, bedding materials and

other sources. It is seen that the inequality is more in Padali CFUG than the Chameli and

Thadopakho CFUG. There are several causes of the presence of inequality of them the

detrimental are: traditional system of distribution of Valuable timber product; poor &

Dalit have low representation on decision making key post, weak monitoring &

evaluation system of DOF etc.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

Agriculture is the major professional of the people in the study area but the share

of total household income is the highest from non-farm activities (mostly from in-country

and foreign employments) which covers 57.5% of total income. Agriculture is the second

largest source of households income it covers 22.5% of total income. Community

forestry contributes only 3.11% of the total household income. In the study area, most of

the forest products collected from CF are consumed for household purpose and not sold

in the market or outside their CFUGs. Mean absolute income from agriculture, livestock,

and non-farm activities and of forest products is higher in rich class households and the

lowest in poor class households.

Rich class households are getting more income from the use of CF products than

poor and middle class HHs in absolute terms, but the difference in the income between

these three classes is insignificant. In contrast, the percentage share of CF income in

terms of total HH income becomes high for poor class HHs as their total HH income is

very low compared to richer class households. In terms of absolute contribution rather

than percentage share to the household income, community forests contribute more to the

well-off households than to the poor households. Although the actual amount of income

58


59/72

to the poor HHs is lower than to richer class households, it has significant impact on

support poor households.

The consumption pattern of forest products in three categories of household is

also different. Rich class households use large quantity of timber; middle class use more

fuel wood than poor class HHs. The income from the use of forest products has helped to

reduce the income inequality in all three categories of users, having the higher

contribution to the poor and middle class HHs.

CFUGs have spent their fund for different social development works. Poor users

are not getting more benefits from CFUG fund because participation of poor and

disadvantaged users in decision making process is very low but they have to involve in

all group activities such as forest protection, tending, etc. Though they participate in

assemblies, their voices are not heard and programmes are not formulated for their

support. Elite makes rules and poor and disadvantaged section of users are compelled to

follow those rules. For this reason, recurring works done with CFUG fund and the actual

necessities of the poor users expected from the fund do not match. All three CFUGs are

spending more than 40% amount of the total expenditure amount in social development

work. Poor class HHs has also low participated in training and seminar than rich and

middle HHs.

6.2 Recommendations

From the benefit distribution perspective, the studied community forests are found

poorly managed and traditional system of all three CFUGs, the researcher has made

following recommendation for the better promotional strategies for lowering the

inequality to improve the livelihood of CFUGs members.

CFUGs should have to make equitable benefit distribution mechanism

flow more benefits i.e. timber towards the poor class HHs. For this first

of all identify the poor HH and also participate poor household in

decision making process (Executive Committee) in community forest

user group committee.

59


60/72

CFUG leadership and DFO staff should give proper attention to monitor

the benefit distribution system, whether being equitable or not.

Through the annual household survey it will be found that, actually

which wealth class be more benefited.

CFUG should have to abolish the traditional and old-dated benefit

distribution system of first-come-first basis. At this traditional system,

people who are in distribution committee of forest user group, they are

more benefited. If all CFUG committee follows equal distribution

system then, there is no any inequality forest product distribution.

CFUG should implement equal distribution system and more inclusive

basis distribution system/mechanism which can help to access the

poor in more benefit sharing. Community forest Committee can adopt

the rule of equal distribution of forest products to all CFUG members.

Poor users should be involved equally in the decision making process

(Executive committee). To achieve this, there should be equi-

proportional involvement of poor and disadvantaged users in executive

committee. This can be also done through the Quota system, involving

in decision making process.

For greater benefit of the poor households dependent on forest

resources, alternative income generation programmes should

formulated, for which skill development trainings and seed money for

income generation activities should be provided by CFUG from the

group fund. The percentage of income of CFUG that should be spent on

60


61/72

pro-poor programmes as provisioned on three years interim plan

(2008-2010) should strictly be followed. This can narrow down the

income inequality gap between poor and rich household.

When deciding on mobilizing CFUG fund, all categories of users should

get chance to take part in decision making. But in the study area found

in more than 75 % of elite member are in decision making process. For

this CFUG committee can adopt the quota for non elite member in

decision making process. Allocation of CFUG fund on various

developmental works should strictly consider the necessities of users

on priority order. The system of decision making only by some elitesshould be discouraged and representation of all classes of users should

be ensured.

In training, seminar and other human capital development, CFUG and

DFO should participate more poor users.

REFERENCES

Acharya, B. and Oli, B.N. (2004) Impacts of Community Forestry in

Rural Livelihood Nepali Mid-hill: A Case Study from Bharkhore

61


62/72

Community Forest, Parbat District. BankoJankari, 14 (1

distributional inequality between community forest user group

Documents