Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from...

8/14/2019 Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills

1/19

ForestAction Discussion Paper 2009/2

1

Discussion Paper

Community Forestry as an EffectiveInstitutional Platform for Local

Development: Experiences from the Koshi

Hills

January 2009

Final Draft

Authors: Neeraj Chapagain and Mani Ram Banjade

Discussion Paper Series Editor: Hemant R Ojha

Special editorial contributions: Binod Chapagain

Address for sending comments: [email protected]

Summary

Although community forestry is recognized as a successful programme in terms ofrehabilitating forest condition, its contributions to local community development arenot recognized adequately by the national policies, lagislations and regulatoryframeworks. Drawing on the results of a survey of 1100 community forest usergroups (CFUGs), rapid social analysis of 24 CFUGs and review of existing policiesand practices in wider sectors of local development, this article claims that theorganizational scope of CFUGs is not limited to forestry activities but encompasses awide range of development activities. In addition, the institution providesopportunities of exercising political agency for democratic and equitable governance,and could demonstrate the innovations on poverty reduction through communityforestry. This is demonstrated through an analysis of a) significant CFUG investmentin livelihoods/development sector outside of forest development, b) wide-rangingcollaborative actions between CFUGs and non-forestry stakeholders, and c)

innovative initiatives of poverty reduction, and inclusive and deliberative governance.The finding presents a clear opportunity for development agencies and policy makersto promote CFUGs as the institutional platform for pro-poor local development.


2/19


2

Contents1.Introduction........................................................................................................................... 3

2.Background............................................................................................................................ 3

3.ForestandPovertyintheKoshiHills..................................................................................... 6

4.Findings

..................................................................................................................................

7

4.1.Increasedgrowingstockandproductionofforestproductswithincommunityforests7

4.2.IncomeoftheCFUGsincreasedfromthesaleofforestproducts.................................8

4.3.CFUGasaninstitutionforwidercommunitydevelopmentandsocietalchange..........9

4.3.1.Communitydevelopmenthasbeenthefocus........................................................ 9

4.3.2.CFUGsincreasinglyaddressingpovertyreductionandinclusionagendas...........11

4.3.3.CFUGshavegeneratedemploymentopportunities.............................................. 13

4.4.CFUGsharnessingexpandedcollaborationopportunities...........................................14

5.Discussion

............................................................................................................................

15

5.1.CollaborationbetweenCFUGsanddevelopmentagencies.........................................15

5.2.CompatibilitybetweenCFUGsandgovernmentforestryorganizations......................15

5.3.CFUGsandequitablelocaldevelopment..................................................................... 16

6.Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 17

7.References........................................................................................................................... 18


3/19


3

1. Introduction

There is awidespread appreciation thatcommunity forestry is a successful programme of

Nepal in terms of rehabilitating forest condition. In addition, contribution of community

forestry in community development is also highlighted increasingly in the later phase of

communityforestry(Pokharel2006,Kaneletal.2004).Thoughtheseclaimsoncontributionof

CF

in

local

development

have

been

made

based

on

the

field

level

empirical

materials,

it

hasnotbeenrecognizedadequately inthenationalpolicydiscourses.Theresearcheshave

createdsomeawarenessat theprofessionalandpractitioners' levelbutcouldnot make a

comprehensive analysis at the larger scale to make it plausible enough and to influence

policies.Particularly,theappreciationhasbeen lowamongotherdevelopmentagenciesas

theyplacecommunityforestusergroup(CFUG),theautonomousandperpetual institution

havingallrightsofmobilizingresourcesforthewelbeingofcommunitiesatlarge,asnarrow

groups related only to forest management and utilization. In practice, these CFUGs are

puttingthrustoncommunitydevelopmentactivitiesand,insomecases,theyhaveputmore

emphasisonhardwareinfrastructuredevelopment(BanjadeandPaudel2008;McDougallet

al.2008).Looking attheirhigh emphasisonthe localdevelopment,sometimesgiving less

attention forthedevelopmentof the forest resource itself,community forestryguidelines

made

itcompulsory

to

spend

at

least

25

percent

of

CFUG

income

in

forest

development

activities. This implies that the CFUGs are putting a significant amount of resources in

communitydevelopmentactivities.

This article presents the case of CFUGs as effective institutional platforms for local

developmentbyanalysingthe investmentsmadebythem,whichdemonstratethatCFUGs

investmajorchunkoftheir income in localdevelopment.Thepaperalsodiscussesonhow

and to what extent CFUGs collaborate with various development agencies for community

development activities such as construction of school buildings, supplementing

remuneration of school teachers and materials, construction of roads, water supply,

irrigationcanals,etc.Theresponseofpolicyonthepracticethatresemblesthepotentialof

CFUGs to act as an effective institutional window for community development is also

discussed

in

the

paper.

Most

of

the

data

used

in

this

paper

are

from

secondary

sources

and

literaturereviews, i.e.annualreportsfromtherespectiveCFUGs,annualmonitoringstudy,

and categorization study done by Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) of DFID. The

studies were conducted in more than 1,100 CFUGs in Koshi hills, i.e. in Bhojpur,

Sankhuwasabha, Terhathum and Dhankuta districts. In addition to the secondary sources,

theexperienceoftheauthorforover12yearsisakeysourceforqualitativeinformation.

2. Background

Livelihoods of majority of the rural people in Nepal depend heavily on forest resources.

Havingresided into remoteareas, theyare largelydeprivedofthebasicservices fromthe

government.

In

addition,

the

forests

also

provide

employment

to

them.

Community

forestry

provides additional platform forexercisingagency forproviding safetynets for livelihoods

strategies of the people or developing infrastructure in the communities. These

infrastructures are important ingredients of livelihoods of the people. In this way, the

community based forest management approach has emerged as a successful program to

improve the forest condition and livelihoods of people (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001;

Chakraborty2001;WebbandGautam2001,Koiralaetal.2008).


4/19


4

There is very limited financial support mechanism to the rural and forest dependent

communities. Forexample,verylimitedfiscalbudgetisallocatedbythegovernmentinthese

areas; limited access of credit facilities exist in these areas because financial institutions

(Banks,etc.)havelimitedinvestmentopportunitiesandweakinfrastructuraldevelopmentto

setuptheseinstitutions;and,therefore,localrichpeoplelendmoneyinhighinterestrates

to the poor. With the limited supports and budget, the rural areas can hardly fulfil their

needs

of

development

and

poverty

reduction.

For

this

reason,

they

should

rely

on

theresourcessuchasforestwhich issituatedwithintheirreach. Ifpeoplecanhavethebetter

accesstothesurroundingforests,theycanbethepotentialresourcesfordevelopment(KC

andKhatri2005).

