Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal:

Community Forestry on the Move

Keshav Raj Kanel

Nepal

Country Background

Rational and Evolution of Community

Forestry

Forest Tenure and Governance in CFUGs

Major Achievements

Lessons Learned

Conclusions

China

India

India

India

High Mountain

Middle Hills

Churia Hills

Terai

High Himal

China

India

India

India

High Mountain

Middle Hills

Churia Hills

Terai

High Himal

China

Cross Section of Physiographic region in Nepal

Parameter Unit Status

Total population number 27 million

Literate population percent 54.1

Population dependent on agriculture percent 6

Total land area hectare 14.7 million

Total forest area percent 39.6

Total arable land percent 21

Contribution of Ag and Forestry to GDP ($

12 Billion)

Percent 32

Integrated farming system with forestry as an

important component

Nationalization alienated the local people from

forests

Forest agency was not capable to conserve and

manage the forests

Dilemma in forest management

◦ Who has the access and control over the

forest?

◦ How to regulate the extraction of forest

products?

Forests became de-facto Open access

Resource leading to accelerated D and D

Hills and Mountains had some crude form of

local participation in forest management

before nationalization

It was not democratic, but had a system of

people guarding the forests, and control over

the harvest of the forest products

Some of the champions of forest officials

were tired of being blamed, and were looking

for ways to involved local people in forest

management – Support from the politicians

Learning by doing led to the present model of

CF

Before 1957: Some forests were administered as private property

1957 - 1990: Forest was controlled as state property

Private forest nationalized

Concept of participatory forestry emerged (1978)

Some form of forest management rights deconcentrated to local political bodies

1991 onward: Forests have been managed by the community as Community Forest

Forest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulations, 1995 provided conducive environment to devolve management rights to CFUGs.

Community Forest is the part of the

National Forest handed over to the

Community Forest User Group

(CFUGs) for its development,

protection and utilization.

•Land belongs to the government

•Use and management of CF by the CFUG

•Regulation by CFUG and DFO

•CF is the high priority program

Forest Act and Forest Regulations Provide the

Framework of Forest Tenure

New Community Forest Program Guidelines

(2009) Further Elaborates the Rights of the

CFUGs

CFUG is Registered at the District Forest Office

Group of traditional forest users (HHs)

adjoining a forest

They have a charter of association

Users have Access, Withdrawal, Use and

Management Rights, but not the right over the

land

General Assembly of the Users makes major

decisions to be implemented by Exe. Committee

Inventory of Forest is taken with the Assistance of

DFO

Operation Plan (OP) of CF is Prepared by CFUG

with the Support of DFO Front Line Staff

The OP is a Contract Between CFUG and DFO. It is

of 5 to 10 Years Duration.

Forest Management Schedules are Performed by

CFUG as Per the OP

Sales and Distribution of Forest Products Done by

CFUG

CFUG has a Fund From the Sale of Forest

Products and others. It is Used for Forest

Management (25%), Livelihood Promotion

(35%), and Community Development.

Annual Report has to be Given to DFO.

DFO is the Gate Keeper of Forest. Can take

Various Actions Against the CFUG and Its

Members.

FECOFUN is Strong in Advocating the Rights

of Forest Users

OP approval by DFO

Joint signature (DFO

& Chairperson of CFUG)

Review and Revision

User group formation

Forest & User Identification

Constitution preparation

CFUG Registration

Operational plan preparation

Forests Handover

Implementation

HH visit

Tole Meeting

Interest Group Meeting

•General Assembly

Social Mapping

Well Being Ranking

• Approval by DFO

Tole Meeting

Interest Group Meeting

Social survey

Forest demarcation

Forest Resource Inventory

General Assembly

Training/Study tour

Technical support

Financial support

Monitoring &

EvaluationFeedback

Participatory mapping

Transect walk

OP approval by DFO

Joint signature (DFO

& Chairperson of CFUG)

Review and Revision

User group formation

Forest & User Identification

Constitution preparation

CFUG Registration

Operational plan preparation

Forests Handover

Implementation

HH visit

Tole Meeting

Interest Group Meeting

•General Assembly

Social Mapping

Well Being Ranking

• Approval by DFO

Tole Meeting

Interest Group Meeting

Social survey

Forest demarcation

Forest Resource Inventory

General Assembly

Training/Study tour

Technical support

Financial support

Monitoring &

EvaluationFeedback

Participatory mapping

Transect walk

CFUG Formation and CF Hand

Over Process

Local Bodies

Poor

NRM sector

Line agencies

Women

NPC

CFUG

Federation

Universities

Nations

Media

Global

National

District

Local

Dalit

FUGs

NGOs

Federation

Service center

Total number of CFUG = 14,439

Number of women only CFUG = 795

Households involved = 1.66 mill. HH (39 %

of the total population )

Total area of community forests handed

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

national forest)

Total area of community forests managed

by women leadership only = 23,257 ha

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

<19

87

1987

/88

1988

/89

1989

/90

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/200

0

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

F isc a l Yea r

CF

UG

#/C

F A

rea

F UG Number C F Area "00"

Jiri after 32 years

1968

2000

Learning From the Past

All types Sal forest Katus-chilaune

forest

Pine forest

Biomas

s

Carbon Biomas

s

Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomas

s

Carbo

n

1994 193 91 242 114 199 93 143 67

2008 232 109 260 122 249 117 190 89

% change + 21% + 21% + 7% + 7% + 25% + 25% + 33% + 33%

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

Conclusions• All forest types have increased their biomass (and carbon) significantly from 1994-2008

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

Capacity of the Users Strengthened

Eco-Tourism Promoted

Forest

Product

83%

Fine/

Punishment

1%

GO/NGO

Grants

1%

Membership

Fee

1%

Entrance Fee

1%

Other Income

13%

Infrastructure

Development

36%Harvesting and

Silvicultural

Operation

18%

Operational

Cost

14%

Forest Watcher

10%Pro-poor

Program

3%

Training/Study

Tour

2%

Miscellaneous

17%

Lessons Learned

from

Community Forestry

Unbundling the Functions of Forest Agency is

Essential

Community Forestry is More an Institutional

Building Process

CFUGs Responsible for Forest and Fund

Management

Forest Agency Responsible for Monitoring

and Regulation

Transferring Regulatory and Fiscal Rights to

CFUG Brings Innovation and Motivation to

Users

Reorientation of Forestry Staff, and

Capacity Building to CFUG is Necessary

Reform is not a Linear Process, but is an

iterative and muddling through Process

Reform and Partnership Building are

Continuous Processes

Negotiations and Building Consensus

Among Forest Agency, CFUGs is

Important to Change the Role of Forest

Agency

Forest Condition Improves with CF

Contribution to Livelihood – Questionable

Community is not Homogeneous, - Inclusion

of Decision Making and Benefit Sharing a

Challenging Task for Governance

Contextual Factors are Important in CF

Management

The Significant Problems We Face Cannot Be Solved By The Same

Level of Thinking That Created ThemAlbert Einstein

Conclusion

Thank You