Forest Tenure Reform in Nepal:
Community Forestry on the Move
Keshav Raj Kanel
Nepal
 Country Background
 Rational and Evolution of Community
Forestry
 Forest Tenure and Governance in CFUGs
 Major Achievements
 Lessons Learned
 Conclusions
India
China
China
Ind
High Himal
High Mountain
Middle Hills
Churia Hills
Terai
India
Cross Section of Physiographic region in Nepal
Parameter
Unit
Status
Total population
number
27 million
Literate population
percent
54.1
Population dependent on agriculture
percent
6
Total land area
hectare
14.7 million
Total forest area
percent
39.6
Total arable land
percent
21
Contribution of Ag and Forestry to GDP ($
12 Billion)
Percent
32





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




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
 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.
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
 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
 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
 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
CFUG Formation and CF Hand
Over Process
Review and Revision
Forest & User Identification
 Social Mapping
 Well Being Ranking
 Monitoring &
Evaluation
 Feedback
Implementation
 HH visit
 Tole Meeting
 Interest Group Meeting
User group formation
•General Assembly
 Training/Study tour
 Technical support
 Financial support
Constitution preparation
• Approval by DFO
Forests Handover
CFUG Registration
 OP approval by DFO
 Joint signature (DFO
& Chairperson of CFUG)
 Participatory mapping
 Transect walk
Operational plan preparation
 Tole Meeting
 Interest Group Meeting
 Social survey
 Forest demarcation
Forest Resource Inventory
 General Assembly
Global
Nations
NPC
NRM sector
Media
National
Universities
Federation
NGOs
Line agencies
Local Bodies
Poor
Service center
Federation
CFUG
Dalit
Women
FUGs
District
Local
 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
F UG Num be r
C F Are a "00"
F isc a l Y e a r
2006/07
2007/08
2004/05
2005/06
2002/03
2003/04
2001/02
1999/2000
2000/01
1997/98
1998/99
1995/96
1996/97
1993/94
1994/95
1991/92
1992/93
1990/91
1988/89
1989/90
< 1987
1987/88
C F UG #/C F Area
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Learning From the Past
1968
2000
Jiri after 32 years
All types
Sal forest
Katus-chilaune
forest
Pine forest
Biomas
s
Carbon
Biomas
s
Carbon
Biomass
1994
193
91
242
114
199
93
143
67
2008
232
109
260
122
249
117
190
89
+ 21%
+ 21%
+ 7%
+ 7%
+ 25%
+ 25%
% change
Carbon Biomas
s
+ 33% + 33%
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
Carbo
n
Capacity of the Users Strengthened
Eco-Tourism Promoted
Forest
Product
83%
Membership
Fee
1%
Other Income
13%
Entrance Fee
1%
Fine/
Punishment
1%
GO/NGO
Grants
1%
Infrastructure
Development
36%
Harvesting and
Silvicultural
Operation
18%
Miscellaneous
17%
Training/Study
Tour
2%
Pro-poor
Program
3%
Forest Watcher
10%
Operational
Cost
14%
Lessons Learned
from
Community Forestry
 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
 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
 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
Conclusion
gnificant Problems We Face Cannot Be Solved By The Same
f Thinking That Created Them
Albert Einstein
Thank You