Communityforestryprovidessuchanopportunitywherepeoplenotonlyconserveforestfor

theirsubsistenceusebutaregraduallyincreasingincomefromtheforestandinvestinlocal

development initiatives. Likewise, there are opportunities exist to learn about the target

group focused (focus to the poor,women and marginalizedgroups) approaches (inclusive

targeting approach, for example), inclusive and democratic governance and equitable

benefit sharing mechanisms. Community forest user groups (CFUGs) have already

demonstrated one of the potential local institutions to formulate inclusive plan and

implement

wider

development

activities.

They

have

their

own

natural

resource

base

and

are

autonomous, legal and inclusive institutions. Although, the 'forestry' word is added in its

identity,itwouldbetotallyinjusticeifcommunityforestry(CF)isperceivedforonlyforestry

and the forest products. Pokharel (2005) has shown that CFUGs are performing the

responsibilitiesofasmuchas16lineministriesofgovernmentofNepalincludingMinistryof

forestandsoilconservation,localdevelopment,lawandjustice,finance,home,andothers.

AccordingtotheWorldBank'swidelyusedpovertybenchmarkofUS$1percapitaperday

about31percentofpeoplefallunderseverepovertyline.Butthedefinitionofthispoverty

linedoesn'tshowtherealpictureofNepalaswhenwelookatthesituationofpeoplebased

onthestandardofpovertyasUS$2perday,morethan80percentpopulationfallunderthe

standardpovertyline.Sincemorethan80percentofthepopulationofNepalresidesinthe

ruralareas(CBS2004),thepopulationwithinstandardpovertyline isextremelyhigh inthe

rural areas. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the poor people of these areas are largely

relying on common pool resources, particularly the forest for their livelihoods. So, any

agency that aims to reduce poverty significantly in Nepal should give its due attention in

ruralareas.

Nepalhasstartedthecommunityforestryprogramsince1978.However,thedevolutionof

powertomanagetheforesthasbeengearedupafter1993withthepromulgationofForest

Act(1993)andForestRegulation(1995).Currently,atotalof1,640,239households(35%of

total population) are managing 1,187,000 hectares of forest (25% of total forest land) of

Nepal(Koiralaetal.2008)TheForestActof1993andForestRulesof1995providestronglegislativebackupforcommunityforestry.Thelawsallowcommunityforestusergroupsto

be defined as selfsustained independent entities recognized by the District Forest Office

(DFO).SinceCFUGsare legallyrecognizedautonomousbodies, ideallytheycanmaketheir

ownrules,enforcethemandsanctionasappropriate. Inpractice,theyareholdingregularmeetings, preparing and amending rules, allocating the budget annually in different local

developmentinitiativesand,insomeinnovativeCFUGs,supportingtopovertyreductionand

marginalized group focused activities. Fundamentally, constitution of a CFUG is a legal

document that definesdecision making and benefitsharingmechanisms, aswell as rights

andresponsibilitiesofdifferentusermembersandforums.


5/19


5

Theissuesofinclusionandequityincludingsupporttopovertyreductionsurfacedwhenthe

earlierexperiencesofCFshowedthepromisetoaddressthem.Asaresult,thewellbeing

rankingbecamemandatoryduringformulationofCFconstitutionsincethesecondrevision

onCFguidelinesin2000.However,itwasfullypracticedinlinewiththeguidelinessincelate

2001. The wellbeing ranking is a founding step to identify the assets of the users and

explore opportunity for their better livelihoods through community forestry. This also

providesbasis

for

making

special

provisions

for

the

poor

and

marginalized

groups

through

CF.Asaresultoftheprovisions intheguidelinesandcontinuousadvocacyfromtheCFUG

networks,NGOs,donorsandgovernmentagencies,CFUGshavestartedincludingprovisions

for poor and excluded groups of users in benefit sharing mechanism, income generation

activities, access to leadership and decision making forum, etc. While doing wellbeing

ranking the CFUGs look at the aspects broader than a classical consideration of financial

aspectonlyandincludesocial/institutional,physical,financialandnaturalaspectswhichfall

withinthelivelihoodsframeworkdefinedbyDFID.CFUGsthemselvesdevelopthecriteriafor

definingwellbeingcategoriesandconductwellbeingassessmentexercise.Theexercise is

supposedtobedoneperiodicallytoallowredefiningofcategoriesandrankingofindividual

households. Since communities define different wellbeing categories based on their own

context, there is less likely that both the criteria and the status resemble the national

poverty

criteria

and

status.

CFUGsarelegallyrecognizedautonomousinstitutionsforthemanagementandutilizationof

communityforestsaspertheiroperationalplanandoperatewithintheirownconstitution.

Moreover,theycanpullthediverseresourcesfromwithinthecommunityandfromexternal

sources, for example through collaborationwithotheragenciessuchasgovernment,non

governmentandbilateralorganizations.Thecollaborationalsocancreatesynergyforwider

developmentatlocallevel.TheCFUGsalsoofferanentrypointandvantageforwiderange

ofserviceproviderswhowouldliketoworkwithinthecommunities.

Asstatedearlier,mostruralpeopleinNepaldependontraditionalagricultureandlivestock

for their livelihoods. It is a major component that plays a vital role in rural livelihoods by

providingincome,constructionmaterials,andanimalfeed(Gilmouretal.2005).Toachievethe national goal of poverty reduction and heavy reliance on agrobased economy, Nepal

has to develop and manage the existing forest resources (GoN 2002). Integration of

agriculture with forestry is the reason why we observed indigenous mode of forest

managementinremoteruralareas,anattributeforstrongrealizationofcommunitybased

forestmanagement in thepast.Therefore, initially,community forestryprogramhasbeen

primarily initiated to conserve the forest and meet the basic needs of forest products

through localpeople'sparticipation. Moreover, theCommunityForestryProgram inNepal

has proved to be a very encouraging endeavour in the development of a constructive

partnership in forestry between farmers and the government. The essence of the

communityforestryphilosophyinNepal,fromitsinception,hasbeentheestablishmentofa

partnership between local communities and the staff of the DOF for the management of

locally accessible forests. The people's participation in forest management is a natural

outcomeofdecentralizedplanning(Sunderlinetal.2006).At local level, the CFUGs have shown a great promise through annual investments and

participation in forest conservation and development activities contributing directly in

achievingnationalandmillenniumdevelopmentgoals.DespitethecontributionofCFUGsin

resourcemanagement,communitydevelopmentandlivelihoodsenhancement,thereisstill

little appreciation of such significant development contribution and potentials by

development agencies. This is reflected in the practice as different development agencies


6/19


6

form other local institutions when they initiate any development activities within the

communities. Yet, there is still lack of coordination and collaboration among the two

governmentofficessuchasDistrictForestOffice(DFO)andDistrictSoilConservationOffice

(DSCO) operating under the same ministry having the similar purpose of supporting

conservation and development. Since most of the members of the communities are

organized within CFUGs, it would be more effective and efficient to working with them

rather

than

investing

a

lot

of

time

and

resources

in

creating

new

institutions

by

everydevelopment agencies working in the same area. Therefore, question arises on why

adequate congruence could not be reached in recognizing existing institutions in the

communities, and why different organizations would like to develop their own sets of

institutions.Consequently,sameperson isholdingseveralkeypositionsineachcommunity

wastingtheirvaluabletimeincoordinationandinstitutionalizationprocesses.

