INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY

FORESTRY USERS GROUP

(A CASE STUDY OF SHREE JAYMIRE BHANJANG COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUP IN SANTINAGAR VDC 2, 7, 9, JHAPA,

DISTRICT)

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

Krishna Bhandari

Roll No.

T.U.Registration No.

1

Central Department of Economics

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

July 2010

Acknowledgement

The successful completion of this paper was made possible only by the contribution of encouragement, knowledge, help, guidance, and constructive criticism from many individuals. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher and advisor Mr. Gangadhar Chaudhary for his inspiring advise, constant guidance and strong support from proposal preparation to the completion of this paper. I am also thankful to Mr. Narendra Bahadur Chand, Forest Officer, Regional Tree Improvement and Silvicultural Component, Mr. Rabindra Maharjan, Forest Officer, BISEP-ST and Mr. Devi Chandra Pokharel, Forest Officer, Regional Directorate for their invaluable time and fruitful suggestions, I am sincerely obliged to Churia Watershed Management Project, a joint project of Care Nepal and Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management in Mahottari and Sarlahi for providing partial financial support to conduct this research. I am equally indebted to Mr. Prakash regmi, Mr. Krishna Khanal, Mr Buddhi Pokarel. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation, invaluable time, and fruitful suggestion from Mr.Krishna Bhujel and Mr. Megha Raj Rai for data analysis and report preparation. I would like to express my gratitude to the project staff for their cooperation during my field data collection. I would like to the users of Shir Khola Community Forest User Group for their warm hospitality, homely environment, active participation and kind cooperation during my field work. My special thanks to Mr Hari Pokahrel, Mr. Kafle, Mr. Mohan Pokharel. I am highly obliged to DFO staff especially to Mr. Marich Kumar Lama for his overwhelming response and cooperation. I would like to express thanks to Rai sir and Rumba for their cooperation in the fieldwork. I wish to express heartfelt thank to all my friends, colleagues and well wishers for their cooperation, sympathy and brotherly feeling during the study.

2

At last but not least, I am in debuted to my family special to my farther and mother for their encouragement and inspiration to

complete Bachelor of Science in Forestry

ACRONYMS

CBO : Community Based Organization

CF: Community Forest

CFUG: Community Forest User Group

DDC: District Development Committee

DSCO: District Soil Conservation Office

FECOFUN: Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal

FOP : Forest Operational Plan

HH: House holds

IGA: Income Generation Activities

INGO: International Non-Governmental Organization

IOF: Institute of Forestry

MDG: Millennium Development Goal

MFSC; Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

NPC: National Planning Commission

NTFP: Non- timber Forest Products

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal

RHH: Respondent House Hold

TU: Tribhuvan University

UG : User Group

UNDP: United Nation Development Project

VDC : Village Development Committee

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page no.LETER OF RECOMMENDATION iLETER OF APPROVAL iiACKNOWLWDGEMENT

ivACRONYMS vTABLE OF CONTENTS viLIST OF TABLES ixLIST OF FIGURES

x

CHAPTER-ONEINTRODUCTION1.1 Research Background

1

1.2 Problem Statement and justification

4

1.4 Important of the study of the Study

4

1.5 Limitations of the Study

5

1.6 Organization of the Study

6

CHAPTER- TWO

4

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7

2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal

2.2 Income Generation from Community Forestry

2.3 Participation and forest management

2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood

Promotion

CHAPTER-THREESTUDY AREA

3.1 Jhapa District

3.1.1 Community Forestry in Jhapa

3.2 Description of Selected CFUG

CHAPTER- FOUR

RESEARCH METHODLOGY4.1 Selection of the Study Area

4.2 Wealth Ranking

4.3 Sampling design and sample size determination

4.4 Data collection

4.4.1 Primary data

4.4.2 Secondary data:

4.5 Data analysis:

4.6 Methods for Calculating Household Income

4.6.1 Components of Household Income

5

4.6.2 Methods for Valuing Products

CHAPTER- FIVERESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents

5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents

5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents

5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents

5.1.4 Education Status of the Respondents

5.1.5 Occupation Status of the Respondents

5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents

5.1.8 Land Holding Size of the Respondents

5.2 Household Income of the Respondents

5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household

5.2.2 Livestock income of the respondents

5.2.3 Non-farm income of Respondents

5.2.4 Community forest income of the respondents

5.2.5 Total household income of respondents

5.3 Contribution of Community Forest Income to Users’

Household Income

5.4 Participation of the respondent's different activities

5.4.1 Participation in meetings and assembly

5.4.2 Participation in Plantation

5.4.3 Participation in training

5.4.4 Participation in forest protection and management

5.4.5 Participation in Income Generating Activities

6

5.4.6 Participation on decision making

5.5 Income Generating Activities (IGA)

5.5.1 Description of the existing IGA

5.5.2 Distribution of the IGAs

5.5.3 Annual income through different IGAs

5.6 Forest product distribution system

5.6.1 Timber distribution system

5.6.2 Fuel wood distribution system

5.6.3 Grass and fodder distribution system

Chapter 6Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1 Conclusion 6.1.1 Participation 6.1.2 Income Generation Activities 6.2 Recommendation REFERENCESAPPENDICESAppendix I: Questionnaire for Household SurveyAppendix II: Questionnaire for Key Informant Survey

List of Table

Table 1: An overview of the studied CFUG

Table 2: Different wealth class population and sample population

from each wealth class

Table 3: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by sex

7

Table No. 5: Respondent's Family Size

Table no. 6: Education Status of the Respondents of Sampled

Households

Table No.7: Occupation Status of the Selected Sampled

Household

Table No. 8: Livestock Holding Status of the Sampled Households

Table No. 9: Land Holding Size of Sampled Household

Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Table No.11: Annual Average Livestock Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled

Household according To Household Categories

Table No.13: Annual Average CF Income per Sampled Household

according to Household Categories

Table 14: Annual average total income of sampled households

according to household categories.

Table 15: annual mean CF income per user household and its

share in total household income according to household

categories (NRs)

Table 16; hypothesis t-test for different economic class of

sampled HH receiving CF income

Table 17: Training participants in the year 2065/066

Table 18: Distribution of the IGAs on the basis of Sex, Wealth, and

Ethnicity

8

Table 19: Income from different types of IGA

CHAPTRE – ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Nepal’s community forestry is a well-established management form

in the country as it is 3 decades old in practice. It is a major program of

the government in the forestry sector and is being implemented

throughout the country. More than 14,000 community forest user

groups (CFUGs) currently manage over 1 million hectares of forestland,

involving 1.6 million households (DoF 2008). An important activity of

community forestry in Nepal is income generation. CFUGs generate

income from various sources such as the sale of forest products,

membership fees, and fines from rule violators. The income generated

is not shared with the government; instead, it accumulates in the CFUG

funds. The annual income of the CFUGs in Nepal is estimated to be

more than US$ 10 million, with forest products contributing the major

share (Kanel and Niraula 2004). Of the generated income, 25% must

be invested in forest development and maintenance activities and out

of these the Community Forest User group can be used the remaining

money for their needs and the interests of the community (Gautam et

al 2004).

Community forestry broadly refers to the transfer of national forests

to local communities organized in CFUGs for the protection,

management, and utilization of forest resources. The basic institution

that implements community forestry is a CFUG. CFUGs are legal

entities with autonomy in decision-making; access rules, forest product

prices, mechanisms for allocation of forest products, user fees, and

other important policies are agreed upon by user members (NORMS

2003 quoted in Kanel and Niraula 2004). The policy of community

forestry today is to use community forestry as a tool for poverty

9

reduction. This is considered possible because income generation

allows CFUGs to use accumulated funds in development activities.

Currently, it is a matter of debate whether investment made by

Nepalese CFUGs in development activities truly benefits the poor, as

more funds are being invested in rural infrastructure such as schools,

roads, and temples and the poor do not directly benefit from such

infrastructure.

Community forestry does have the potential to contribute positively

to the improvement of rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation (Fomete

and Vermaat 2001; Brown et al 2002; NPC 2002). In recent years,

Nepal’s government introduced poverty reduction as an important

objective of community forestry. The strategy is to achieve poverty

reduction through a targeted pro poor program (PPP) that utilizes CFUG

funds. Indeed, some portion of CFUG funds is expected to go toward

PPP. The PPP is designed to help the poor to improve their economic

condition by supporting activities that generate income. CFUGs

therefore initiate PPPs as income-generating activities (Koirala et al

2004). PPPs include activities such as flow of loans, skills-oriented

trainings, and scholarships (Kandel et al 2004). Nepal’s Three Year

Interim Development Plan has targeted 35% of the CFUG funds to be

utilized for pro-poor activities (NPC 2007). In this context, this paper

aims to investigate what portion of CFUG funds is being invested in PPP

by the CFUGs. It also inquires whether there is a close link between

CFUG income and the investment made by the CFUGs in PPP; however,

whether investment made by CFUGs in PPP really benefits the poor is

beyond the scope of this study. This study focuses on investment

made by CFUGs in PPP rather than on who exactly benefits from the

funds.

It is said that community forestry policy of Nepal is one of the most

progressive forest policies in the world. Community forestry is one of

the major programs of the Department of Forest (DOF). Participatory

10

forestry program has been implemented through out Nepal with

support from several bi- and multilateral organizations. The foundation

for the community forestry program was laid out in late seventies, and

since then the program is being implemented in Nepal. With the

successes of the community forestry approach, several complementary

models of participatory community based resource management also

came in operation, such as Leasehold Forestry (LF), Collaborative

Forest Management (CFM), user group based watershed management

and buffer zone forest management.

