Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go? Narayan Kaji Shrestha

1. Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go?Narayan Kaji Shrestha Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. DFO is supposed to make sure consensus is reached • However, the process is not followed and issues raised

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 2. Analytical Framework • 2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution Debate • 2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights • 2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors

14. 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?

15. Perpetual Rights over Resources • Integrated Resources Management • Good Governance • Consensus • Participatory Democracy • Social Justice • Accountability

16. Transparency • Accountability/Responsiveness • Gender/Equity • Power Balance • Learning Organization

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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