3. Forest and Poverty in the Koshi Hills

InKoshiHillswhichincludesSankhuwasabha,Bhojpur,TerhathumandDhankutadistrictsof

easternhillsofNepal,theLIvelihoodandForestryProgramme (LFP)ofDFIDhasstarted in

April2001,

building

upon

the

experiences

and

lessons

learnt

from

the

Nepal

UK

Community

Forestry Programme, which was implemented in the seven hills of Nepal (east and west)

from 1993 to 2001. LFP aims to contribute to reduced vulnerability, and improved

livelihoodsofthepoorandexcludedruralpeoplethroughthefinancial,socialandtechnical

intervention.WhileDFOisthekeypartnertodelivertechnicalforestryactivities,localNGOs

are responsible to deliver social component. The programme purpose is to enhance the

assetsofruralcommunitiesbypromotingmoreequitable,efficient,andsustainableuseof

forestandothernaturalresources.

In reference to the Koshi hills, altogether 1396 CFUGs have been formed until July 2008.

Likewise, more than 85% of the total households are managing 82%of total forest which

comesinto83%ofthepotentialCFarea.OutofthetotalhouseholdsinvolvedintheCFUGs,

about

49%

of

them

are

categorized

relatively

as

poor

from

participatory

well

being

criteria.

Regarding the ethnic composition, the majority of are from disadvantage groups (58%)

which includes 9% fromdalit community. The categorisation study shows that out of the

totalCFUGs,majorityoftheCFUGs(i.e.61%)arefoundinactive/moderatecategorieswhen

assessed intermsofresourcemanagement, institutionaldevelopment,social inclusionand

accessto livelihoodsopportunities.Likewise,25%,47%and28%CFUGsarecategorised in

active,moderateandlessactivecategoriesrespectivelyintermsofforestmanagement.

TheplansoftheCFUGsfor2008/9andCFUGmonitoringstudiesrevealCFUGsasoneofthe

bestinstitutionstocollaborateforsynergyandeffectivenessofdevelopmentefforts.Asthe

existingachievementsmadebytheCFUGsareencouragingintermsofcontributioninwider

developmentactivities,morepossibilitiesare seen from the planswhichare important to

enhance effective, efficient and creative environment through collaboration with other

agencies. The partnership with different stakeholders can foster mutual understanding,

increaseacceptanceofcommunity, maximise the effectivenessand leverage of resources,

andavoidtheduplicationofprogrammewithinsamegeographicalareas.


7/19


7

4. Findings

4.1.Increasedgrowingstockandproductionofforestproductswithin

communityforestsIn the context of Koshi hills, the community forestry programme so far has resulted in

increasing thegrowingstockand harvestableamountof forestproducts. SinceCFUGs are

graduallymanaging

their

forests

actively,

the

income

from

the

products

is

also

increasing

significantlyoveraperiodoftime.Thishasbeentheresultofdevolutionofpowerofforest

resourcemanagementtothelocalforestusers.Astudyinfoureasternhilldistrictsshowed

thatthetotalnumberofstemsperhectarehasincreasedby51%,andbasalareasofforests

hasincreasedby29%(BranneyandYadav1998).WhenweanalysethedatafromtheKoshi

hills,51%oftheCFUGsaremanagingtheirCFsactively(CFUGcategorisationstudy2006).In

regards to the perception of CFUG on the condition of the forest in terms of greenery,

availability of forest products and status of biodiversity, more than 93% of them have

reportedthattheconditionofforesthasbeenradicallyimprovedafterhandingovertothe

communities. Reports from other areas also have shown the similar improvements. For

example, in the Kabhre and Sindhupalchok districts of central Nepal, a study found that

shrublandandgrasslandhavebeenconvertedintoproductiveforestsincreasingforestarea

from7,677

hectares

to

9,678

hectares

(Jackson

etal.1998,Kaneletal.2005).

Table1:Changesinforestconditionoverthe7yearsasperOperationalplan(sameCF

formedupto2001)

The

regular

monitoring

study

reveals

that

the

trend

of

the

forest

condition

has

beengradually improvingasa resultoftheefforts madeby theusers.Furthermore, thebarren

and degraded CF lands have also been revegetated through plantation and natural

regeneration. As a result ofcommunityefforts, more than twothirdof CFs fall under the

goodcategory.Likewise,morethanoneforth(28%)andlessthan5%CFrespectivelyfallin

theaverage and degradedcategory.Similarly, the recent resourceassessmentshows that

30%biomasshasincreasedovertheperiodof14yearsintheKoshihills.

The area is also potential in terms of NTFP promotion. More than 60% CFs are found

potentialforthepromotionofNTFPs.

Morethan60%CFUGsareimplementingspecifiedsilviculturaloperationsasplannedinthe

CFUG

operational

plans.

About

27%

CFUGs

have

reported

that

they

received

technicalsupportfromexternalagencieswhileimplementingsuchoperations.Additionally,asaresult

of partnership, about 0.6 million seedlings of different NTFP/fodder species has been

plantedbytheCFUGs.Similarly,theyareproducingmorethan100thousandseedlingsevery

year.Although,DFOisexclusivelyresponsibletodeliverthetechnicalsupporttotheCFUGs,

localresourcepersons(LRPTechnical)trainedandmentoredthroughacollaborativeefforts

between DFO, Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN) and other line

agenciesalsoplayvitalroletoenhancetechnicalskillsamongtheusers.

Forestcondition 2001 2008NumberofCFUGs Percent NumberofCFUGs Percent

Good 679 60% 760 67%

Average 405 36% 326 29%

Degraded 51 4% 49 4%

Total 1135 100% 1135 100%


8/19

4.2.In20

millio

of to

millio

42%

2004;

we f

raisin

over

thee

Simil

activi

fores

millio

perso

In th

achie

TableTota

Bro

Fore

Fees

Exte

Exte

ncomeof02, theannu

nandtotalb

al forest ar

n)which is

ftheannual

Koiralaetaund that in

g income th

heperiodof

rlierestimat

rly, the us

ies.Forexa

relatedacti

nrupeescal

nperday(K

e Koshi hills

ementsdue

2:

Annual

in

lIncomeghtforward

stresources

,fine,intere

rnalfunding

rnalfunding

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Areainha

igure1:StatheCFUGsal incomeof

udgetwasN

a, had gene

igherthant

budgetoft

.2008).Fro

addition to i

rough forest

time,theC

esshown

ab

rs are cont

ple,theysp

itiesinayea

culatedusin

nelandNira

, the regula

toincreasin

omeand

ex

frompreviou

t,etc.