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).

CF is contributing to livelihood promotion in many ways. These

include fulfilling the basic needs of local communities, investing money

in supporting income generation activities of the poor people,

providing access to the forestland (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).

Poverty reduction is a major concern at global level and is explicitly

spelled out in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United

Nations. The MDGs have also been reflected in the strategic

imperatives of Nepal's Tenth plan. The objectives of the forestry sector

policy in the Tenth Plan are conservation and sustainable use of forest

resources, poverty reduction. Furthermore, Forestry policy emphasizes

poverty reduction through participatory approach and providing

income generation and employment opportunities (HMG/N, 2002).

1.2 Problem statement and justification

Despite achievements and contribution that community forestry

has made in Nepal, there are many unresolved issues and challenges

11

in all areas of capital as well as governance. While trends towards

resource degradation have been arrested and in many cases forest

cover is reported to be improved, the livelihoods of the local forest

dependent communities, particularly the poor and disadvantaged,

have not improved as expected. In worst cases, in fact, the

implementation of CF policy has inflicted added costs to the poor, such

as reduced access to forest products and forced allocation of

household resources for communal forest management with insecurity

over the benefits (NUKCFP, 2000).

Although CFUGs have been successful in terms of their

institutional capacity to get people organized and form capital at the

ground level, perhaps the most critical in terms livelihood and the

relatively work generation of financial capital for the forest dependent

poor and women (Pokhrel, 2003).

CF program has not been able to fulfill the daily needs of the

poor and marginalized people, which have needs and priorities (Sinha

et. al. cited by Ghimire, 2001).The local community leaders and elite

groups mostly dominate decisions of the user groups; fulfilling the

concerns and needs of poor and marginalized groups is still a difficult

practice in community forestry. Thus, supporting poor and

marginalized groups for their livelihood sustenance is a big challenge

in community forestry (Kandel, 2006).

Therefore, this research study would be fruitful to evaluate the

impact of this project in improving livelihood of rural people and

generating IGAs through natural resource management. The

significance of this research is to find out the income generation

activities through the CF income. The outcome of this research was

beneficial for making effective ways to overcome issues related

livelihood.

1.3 Research objectives

12

To analyze the socio- economic condition of the forest user

group.

To analyze the income generating activities of forest user

group

To assess participation of forest user Groups in different

activities

1.4 Importance of the Study

Forest resource is the main parts of natural resources many more

things is being provided by forest to the environment. Such as, ecology

balance, fodder, leaf, liter, water sources etc. It covers the area of 29

percent of the country. Community forestry programme is very effective

in a rural agrarian country like Nepal. It makes people feel that the

forest belongs to them and they took after in carefully. Different types

of income generating activities have been started by users to improve

their livelihoods.

There have been so many researches and studies regarding

community forestry programme but in the terai region of Nepal

especially Shree Jaymire Bhanjang Community Forest Santinagar VDC,

Jhapa District, there have not been any satisfactory studies. In other

words, it is a virgin area from the view points of research.

Therefore, the present study is focused on virgin area to explore

something inside the community forestry with field level data. It is

hoped that the outcome of the study will be helpful to introduce

different types of benefits derived from community forest programme.

1.5 Limitations of the Study

Followings are the limitations of this study

13

1. This present study has focused on only Shree Jaymire Bhanjang

Community forestry Santinagar VDC Jhapa district. Therefore, the

findings of the study may not give the whole picture of other

groups.

2. The study has focused on income aspect of the households only.

3. Simple statistical tools are used to analyze the data obtained.

1.6 Organization of the Study

The study encompasses seven chapters. The first chapter

introduces the background: Introduction, statement of problem,

objectives, importance, limitation and organization of the study. The

second chapter describes the review of literature. The third chapter

deals with the research methodology of the study. The forth chapter

introduces the introduction to the study area. The fifth chapter deals

with the socio-economic status of the study area. The sixth chapter

describes the income generating activities of CFUGs in the study area.

And the last chapter describes major findings, conclusion and

recommendations.

14

CHAPTER- TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal

Community forestry is most accurately and usefully understood

as an umbrella term denoting a wide range of activities which link rural

people with forests, trees, and the products and benefits to be derived

from them. Gilmour and Fisher (1991) define community forestry in

terms of control and management of forest resources by the rural

people who use them especially for domestic purposes and as an

integral part of their farming systems. Since community forestry

constitutes both social and biophysical elements, they both are equally

important. The "resource" can be managed effectively with a clear

understanding of forest management principles and knowledge of

natural system and "social" part can be dealt with a clear

understanding of a society and their relationships with the resource

and institutions related to it.

15

A community forestry program was initiated with the assumption

that local communities will become active participants in forest

management, since they understand the problems, are motivated to

find the best solutions, and possess knowledge of forest conditions and

the changes observed. It is a group of local people who will be able to

maintain the conditions sustainably over time due to their vested

interests (Adhikari, 2002).

Nepal is one of the pioneer countries to hand over the

management responsibility 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 vested more

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

Nepal’s community forestry (Pokharel & Nurse, 2004). These

instruments have legitimized the concept of the Community Forest

User Group (CFUG) as an independent, autonomous and self-governing

16

institution responsible to protect, manage and use any patch of

national forest with a defined forest boundary and user group

members.

The present form of Nepal's community forestry is guided by the

Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of 1995, and the Operational

Guidelines of 1995. These legal instruments have legitimized the

concept of 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. CFUGs are to be formed democratically and registered at

the DFO, with CFUG Constitution, which defines the rights of the users

to a particular forest. Community forestry is based on the operational

co-operation of Forest Department officers and forest user groups.

Moreover, the devolution of the power and authority to manage forest

areas between these actors is linked to the idea of sharing the

responsibility of forest protection. Therefore, in order to ensure the

feasibility of resource management, it is necessary to emphasis co-

operation between the forester and those who use the forest,

especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their

farming systems (Pokharel, 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 Income Generation from Community Forestry

The dependency of the rural people on forests in general, and

community forests in particular is profound in Nepal. Forestry,

17

agriculture and livestock husbandry are intimately related in the

farming system and this relationship is more pronounced in the hills

and mountains than in the Terai. Rural households get their fuel wood,

poles and timber from the forests. It has been estimated that two-

thirds of the fuel wood supplies come from forest and the rest comes

from private trees and agricultural crop residues. About 40% of the

livestock feed is obtained from the forests and trees grown on the

farms (Chapagain et al. 1999).

Community forestry has been a source of income and

employment opportunities for rural communities (Pokharel, 1998).

Recent experiences in Nepal suggest that community forests can yield

more than subsistence needs and that forest user groups can generate

income from a variety of sources. The income generation from

community forests can and does play an important role in providing

local employment and developing local markets (Malla, 2003).

CFUGs have started to incorporate income generation activities

in their operational plans. There are many examples such as inter

cropping of cash crops, cultivation of non-timber forest products and

medicinal herbs. Selling red clay, seedlings, firewood, poles and

timbers, organizing tours for tourists in community forest, membership

fee and penalty are other sources of income from community forests

(Maharjan, 1995). Indicators show that selling of such products and

through the other sources of income, most of the group members have

become capable to collect a sizeable group fund. The present trend

signifies that group funds of most of the user groups are swelling each

year. For example, till November 1996, Baghmare FUG of Dang district

had NRs. 450,000 and Kankai FUG of Jhapa district had NRs 578,000 in

their group fund accrued from the sale of forest products and through

other sources (Singh, 1998).

Eco-tourism is another potential income generating activity in

community forests, particularly for those close to the national parks. A

18

good example is Baghmara FUG just near Royal Chitwan National Park,

which has developed facilities and infrastructure such as grassland,

water body and natural trials in CF to attract tourists. Bird watching,

elephant safari, natural walk and overnight stay at the machan were

activities introduced by CFUGs. It was able to generate about NRs 2.25

million per year (Pokharel, 1997).

Many CFUGs are now attempting to manage non-timber forest

products (NTFPs) such as medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) and

Lokta, resin collection, etc. for income generation. As we move further

up along an altitudinal gradient, the value of community forest

increases in terms of MAPs and other NTFPs. Community forests also

provide an avenue for the generation of revenue to be deposited in

FUG fund, which is used for undertaking various development

activities. Above all, the benefits from the community forests are not

shared with government rather all such incomes are accrued in the

fund of CFUGs (Chapagain et al., 1999).

Commercially harvested and marketed in the Koshi hills are

some of the important NTFPs such as pine resin, Swertia chiraita

(Chiraito), and cardamom Maharjan reported that a net income of NRs

62,450 was generated from one hectare of Chiraito cultivation (Singh,

1998). Establishment of a sawmill through the joint effort of 4 forest

user groups (Chapni Ghadhi, Dharapani Hile, Thagar Khola and

Rachhama) of Kabhre district with the loan and technical assistance of

Nepal Australia Community Forestry Development Project is the first

sawmill installed by the endeavor of FUG in Nepal (Singh, 1998).

2.3 Participation and forest management

People's participation is the basic strategy to which the

community forestry program is committed. It aims at involving people

at every stage of community forest management activities.

Participation of user households in every forest management activity

19

can stimulate on ongoing learning process by increasing the awareness

of collective responsibility within the community (Agrawal, 2001)

Participation is the heart of good governance. All men and

women should have a voice, for instance, in decision-making, either

directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent

their interests (UNDP, 1997).

