INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ON FOREST STATUS, GAPS AND WAY FORWARD TENURE IN NEPAL: KEY MESSAGES INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ON FOREST TENURE IN NEPAL: Yurdi Yasmi, Toon De Bruyn, Kapil Neupane and Phadindra Phokarel Zabara Alexander KEY MESSAGES Government institutions, programmes/projects and civil society organization (CSOs) have institutional capacity to support forest tenure reform, but is insufficient to achieve improved livelihoods and income for forestdependent communities. Major capacity gaps are related to capacity in designing the process to strengthen forest tenure, capacity to address conflict and grievances, and capacity to promote sustainable investments in the forestry sector. CSOs have relatively better capacity than government organizations and programmes. They manage to organize and represent a significant portion of forestdependent communities, and provide important support to the forest user groups (FUGs) through their networks. Strengthening the capacity of all actors is an important area to enable them to establish forest-based enterprises and engage with the private sector, which in turn can improve the livelihoods and incomes of forestdependent communities. The capacity gaps could be addressed through, for example, piloting and documenting innovative business models for forest management. INTRODUCTION Strong and secure tenure is a necessary condition to improve the incomes and livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. However, in Nepal forest tenure is often weak and contested, requiring a progressive change in policies and institutions. Any change brought to policies or institutions has to be built on a solid understanding of the current situation. While strengthening the forest tenure policy framework is critical, policy alone is not enough to guarantee improvement in the livelihoods and incomes of forest-dependent people. A second pillar is needed, namely strong and capable institutions at all levels (Gilmour 2016; Larson and Dahal 2012; Sikor et al. 2013; Yasmi et al. 2010). This brief presents key findings from a national-level institutional capacity assessment of forest tenure. Capacity development needs assessment (CDNA) was conducted for 15 national-level institutions between February 2015 and May The main purpose of the CDNA was to: 1. Assess the status and gaps of institutional capacity in relation to forest tenure. 2. Provide key recommendations for strengthening institutional capacity to support forest tenure reform.

2 2 Benjamin Jakabek THE CDNA APPROACH The assessment followed a three-step process. Firstly, institutional mapping was conducted to identify relevant institutions involved in forest tenure reform. The second step was assessment of the 15 selected institutions (i.e. seven government organizations, two programmes and six CSOs) vis-à-vis their capacity to implement forest tenure reform. The third step was data analysis to reveal the current status and gaps of the institutions. The assessment framework (Table 1) was developed and informed by the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) (FAO 2012), which covers eight elements. Yurdi Yasmi, Toon De Bruyn, Kapil Neupane and Phadindra Phokarel

3 3 Ta ble 1: CDNA framework 1 Capacity to support forest tenure reform 1.1 The institution or programme supports the allocation and registration of forest tenure rights/duties for forest-dependent communities 1.2 The institution or programme collaborates with relevant stakeholders to realize forest tenure rights/duties (design, coordination, participation in multistakeholder platforms) 1.3 The institution or programme supports allocation and registration of rights at the level that can most appropriately deliver services 2 Capacity in the design process for strengthening forest tenure 2.1 The institution or programme is involved in the design of activities related to strengthening forest tenure at the national level 2.2 The institution or programme is involved in the working group meetings related to forest tenure 2.3 The institution or programme develops inclusive, participatory and transparent processes for implementation of activities and programmes to strengthen forest tenure 3 Capacity to implement activities for strengthening forest tenure 3.1 The institution or programme facilitates activities related to strengthening forest tenure 3.2 The institution or programme consults, communicates and advocates for the strengthening of forest tenure 3.3 The institution or programme mobilizes resources in support of strengthening forest tenure 3.4 The institution or programme implements capacity development on strengthening forest tenure 4 Capacity to support forest-dependent communities for strengthening their rights 4.1 The institution or programme supports local and indigenous people in realizing their forest tenure rights, e.g. information, capacity development, funding, etc. 4.2 The institution or programme develops livelihood options from newly acquired rights by local and indigenous people 5 Capacity to address conflict and grievances 5.1 The institution or programme provides access to conflict management mechanisms 5.2 The institution or programme carries out analysis of forest tenure conflicts 5.3 The institution or programme facilitates negotiation or mediation related to forest tenure conflicts 6 Capacity to monitor the roles and accounta bility of non-state actors including business enterprises 6.1 The institution or programme promotes sustainable investments in the forestry sector 6.2 The institution or programme protects community tenure rights against abuses from outsiders 6.3 The institution or programme develops partnerships between communities and non-state actors 7 Capacity to address climate change and emergency issues 7.1 The institution or programme supports the process of clarifying tenure over forest-based carbon 7.2 The institution or programme is involved in climate-smart planning, resilience and adaptive capacity activities and taking forest tenure into account adequately 8 Capacity to respond to the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities 8.1 The institution or programme supports access and user rights to forest resources for forest-dependent communities for sustainable utilization and commercialization 8.2 The institution or programme supports forest-dependent communities in gaining and enhancing market access for products and services 8.3 The institution or programme underscores economic activities for improving the livelihoods and incomes of forest-dependent communities FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