LFP

Others

Totalarea

653,904

sofcommuncreasedtheDepart

s.680millio

rated the in

eannualbu

eMinistryo

thestudyo

mproving th

products sal

UGs'overall

ove.

ributing the

endmoreth

r.Thevalue

aconserva

ula2004).

r monitorin

trendofinc

endituresta

sFY

ForestArea

264,796

40%

Fore

ityforestryiromthesaentofFore

n,buttheCo

come of ab

dgetofthe

Forestand

ftheincome

forestcon

e. Since the

incomefro

ir significant

an2.5millio

ofthisvolunt

ivevalue fo

shows tha

omeeachye

tus(FY

206457,

25,

14,

3,

3,

10,

PotentialCFarea

135,939

51%

tAction Dis

nKoshihilldileofforeststwasNepa

mmunityFor

ut 740milli

Department

SoilConserva

oftheCFUG

ition theCF

incomeof t

theCFsmu

time in th

personday

arylabourc

opportunit

t there is e

ar.

065)

29,208 1

826,334

78,858

769,927

307,294

646,796

CFhandedover

110,952

82%

ussion Pa

strictsproductsleseRupees

estrywhichi

on (more th

ofForestan

tion(Kanela

sfromKoshi

UGshavebe

heCFUGs is

stbemuchh

e forest de

sofvoluntar

ntributionis

costof65

ncouraging

0%

5%

5%

7%

6%

8%

Remaining

24,987

18%

er 2009/2

(NRs.)550

sonly25%

anUS$ 10

isalmost

ndNiraula

hillsalone

enable to

increasing

igherthan

elopment

ylabourin

about164

upeesper

tatus and


9/19

Ther

NRS

mini

Thee

inclu

4.3.cha

4.3.1.Some

Devel

able

form

schol

of C

educ

studi

altera

Subb

of ro

indir

Tota

Fore

Targ

Insti

ComBala

ecentmonit

,79,29,208.0

umincome

xpenditurea

ingtheboth

FUGasageCommunityof the co

opmentGoa

o investUS

l school e

rshipforpo

mmunity Fo

tion, and ii)

sofCFacro

tion inthes

1994).Som

ds, schools,

ctpositive

i

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MillionsNRS

lExpenditurstdevelopm

etedActiviti

utionalDev.

mDevelopm

ncetothene

ringstudy(

0 (TotalCFU

500)andth

mountbeca

(currentinc

institutiodevelopmenmmunity d

ls (MDGs).F

$327,000 ge

ucation, inf

orstudents(

restry contr

promote g

ssthecount

ocioeconom

eCommunit

irrigation ca

pactsupon

l

Figure 2

orestmgt

ent

s(tothepoo

ent

xtyear

007)shows

G1063,Dev

expenditur

e95%ofth

meplusthe

forwiderthasbeentvelopment

orexample,

erated by t

ormal litera

hiesandvo

ibuting to t

nder equali

yhaveconc

icstatusof

yForestsha

nals,health

ivelihoods.

: Collaboration a

Comm.DeFUG

randexclud

Fore

thatthetot

iation48,68

areasinwi

eincomeex

lastyearbal

communit

efocusactivities ar

ineasternN

he sustainab

cy programs

nPfeil,cited

o of the

y and emp

ludedthatC

hecommun

econtribut

posts,etc.

t local level by

v Ins.Others To

ed)

tAction Dis

lincomepe

,Maximum

erdevelop

ludingthela

nce).

develop

e directly r

epal, forest

le use of fo

for wome

inMayers20

DGs: i) ach

werwomen

Fhasbrough

ity(Schereie

d inconstru

hichhas ca

FUGs (FY 2008

Dev

tal

ussion Pa

yearofCFU

income20,0

entisNRS3

styearsavin

entands

elated to

usergroups

ests over te

and the

07).Thisisa

ieve univers

(ibid). Seve

tsignificant

etal.1994;ctionandm

sed several

/9)

oorfocus

30,635,14

4,883,82

8,498,51

3,039,80

14,213,0027,294,06

er 2009/2

G isfound

0,298 and

0,635,148.

gand52%

cietal

illennium

havebeen

n years in

poor, and

nexample

al primary

ral impact

favourable

Virgoand

intenance

directand

100%

16%

28%

10%

46%

47%


10/19


10

Furthermore,CFhasbroughtsupportive influencesonagriculture production, incomeand

employmentgeneration,biodiversityconservation,socialunityandliteracyinsociety.So,CF

has brought a change of great socioeconomic significance in rural society (Branney and

Yadav1998;Malla2000;Pokharel2004;Pokhareletal.2005).Astudyofover1100CFUGsofKoshihillsindicateshowwidetheCFUGsareworkinginterms

ofcommunitydevelopment(seebox1).

Box:1.AglimpseofongoingCFUGactivitiesforthecurrentfiscalyear(Koshihills) 30% of the studied CFUGs implement silviculture treatment in line with the block

managementsystemin2334ha.Likewise11%CFUGsareintensivelyinvolvedinplantationof

311haofbarrenland,

Altogether8029HHwillbebenefited fromthedifferent IGAschemes through therevolving

fundin426CFUGs,

230haoflandwillbeallocatedwithintheCFareastothe767poorhouseholdsforconducting

IGAs(67CFUGs),

InadditiontotherevolvingfundandCF landallocation,additional319poorhouseholdsare

benefitedfromthedifferentIGAs.(26CFUGs),

23 CFUGs implement health and sanitation related activities where 177 households will

directlybebenefited,

Likewise,26

CFUGs

construct

and

distribute

a

total

of177

improved

cooking

stoves

where

82%oftherecipientswillbefromthepoorhouseholds,

Toenhancecapacityofthepoorusers inordertoenhancesustainable livelihoods,atotalof

130 events are organised where altogether 1011 poor households can benefit from self

employmentopportunities,

Altogether 167 CFUGs implement drinking water schemes, which benefit total of 12480

householdswhere68%arefromthepoorcommunity,

Itisexpectedtomaintainandestablish22KMirrigationchannelwhere7217householdsare

directlybenefitedwhere65%ofthem willbefromthepoorcategories(41CFUGs),

Altogether 136.5 KM trail road will be maintained, which will help ease the access to the

market(297CFUGs),

67CFUGssupportschoolsbyprovidingremunerationofschoolteachers,

907 households from 10 CFUGs are benefited from electrification where 52% are from the

poorcommunity,

5CFUGsconstruct15woodenbridges,

30CFUGsconstructnewofficebuildings,asteptowardsinstitutional development,

TostrengthentourisminCF,5CFUGshaveplannedsomekindofactivities(developingpicnic

spots,etc.).