The total voluntary participation of user groups in community

activities per year is estimated to be 2.5 million person day, which

worth 164 million rupees (over US$ 2 million) at an opportunity cost of

rupees 65 per person per day. Out of the total voluntary labor spent in

community forestry, 42 percent is spent on community forest

protection, 19 percent is spent on meetings and assemblies, 19

percent is spent on forest product harvesting, and the rest on

miscellaneous activities (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).

Nepal social structure is based on caste system, with prevalent

discrimination on gender and wealth. Upper caste people have

historically oppressed lower caste communities (Lama and Buchy,

2002). Major problems being encountered in community forestry

program are due to the lack of involvement of poor, lower caste,

illiterate and women at various activities of community forest

management (Lachapelle et. al., 2004).

Women’s participation in CFUGs may be classified into two broad

categories i.e. participation in implementation of activities such as in

the conservation and exploitation of resources and participation in

decision-making. Participation in the implementation of activities does

not necessarily mean effective participation in decision-making.

Effective participation requires that people's views are effectively

taken into account and their views influence decision-making. Among

those 10% women who are official members of CFUGs, only a few

participate actually in actual decision-making (Agarwal, 1997).

20

Poor household do not benefit from community forests as much

as the others and are not very interested in community participation

(Malla et. al., 2003). Poor houses also have high opportunity cost of

participation as the time spent on participation could be used as labor

for cash income. Medium class households benefit the most in

comparison to high and lower class households (Pokharel and Nurse,

2004). In spite of problems of elite people's domination at local level,

has widely been accepted, there has been little systematic effort to

reflect the situation and change the scenario (Adhockery et al., 2004).

Though CFUGs and the coverage of CFs has significantly

increased in the last twenty-five years, active participation of the poor,

vulnerable and marginalized households, and their poverty reduction

are still burning issues in community forestry. Several studies have

shown that most of the poorer households could not receive services

and benefits from community forestry on an equity basis. For them the

opportunity and transaction costs to be involved in community forestry

are high (Maharjan, 2001).

2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood

Promotion

Community forestry is contributing to livelihood promotion in

many ways. These include fulfilling the basic needs of local

communities, investing money in supporting income generation

activities of the poor people and providing access to the forestland for

additional income or employment.

Fulfilling subsistence needs from the community forests, 8

million cubic feet of timber, and 336 million kilograms of firewood and

371 million kilograms of grasses were used by the local people for their

internal consumption (Kanel and Niraula 2004). The use of these

products has helped to support the livelihood of local people.

21

Financial support in livelihood promotion the study shows that

CFUGs earned 416 million rupees annually from the sale of forest

products outside the groups. Earnings are used for different purposes

including 12.6 million rupees for pro-poor community forestry, (Kanel

and Niraula 2004) loans to poor families and training in forest based

income generation activities.

Access to forests for income generation As a pilot program, the

users groups Ghorlas of Mayagdi and Jhauri of Parbat are making sub-

user groups of the poorest of the poor, who have no alternative

employment or income opportunities. These sub-user groups are given

access to community forests to produce NTFP or medicinal plants and

are allowed to share the income generated. If this mechanism is

replicated on a large scale, there is a tremendous potential for

community forests to improve the livelihoods of more people in Nepal,(

Kanel and Niraula 2004)

Neupane et al., (2004) state that as an impact of community

forestry on livelihood, the number of households adopting vegetable

cultivation in Dhading district increased from 49% to a significantly

higher 89% between 1993 and 2003. They have concluded that

poverty reduction can be supported by community forestry through

special provisions of incentives made for poor and disadvantaged

people and women to enhance their participation.

Dev et al., (2003) have identified change in levels and security of

forest products and benefit flows (through improvement to the forest

resource and /or improved tenure rights) as a direct impact on

livelihood of local people. Improved and more sustainable flow of forest

products are also due to improved resource condition and changed

entitlements to use it. Regarding the consumption of forest products,

they state that in case of fuel wood there is no significant difference in

the total consumption between households of different categories, but

22

there are significant differences in the type and source of fuel being

used.

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).

Pokheral (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.

The strong debate on potential contribution of CFs on poverty

reduction among the actors is started. CF approach is not only creating

employment opportunities for local people but also greatly contributing

to sensitize uses on the economic dimensions of forests to reduce

poverty. Malla (2000) has found that poor are able to get loan (without

interest) for the income generation activities. Several women groups

on agriculture, income generation, saving, non formal education and

kitchen gardening are formed and working properly in addition to

women CFUG. Efforts at forest rehabilitation are anticipating minimum

level of effects on the livelihoods of the poor in the initial period; the

23

long-term effects may expect to be more beneficial (Brown et al.

2002).

Above mention different research review shows that the

community forest is important programme for reduction rural poverty

through the income generating activating. Thus this study try to

identify the different types of income generating activities based on CF

income and participation of User member of CF in forest management

and other activities.

24

CHAPTER-THREE

STUDY AREA

3.1 Jhapa District

Jhapa District is a district of Mechi Zone. The district, with

Chandragadi as its district headquarters, covers an area of 1,606 km².

Jhapa is the easternmost district of Nepal and lies in the fertile Terai

plains .It borders Ilam district in the north, Morong district in the west,

the Indian state of Bihar in the south and east, and the Indian state of

west Bengal in the east. According to CBS (2001), the total population

is 688109, male 349076 and female are 339033, where average family

size is 4.6. Main castes found in the district are Newar, Brahmin,

Chhetri, Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Malla Thakuri ,Limbu, Rai, Lepcha,

Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.

Jhapa is home to many indigenous ethnic nationalities such as

the Limbu, Rai, and Dhimal. Other ethnic groups such as Dhangad,

Koche, Rajbanshi, Satar, Meche, Tamang, Gurung, Magar and many

others came to Jhapa in the late 19th century, so did the Hill/mountain

castes Bahun, Chhetri, and Newar.

3.1.1 Community Forestry in Jhapa

Community forestry programme was initiated in the district in

the year 2052/02/03 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, 28 CFs

25

comprising a total area 7,685 hectare is handed over to the CFUGs till

date from which a total 17,478 users households are benefited from

this district (CF Bulletin 2009/10).

In Jhapa district found that the major forest species are: - Sissoo,

Bamboo , Amala, Harro, Barro Khair, Peak , Mango chilaune, katus,

Saal, Karma and Chauree. District forest office is main responsible

government authority for forest monitoring and management.

3.2 Description of Selected CFUG

Shree Jaymire Bhanganj CFUG is selected for study. Study area

lies in Santinagar VDC, 2, 7, 9. Brief description of this CFUG is

presented below.

Table 1: An overview of the CFUG

Particular Shree Jaymire Bhanjang

CFUG

Address Santinagar- 2,7,9

Handover date 2057/9/15

Area (hectare) 49

No. of household 366

User population 1628

User sex Male 825

Female 803

Ethnicity of HH Brahman/ Chhetri 232

Janajati 91

Dalit 43

Wealth Status Rich 42

Middle 126

Poor 198

Size of Executive Committee(EC) 11

Sex wise

Representation

Male 8

Female 3

26

in EC

Caste wise

representation

in EC

Brah/chhetri 6

Janajati 4

Dalit 1

Wealth status

wise

representation

in EC

Rich 2

Middle 5

Poor 5

Source: Field survey, 2010

27

CHAPTER- FOUR

RESEARCH METHODLOGY

4.1 Selection of the Study Area

The Shree Jyamire Bhanjang Community Forest User Group had

been selected for the study because of the following regions:

CFUG which is at least five years duration of handover.

CFUG having different IGAs programs.

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.

4.2 Wealth Ranking

Wealth ranking is a set of technique designed to categorize the

local criteria of well being. The wealth ranking was done by CFUGs on

the basis of food sufficiency, No. of cattle, external income sources,

house structure etc. the basic purpose of the wealth ranking was to

categorize the users into different wealth class.

Rank A (Rich)

Those people who can sell their products after the consumption

for a year , people having 2 or more house(Tile roofed).They have

other sources of income like government and non- government job,

pension etc. They employed labor for crop production and harvesting.

Rank B (Middle)

Those people who have just sufficient food for a year but not

enough to sell. They have only one house (tile roofed). And they don’t

28

have external income from other jobs. They usually do not employ

labors to work on their land.

Rank C (Poor)

Those people who don’t have sufficient food for a year. They

have small thatched house. In some cases, they don’t have any land.

They work as labor for whole year in the others’ farmland.

4.3 Sampling design and sample size determination

Stratified random sampling was applied to carry out the research

on the basis of socio economic condition of users. Sampling intensity of

15% from the total households was chosen. The users for household

survey were selected after close consultation with DFO, staff and EC of

the CF. For the size of the sample proportional samples were chosen

from the people of each wealth classes. The User Groups (UG) had

already differentiated HH into different wealth classes and that wealth

ranking was used as a basis for economic differentiation among the

users. The number of HH in each class as follows:

That UG had 366 HHs. Among them 42 HHs were rich, 126 HHs were

medium, 198 HHs were poor. The sample size of each wealth class was

as described in the following table 2.

Table 2: Different wealth class population and sample

population from each wealth class

S.N

.

