Harmonising social environment and strengthening local economies A case of community forestry programme in Nepal Netra Prasad Timsina

Transcription

1 Harmonising social environment and strengthening local economies A case of community forestry programme in Nepal Netra Prasad Timsina Contents 1. Introduction 2. Historical perspective of forest resource management in Nepal 3. User Group Forestry: An institutional discourse of common property resource management 4. A practice of putting people first: potentials for harmonising social environment through community forestry 4.1 Women in Community Forestry 4.2 Poor, Lower caste and community forestry process 4.3 Community forestry, forest user group and local development 4.4 Building local economies 5. Challenges in community forestry 6. Conclusion 7. References 1. Introduction This paper is based on case studies on community forestry programme in mid hills of Nepal, particularly limited on two forest user groups (local institution). Qualitative approaches such as participant observations, interview, group discussion, ethnohistory were applied to understand the community practices of forest resource use and management. This paper describes the process of community development through community forestry programme in Nepal in general, and its impact on the process of empowerment, building local economies and improving the natural resources in the locality in particular. This will describe the changing paradigm of forest resource management of the study area (community-government-community continuum) with reference to historical background of the country's forest resource management. This paper will elaborate more on how the community forest users group has been a leading institution in the village that is the only local institution, to which every body in village has concerned and staked. Similarly, it will trace out the social processes of community forestry that include the participation of different class, caste and gender

2 A community forestry programme in Nepal 2 in decision making and implementation of programme. This paper will also illustrate how socially excluded (untouchable castes, landless, wage earner, women) are being included in the community based natural resource management. It also attempts to trace out how local community can build their local economies if the effective control over the resources lies with them. It will also discusses some challenges to be overcome to further strengthen the equitable and socially just community based natural resource management practices. 2. Historical perspective of forest resource management in Nepal Throughout history in Nepal, until the 1950s, land and forest resources were controlled by the ruling classes. Most often lands were granted to the people who supported them in the campaign of state expansion. Lands were granted mostly to patronage, family members and local elites. This way the ruling classes maintained their control over resources located in distant places. Local landlord were appointed as local functionaries of state and were responsible for revenue collection for the state and also made responsible for forest resource management (Regmi, 1978). However, the local people had access to forest resources to fulfill their needs for the forest products without restrictions. Local rules and regulation were in practiced to act regulatory functions to manage the resources. There was two way relationships between local functionaries and local people. Although, there was some sort of a two way relationships between people and the state functionaries, later exercised the state power over the people as they were appointed politically by the state (Regmi, 1978). In 1950s, the change in the political system led to changes in forest resource management policy. The nationalisation of private forest act was promulgated 1957 in order to prevent the destruction of forest wealth and to ensure the adequate protection, maintenance and utilisation of privately owned forests (Regmi, 1978). However, the aim of this legislation was to place all forest land under the control of the government's Forest Department that would perform a policing and licensing role (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991). Before nationalization, although tenure rights of forests legally belonged to the king, local communities had been using them under their own rules and supervision for generations law generated considerable insecurity about future rights to forests by the villagers and traditionally had access to them and regulated their use (Regmi, 1978). Deforestation accelerated and was, in part, stimulated by this feeling of insecurity. Many farmers attempted to claim private title to forestland by clearing it for agriculture. Uncertain tenure also encouraged forest degradation because villagers tended to regard the state owned forests more as an open-access resources and less as their common property (Ghimire,1995; Hobley and Malla, 1996). However, Gilmour and Fisher (1991). The decade of 1970s is seen as a "push decade" for community forestry in Nepal from an indigenously identified need (Hobley and Malla, 1996) as well as interests of donors. Environmental crisis due to deforestation and degradation became the main issues to be addressed for all international agencies. The importance of resource