Thevariousmonitoringstudiesshowthatthecommunityforestryareabletocoveratleast

67%ofthetotalhouseholdsinwiderdevelopmentactivitieswhoareinvolvedincommunity

forestry. Income generating activities are provided to at least 17% of the poor users

annually.Particularlyinthehills,mostofthehouseholdsaroundaCFareincludedwithinthe

respectiveCFUGs,thuscreatingaplatformforinterestnegotiationandpoliticalengagement

forallpeoplelivingwithinageographicalconstituency.

Atlarge,theCFUGsareprovidingpublicservices.Forexample,whentherewerenopolitical

institutionsin

the

rural

areas

for

democratic

deliberations

during

the

time

of

insurgency

in

Nepal (19952005), the CFUGs served the purpose (Banjade and Timsina 2005). In the

context of Koshi hills, more than 85% of the total households are involved in CFUGs as

members. So far, throughdirect financial intervention,CFUGs inKoshihillshaveprovided

supportinincomegeneratingactivitiestomorethan20,000householdsaimingtoenhance

theireconomicconditions.Thedatashowsthattheemphasisandprioritygoestothedalit

communityasmorethan80%ofthedalitsfallbelowthepoverty line.Likewisemorethan

3,500and 14,000poorhouseholdshave been benefitted fromskills development training

andinfrastructuresupportrespectively.


11/19

4.3.2.

Inad

have

fiscal

them

bene

skills

figur

Thetarge

hous

At th

inclu

CFUGsincreitiontothe

provisions t

year (both

werebenef

ited hous

institutional

4).Thisdoe

inding show

ed activitie

holdsannua

e end of th

ing 27% w

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BenefittedHH(000)

Fi

Fig

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

19

asinglyaddrsubsistences

directly su

he poor an

ited from fo

holds got

developmen

snotinclude

s that thes while CFU

llythroughd

e fiscal year

men and 5

FD

40.89

gure 3: HH ben

ure 4: Participati

IGA E

%

55%

26%

ssingpoverupplyoffore

port tomo

nonpoor).

estdevelop

the bene

(ID)andinc

thebenefits

CFUG's inter

Gs are abl

ifferentoppo

2008/9 th

% poor wil

CD

74.99

HHbenefiited

fitted from differ

on of communit

nterprises

%

75%

21%

Dalit

Fore

yreductionsts,theCFU

e than33%

Out of the

ent (FD).Si

fits from

omegenera

receivedfro

vention isto cover

rtunities(CF

CFUG plan

l be involve

ID

12.22

Areas

upto2007asper

ent wider devel

at lcoal level in

Infra

16%

38%

45%

Dis.JJ Other

tAction Dis

andinclusiosinthepro

of the total

otal househ

milarly,75

community

ingactivities

mtheuseof

eing intensi

ore than

Gplan206

s envisage t

in forest

IGA

10.30

FPdatabase

pment activities

percentage (FY

SkillDev.

17%

49%

33%

s

ussion Pa

agendasosedplans(

households

olds benefit

,12%and

developm

(IGA)respe

revolvingfu

ely focusse

nethird of

/066).

hat more th

evelopment

upto FY 2064/6

2008/9)

Total

13%

51%

3

er 2009/2

FY2008/9)

during the

d, 41% of

0%of the

nt (CD),

tively(see

dforIGA.

d towardsthe poor

an 40,000

activities.

6%


12/19


12

Likewise, about75,000users will be involved aspaid labourof which more than 70% are

from the poor and onethird from women. So far, already women representation in the

decisionmakingforumsis35%intheKoshihills.

The

above

presented

figure

shows

that

the

representation

of

ethnicity

in

decision

making

procedureisproportionate.

Reflecting on the earlier community development activities where some CFUGs invested

their income in unproductive areas such as temple, the LFP facilitated to shift the focus

towards livelihoodsenhancementparticularlytheactivitiestargetedto thepoorandmost

marginalizedgroups.Theconceptof'revolvingfund'wasthen introducedwiththesupport

of LFP. The fund is targeted for the economic upliftment of the poor and marginalized

membersoftheCFUGs. Initially,LFP, through itspartners, facilitatedtoestablishabasket

fundandprovidedsomeinitialseedmoneysothattheCFUGssosupportedcouldshifttheir

trends of investing more in physical infrastructures towards the activities that generate

incomedirectlytotheindividuals.Therecentmonitoringstudy(2008)showsthatoutofthe

directbenefitedmorethan13,000households,20%ofthepoorhouseholds included, are

additionally

benefited

afterthe

introduction

of

revolving

fund

beyond

the

direct

financial

supportofLFPoverthefiveyears.

Table3:TotalbenefitstohouseholdsfromIGAsandrevolvingfund

FromDirectfinancialintervention(HH) 13241

Afterrevolvingfund(HH) 10242

TotalbenefittedfromIGA(HH) 23483

TotalPoorHHs(fromwellbeingranking) 49605

%poorHHbenefittedfromIGA 20%

IntheKoshihills, inaddition,hundredsofCFUGshaveallocatedcertainportionoftheirCF

landtotheidentifiedpoorasameansofsustainableincomeforthem.About600CFUGs(i.e.

43%ofthetotalCFUGs)arefoundpotentialtoallocateCFlandtothepoorusers,ofwhich

46percentCFUGshaveallocated336hectaresof landtomorethan2200poorhouseholds

for different income generating activities aiming to enhance their sustainable income. As

observedduringthefieldmonitoringandCFUGsprogressreports,itclearlyshowsthatsuch

initiativeshavebeencontributingtoboostoftheirselfrelianceintermsoftheirlivelihoods.

A study has been carried out in 2008 in the selected CFUGs of Koshi hills where the

AnimationProgramofLFPhasbeenlaunchedsince2002.The2700householdsofrandomly

sampled 26 CFUGs were included in the analysis where data were collected through

structured surveys, focus group discussions and reflection of the local leaders and

Figure 5: Proportionate representation in decision making

0%

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

5%4%3%2%1%0%1%2%

3%4%5%6%

InF UG 9% 54% 37%

InC ommittee 8% 50% 42%

P roportionate 1% 4% 5%

D alit Dis .J anjati O thers


13/19


13

animators.Duringthestudy,rewellbeing rankingwasconducted inthesampledCFUGby

usingthesamecriteriaandprocedureusedaboutfiveyearsago.Thestudyshowsthat46%

poor users (very poor and poor) have crossed the relative poverty line largely because of

their engagement in the CFUGs who directly supported their livelihoods improvement

related activities and capacity building events. Likewise, 35% of the total very poor

householdshavemovedtothepoorcategory.Followingtableisthesummaryoftheanalysis

wherestatus

of

well

being

shift

has

been

included.