Wealth

class

Total

HH

Percen

t %

Sample

HH

Percen

t %

No. of

Sample HH

by Sex

Male Femal

e

1 Rich 42 11.47 12 21.42 10 2

2 Middle 126 34.43 20 35.72 16 4

3 Poor 198 54.1 24 42.86 19 5

29

4 Total 366 100 56 100 45 11

Source, Field Survey 2010

4.4 Data collection

Primary and secondary data were collected but major emphasis

was given to primary data collection.

4.4.1 Primary data

Primary data were collected through different PRA/ RRA tools, which

are as follows:

Questionnaire survey:

Structured questionnaire was developed and CFUG members

were interviewed using these questions along with the household

survey. This method was also useful in getting information on the ways

to enhance IGAs, assess forest product distribution system and forest

management practices. Household survey of CFUG members were

done in order to get information on population, economic status,

education level, etc was gathered from household survey.

Focus group discussion:

Several meetings /discussions were held with several committee

members, key informants, IGA group and some active general

members, ethnic groups, women of FUG at different stages of the

research process. Focus group discussion were conducted to discuss

the research issues and to gather information the different IGAs, its

potentials and constraints in implementing different IGA.

Key-informant survey:

Key informant survey was conducted to District Forest Officer,

UG president, Vice President, etc. who was direct and indirect involved

with CFUG.

Direct Observation:

30

The direct observation of IGAs, forest condition, forest product

distribution system, community development activities etc. was done

during the field survey.

4.4.2 Secondary data:

Secondary data required for this research work were collected

from various sources such as approved Reports of CFUGs, minutings,

published and unpublished reports, research papers, District Forest

Office's publication, IOF library, websites etc.

4.5 Data analysis:

Both qualitative and quantitative data collected from various

sources were processed and analyzed to prove the defined objectives.

Quantitative data were analyzed by using simple statistical tools i.e.

mean, bar diagram ratio; pie charts etc. and qualitative data were

presented in descriptive ways so that the basic findings of the research

would be well interpreted and justified.

4.6 Methods for Calculating Household Income

4.6.1 Components of Household Income

As stated in the literature review part, household income is the

sum of income received from the farm, off-farm and non-farm activities

of a single household, generally considered for a period of one year.

For convenience in data collection and analysis, in this study

household income and its fractional income is defined somewhat

differently as follows:

Household Income = f (Agriculture Income + Livestock Income +

Community Forest Income + Other Forest Income + Non-farm Income)

Where,

31

Agriculture income composed of income from cereal crops,

horticulture crops, vegetables and other cash crops received from all

lands cultivated by a household, considered for a period of one single

year.

Livestock income composed of income received from the sell of

livestock, their products like milk, manure, labour, etc., value of

consumed products by a household during one year period. Livestock

considered in this study are buffalos, cattle, goats and pigs reared by

the household.

Community Forest Income includes the monetary value of the

forest products consumed from the community forests and the income

received from the sell of the forest products by the user household

during one year period. Forest products considered in this study are

timber, fuel wood, tree fodder, ground grass, leaf litter/forage

materials.

Non farm income in this study comprise of all the income other

than agriculture income, CF income, other forest income and livestock

income that a household receives in one year period. Non-farm income

activities include government service, non-government service, private

service, foreign employment, business, wage labour, contract works,

rent from house etc.

4.6.2 Methods for Valuing Products

Most of the agriculture products are marketable and therefore,

they have been assigned the local market retail price to calculate

income from such products. Fruits and vegetable price is not fix so

calculated on the basic of local market price. The prices of these

products were as follows:

Rice = NRs 1250/100kg (per quintal)

32

Wheat = NRs 1970/100kg, Maize = NRs 1750/100kg,

Income from domestic animals and milk production highly varies

on the basis of their breeds, physical sizes and so on. Therefore,

income from the animals was collected from the informants.

Incase of forest products, it was easy to compute income from

timber wood, fuel-wood, fodder and bedding materials, because these

are saleable commodities. The volume of wood-mass in each of these

products makes a difference in its price. For the purpose of this

research, the average market price of average size of each was taken.

Such prices were,

Timber wood = NRs 250(per cft)

Fuel-wood = NRs 125 (per quintal)

Fodder/Betting materials = NRs 5 (per Bhari)

33

CHAPTER- FIVE

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents

Socio economic features such as ethnic composition, sex,

occupation, literacy, household size, etc. of the respondents are

presented and analyzed in this heading. Brief description of these

features can be helpful to understand the socio-economic status of the

area under study.

5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents

Truly, Nepal is a garden of various ethnic groups.

Researcher found in the study area where the forest users are

consisted of various ethnic backgrounds. The caste and ethnicity play

important roles for socio-economic development in Nepalese society.

All the caste systems are grouped into three categories. They are

Brahmin/Chhetri, Janajati and Dalit. The major Janajati were Magars,

Tamangs, Newars, Lepcha, Rai, Limbu, Gurung and Dalits were, Damai,

Kami and sarki. The following table shows the ethnic composition of

the sampled household in CFUGs.

Table 3: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households

Ethnicity

Wealth

Number of households Tota

l

Percentag

eBrahmin/ Janaja Dalit

34

category Chhetri ti

Rich 7 5 - 12 21.42

Middle 9 6 5 20 35.72

Poor 13 3 8 24 42.86

total 29 14 13 56 -

Percentage 51.78 25 23.22 - 100

Source; field survey 2010

Brahmin/ Chhetri comprise 51.78% of sampled HHs; followed by

Janajati 25% of ethnic community and Dalit are 23.22% of the total

sampled households. The researcher has been found a good

relationship and participation among all caste groups in the study area.

Lower castes also have been involving in every social and

developmental work without any discrimination.

5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents

The respondents of this research include either male or female from

the households which mostly involve in the CF activities. Among the

respondents male are selected 80.35% and female are 19.65%, which

is shown following table;

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by sex

Gender Total

Percenta

ge

Male 45 80.35

Female 11 19.65

 Total 56 100

Source; field survey, 2010

5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents

The average household size was 6.5 member in the study area

with minimum 3 and maximum 10 members. Household size of the

surveyed population was found remarkably larger than national

average household size of the country, i.e. 5.4 (CBS, 2003). Also, it was

35

found larger than districts average household size of 5.9 (CBS, 2001).

The size of the family of the sampled households is presented below.

Table No. 5: Respondent's Family Size

Range of

Family

Number of households Tota

l

percent

age

Brahmin/

Chhetri

Janaja

ti

Dalit

1-5 9 5 7 21 37.5

6-9 11 7 8 26 46.42

10 -above 2 4 3 9 16.08

Total 22 16 18 56 100

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 5, shows that 21 households have less than six members and

their size in percentage is 37.5. Similarly, 26 households having 6 - 9

members which are also 46.42 percentage of the total figure. Only 9

households have member above ten and their percentage is 16.08.

5.1.4 Education Status of the Respondents

The education level of respondents were broadly classified in to 4

categories such as Illiterate, Primary level, Secondary Level and

College level.

Table no. 6: Education Status of the Respondents of Sampled Households

Education

Wealth Class

No. of household Total

Illiterate Prima

ry

Seconda

ry

College

Rich 1 5 4 2 12

Middle 4 9 4 3 20

Poor 10 8 5 1 24

Total 15 22 13 6 56

Percentage 26.78 39.28 23.22 10.72 100

36

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 6, shows that out of 56 respondents of sampled

households, 26.78% are illiterate. 39.28% of sampled HHs had

completed primary level, 23.22% had completed the secondary level

and only 10.72% had received the college level education. The number

of illiterate people is the highest in the poor. Similarly, most of the

people getting primary and secondary level of education. People

getting college education are very few in number but the overall

literacy rate is 73.22% which is satisfactory.

5.1.5 Occupation Status of the Respondents

Occupation refers to all the activities of earning by people for

their livelihood and fulfillment of daily requirement. The respondents of

study area are involved in a variety of occupation like farming,

business, services etc.

Table No.7: Occupation Status of the Selected Sampled

Household

Occupation

type

Number of households Tota

l

percent

age

Brahmin/

Chhetri

Janaja

ti

Dalit

Agriculture 20 10 9 39 69.64

Business 9 4 4 17 30.36

Total 29 14 13 56 100

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 7 shows that 69.64% of the households are dependent on the

agriculture, which is their main occupation, whereas 30.36% of

households are only involved in business.

5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents

37

Livestock holding of the households indicates pressure on the

forest from the livestock in terms of consumption of fodder and ground

grass. Also the number or unit of livestock and type of livestock

determines the wealth status of the household in the rural community.

This is also gives the actual income of sampled households to calculate

the income from livestock.

Table No. 8: Livestock Holding Status of the Sampled

Households

Livestock

Wealth

category

No. of households

Cow/ox Buffalo Goat Pig Total

Rich 18 13 32 - 63

Middle 27 15 106 8 156

Poor 23 18 136 17 194

Total 68 46 274 25 413

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 8 shows that greater size of livestock is kept by middle

class households and then almost equal by rich and poor category.

These sizes are 63, 156 and 194 respectively. Goat and cow are raised

in larger number in comparison to other animals. It is because these

are easy income generating species.

5.1.8 Land Holding Size of the Respondents

All the respondents have their own land but there is variation in

its holding pattern. Comparatively, rich and middle class people have

larger areas of land and poor people have smaller areas of land. Table

No. 9 shows the land holding size of the respondents

Table No. 9: Land Holding Size of Sampled Household

Land holding Number of households Tota percent

38

size (in Khatta) l age

Brahmin/

Chhetri

Janaja

ti

Dalit

>40 7 5 - 12 21.42

20-40 9 6 5 20 35.72

<20 13 3 8 24 42.86

Total 29 14 13 56 100

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 9, shows that the 21.42% of respondents have more than

40 kattha lands. whereas 35.72% have 20 to 40 Kattha land and

42.86% have less than 20 Kattha land.

