View
54
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal: Community Forestry on the Move. Keshav Raj Kanel Nepal. Overview of the Presentation . Country Background Rational and Evolution of Community Forestry Forest Tenure and Governance in CFUGs Major Achievements Lessons Learned Conclusions. India. India. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal:Community Forestry on the Move
Keshav Raj KanelNepal
Country BackgroundRational and Evolution of Community
ForestryForest Tenure and Governance in CFUGsMajor Achievements Lessons Learned Conclusions
Overview of the Presentation
NEPAL
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
Country BackgroundParameter 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
Rational for Community Forestry
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
Rational for Community Forestry
Before 1957: Some forests were administered as private property
1957 - 1990: Forest was controlled as state propertyPrivate 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 ForestForest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulations, 1995
provided conducive environment to devolve management rights to CFUGs.
Evolution of Community Forestry
Forest Tenure and Governance in
CFUGs
COMMUNITY FOREST
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 OfficeGroup of traditional forest users (HHs)
adjoining a forestThey have a charter of association
Users have Access, Withdrawal, Use and Management Rights, but not the right over the land
Tenure Arrangements
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
Tenure Arrangements
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
Tenure Arrangements
CF Implementation ProcessCFUG Formation and CF Hand Over Process
Networks Established
Local Bodies
Poor
NRM sector
Line agencies
Women
NPC
CFUG
FederationUniversities
Nations
Media
Global
National
District
LocalDalit
FUGs
NGOs
Federation
Service center
Major Achievements
Total number of CFUG = 14,439Number of women only CFUG = 795Households 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
Status of Community Forestry
CFUG Formation and CF Handover Trend
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
<198
719
87/8
819
88/8
919
89/9
019
90/9
119
91/9
219
92/9
319
93/9
419
94/9
519
95/9
619
96/9
719
97/9
819
98/9
919
99/2
000
2000
/01
2001
/02
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
F isc a l Yea r
CFU
G #
/CF
Are
a
F UG Num ber C F Are a "00"
Jiri after 32 years
1968
2000
Learning From the Past
Biomass and C-stock by forest type (tones/ha) 1994-2008
All types Sal forest Katus-chilaune forest
Pine forest
Biomass
Carbon Biomass
Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass
Carbon
1994 193 91 242 114 199 93 143 672008 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
Contribution to Community Development
Annual Income of CFUG[Total Annual Income = US $ 14 Million]
Forest Product
83%
Fine/ Punishment
1%
GO/NGO Grants
1%
Membership Fee1%
Entrance Fee1%
Other Income13%
Annual Expenditure of CFUG
Infrastructure Development
36%Harvesting and
Silvicultural Operation
18%
Operational Cost14%
Forest Watcher10%
Pro-poor Program
3%
Training/Study Tour2%
Miscellaneous17%
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
Lessons
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
Lessons
Forest Condition Improves with CFContribution to Livelihood – QuestionableCommunity is not Homogeneous, - Inclusion
of Decision Making and Benefit Sharing a Challenging Task for Governance
Contextual Factors are Important in CF Management
Lessons
The Significant Problems We Face Cannot Be Solved By The Same Level of Thinking That Created Them
Albert Einstein
Conclusion
Thank You
Recommended