Table4.Aglimpseofchangedwellbeingstatus

Caste

Nochange Change(+) Change()

VPVP PP OthOth VPP VPOth POth PVP OthP OthVP

Dalit 58% 43% 100% 29% 13% 51% 6% 0% 0%

JJ 53% 67% 100% 36% 11% 32% 1% 0% 0%

AC 55% 59% 100% 36% 7% 39% 1% 0% 0%

Total 56% 61% 100% 35% 9% 37% 1% 0% 0%

VP=Verypoor,P=Poor,Oth=Others4.3.3.

CFUGs

have

generated

employment

opportunities

In reference to the Koshi hills, CFUGs have generated an employment of about 1,50,000

person days per year. In addition, CFUGs are paying to about 200 teachers per year but

surprisingly the records of the CFUG contribution is not maintained even in the District

EducationOffice.

Table5:AnnualemploymentopportunityinCF(24days 1month)

Area CFUG Female Male Total P.days/FUG Person

1

month

3

Month

6

Month

9

month

Forest

management

510 40% 19,294 44,594 63,888 125.19 2,662 887 444 296

Community

development 340

27%

3,350 6,061 9,411 27.66 392 131 65

44

Office

management/

office

secretary

161 13% 4,700 4,452 9,153 56.97 381 127 64 42

Teachers 172 14% 11,624 27,513 39,137 226.92 1,631 544 272 181

Enterprises 95 7% 5,775 10,161 15,937 168.64 664 221 111 74

Total 256 20%* 44,744 92,782 137,526 537.99 5,730 1,910 955 637

1month=24daysThe key areas where employment has been generated by the CFUGs include: forest

management and harvesting operations, community development, office management,

paymentsto

school

teachers,

forest

based

enterprises,

etc.

(see

table

5).

From

the

gender

analysis of the employment we can see that women are getting onethird of the

employmenthithertogenerated.Whilewomenaremoreinofficemanagementrelatedjobs,

theywereleastinvolvedasteachers.


14/19


14

4.4.CFUGsharnessingexpandedcollaborationopportunities

ThebudgetoftheplannedactivitiesoftheCFUGsstudies(carriedoutin82%of1160CFUGs)

forthecurrentfiscalyear (2008/9) isestimatedasNRs.3,70,60,291tospend inthewider

development.WhiletheyhaveestimatedanincomeofNRs.3,27,000,00fromtheCFs,they

are expecting to

get the rest from

other

sources

such

as

support from

development agencies.

This is a realistic

estimate looking at the

previous year's figure

whentheycouldmanage

about NRs. 3,22,00,000

(about 40% of the total

budget) from the other

organisations.

To

pull

the

resources

from

diverse

sources

and

increase

collaboration

of

various

development agencies, an innovative concept of establishing and strengthening Forest

DevelopmentFund is also inpractice inKoshihills. The objectiveof the fund is tosustain

forest and community development initiatives in future according to the need and

aspirationsoftheusers.VDCscanclaimNRs.20,000to40,000fundsfromLFPaspertheir

collaborative efforts,i.e.basedonthesizeoffundgeneratedthroughcollaborationatlocal

level.

Box:2.ForestDevelopmentFund(Koshihills)Basiccriteria

AlltheCFUGshouldbeaffiliatedintheVDCnetwork

TheVDCnetworkshouldhaveinclusivedecisionmakingbody.

All the CFUGs affiliated in the network, should be committed to provide 5% of the

totalannual

income

to

VDC

network.

TheVDCnetworkshouldbereceivedatleastsomeamountfromVDC.

TheVDCnetworkshouldprepareafundmobilization guideline.

Note:TheVDCnetworksareencouraged toallocateorspend their fund inOPamendment,enterprisedevelopmentandIGAs,officemanagementandmanagementoflocalfacilitators.

Sofartheestablishmentandstrengtheningofforestdevelopmentfundasabasketfunding

approach inVDCs isfoundasan initiativetosustaintheirgoodpracticesandtoextendan

opportunity for collaboration with wide range of stakeholders at local level. In this way,

CFUGs are expanding their networks, often including stakeholders beyond the forestry

sectorthatareworking inthecommunitydevelopment initiatives.Ultimately,aCFUGacts

asanentrypointforwiderdevelopment.ThedatafromtheKoshihillsshowsthattheCFUGs

arecapable

of

pulling

asignificant

mount

of

resources

from

outside

the

CFUG.

For

example,

the current monitoring study shows that CFUGs are getting more than 50% of the total

investmentfromnonforestrysectorannually.Mostlytheresourceavailabletothemwasto

supportpropoorinitiatives,incomegenerationactivitiesandcapacitybuildingevents.

Table3:TrendofCFUGfundmobilisationstatus

2001 2007 Differences

Basedon#FUG 1211 1061 150.00

TotalIncome 4967117.63 32102874.55 27135756.92

Income/FUG 4101.67 30257.19 26155.52

Tot.Expenditure 3537797.00 30635147.50 27097350.50

Expenditure/FUG 2921.38 28873.84 25952.46

PoorFocus 95948.00 8498514.50 8402566.50

PoorFocus/FUG 79.23 8009.91 7930.68

Poorfocus% 3% 28% 25%


15/19


15

5. Discussion

Many literatures claim that conservation goals of Community Forestry (CF) have been

achieved because of the devolved resource management responsibilities down to the

community level (Kanel 2004; Malla etal. 2003, Malla 2000). This claim is rooted in theobvious changes observed in community forests because of local people's efforts in

conserving

forest.

However,

the

CF

programme

has

yet

to

show

adequate

livelihoods

impacts. This paper and other earlier literatures have shown the promise of CF in

contributingsignificantlyincommunitydevelopmentandlivelihoodsimprovementagenda.

5.1.CollaborationbetweenCFUGsanddevelopmentagencies

Chapagainetal.(2008)foundthroughtheuseofparticipatorytoolsthatifthere isnotanyinteractionbetweenthetargetgroups(i.e.thepoor,womenandmarginalized)andservice

providers at local level the claim of achieving twin goals of conservation and poverty

reduction through community forestry will be only onethird of the total possible

achievements regarding the real need, demand and expectations of local people. It is,

therefore, highly desirable to explore the appropriate mechanisms of enhancing

collaboration,

identifying

relevant

collaborators,

and

developing

effective

means

ofcommunication and coordination. Use of the specific tools for increasing communication,

developingcommongoalsandmutualunderstanding,andpromotingsharingandreflection

can improve partnerships among different stakeholders. When a tool called Conflict,

Legitimacy, Interest and Power (CLIP) was used in Koshi hills (visit www.SASPM.com for

moredetailsonthetools),itshowedthattheunderstandinglevelhasincreasedamongthe

partners.