5.2 Household Income of the Respondents

The household economy in the rural society depends on the

income derived from different source like: Agriculture, livestock, non-

farm (remittance, services, rent etc.) and community forest income.

5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household

Agriculture is one of the most important sources of the

subsistence economy in the study area. Paddy, maize, wheat, mustard,

lentils and fruits and vegetables are cultivated by the households.

Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Income

source

Household

types

Total

income

Average

income

Minimu

m

Maximu

m

Rich 435230 36269.16 32630 48525

39

Agriculture

Middle 449826 22491.30 15120 43400

Poor 327684 13653.50 8840 17880

Total 1212740 72413.96 8840 48525

Source: Field Survey, 2010

In the study area average annual income of the households from

agriculture varies from NRs. 8,840 to NRs. 48525. Table 10 shows that

the annual average agriculture income of rich class household has

more than the other groups. Average annual income of rich class

household is NRs. 36269.16; middle class households have NRs.

22491.30 and poor class have NRs 13653.50 annual average income.

This is because the rich have more land than other wealth class HHs.

5.2.2 Livestock income of the respondents

Rich class households have practiced to rear more buffalo than

middle and poor class households. Middle class households have more

goat, cow/ox and pigs than other class households in the study area.

Table 11 indicates 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 households is more

dependent on agriculture farming who rear livestock for manure, and

for earning income from the sale of milk and goat products.

Table No.11: Annual Average Livestock Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Income

source

HH

type

Total

income

Average

income

Minimu

m

Maximu

m

Livestock Rich 195425 16285.41 3200 24350

(Cattle/Ox,

Buffalo,

Middl

e

342840 17142.00 2250 32450

40

Goat, Pig

and Milk

selling

Poor 356780 14865.83 1800 25500

Total 895045 48293.24 1800 32450

Source: Field Survey, 2010

In this study, income from livestock includes the monetary value

derived from the sale of livestock and its products in a year. The

monetary value is also given to the products consumed by the

household themselves. The annual average income of the livestock per

household in the study area varies from NRs. 1800 to NRs. 32450. The

average annual livestock income is the highest to the middle class

households (NRs. 17142) and the lowest for poor class household (NRs.

14865.83). This is because the study shows that more middle HHs

have livestock than other wealth class HHs.

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 households. This

includes income from government and non-government services,

remittance from foreign job, business, wage labor, self-employed (non-

agriculture) self-employed (agriculture) etc.

Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled

Household according To Household Categories

Income

source

HH

type

Total

income

Average

income

Minimu

m

maximu

m

Non-farm Rich 1432750 119395.83 35000 175000

Middle 1376930 68846.50 25000 150000

Poor 1308550 54522.91 5000 150000

Total 4118230 242765.24 5000 175000

Source: Field Survey, 2010

41

Above table 12, shows that the non-farm income of the user

household in the study area is derived minimum NRs. 5000 to NRs.

250000. Non-farm income of the rich class household is more than

other two classes of household because most of the rich class

households are involved in 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 No.13: Annual Average CF Income per Sampled

Household according to Household Categories

Income

source

HH type Total

income

Average

income

Maximu

m

Minimu

m

Commu

nity

forestry

Rich 37050 3087.5 4680 1645

Middle 54420 2721 4050 1455

Poor 36755 1531.45 2890 850

Total 128225 7339.95 4680 850

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Table 13, shows that the rich class households take more benefit

from CF than the other class household, where rich class household

42

derives NRs 3087.5, poor class derives NRs. 2721 and a middle class

derives NRs. 1531.45 annual average income from the CF. The reason

behind this may the fact that the poor households use very low

quantity of timber because they are not involved in CF product

distribution committee. Rich class households use more timber than

other groups. So they earn more in CF because they are in power as

they are the members of the distribution committee. Middle class

people have more livestock than other. So they consume more

bedding materials.

5.2.5 Total household income of respondents

Total household income means income from various sources

(agriculture, livestock, non-farm) including community forest whose

income directly help to the economy of the sampled households of

three wealth categories from the CFUG. Annual average total incomes

of the selected samples household are shown in table 14.

Table 14: Annual average total income of sampled households

according to household categories.

Income

source

Total income

of rich class

household

Total income

of the middle

class

household

Total income

of the poor

class

household

Agriculture 36269.16

(20.73)

22491.30

(20.22)

13653.50

(16.14)

Livestock 16285.41

(9.30)

17142.00

(15.42)

14865.83

(17.58)

Non-farm 119395.83

(68.21)

68846.50

(61.92)

54522.91

(64.46)

43

Community

forestry

3087.50

(1.76)

2721

(2.44)

1531.45

(1.82)

Total 175037.90

(100)

111200.80

(100)

84573.69

(100)

Source; Field Survey 2010

Table 14 shows that the non-farm source of the income (mostly

income from in country and foreign services) is the major source of the

sampled households which comprises 68.21% of rich, 61.92% of

middle and 64.46% to poor household's total income. The high share of

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

employment from most of the households. Community forest

contributes less than other source.

5.3 Contribution of Community Forest Income to Users’

Household Income

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

wood, timber and leaf litter to the users. Besides community forest

provides several indirect benefits to the users’ household such as

water, fertilizers, etc. In the study area it is found that most of the

forest products derived from the community forests are consumed in

the household and not sold outside the CFUGs.

In the study area researcher found that the most of the user are

depend on the CF for their rural livelihood. Before community forest

they spend most of time for collect forest product. After established CF

forest user groups member told become easy for their rural livelihood.

Contribution of community forest average annual income to the

household income of the total sample households is found NRs.

7339.95 where rich households are getting a total of NRs. 3087.5;

middle class households get NRs. 2721 and the poor class households

are getting NRs. 1531.45 (Table 15).

44

Table 15: annual mean CF income per user household and its

share in total household income according to household

categories (NRs)

Household

Type

Community

forest

income

(NRs)

Total

household

income(NRs)

Share of CF

income in

total mean

household

income (%)

Rich 3087.5 175037.90 1.76

Middle 2721 111200.80 2.44

Poor 1531.45 84573.69 1.82

Total 7339.95 370812.39 6.02

Source; field survey, 2010

The finding shows that community forest supports 6.02% in the

total household income. Poor class household is receiving 1.82%,

middle class households 2.44% and rich class households are receiving

1.76% of their total household income from CF (table 15). The finding

also shows that the middle households are more depend on community

forest than other household’s people in the study area. This is because

the middle class household has more livestock income than other class

household.

Result of t-test for sampled household in different classes income of

community forest income (table 16)

Table 16; hypothesis t-test for different economic class of

sampled HH receiving CF income

Description Degree of

Freedom

Level of

significanc

e

T value T critical

value

Rich and

Middle class

18 5% 1.2341 2.10

45

HH

Rich and

poor class

HH

13 5% 5.1159 2.160

Middle and

Poor class

HH

29 5% 5.3510 2.045

Above table 16 shows that the critical value of t for 18 degree of

freedom at 5 % level of significance for two tailed test is 2.10. Hence

the calculated value of t is 1.2341. Calculated t value is less than

tabulated t value so there is no significance difference in mean

received from community forest between the rich class household and

middle class household users.

In the case of Rich class household and middle class household

users the critical value of t for 13 degree of freedom at 5 % level of

significance for two tailed test is 2.160. Hence the calculated value of t

is 5.1159. Calculated t value is greater than tabulated t value so there

is significance difference between two user's classes.

The critical value of t for 29 degree of freedom at 5 % level of

significance for two tailed test is 2.045. Hence the calculated value of t

is 5.3510. Calculated t value is greater than tabulated t value so there

is significance difference in mean received from community forest

between the Middle class household and poor class household users.

5.4 Participation of the respondent's different activities

5.4.1 Participation in meetings and assembly

Primarily, EC was the main body for the decision of the CF and

the EC invited the other users concerning about the discussion topics

and the other users only participated in the general assembly.

46

Every time20%

Most of time35%

Some time34%

Never11%

Every time Most of time Some time Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Figure 1: Participation in the meetings and

assembly

Out of the 56 respondent 11 (20%) respondents were present in

every meeting of the UG, 20(35%) were present in most of the time, 19

(34%) were present in sometimes and 6 (11%) respondents were never

present in the meeting.

5.4.2 Participation in Plantation

Community Forest Users had planted different types forest and

fruit trees such as Sissoo, bamboo, Amala, Harro, Barro, Khair, Teak,

Mango in the fallow land and around the primary school in the month

of Ashad -Bhadra organized by the different government and non-

government organization and CFUG itself. Users involved in the

plantation activities on the tole basis in each day of plantation.

47

Every times32%

Most of Times40%

Sometimes21%

Never7%

Every times Most of Times Sometimes Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Figure 2: Participation in plantation

Out of the 56 respondent, 18 (32%) respondents attended the

plantation for every times, 22 (40%) were attend for most of the time,

12 (21%) were attend for sometimes and 4 (7%) respondents never

attended in the plantation.

5.4.3 Participation in training

CF Users had taken different types of skill development training

related to forest management, recording keeping, goat keeping, and

nursery management, study tour organized by DSCO, FECOFUN, DFO

and Local NGOs. Participant in the training was selected by EC

meeting.