3 A community forestry programme in Nepal 3 management by local community had been realized for sustainable development. In 1978, rules and regulations were promulgated to manage local forests by the local political body. In 1989, government developed the Master Plan for Forestry Sector, which legalize the practice of community forestry at national level. The diverse experiences in community forestry led to the development of 20 years Master Plan. The Master Plan formed the basis for forest policy in 1989, which clearly articulated meeting the basic forest product needs of the local people through community forestry. With the beginning of decade for 1990s began a new political era for Nepal and consequently a new era for the forest sector as well. Users of the forest resources are recognized for management and utilization of the forests. The Forest Act 1993 is a legal basis to implement the community forestry in Nepal ( Hobley and Malla, 1996). The forest Act of 1993 and Regulations of 1995, then reinforced the outline of the master plan which confirmed the rights of forest user groups to acquire, transfer and sell forest products. Community forestry is now better suited to local conditions and institutions. Forest users that favor local control in protecting, utilizing and managing the forest resources now own it. 3. User Group Forestry: An institutional discourse of common property resource management Community forestry programme has been the main national policy of government of Nepal in the forestry sector development (MPFS, 1989). Accessible forest for local people is handed over to them for the use and management. An important thrust of the user group forestry is the development of user group formation process. According to guidelines of user group formation process, users are identified and informed about the legislative rights and responsibilities. Irrespective of the class, caste and gender, users are met in small groups to discuss matter in harmonious environment. Rules and regulations for protection and use are decided among the users following the formation of user group. Sanctions, punishment and approaches to monitoring are established. However, it depends on the size and quality of forest, number of users, collection patterns and preferred forest products. The Forest Act of 1993 and the forest regulation 1995 have given more autonomy to forest user groups as self-governing institutions with rights to acquire, transfer, and sell forest products (Forest Act 1993, Forest Regulation, 1995). Forest user groups have full rights over the income from the forest resources. They can plan income generation activities. The income can be used for the development activities in the village under the discretion of Forest User Group. However, the property rights of the community forest rests with the government. The user groups have no rights to sell and transfer the forestlands to others. They have only use rights or usufruct rights. Nevertheless, people have a strong feeling that the forest belongs to them. It has not affected the effectiveness of local management. Constitution as for self-governing institution and operational management plans are prepared and approved in assemblies. Forest Department staffs particularly ranger

4 A community forestry programme in Nepal 4 help to prepare the constitution and operational plan. Later District forest officer approves the management plan. Planning process of community forestry is given in box below. In Nepal, community forestry practice is guided by a set of comprehensive guidelines issued by the government. The guidelines include a four phase planing process. 1. Investigation phase: Involving rapport building with villagers, information gathering and identification of users and existing management systems. 2. Negotiation phase: Involving consensus building, formation of the forest user group, negotiation of forest management agreement and writing of an operational plan (facilitated by Forest Department staff) 3. Implementation phase: Involving conduct of forest management according to the operational plan, by the forest user group, with monitoring, support and strengthening activities conducted by the field staff 4. Review phase: Involving appraisal and renegotiating of the management agreements. Source; Hobley, 1996 Thousands of forest user groups have been developed as a major local institution to manage not only forest resources but also to manage local development. Forest User Group national level database has recorded nearly community forest user groups in Nepal (Forest User Group National Level Database, April 2000). Federation of Community Forestry Users-Nepal (FECOFUN), as a national organization representing user groups in different parts of Nepal, has been in operation since 1996 (Shrestha and Britt, 1997). 4. A practice of putting people first: potentials for harmonising social environment and building local economies through community forestry management Nepal's rural area is made up of a complex of social web. It consists of hierarchical social structure that includes different economic and social classes, oppressive caste systems and gender discrimination. The differences and rich and poor, upper caste and lower caste, man and women etc., give rising social conflict and discrimination to access and control over the resources. In this context the benefit of development intervention often goes to the elite and powerful section of the society. However, it has been observed that the pro people policy and practice have made differences to some extent in benefiting the people. The impact of community forestry

5 A community forestry programme in Nepal 5 programme in relation to facilitate in putting people (women, poor and occupational caste) first has been reflected form a case study of a Community Forestry User Group in a village of hill district in Nepal. 4.1 Women in Community Forestry Women participation has been increased due to change in perception that women also have capacity to make decision related to village and their family concern. Community Forestry process in this village is considered as catalytic agent that helped to grow groups and CO-operative approaches in the village. Before Community Forestry, women did not use to participate in any programme related to common concern. CF has important role in bringing women out of house domain (personal communication with young women). The forest policy has encouraged women participant as real resource users to be empowered through community forestry. The Forest User Group (FUG) constitution has also a compulsory provision of 50 percent of FUG committee members should be women. The women member includes form different class and caste strata of the society. Poor women are encouraged as equal as rich women in this process. Poor women have also an opportunity to be selected for training and exposure visit. 4.2 Poor, Lower caste and community forestry process "We go for meeting related to forest resource management. We also send our wife to attend the meeting. In assembly, things are discussed like how to protect forest, how and when to distribute the forest products. We are getting benefit from forest. Though our needs are not satisfied with the present level of availability of the forest products, the social process of CF is important for us that we are being included in common concerns of the resource management including village meeting. With the initiation of community forestry, our access has been increased even to political and social concern of the village" (Dhana Bahadur Mijar, personal communication). The view above was expressed during discussion with Sarki (scheduled caste) people in-groups in their hamlet. Community Forest User Group organizes various programme as street drama, discussion about village activities to be done, the sarki people take part and put their saying in the discussion forum. The lower caste people also have been representing as members in community forestry user group committee. The role of the committee is to maintain the constitutional provision of the forest user group and implementation of activities assigned by general assembly of the forest users. The poor and oppressed have also been represented in this day to day decision making body. Discussion was held related to social exclusion and inclusion of lower caste. They explained that they are slowly being liberated form the exclusive and oppressive social system. Their relationship with upper caste has been changing as they were even not allowed to sit together with upper caste people, but now they can eat and drink together at least in village teashops. According to them, community forestry is one of the main intervention that included them in socio-political process of the village including other factors as changing economy of the village, awareness raised through