From this study and authors' decade long experiences show that CFUGs can harness the

benefits of collaboration. The immediate need is that policy and regulatory frameworks

shouldprovideeffectivestrategyfor increasingcollaborativeeffortsat locallevel.Similarly,

using the tools such as CLIP would be an effective way to enhance synergy among

collaborative partnerswithoutextraeffortsandresources.

5.2.CompatibilitybetweenCFUGsandgovernmentforestryorganizations

Despite the communities' readiness and success of resource conservationand community

development through community forestry, government has not yet provided amicable

environmenttopromoteefficiency,effectivenessandinnovationatlocallevel.Whenpeople

living inremote ruralareasaredeprivedofgovernmentservices,thegovernment forestry

organizations at various levels should facilitate the processes of developing linkages of

CFUGs with wider development agencies. Can we expect this within the currentmodusoperandi?Thequestionarisesinthecontextwhentwoorganizations,namelyDistrictForest

OfficeandDistrictSoilConservationOffice,underthesameministry(MinistryofForestand

Soil Conservation) do not have clear coordination and collaboration strategy to enhance

samepurpose

and

same

goal.

Other

development

organizations

also

do

the

same,

i.e.

the

organizations working in the communities also form their own institutions though

communitiesandindividualsbenefitedfromtheinitiativescouldbethesame.Although,the

issuesofcoordinationandcollaborationareraisedoccasionallyathigher levelsbutyet to

enhanceanyconcretemechanismtoeffectlocallevelcollaboration.

ItiswidelyvisiblethatCFUGsareinvestingalotofefforts inthedevelopmentareaswhere

government is supposed to be fully responsible. The CFUGs are contributing in health,


16/19


16

education,localinfrastructuredevelopment,capacitybuildingandlivelihoodsimprovement

programsbygeneratingtheirownresourcesthroughcommunityforestryorthroughwider

networking with other service providers. This is recognized by the individuals within

Department of Forest (i.e. the line department)buthas notyetsufficiently recognized by

otherlineagencies.Therefore,theissuesofduplication,lowlevelofcommunityownerships

andefficiency,etcareobservedinthefield.Thequestionisraisedonwhoisresponsibleto

encouragesuch

initiatives

of

working

with

local

institutions

like

CFUGs?

When

CFUGs

have

showntheircapacityandpotentialofworkingindiversesectorsofcommunitydevelopment,

the government should come up with clear policy and strategy in supporting these local

initiatives. Indeed, the CFUGs should be considered as the umbrella institutions for all

development initiatives. To begin with, the government should develop a clear practical

policy and strategy to incorporate CFUGs plan into VDC/DDC aiming to flag CFUG

contributioninnonforestrysectorwidely.

5.3.CFUGsandequitablelocaldevelopment

CFUG can be an effective vehicle for equitable local development as many of them have

already demonstrated moves towards inclusion and equity. However, mainstream

developmentpractices

have

not

fully

respected

the

needs

and

concerns

of

local

people

and

impose prescriptions from outside. Consequently, ownership remains low within the

communitiesandmanydevelopmenteffortsbecomea failure. Inothercases, theexisting

policyandpracticemighthavedisempoweredthecommunitiesbypromotingpatronclient

relationships between service providers and the community members. To change the

situation,thedevelopmentagenciesshouldrespectthe local institutionsandbuildontheir

programs based on the needs and demands of the communities. We should note that

despitebeingresourcefulcommunityinstitution,wecannotconcludethatCFUGs'plansand

investmentswillbepropoorandequityoriented.Forinstance,theactivitiesthatarebeing

implemented by CFUGs such as school, trail construction, irrigation channels, community

buildings,temples,cookingstovesarefoundinfavourofwealthierhouseholdsatlocallevel

(Acharyaetal.2008;AdhikariandGhimire1998,Gental2000,Kanel2004).

Oneof theaimsof communityforestry is to increase theaccessand inclusivenessofwomen,poorandmarginalizedgroupsinthegovernance,managementandutilisationofforestsandtobringthesegroupsasourceofincome.However,ithasbeenobservedthatlocalelitesmakemostofthedecisionsandcapturemostofthebenefitsfromtheforests.Inmanycases,CFUGshavebecomewealthy,but thehouseholds themselveshavenotbeen able to reap the benefits. It is especially so with the poor, women anddisadvantagedgroups(DouglasGreig).

The exclusion of women in the resource management process has serious negative

consequencesnotjustforgenderequity,butalsofortheefficientfunctioningandlongterm

sustainability of these initiatives, and for womens empowerment (Agarwal 1997).

Therefore,aconsciouseffortofsensitizingandpersuadingmightbeneededfromexternal

agencieswhenvoicesofthelocalpoor,womenandmarginalizedgroupsarenotconsidered.

InKoshi

hills,

however,

the

representation

of

different

ethnicity

is

towards

proportionate

figure and the involvement of women and poor are also found in positive trend. The

formation of subgroups, often organizing the poor, women and marginalized groups as

separate groups, persuasion for getting priority by their agenda into planning and

implementationhasaffectedpositivelyfor inclusionandequity intheCFUGs.InKoshihills,

more than 25,000 different members are organized in different sub/interest groups (e.g.

women,poor,dalit,NTFP,saving/creditetc).


17/19


17

One of the burring issues of the social inclusion is equitable development and benefit

sharing.Regardingequitabledistributionsystem,itisquiteencouragingtrendwithinCFUGs

which is increased by double over the 2 years, i.e. 26% of CFUG are practicing equitable

distributionsystem,althoughitisstillaweekareaascomparedtotheachievementsmade

at local level in community development through community forestry. Therefore, all the

developmentagenciesshoulddrivetheirfocusofdevelopmentforensuringsocialinclusion,

povertyreduction

and

equity.

A

consorted

effort

and

harmonization

among

the

different

interventionsbythedevelopmentagenciescouldhavebetterresultsinthisline.

Thoughcollaborativeeffortsarehighlightedforeffectivedevelopment inthecommunities,

thereare likely fourscenariosofsuchcollaborationsurging foracautious remarkson the

effectivenessofcollaborationinadevelopmentinitiative:a)higheffortandlargeoutcomes,

b)higheffortbutlessoutcomes,c)lesseffortbuthighoutcomes,andd)lesseffortandless

outcomes. However, there should not be any doubt that the collaborative model,

approachingCFUGasanentrypoint, isoneofthe imperativemechanismtoenhance large

outcomeswithevenanominaleffort.

DespitethefactthatthedevelopmentagenciesworkingatlocallevelintheKoshihillsmade

effortsofincorporatingCFUGplanintoVDCplan,therehasnotbeenadequatesuccessdue

todifferentplanningperiodofMinistryofForestandSoilConservationandMinistryofLocal

Development.