48

Every times2%

Most of Times

7%

Sometimes38%

Never53%

Every times Most of Times Sometimes Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Fig 3: Participation in training

Users had taken different training related to forest management, goat

farming, Nursery management, study tour etc. During HH survey, out

of the 56 respondent 21 (38%) were involved in sometimes and 30

(53%) respondents never attended the training, where 4(7%) are

involve most of time and 1(2%) every time involved.

Table 17: Training participants in the year 2065/066

Sex Ethnicity Wealth Class Tota

l

Mal

e

Fema

le

Dali

t

Janta

ti

Brahmi

n/

Chhetri

Poo

r

Middl

e

Ric

h

No. 8 9 2 3 12 9 7 1 17

Perce

nt

47.0

6

52.94 11.7

6

17.65 70.59 52.9

4

41.17 5.8

8

100

(Source: Registered, Jaymire Bhanjang CFGU)

Training took by the users in the year 2063/064 were goat

farming, study tour, Kurilo plantation, nursery management training.

On the basis of sex, Out of the 17 trainees 8 (47%) were female and 9

49

(53%) were male. 1 (6%) trainee were rich, 7 (41%) were medium, 9

(54%) were poor. Similarly, 2 (12%) trainee were dalit, 3 (18%) were

Janajati and 12 (70%) were Brahmin and Chhetri.

5.4.4 Participation in forest protection and management

The CF users had been done forest management in the month

from Poush to Falgun. Mainly bush cleaning had been doing for Sal

regeneration in the specific area. For the soil conservation work gabion

check dam and water conservation pond had constructed by the users.

Every times18%

Most of Times63%

Sometimes14%

Never5%

Every times Most of Times Sometimes Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Figure 4: Participation in Protection and management

Out of the 56 respondent 10 (18%) respondents said that they

involved in the forest protection and management activities for every

time, 35 (63%) were involved in the most of the time, 8 (14%) involved

for sometimes and 3 (5%) respondents were never involved in the

protection activities.

5.4.5 Participation in Income Generating Activities

Mainly IGAs had focused to the poor household but the poor HH

had got benefited or not interested due to high opportunity cost loss

50

due to involvement in long time taking IGA. The main IGA was Goat

farming, Pig farming, Shop keeping, Sewing, Carpenter, Bel (Agel

marmelous) collection etc. The details of IGAs are given in the IGAs

subsection of this chapter.

Every times0%

Most of Times11%

Sometimes51%

Never38%

Every times Most of Times Sometimes Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Figure 5: Participation in IGA

Out of the 56 respondent no respondents said that they involve

in IGA for every time, 6(11%) were involving for the most of the time,

29(51%) involving for sometimes and 21 (38%) respondents were

never involved in the IGAs

5.3.6 Participation on decision making

As EC is the main body for decision making participation status

from ethnic groups, wealth class and gender gave users participation

in decision making to some extent. According to the CF president,

women, poor and dalit were not interested in the decision making

process related to forest management and the other affairs not related

to them. Even on their concerned matters they only agreed on the

51

options provided by the other users and members and didn’t take their

own views.

11%

48%

23%

18%

Always Most of time Sometimes Never

Source; Field Survey 2010

Figure 6: Participation in Decision-making

Out of the 56 respondents, 6 (11%) were always involved in the

decision- making, 27(48%) were involved in most of the times,

13(23%) were sometimes involved and 10 (18%) were never involved

in the decision making process.

Participation of dalit in decision making was very poor. Similarly

participation in meeting and plantation was quite low as compared to

overall participation. This was due to fact that dalit were not very

interested in community participation. This result is similar to Malla

(2003). However, participation of dalit in IGA and protection was high

as compared to overall involvement of users. However, participation of

dalit in IGA and protection was high as compared to over all

involvement of users.

52

Participation of female in training also lower in plantation

activities. CF meetings and decision making was low. This finding is

similar to Maharjan (2004). He showed that women's role in decision

making is negligible. This is due to the fact that women can't express

their views frankly in the meeting and decision making process due to

their illiteracy and shyness in presence of male. Even if they express

their views, their suggestions were ignored or given less priority.

Participation of female was higher than male in training and IGA.

Participation of poor group was very low in decision making activities.

But their participation in forest protection and management and

training was higher than other groups.

5.5 Income Generating Activities (IGA)

5.5.1 Description of the existing IGA

Executive Committee(EC) had allocated the fund of NRs.

1,00,000 used in different IGAs like goat farming, pig farming, metal

working, sewing, carpentry work, shop keeping etc. The fund was given

to the users in the interest rate of 1% with the condition that users had

to return the fund within the one year along with the interest.

A) Goat Farming:

Goat farming the EC called the application for the goat farming,

Among the interested applicants, the EC selected 15 then poor,

interested farmers were selected by the EC and the EC provided the

fund of NRs.3,000 per person with 1% interest rate provided that fund

should be returned within 1 years period. The EC had also made

decision that goat farming was taken as annual program from the year

2063/064. The EC distributed the forest area into interested users for

grass planting and cutting for livestock consumption. The users ha d

planted different type of grass like dinanath, napier, stylo etc. The EC

had distributed the seed of the grasses to the users in nominal price.

53

The UG had brought the two improved varieties of male goat for

mating with the female goat and given to the farmers and these two

farmers had to rare these goats and the earned NRs. 25 per female

goat.

B) Shop Keeping

For shop keeping, EC allocated NRs. 5,000 per person to the total

3 poor users.

C) Pig farming

EC allocated NRs. 3,000 per person to the total 5 poor user.

Among them two users had successfully reared the pig.

D) Metalworking

EC gave the fund of NRs. 3,000 to the 1 dalit member for buying

the machine. He collected the 15 - to 20 Man (40Kg) paddy in a year

due to providing his service.

E) Grass planting

The DFO and DSCO had given the seed of different grasses like

Dinanath, Napier, Amlisho Stylo. The EC distributed the seeds of those

grasses into the different. Among them two users had made some

earning from the selling of seeds. The EC brought the seeds of

Dinnaath grass in the rate of NRs. 150/kg.

F) Bel collection

Recently the UG had started the bel collection program. The user

had to collect the bel from the forest in the UG office and the EC sold

54

the collected bel to the collector and gave NRs.3/- per Kg to the

collectors.

G) Tailoring

Three users from the dalit community had been invested by the

UG for the sewing machine purchase. Similarly, the UG had given the

sewing training to the interested 15 users with the coordination from

the local club although none of them had taken tailoring as IGAs.

H) Carpentering:

One dalit user of the CF had been invested NRs. 3,000/- by the

UG for purchasing the equipments required for carpentering and he

had been successfully doing the carpentering works.

I) Leaf Collection of Bhorla

The users collected the leaf of bhorla from the CF and the

collector brought these leaves at the rate of Rs.2/- for 64 leaves and

the collector had to pay Rs. 10/- per sack of the leaves.

5.5.2 Distribution of the IGAs

IGAs were one of the major contributions of CF in the economic

upliftment of rural people. For the distribution of the IGAs had given

major priority for poor people. Although, IGAs mainly directed towards

poor community but some of poor users were not interested due to

lack of knowledge about economic benefits from IGAs. During the HH

survey, only 17 (30.36%) respondents said that they were involved in

IGA activities and 39(69.64%) HH said that they didn’t. Only 35

(62.5%) HH were satisfied with the current IGAs through CF and that

21 (37.5%) weren’t satisfied. Mainly the users form medium and rich

respondents didn't satisfy with the IGA distribution. They didn't get

IGAs program because of being medium and rich class even if they

55

were poor. Some of the dalit and Janajati respondents were also not

satisfied with the IGA because they were out of the main stream of

community forestry and benefit sharing because of dominance of

clever Brahmin and Chhetri.

Table 18: Distribution of the IGAs on the basis of Sex, Wealth,

and Ethnicity

IGA No.of

HH

involve

d

Loan

per

HH

Total

Amoun

t

Sex Wealth class Ethnicity

Mal

e

femal

e

Rich Middl

e

Poo

r

Dali

t

Janjat

i

Brahmin/

Chhetri

Goat

Farming

15 3,00

0

45,000 10 5 0 9 6 2 4 9

Shop

keeping

3 5,00

0

15,000 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2

Pig

Farming

5 3,00

0

15,000 5 0 0 0 5 1 4 0

Tailoring 3 3,00

0

9,000 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0

Metal

working

1 3000 3,000 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Carpente

-

ring

1 3000 3,000 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Total 28 90,000 21 7 0 10 18 7 10 11

(Source: Records, Shree Jymare Bhanjang CFUG)

56

Out of the total IGAs allocated to 28 HHs, 21 were allocated to

male and 7 to female. Similarly, 10 IGAs were given to the meddle

class and 18 were to the poor class and there were no IGAs to the rich

HH. Likewise, 7 IGAs were given to dalit, 10 were to the Janajati and 11

were given to the Brahmin and Chhetri.

5.5.3 Annual income through different IGAs

Most of the IGAs program were started from one year so that

user's were hadn't got distinct economic earnings from some of the

programs like Kurilo cultivation, bel collection and some of the users

couldn't continue their IGA program like shop keeping , tailoring and

Kurilo cultivation. During the household survey some of the respondent

couldn't express their exact income form the IGA activities.

Table 19: Income from different types of IGA

S.N

.