4 4 INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE OF FOREST TENURE Government organizations The main functions of this group are to develop policies and to direct, monitor and evaluate the implementation of policies related to forest tenure. They are also in charge of law enforcement, formulating and amending policies on issues related to forest allocation, registration and climate change. Seven organizations were assessed: The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), the Department of Forest (DoF), the Department of Forest Research and Survey (DoFRS), the Department of Plant Resources, the Department of National Parks and Wild Life Conservation (DoNPWL), the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management and the Community Forestry Division (CFD) under the DoF. The CFD was assessed separately as the coverage of community forestry (CF) in terms of its beneficiaries and area handed over to the local communities is high compared to other communitymanaged forests; the tenure issues in CF are more prevalent compared to other community-managed forests; the CFD directly addresses forest tenure issues. Programmes This group focuses on the implementation of programmes and projects, for example, to raise the awareness and develop capacity of those involved in forest tenure as well as to support the identification, implementation and improvement of forest tenure for local communities at various levels. Capacity development activities are focused on the institutional development of the FUGs and government staff at the district level. This assessment included two programmes: The Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP) and the Hariyo Ban Programme. CSOs CSOs comprise non-government organizations (NGOs), associations, federations and networks. These institutions directly support forest-dependent communities to manage forest allocated to them, develop livelihood options, enhance their negotiation capacity and mobilize the member organizations for advocacy issues. They are also implementing projects. The government usually also engages them in forums related to tenure policy issues. The assessment included six CSOs: the Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN), private FUGs, the Association of Family Forest Owners Nepal, Community Based Forestry Supporters Network (COFSUN), RECOFTC The Center for People and Forests and the Institute of Forestry (IoF). Institutional capacity on forest tenure: Status and gaps The government implements various policies and programmes to promote strengthening of forest tenure for forest-dependent people at different levels. The CDNA found that there are good practices in place, such as promotion and strengthening of CF, leasehold forestry, collaborative forestry and buffer zone community forestry. FAO Yurdi Yasmi Yurdi Yasmi, Toon De Bruyn, Kapil Neupane and Phadindra Phokarel

5 5 Ta ble 2: Institutiona l CDNA results (Survey 2015) Thematic area Government organizations Programmes CSOs 1. Capacity to support forest tenure reform Capacity in the design process for strengthening forest tenure Capacity to implement activities for strengthening forest tenure Capacity to support forest-dependent communities for strengthening their rights 5. Capacity to address conflict and grievances Capacity to monitor the roles and accountability of non-state actors including business enterprises 7. Capacity to address climate change and emergency issues Capacity to respond to the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities Overall average score Note: Each participating institution was assessed against these elements using relative scores: not mandated/not assessed (-), weak (0-1), average (1-2), good (2-3) and high (3-4). The findings indicate that (i) in general the capacity of the institutions dealing with forest tenure in Nepal is relatively good but there are significant capacity gaps; (ii) programmes and government organizations have lower average capacity in most thematic areas compared to CSOs; and (iii) across the thematic areas they have an average level of capacity. Government organizations had average capacity (2.0). The areas with the lowest capacity (2.0) were: capacity to address conflict and grievance mechanisms, capacity to monitor the roles and accountability of non-state actors including business enterprises, and capacity to address climate change and emergency issues. For conflict and grievance management, conflicts over customary land tenure systems are difficult to address under the existing regulations and there is a need to develop more capacity to deal with these conflicts more effectively. Moreover, due to the limited number of trained human resources at government offices there is a backlog in resolving conflict cases. The low score for the capacity of the government to monitor the role and accountability of the private sector is mainly attributed to the very limited role the private sector has in supporting the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. Nevetherless, opportunities are emerging and provisions are being put into place through, for example, the initiation of a public-private partnership model. In the area of climate change and emergencies the main concern is with the government s capacity to reach out to remote districts and the limited understanding on carbon measurement, trade and adaptation and mitigation plans. Government organizations should be more informed in order to develop better understanding in the area of climate change and emergencies. Programmes, including projects, had average capacity (1.9). Their weaknesses were mainly in designing the process of forest tenure reform (1.2) and the support mechanisms to strengthen forest tenure (1.6). The assessment clarified that existing programmes provide limited leadership and direction in the design of processes to strengthen forest tenure. On the one hand, programmes lack technical capacity and mandates for contributing to the policy development processes. Their focus is more on capacity development and advocacy rather than directly supporting local communities in having their forest tenure rights strengthened. Their technical capacity to support FUGs is also relatively limited. There is a need to strengthen their awareness and understanding of the critical role strong forest tenure rights have in improving the livelihoods and incomes of forest-dependent communities. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