6 A community forestry programme in Nepal 6 education, changing social composition and structure. Women of the lower caste also take part in the activities of forest user groups. 4.3 Community forestry, forest user group and local development Forest User Groups have been the major umbrella institution to decide the use and management of the forest resources. In addition, it has been increasingly realized that forest users groups have been important local development institution at the village level. At least one member form each household meets together once/twice a year and discusses the matter related to forest resource management. There are no other organizations that give opportunities even to meet at a place to all concerned to specific issues. In this sense forest users group is a strong medium at local level that makes people to think and discuss about their resources themselves. It is also an institution that exercises democratic norms within the village by accommodating diverse interests and needs. It organizes various development activities as building or supporting schools, construction of irrigation channels, development of road facilities, irrigation channels etc. All users contribute for these activities voluntarily. In come cases, it seems in catering community development activities, FUG is even effective than local government institution (Village Development Committee). 4.4 Building local economies As discussed above Forest User Groups have rights to acquire fund or property, rights to plant the forest and right to sell or dispose the forest products as an individual. The FUG has sole right to control and decide over the income from the forest products. The major source of income is the sale of forest products as firewood, fodder and poles. The other source of income is contribution made by the users. The rate of contribution per month is decided in mass meeting. However, the extent of income is depend upon the condition of forest that if the forest is in good condition, more products can be harvested and sold and more fund can be collected. The fund is revolved within the users mostly for income generation programme. FUG decide certain amount per month per household as membership fee. However, major source is the sale of the forest products as timber, firewood and grasses. Similarly, a significant amount is collected from the fine and punishment for breaching the rules and regulations. FUG lends the common fund as credit to the users in certain amount of interest rate. Similarly, this fund is utilized for social activities. Some of the fund has also been distributed to the poorest of the poor families. Community development activities are also sponsored by the users' fund The importance of local resources under local control has significance to rebuild local economies. The resource generates the income and it is distributed among the members as both for subsistence as well as other purpose. Since the production is in common land and decided collectively what is produced, how it is produced, the

7 A community forestry programme in Nepal 7 exchange and its use is also decided collectively. Therefore, the forest resource can be a milestone in building sustainable local economy with equity and justice. If the resource is productive, the activities for local development can be carried out with this resources which reduce the dependency over the external agencies for fund and people will have their autonomy what to be done and what not to be done for the development of their village. 5. Challenges in community forestry Though community forestry is one of the successful development programme in Nepal, it has to over come some challenges to be effective for the local people especially the poor, women and the oppressed people. Though situation has been changed as compared in the past, access and control of poor, women and lower caste groups to the institution are still minimal. They use to attend meetings, assemblies and participate in activities. But, it seems more physical presence rather than psychological in the process. It has been observed that some women have some say in assemblies, but those women are also in one or other way from well of families in the village. Therefore, bringing the poor and marginalised people in fore front in the process is a big challenge for CF to be effective programme. Moreover, the organizational process that leads to equity and justice depends primarily on existing socio-economic structure and the power relation among and within the users. In a social process, no institution is autonomous; it is always constrained and conditioned by social forces (Pathak, 1994). It is a another challenge that how powers is shifted from powerful to powerless under the existing exploitative power structure of the society. The state or the government itself is also one of the challenge to overcome by the forest communities. The degraded lands were handed over to community and communal protection and management has revived the greenery in the country. However, in the mean time government has imposed tax over the income of the community forestry. Communities have a fear that it is likely to take back the forest by the government in years to come when it becomes fully productive. The state always intended to represent the industrial-urban use of forest and partisan science while the villagers represent harmony with nature and a symbiotic relationship with forests (Pathak, 1994). The state and villagers try to perpetuate their practices, culture and ideology and the conflict between the alternate conceptions in relation to forest continues. Another important challenge to over come is the changing rural economy and intervention of the market economy. The rural economy and its base have been continuously changing. The rural poor will get more wages in working near by urban areas than working for landlord in his/her villages and the nature of work is completely different (Malla, 2000). Villagers also see benefit in producing marketable product than producing the subsistence commodity. Community forestry has not been visualised yet in the changing context. It is a big dilemma that commercialising the local resource will further marginalise the poor and undermining the changing context will leave the people and resource behind.