IGA No. of

Respondents

Total

money

earned by

HH in a

year

Average

Annual

income Per

HH

1 Goat farming 4 12,000 3,000

2 Pig farming 2 22,000 11,000

3 Shop Keeping 2 36,000 18,000

4 Tailoring 1 5,000 5,000

5 Metal working 1 12,000 12,000

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Above table 19 shows that 4 HH had goat farming and the

average annual income was NRs. 3,000 per HH. 2 HH had pig farming

and the average annual income was NRs 11,000 per HH. 2 HH had

shop keeping and average annual income was NRs 18,000.Similarly

average annual income was NRs. 5,000 and NRs. 12,000 per HH from

57

Tailoring and Metal working respectively. Shop keeping and metal

workings were IGAs having highest annual income

5.6 Forest product distribution system

The forest products were distributed on the basis of provision

made in the Operation Plan (OP). During the distribution, first priority

was given to the own users of the CF .But the users had to use the

forest product for their HH use not for the commercial purpose. The

distribution system of the UG was on the requirement basis. Any users

could get the forest products on their requirements by following the

rules in their OP.

5.6.1 Timber distribution system

The distribution of the timber was on the sale basis .The UG

make the rate is per cu.ft NRs 100 of the timber. Due to the high price

of the timber poor people were unable to afford for money for timber.

Only rich and medium wealth class were mainly benefited .According

to the OP, Second priority of the timber distribution would be given to

the adjacent users after the use of the timber by the users. During the

HH survey, most of the users were satisfied with the distribution

system except timber distribution system.

5.6.2 Fuel wood distribution system

The distribution of the firewood is free for those who collected

firewood on the bhari basis but for the collection of firewood on tractor

they had to pay Rs.150 per tractor. Nevertheless, there was no price

for the fuel wood from the tractor for those who are affected by the

natural calamities.

5.6.3 Grass and fodder distribution system

58

There was no pricing system for the grass collection. Users CF

were gone to the forest for grass collection. For the grass distribution

of the grass, forest areas were given to the interested users. For the

distribution of the forest areas to the users, EC called for the

application from the users. Then, EC allocated the certain forest area

to the forest users for grass planting and cutting for the own domestic

consumption.

5.6.4 Sample Users' perception about forest product

distribution system

S.N. Forest Product Satisfied Non Satisfied

1 Timber 30.65 69.35

2 Fuel Wood 78.64 19.36

3 Fodder/ Grass 88.71 11.29

Source: Field survey, 2010

Mainly users got timber, fuel wood and grass. But 69.35% of

respondents were not satisfied with the timber distribution of CFUG.

Mainly respondents were not satisfied with price rate of timber. All of

the dalit and most of the Janajati respondents were not satisfied with

the price rate. All of the poor respondents and most of the medium

class respondents were not satisfied with the current system of timber

distribution. But respondents were satisfied with fuel wood (78.65%)

and fodder and grass (88.71%).

The researcher found in the study area there are strictly follow

the rule of Forest Act 2001. In this Act 2001 there are clearly mention

that the CF must have plant five trees if they cut one tree. So there is

no any affect timber distribution system.

59

Chapter -Six

Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1 Conclusion

Agriculture is the major profession 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 58.21% of total income. Agriculture is the second largest

source of the household income. Main cereal crops grown in the area

are rice, maize; wheat, mustard and lentils, and cash crops are

60

Tomato, Mango and banana. Livestock consists of cow, ox, buffalo,

goat, pig. Income from livestock contributes 6.4 percent to the total

income.

The consumption pattern of forest products in three categories of

households is also different. Rich class households use large quantity

of timber, middle class use more fodder & ground grass and poor class

use more fuel wood. Forest products from the private land/private

forest have remarkable share in total household income of poor and

middle class households' .Community forestry contributes only 6.02%

of the 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, non-farm activities and use of forest products is

higher in rich class households and the lowest in poor class

households. By the statistical t-test found that the community forest

income there is no significance difference in received from community

forest between the rich class household and middle class household

users and Rich and middle class users so there is significance

difference between two user's classes in CF income. There is also

significance difference in received from community forest between the

Middle class household and poor class household users.

6.1.1 Participation

1) Overall participation level of UG was only 50% according to the

governance status developed by FECOFUN.

2) Participation level of dalit and poor was very low and attendance

and active participation of dalit and female in EC meeting was low.

EC was the main forum for decision-making. Therefore, they had low

approach in decision-making process.

61

3) Participation of women, Poor and dalit in general meetings and

assembly was low and mostly they express their views and only

present for clapping at the time of decision.

4) Participation of women was less due to male dominance, illiterate

and their engagement in kitchen work. Poor and dalit were mostly

had to do work f or daily food so they didn’t have time to go to the

meeting.

5) Participation of female and poor was high in the training but low

participation of dalit out of the total participation in the year

2065/2066.

6) Very few respondents were participated in IGAs and training

6.1.2 Income Generation Activities

1) Main IGA are goat farming, shop keeping, pig farming metal

working, grass planting, bel collection, tailoring, carpentering,

bhorla’s leaf collection.

2) Out of the 28 HH involving in the IGAs, few number of female and

dalit users were engaged where as large number of poor were

involved.

3) Large proportion of money allocated to poor. Women and Janajati

were given low amount of money funded for IGAs

4) Shop keeping, metal workings, Pig farming were the main IGAs in

terms of annual income.

5) Goat farming was the best IGA among the existing IGA on the basis

of users perception.

6) Goat keeping, vegetable farming, carpentry were the main potential

IGAs.

7) There were very few IGAs in comparison to the number of total HH.

The number of HHs involved in IGAs was only 9.83%.

62

6.2 Recommendation

1) 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 CFUG committee follows equal

distribution system then, there is no any inequality forest

product distribution.

2) 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 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.

3) 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.

4) Participation of women, poor dalit in meetings and assemblies

should be promoted.

5) Exposure of women and dalit should be emphasized through

study tour, training and field observation.

6) IGA and poverty reduction program should be constructed

focusing dalit and poor so that they will actively involve in CF

management.

63

7) Improving literacy rate of the users specially women, dalit and

poor through emphasizing their child to enroll in the school and

adult education for the adult people.

8) Training should be given to the whole process of cultivation, goat

farming, pig farming etc.

9) Regular support (technical, managerial and financial) and

monitoring should be given for the success and encouragement

in IGA.

10) Exposure to reluctant users about IGAs by study tour.

11) Replication of IGAs for the same users should be avoided. Equal

chances should be given to the all users as possible.

REFERENCES

64

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

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

Community Forest, Parbat District. Banko Jankari, 14 (1) pp 46-50.

Department of Forest Research and Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Adhikari, B. (2002). ‘Community Forestry and Livelihoods, Household

characteristics and common property forest use: complementarities

and contradictions’, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2, 1 3-61.

Adhikari, B. (2003). Household characteristics and common property

forest

Use: complementarities and contradictions. Journal of Forestry and

Livelihoods

Vol.2 (1): 3-14.

Adhockery, B., S.D. Falco and J.C. Lovett (2004). Household

characteristic and forest dependence; evidence from common property

forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economic 48, pp: 245- 257.

Agrawal, B. (1997). "Environmental Action, Gender Equity and

women's participation." Development and change 28(1) 1-44

Agrawal, B. (2001). Participation exclusion, community forest and

gender: an analysis for south Asia and a conceptual framework. World

Development 29(10), PP: 1623-1648.

Aryal, J.P. and Gautam, A. (2003). Quantitative technique. New

Hira Books Kirtipur, kathmandu,Nepal

Bartlett, A.G. (1992). A review of community forestry advances in

Nepal. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 71(2):95-100.

Brown, D. et al. (2002) Forestry as an Entry Point for Governance

Reform, Odi Forestry Briefing Number 1, DFID UK.

CBS (2001). Population Census Report, Central Bureau of Statistics,

Katmandu

CBS, (2002). Statistical pocket book, Central Berau of Statistics.

National Planning Commission, Secretariat, HMG, Kathmandu, Nepal.

65

Chapagain P.D, Kanel K.R. and Regmi D.C. (1999). Current Policy

and Legal Context of the Forestry Sector with Reference to the

Community Forestry Program in Nepal, PRO PUBLIC, Katmandu, Nepal.

Community Forest Department (2008). Bulletin of forest,

Community Forest Department Babarmahal Kathmandu Nepal

Department of Forest (2008). Annual progress report- 2008,

Department of forest Kathmandu

Department of forest. Ban dairy- 2008, Kathmandu

Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O. and Soussan, J.

(2003), Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle

Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1): 64-77.

Ellis, F. (2000). “Rural livelihood and diversity in developing

countries”. Oxford University Press, UK.

Fisher, R.J. (1989). Indigenous System of Common Property Forest

Management in Nepal. Working Paper No 18. Honolulu, Hawaii:

Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Centre.

Fomete T, Vermaat J. (2001). Community Forestry and Poverty

Alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network.

Network Paper 25h. London,

United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute.

Gautam et al (2004). A review of forest policies, institutions, and

changes in the resource condition in Nepal, International Forestry

Review, 6 (2), pp. 136-148.

Ghimire, K. (2001). The effects of differing access for forest resource

on the livelihood and capital assets of poor women in Makawanpur

district, Nepal. Banko Jankari, Vol. 12, No.1

Gilmour, D.A., and Fisher, R.J. (1991). Villagers, Forest and

Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry

in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.

Hamro Kalpabriksha (2008). Department of Forest, Babarmahal,

Kathmandu

66

HMGN (1988). "Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal: Main

Report". Kathmandu: MOFSC.

HMGN (1995). "The Forest Act 1993 and the Forest Regulations 1995:

An Official Translation by the Law Books Management Board".

