Transcript Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross

Community Forestry in Nepal at the CrossRoads: Where Do We Go?
Narayan Kaji Shrestha
Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal
1. INTRODUCTION
Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Everest and the Himalays is also is
known as the Country of Community Forestry
 Many issues and problems being raised
 Issues become significant in the context that three agencies are vying for
control of forest management

1.1 Contending Forces


Government forest agencies, local government agencies
and user groups are contending and vying for power,
authority, and control over and manage forestry resources in
Nepal.
. The forest bureaucracy gets its power and authority to
control and manage forestry resource through the state


The local government agencies through politics and
election.
FECOFUN being a representative has to strengthen itself by
improving credibility of users by setting up horizontal
accountability among users themselves.
1.2 Background






Loot the Resource from People and Destroy Environment
Forest Destruction in Himalayan Country reached up to 3.9% per annum
“Eco-Doom” and “Tragedy of Commons”
Himalayan Kingdom to be a Desert by 2000
Bureaucracy-Politicians-Contractors’ Nexus Destroyers of Forests
People are Blamed
Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources?
Historically, State and Rulers Encroached upon Forest Resources of People
 Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward, etc.
 Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s Forest for Railway Slippers and
others.
 By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land Distributed to Elites and Powerful
and Three-Fourth went to the Rana Families

1.3 Initiative after 1951





Nationalization of Private Forests
Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration
PF and PPF failed
The Master Plan (1989) developed policy to devolve rights of management
to users
Development of Charter and Operational Plan by consensus are requirement
for hand-over


DFO is supposed to make sure consensus is reached
However, the process is not followed and issues raised
The Change Process: Trusting People as
Managers





Moving from Resource Creation to Institution Building and
Strengthening
Focus on People Rather Than Trees
Users as Managers and Forest Officials as Facilitators
Secure Rights of Users To Manage
Decision Making by Consensus
Outcome:






The Forestry Officials are Reoriented
Local Users Have Developed Ownership
18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million Hectare of Forest
Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction is halted
Community Development Activities Initiated
FECOFUN is Created
1.4 Statement of the Problem
Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field for rulers, politicians and
bureaucrats.
 Community forestry as a priority program
 61% of forest is supposed to be turned into community forests
 The forest bureaucracy backtracking with introduction of OFMP and
CFM

The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law
 The LGAs have rights to manage fallow land, raise taxes and develop plans
for resources management
 The Forest Department and the LGAs are allying against users with
provision of DFCC and allocation of 20% revenue

2. Analytical Framework



2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution
Debate
2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights
2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors
3. Description of Initiative Undertaken by
FECOFUN:






3.1 Is There a Fish in the Bowl?
3.2 Did Pictures Speak?
3.3 What is the Goal?
3.4 Are User Groups Rooted Enough?
3.5 Are Stems Strong Enough?
3.6 What Fruits User Groups Require?







Perpetual Rights over Resources
Integrated Resources Management
Good Governance
Consensus
Participatory Democracy
Social Justice
Accountability





Transparency
Accountability/Responsiveness
Gender/Equity
Power Balance
Learning Organization
4. Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Actors and Their Playing Field: Forest Bureaucracy, Local
Government Agencies and FECOFUN
 Deconcentration, Decentralization, and Devolution operational side
by side
 The Donors are under pressure to follow the Government

FECOFUN needs to improve its strength by improving effectiveness
and efficiency of user groups.
 The proper process of user group formation
 FECOFUN played critical role in the recent movement 2006 by
announcing itself with the democratic forces
 However, they are paying the price

5. The Lessons Learned:
Resource Management Requires Active Participation by Users
 Elites and Powerful Withheld Information from People to Control Them
 User Group Formation Process with Consensus is a Time Consuming
Process
 Some Bureaucrats Can Change but Most of Them are Hard Nuts to Crack

6. Conclusions and Recommendations



The state itself is creating confusion by creating contending forces
through decentralization
CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory Democracy
Users need to practice consensus in their decision making process
and good governance


FECOFUN needs to promote governance in their structures to
bolster their credibility as a lobbying organization
FECOFUN needs to develop a process which can address issues of
governance in the user groups
What’s There for Us
Your Support for CF is also Support for the Participatory Democracy
 So-Called Experts are Trying to Destroy CF from Nepal, Please Help Us.
 Nepal can Come Out of Poverty only by Managing Its Own Resources, Help
Us in This. We do not Want to be a Beggar Nation.
 CF will Lead Us to Democratic Republic, Please Stop Exploitative Forces to
Undermine Our Aspiration of Being a Democratic Republic.

Namaskar!!




Please Let’s Develop Our Own Model of Democratic Republic
Based on The Learning from CF
Let’s also Enjoy Freedom You Have been Enjoying
Please Help Us
Thank You Very Much