6 6 CSOs: Associations, federations, networks, NGOs and academic organizations had relatively higher capacity compared to other stakeholder groups (2.4). Overall, this group has a good performance across all thematic areas. Differences exist within this group. Associations/ federations/networks have more capacity than NGOs and research organizations. Upon closer assessment, the NGOs key weaknesses were limited capacity to contribute to the design process for strengthening forest tenure, limited direct support to acquire forest tenure rights and conflict management capacity. These weaknesses are mainly attributed to the lack of financial and human resources, which limits their ability to reach communities at the grassroots level. It should be noted that NGOs play important roles in the associations/ federations and networks such as providing capacity development and awareness-raising at the national and FUG levels. They support raising issues for improved governance of FUGs. FAO of the UN Yurdi Yasmi, Toon De Bruyn, Kapil Neupane and Phadindra Phokarel

7 7 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. As overall institutional capacity shows significant gaps, the capacity of key actors needs strengthening. In particular, programmes and government organizations need to address their capacity gaps more seriously. Government organizations can contribute better to forest tenure reform if they can improve their capacity to address conflict and grievances, monitor the roles and accountability of non-state actors including business enterprises, and address climate change and emergency issues. Programmes need to strengthen their capacity to support forest tenure reform, design processes for strengthening forest tenure, implement activities for strengthening forest tenure, support forest-dependent communities for strengthening their rights and address conflict and grievances. 2. To ensure forest-dependent communities can benefit from forest tenure reforms in terms of income and livelihood improvement, the entrepreneurship capacity of local communities needs to be developed. This will require active engagement of the private sector. In this respect the government can ensure a favourable policy environment and incentivize the private sector for rural development. The government can increase its support in emerging initiatives such as public-private partnerships. 3. An integrated and strategic approach to strengthening the capacity of institutions is needed, which can be achieved by dedicating sufficient resources, coordinated and continued development of capacity development products and services, and integrating capacity development as a main element in the forest tenure activities of government institutions, programmes/projects and CSOs. Priorities include the development of services on topics such as forest tenure and the VGGT, entrepreneurship skills, governance of FUGs, conflict management, forest resource inventory, resource mobilization, advocacy and negotiation and facilitation skills. FAO Yurdi Yasmi FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

8 FAO of the UN REFERENCES Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries, and forests in the context of national food security. Rome, FAO. Gilmour, D Forty years of community forestry. Rome, FAO. Larson, A. & Da ha l, G.R Forest tenure reform: New resource rights for forest based communities? Conservation and Society Journal, 10(2): Sikor, T., Gritten, D., Atkinson, J., Huy, B., Da ha l, G.R., Duangsathaporn, K., Hura hura, F., Phanvilay, K., Maryudi, A., Pulhin, J., Ramirez, M.A., Win, S., Toh, S., Vaz, J., Sokchea, T., Marona, S. & Yaqiao, Z Community forestry in Asia and the Pacific: Pathway to inclusive development. Bangkok, RECOFTC. Yasmi, Y., Jeremy, B., Thomas, E. & Cole, G Forestry policies, legislation and institutions in Asia and Pacific. Bangkok, FAO RAP. For more information please contact: Yurdi Yasmi Forest Policy Officer FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand FAO, 2016 I6252En/1/10.16