Kathmandu: FDP/USAID/HMGN.

HMGN, (1998). His Majesty Government, Environmental Strategies

and Policies for Industry, Forest and Water Resource Sectors Vol 1,

Sector Strategies. His Majesty Government, Ministry of Population and

Environment Kathmandu, Nepal.

HMG/N, (2002). The tenth Plan, National planning Commission

(unofficial translation), Kathmandu

Joshi, A., (2003). Gender, women and participation in Buffer zone

Management: A case study form Chitwan National Park. A thesis

submitted to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Science, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal

Kanel, K.R. (2004). Twenty five years of Community forestry:

Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry,

(pg. 4-18). Kathmandu: Community Forestry Division, Department of

Forest, Livelihood, 1(1): 16-18.

Kanel, K.R. and Niraula D.R. (2004). Can rural livelihood be

improved in Nepal

through Community forestry? Banko Jankari, Vol. 14, No.1.

Kandel et. al (2004) .Pro-poor community forestry: Some initiatives

from the field. Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, 4–6

August 2004. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests, pp 229–237.

Kanel, K.R. (2006). Current status of community forestry in Nepal. A

Report Submitted to Regional Community Forestry Training Center for

Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, Thailand

Lama, A. and M. Buchy (2002). Gender, Class, caste and

participation: The Case of community forestry in Nepal, Indian Journal

of Gender studies 9(1), pp: 27-42.

67

Lachapelle, P. R., Smith P.D. and MCcool S.F. (2004). Access to

power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community

forest user groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review 11(21), PP: 1-12.

Maharjan M. (1995). Income Generation through Community

Forestry: Case Studies from the Koshi Hills of Nepal. Income

Generation through Community Forestry, Proceedings of Seminar,

1995, RECOFTC, Bankok, Thailand.

Maharjan, R. (2004). Tenth five year plan, Poverty Reduction

Strategy Paper, National Planning Commission, HMG/Nepal,

Kathmandu.

Malla, Y. B. (2003). Changing Policies and the Persistence of Patron-

Client Relations in Nepal: Stakeholders' Response to Change in Forest

Policies. Environmental History, 8(2).

Malla, Y.B. (2000) Impact of community forestry policy on rural

livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unasylva 51(3), 37–45.

Niraula, D.R. (2004). Integrating Total Economic Value for Enhancing

Sustainable Management of Community Forests: A Forward Looking

Approach. In K.R. Kanel et al. (eds.), Twenty Five Years of Community

Forestry, Proceeding of Fourth National Community Forestry Workshop,

Department of Forest ( DoF), Community Forestry Division ( CFD) ,

Kathmandu.

Nepal United Kingdom Community Forest Project (2000). Trend

and Impact of Community Forestry in Nepal's Dhaulagiri Hills. Nepal UK

Community Forestry Project, Baglung, Nepal.

NPC (2007). The Three year Interim plan, National Planning

Commission (NPC), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

Ojha, H. & Bhattarai, B. (2001). Distributional Impact of Community

Forestry: who is benefiting from Nepal’s community forests? Forest

action research series 00/01 kathmandu, Nepal

68

Pokharel, B.K. (2001b). Community forestry and people's

livelihoods. Journal of forestry and livelihoods No. 1(1): 16-18.

Pokharel, B.K. (1997). Foresters and Villagers in Contention and

Compact: the Case of Community Forestry in Nepal. Thesis (PH.D.) in

University of East Anglia: School of Development Studies.

Pokharel, R. K. (2003). An Evaluation of the Community Forestry

Program in Kaski District of Nepal: A Local Perspective. Dissertation for

the degree of Ph. D. Michigan State University.

Pokheral, R. K. (2008). Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds; Do They

Benefit the Poor? working paper of SANDEE, Kathmandu Nepal

Pokharel, B. K. and Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and Peoples’

Livelihoods: Benefitting the Poor from Community Forestry. Journal of

Forest and Livelihoods 4(1): 19-29.

Poudel Bharat (2010). Distributional Inequality Between Community

Forest User Groups of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur District.

Dissertation for Degree of Master. Central department Of Economics

T.U. Nepal

Sharma, A. R. (2000). Glamour and grips of Community forestry:

Impact on Income Distribution. Banko Jankari (10) 2: 27-31.

Shrestha, N and Kansakar D.R. (2003). Quantitative technique. A

reading book for M.A. Economics

Singh B.K. (1998). Community Forestry in Nepal: Gradual move from

subsistence to monetize sector of economy, Banko Janakari, A Journal

of Forestry Information for Nepal

Timsina, N. P.; Luintel, H.; Bhandari, K. and Thapalia, A. (2004).

Action and Learning: An Approach for Facilitating a Change in

Knowledge and Power Relationship in Community Forestry. Forest and

Livelihood, 4 (1): 5-12.

UNDP, (1997). Annual review, 1997. UNDP, Katmandu, Nepal

69

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire for Household Survey

I am a student of MA Economics at TU Central department of

Economics Kirtipur. I am carrying out research entitled, “INCOME

GENERATION ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY USER

GROUP” for partial fulfillment of the requirement for my MA degree.

All information maintained in this questionnaire will be confidential. So,

I humbly request you to mention your own reality in this questionnaire

with full confidence. Please feel to express your personal opinion. The

information that you will provide and your personal identification will

be kept confidential while using the information for research activities.

Krishna Raj Bhandari

Household Survey Form

Date; ………………..

1. General information of the respondent:

a. Name: -------------------- b. Age: -------- c. Gender: Male [ ] Female [

]

d. Marital status: Married [ ] Unmarried [ ] widower [ ]

70

e. Wellbeing class: Rich [ ] Medium [ ] Poor [ ]

b. Education of respondents: Illiterate: [ ] Primary: [ ]

Secondary: [ ] College: [ ]

2. Household information of Respondents

Sex Age Group Education Status Remark

s

<

5

6-

20

21-

40

>4

0

Prim

ary

Secon

dary

SLC Intermedi

ate

Diplom

a

Male

Femal

e

3. Agriculture Income of households

Please mention the quantity of land owned in your household, total

annual production and their prices during past one year.

Type of Crop Cropping area

(Ropani)

Qty. of annual

production(unit)

Price (NRs)

Rice

Maize

Wheat

Vegetable

Fruits

Other(please

specify)

71

4. Income from Livestock

Mention the number, type and production of your livestock and the

prices earn during past one year

Product Type Number Total cash earned (Rs)

Cattle

Buffalo

Goat

Pig

Milk production

Other

5. Cash Income of household (non farm income)

Mention the number of your household member engaged in different

off farm activities and the amount of income earned from each sources

during the past one year.

Types of employment Number of person income Cash earn

Male Female

Services

Employment abroad

Business

Labor wages

Rent / Interest

Other (please specify)

6. Which one is your main source of forest product supply?

a. Community Forest [ ] b. Private forest: [ ] c. Other: [ ]

72

7. Income of the household from Community Forest

Please mention the amount of product and their prices during last

twelve month.

Product type Unit Prices(Rs)

Timber

Fuel wood

Fodder

Ground grass

Leaf litter

Bedding materials

Other( please Specify)

8. Participation

a. Have you involved in the user’s meeting?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

b. Who made the final decision regarding different activities

such as: implementation of different activities; distribution of

forest product, incentives?

Vital member [ ] EC [ ] general assembly [ ]

c. To what extend your participation in the following activities?

73

S.N

.

Activities Every

times

Most of

times

Sometime

s

Never

1 Assembly, discussion,

meeting

2 Plantation

3 Skill development

training

4 Protection

5 Income generating

Activities

6 Others

If not, why?

You were not informed [ ] you were busy [ ]

You were not interested others [ ]

9. Income generation activities ( IGAs)

a. Have you involved in any IGAs activities?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes,

IGAs Activities Annual Income Problem

Encounter

Types

assistance

needed

b. Further, do you want to conduct any other types of IGAs?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

74

If yes, what type?

…………………………………………………………………

c. Do you think that your economic status is improving through

IGAs?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

If no, what are the causes?

………………………………………………………………………………….

10. Has the total income generated from the sale of forest

product, increased over the year?

Increase [ ] decrease [ ] No change [ ]

11. Do you get total demand of your forest product from

community forest?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

12. Do you feel that Forest Benefit distribution pattern is fair

and equitable?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

13. How for poor people are benefited in distribution of forest

product?

Fair [ ] Moderate [ ] low [ ]

14. Mention your View on benefit distribution forest product;

a)--------------------------------------------------------------------

b) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

c) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

d) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

75

Appendix II: Questionnaire for Key Informant Survey

Date: ---------

3. List of key person.

SN Name Position Age Qualification

1

2

3

4

5

4. CFUG hand over date: ------------

5. Total population of Users: ---------- Male: ------- Female: -----

6. Number of Household: ------------------

7. Number of household by well being classes:

a) Rich classes: -----

b) Middle classes: ------

c) Poor classes: --------

8. How much money do your CFUG utilize Income generation

activities?

………………………………

9. Involvement in the training and other programme based on the last year record;

S.N. Activities Rich class Middle class Poor class

1 Seminar

2 Training

76

3 Tour

4 Study

5 Other (please

specify)

10. If anything to say, please?

1 ………………………………………………………………………………………..

1 …………………………………………………………………………………………

2 …………………………………………………………………………………………

3 …………………………………………………………………………………………

4 …………………………………………………………………………………………

77