Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal: Community Forestry on the Move

1. Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal: Community Forestry on the Move Keshav Raj Kanel Nepal

2. Overview of the Presentation • Country Background • Rational and Evolution of Community Forestry • Forest Tenure and Governance in CFUGs • Major Achievements • Lessons Learned • Conclusions

3. India India High Himal High Himal India High Mountain High Mountain Middle Hills Middle Hills Churia Hills Churia Hills Terai Terai NEPAL India China China China India India

4. Cross Section of Physiographic region in Nepal

5. Country Background

6. Rational for Community Forestry • Integrated farming system with forestry as an important component • Nationalization alienated the local people from forests • Forest agency was not capable to conserve and manage the forests • Dilemma in forest management • Who has the access and control over the forest? • How to regulate the extraction of forest products? • Forests became de-facto Open access Resource leading to accelerated D and D

7. Rational for Community Forestry • Hills and Mountains had some crude form of local participation in forest management before nationalization • It was not democratic, but had a system of people guarding the forests, and control over the harvest of the forest products • Some of the champions of forest officials were tired of being blamed, and were looking for ways to involved local people in forest management – Support from the politicians • Learning by doing led to the present model of CF

8. Evolution of Community Forestry • Before 1957: Some forests were administered as private property • 1957 - 1990: Forest was controlled as state property • Private forest nationalized • Concept of participatory forestry emerged (1978) • Some form of forest management rights deconcentrated to local political bodies • 1991 onward: Forests have been managed by the community as Community Forest • Forest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulations, 1995 provided conducive environment to devolve management rights to CFUGs.

9. Forest Tenure and Governance in CFUGs

10. COMMUNITY FOREST Community Forest is the part of the National Forest handed over to the Community Forest User Group (CFUGs) for its development, protection and utilization. Land belongs to the government Use and management of CF by the CFUG Regulation by CFUG and DFO CF is the high priority program

11. Tenure Arrangements • Forest Act and Forest Regulations Provide the Framework of Forest Tenure • New Community Forest Program Guidelines (2009) Further Elaborates the Rights of the CFUGs • CFUG is Registered at the District Forest Office • Group of traditional forest users (HHs) adjoining a forest • They have a charter of association • Users have Access, Withdrawal, Use and Management Rights, but not the right over the land

12. Tenure Arrangements • General Assembly of the Users makes major decisions to be implemented by Exe. Committee • Inventory of Forest is taken with the Assistance of DFO • Operation Plan (OP) of CF is Prepared by CFUG with the Support of DFO Front Line Staff • The OP is a Contract Between CFUG and DFO. It is of 5 to 10 Years Duration. • Forest Management Schedules are Performed by CFUG as Per the OP • Sales and Distribution of Forest Products Done by CFUG

13. Tenure Arrangements • CFUG has a Fund From the Sale of Forest Products and others. It is Used for Forest Management (25%), Livelihood Promotion (35%), and Community Development. • Annual Report has to be Given to DFO. • DFO is the Gate Keeper of Forest. Can take Various Actions Against the CFUG and Its Members. • FECOFUN is Strong in Advocating the Rights of Forest Users

14. CFUG Formation and CF Hand Over Process CF Implementation Process

15. Networks Established Nations Global NPC NRM sector Media National Universities Federation NGOs Line agencies Local Bodies District CFUG Federation Dalit Poor Women Local FUGs Service center

16. Major Achievements

17. Status of Community Forestry • Total number of CFUG = 14,439 • Number of women only CFUG = 795 • Households involved = 1.66 mill. HH (39 % of the total population ) • Total area of community forests handed over = 1.23 mill. ha (30 % of the total national forest) • Total area of community forests managed by women leadership only = 23,257 ha

18. CFUG Formation and CF Handover Trend

19. Learning From the Past 1968 Jiri after 32 years 2000

20. Biomass and C-stock by forest type (tones/ha) 1994-2008 • Notes: • Includes only ‘tree’ carbon (above and below ground) i.e. not shrubs/litter and soil organic C • Conclusions • All forest types have increased their biomass (and carbon) significantly from 1994-2008 • Large differences between forest types e.g. Pine>Katus-chilaune>Sal

21. Capacity of the Users Strengthened

22. Eco-Tourism Promoted

23. Contribution to Community Development

24. Annual Income of CFUG[Total Annual Income = US $ 14 Million]

25. Annual Expenditure of CFUG

26. Lessons Learned from Community Forestry

27. Lessons • Unbundling the Functions of Forest Agency is Essential • Community Forestry is More an Institutional Building Process • CFUGs Responsible for Forest and Fund Management • Forest Agency Responsible for Monitoring and Regulation • Transferring Regulatory and Fiscal Rights to CFUG Brings Innovation and Motivation to Users

28. Lessons • Reorientation of Forestry Staff, and Capacity Building to CFUG is Necessary • Reform is not a Linear Process, but is an iterative and muddling through Process • Reform and Partnership Building are Continuous Processes • Negotiations and Building Consensus Among Forest Agency, CFUGs is Important to Change the Role of Forest Agency

29. Lessons • Forest Condition Improves with CF • Contribution to Livelihood – Questionable • Community is not Homogeneous, - Inclusion of Decision Making and Benefit Sharing a Challenging Task for Governance • Contextual Factors are Important in CF Management

30. Conclusion The Significant Problems We Face Cannot Be Solved By The Same Level of Thinking That Created Them Albert Einstein

31. THANK YOU Thank You