Since

overwhelming

majority

of

the

population

is

already

involved

in

communityforestry,abottomupplanningprocessappliedintheCFUGscouldhelpbringthe

needs,expectationsanddemandsofallthepeople.Whenlocalgovernmentsrecognizethis

aspectanddevelopeffectivecoordination linkageswiththeCFUGsandothernonforestry

sectors,theresultingdevelopmentoutcomeswillbemuchhigherthantheexistingones.

6. Conclusion

This article presented the case of CFUGs as effective institutional vehicle for local

development.Although,communityforestryisnotrecognisedasadevelopmentinstitution

adequatelyin

the

non

forestry

sector

at

national

level,

the

achievements

and

progress

have

already been proved CFUG a broadbased institution and a sustainable vehicle for wider

development. Drawing on the experiences from the Koshi hills, the paper presented

evidence on how CFUGs have conducted a wide range of nonforestry development

activitieswithvaryingdegreesofcollaborativelinkageswithseveraldevelopmentagencies.

ItisalsoshownthatthesedevelopmentactivitiesofCFUGshaveledtoincreasedlivelihood

opportunitiestothelocalcommunitiesingeneral,andthepoorandmarginalisedgroupsin

particular.Givensuch institutionalcapabilityofCFUGs,thedevelopmentagencieshavean

opportunitytoapproachCFUGasanentrypointforlocaldevelopment.Inaddition,withits

three decades of experience, community forestry could be a learning centre for wider

development actors on institution and governance, resource management, local

developmentinitiatives,livelihoodsenhancement,andinclusiveandequitabledevelopment.


18/19


18

7. References

Acharya, K.P., Adhikari, J. & Khanal, D. 2008. Forest Tenure Regimes and their Impact onLivelihoodsinNepal.Journalofforestandlivelihoods,7(1).

Banjade,M.R.&Timsina,N.P.2005.ImpactofArmedConflictinCommunityForestryofNepal.ETFRNNews43/44.

Bhattarai, B. & Dungana, S.P. 2005. How Can Forests Better Serve the Poor? A Review ofDocumented Knowledge on Leasehold and Community Forestry in Nepal: Forest Action,

Kathmandu incollaborationwithCenterfor InternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR)Bogor,

Indonesia.

Branney, P. & Yadav, K.P. 1998. Changes in Community Forestry Condition and Management199498: Analysis of Information for the Forest Resource Assessment Study and Socio

EconomicStudyoftheKoshiHills.ProjectreportG/NUKCFP/32,Kathmandu:NUKCFP.Chapagain, B. 2007. Participatory well being ranking: Effective in propoor targeting and

monitoringtheimpact.LFP.

Chapagain,N.2007.PovertyDynamicsandPossibleFutureOutcomes(Draft).Chapagain,N.2008.IsitPossibletoIncreasetheExistingAcceptanceLeveloftheTwoPartywith

theSame

Resources

and

Existing

Support

Strategy

(Draft).

Chapagain,N.,Chapagain,B.&Kafle,G.2008.ReviewofPoorSupportStrategyandtheExistingCollaboration Efforts: are the Achievements became Intact in Favour of P&E Needs and

Priorities:ACasefromtheEastHillsofNepal(Draftabstract).

Chapagain,N., Kafle, G. & Chapagain,B.2008.MeasuringPoverty:DeterminantstoChange inHouseholdWellbeingStatusduetoMemberofCommunityForestry(Draftinprogress).

Chapagain,N. & Ojha,P.2006.ADecadeoftheFUGFormedbeforethe1994,LFPNewsletter(West).

Douglas,G.ScottishExecutiveEnvironmentandRuralAffairsDepartment,ForestryintheWiderRuralContext.

Kanel,B.R.&Subedi,R.2004.PropoorCommunityForestry:SomeInitiativesfromtheField.InProceedings

of

Fourth

National

Workshop

on

Community

Forestry.

Department

of

Forests,

Kathmandu,Nepal.

Kanel,K.R.,Podudel,R.P.&Baral,J.P2005.NepalCommunityForestry2005.Kanel, K.R. & Niraula, D.R. 2004. Can Rural Livelihood be Improved in Nepal thorough

CommunityForestry?BankoJanakari,14(1):1924.Kanel, K.R. 2004. Twenty five years of community forestry: contribution to Millenium

DevelopmentGoals. Fourth National WorkshoponCommunity Forestry.Proceedingof theFourth workshop on community Forestry, Dec. 2004. , Kathmandu, Nepal: CommunityForestryDivision,DOF.

Rajendra,K.C.&Khatri,A.2008.ContributionofCommunityForestryinReducingRuralPovertyin Nepal: Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural ResourceManagement

and

Rural

Development,

University

of

Hohenheim,

October

7

9,

2008.

Koirala, R., Giri, K. & Pokharel, B.K. 2008. Development and Status of Community ForestryGovernanceinNepal.

LFP2004and2006.FindingsfromFUGcategrisationfromKoshiHill.LFP2007.LFPLogicalframeworkreview:howweachievedsofarandhowweexpectforthree

years:byreviewingoftheoriginalandmodifiedindicatorsKoshiHill(Draft).

LFP2007and2008.AnnualReportandLSIreportingfromEast.LFP2007.aglimpseofFUGplanningfortheFY065/66fromKoshiHill.


19/19


LFP2007:Completionreport2001to2007fromKoshiHill(Draft).LFP2004and2007.FindingsfromSAGAandpreMTRstudyKoshihills.LFP2008.AglimpseofFUG'sfundmobilisationareasandsourceofincomefromKoshiHills.LFP2008.FAQs:Disaggregatedbycaste,ethnicity,genderandpovertylevelfromKoshihills.LFP2009.ComponentreportfromKoshiHills(Draft).LFP2006.ContextualinformationfromPCO,LFP.Ojha,PandChapagain,NFebruary2004LFP.Poorfocusedrevolvingfundforincomegenerating

activitiesinBaglungdistrict:Processandprogresssofar

Pokharel, B.K. 2005. Community forest user groups: institutions to protect democracy andvehiclesforlocaldevelopment.JournalofForestandLivelihood,Vol4(2).

Poudel BC 2006.Contribution of community forestry tosustainable livelihoods:an example offorest ethics in action. A discussion paper submitted to Mr. David Gritten for the

requirementoftheseminarperiodfromJanuary9thtoFebruary12th,2006.

Subedi R, Chapagain, N and MacDonald 2005. Community forestry in Dhaulagiri area: Ananalysisofsomecharacteristicsandtrendofthelastfiveyears,NUKCFPLFP.

Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from...

Documents

Transcript of Community Forestry as an Effective Institutional Platform for Local Development: Experiences from...