8 A community forestry programme in Nepal 8 6. Conclusion Community forestry in Nepal has been the most successful programme among the people centred development programme. The user group concept in community forestry have been the major institution at village level not only for managing the forest, but also harmonising social environment and building local economies. It has been a forum for exercising democratic norms and leading institution for other development activities of villages. It has a policy to emphasise the participation of poor, women and lower caste people, which have also been translated into practice to some extent. However, like other development programme, CF has not been out of problems. There are many challenges to over come to be accommodative for all stakeholders involved. Still the state and government have not fully appreciated that the people can manage the resources. Often attempt has been made to control over the forest resources. Similarly, the socio-political power structure supersedes the interest of the poor and marginalied. CF has not visualised the changing rural economy that needs alternative approach to integrate in changing context. 7. References Chhetri, R.B., Pandey, T. R., 1992, User Group Forestry in the Far-Western Region of Nepal (Case studies from Baidadi and Accham), Kathmandu: ICIMOD. Fisher, R. J., 1989, "Indigenous Systems of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal", Working Paper No. 18. Honolulu, Hawaii: Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. Fisher, R. J., 1991, Studying Indigenous Systems of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal: Towards a More Systematic Approach, Working Paper No. 30. Honolulu, Hawaii: Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. Gilmour, D. A., Fisher, R. J., 1991, Villagers, Forests and Foresters, Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press. Jackson, W. J., Nurse, M.C., Chhetri, R.B., 1993, High Altitude Forests in the Middle Hills of Nepal: Can they be managed as Community Forest? Banko Jankari 4(1): 20-30). Karki, M., Karki J. B. S., Karki, N., 1994, Sustainable Management of Common Forest Resources: An evaluation of Selected Forest User Groups in Western Nepal, Kathmandu: ICIMOD Messerschmidt, D. A., 1984, "Using Human Resources in Natural Resource Management: Innovations in Himalayan Development", Watershed Management Working Paper No. 1. Kathmandu: ICIMOD. Regmi, M.C., 1978, Land Tenure and Taxation in Nepal, Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar. Mahat, T. B. S., Griffin, D. M., Shepherd, K.R., 1986, "Impact on Some Forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal 1: Forestry in the Context of Traditional Resource of the State", Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. Hobley, M., Malla. Y., 1996, From Forests to Forestry The Three Ages of Forestry in Nepal: Privatisation, Nationalisation, and Populism. In M. Hobley(ed), Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal, London: Overseas Development Institute pp. Barraclough, S. L., Ghimire, K. B., 1995, Forest and Livelihoods: The Social Dynamics of Deforestation in Developing Countries, London: Macmillan Press Ltd. xiv pp. HMGN, 1995, The Forest Act 1993 and the Forest Regulations 1995: An Official Translation by the Law Books Management Board, Kathmandu: FDP/USAID/HMGN.

9 A community forestry programme in Nepal 9 HMGN/ADB/FINIDA, 1988, Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal: Executive Summary, Kathmandu: HMGN/ Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. 35 pp. HMGN/FINIDA/ADB, 1988, Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal, main Report, Kathmandu: HMGN/FINIDA/ADB Shrestha, N. K., Britt C., 1997, Crafting Community Forestry: Networking and Federation- Building Experiences. In M. Victor, C. Lang and J. Bornemeier, Community Forestry at a Crossroads: Reflections and Future Directions in the Development of Community forestry, Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Bangkok, Thailand, Bangkon: RECOFTC pp. FECOFUN-Nepal, 1999, Samayik Prakashan, April, 1999, No.3, Kathmandu: Federation of Community Forestry-Nepal, 40 pp. Malla, Y.B., 2000, "Impact of Community Forestry Policy on Rural Livelihoods and Food security in Nepal", unasylva, Vol. 51, No. 202.