The major issues and challenges of development of community

forest in Nepal with critical analysis of the legal framework and

Present situation

Table of Content:

Table of Abbreviations

Table of Statutes
Chapter-1

1.1 Background

1.2 Objective

1.3 Limitation

1.4 Methodology

Chsapter-2

2.1 Meaning and concept of Community Forest

2.2 Issues and challenges in Community Forest

2.3. Legislation in connection to community forest

2.4. Community Forest Implementation status in Nepal

Chapter-3

3.1 Analysis and conclusion

Bibliography

Chapter-one

1.1 Background:
The community forestry concept in Nepal is a courageous, innovative and future oriented
approach towards participatory forest management by local people. Community Forestry
Program is widely celebrated as one of the most progressive policy examples of devolving
control over forest resources to community based user groups, which has established a viable
procedure for handing over the forests to actual groups of users with a legal status as autonomous
and corporate institutions with perpetual succession.

Community forestry was first formally initiated in 1978 under the Forest Act of 1961, with
subsequent amendments in 1976 and 1978 as Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest.
The first “official” Community Forestry Development Project was initiated in 1980 with the
establishment of the Community Forestry Development and Training Project funded by the
World Bank and technical assistance provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Principally the concept of community forests is very much encouraging and contributing to
support rural livelihoods in terms of fodder, fuel wood, and argil implements timber for
construction. Following the democratic revolution of 1950, the government nationalized all
forests in 1957 (A journal forestry information, 1995) in an attempt to prevent the feudal Rana
rulers from continuing to use Terai forests as their personal property. As a result, people
gradually lost all benefits and over time became apathetic toward the government because of
being deprived of their right to manage and benefit from the forests. This alienation of people
from resources management led to wanton destruction of forests. Having failed to manage the
forest resources through bureaucratic machinery, the government in 1976 conceived Community
forestry as a formal management system in the National forestry plan which recognized people’s
participation and introduced the concept of panchayat forest and panchayat protected forest.
Subsequently in 1977, the Forest Act of 1961 was amended, and in 1978 the panchayat forest
and panchayat protected forest rules were introduced creating the basis of handing over right to
National forest to the local panchayat.

There are 12,700 community forestry user groups in Nepal managing a total of 10,006,560
hectares of forest areas. These user groups are made up of 1.4 million households, which total 7
million people. The total population of Nepal is 25 (? according to latest UN figures) million. In
15 districts of the Terai, there are 301 user groups managing 43,572 hectares of forest in areas
without forestry projects.

1.2 Objective:

The main objective of this term paper is to find the policy situation in present and its major
issues and challenges of development pattern in connection to community forestry system of
Nepal and to know about the legal provisions related to community forestry.
 
1.3 Methodology:

The study is mainly based on secondary data. These data are collected through Internet, forestry
journal, Master plan of forestry, library search, National paining commission report etc.

1.4 Limitation:

This paper is mainly concerned about the issues and challenges of development of community
forestry in Nepal and the legal provisions related to it .and I have only mentioned about the forest
Act.

Chapter-2

2.1. Meaning and concept of community forest:

The forest Act of 2049 categories forests into two broad classes that National forest and
Private forest. The National forest is further divided into five sub categories.1 They are:

1. Community forest
2. Leasehold forest
3. Government Forest
4. Religious forest
5. Protected forest
1
Forest Act 2049, Preamble
Community forest means a National forest handed over to a users’ group for its development,
conservation and utilization for the collective interest.2
Similarly, community forestry is the forest; in which the forest resource is under the control,
managed and use by the villagers. It aims to ensure that all villagers have equitable access to
forest resources and involved local people in all aspects of forestry activities.3

Community forest can be identified as the forest protected, managed and utilized by local user
groups.4 It means a national forest handed over to an forest user group for its development,
conservation and utilization for collective benefit under the forest Act 1993 and the Forest
Regulation 1995 Community forestry through user group is the major policy initiate for forestry
sector in Nepal under which the forest user group (FUG) accepts the responsibility for
protection, management and sustained utilization of their community or communal forest.5

Community forestry in Nepal involves a partnership between Nepal Government’s department of

forest and the community represented by FUG for a particular forest, under this partnership
FUG’s has to accept the responsibility for management of the forest and the field staffs must
become extension agents, providing advice and support to the user group.6

Some time community forestry is also termed as social forestry. These different terms do not
refer different meaning but can be used interchangeably. In community forestry, local people are
to be given a share in the authority to design projects that will meet their needs. This means
power sharing by the government in protecting and managing the forest with local communities.

2
Forest Act 2049, Sec 2(h)
3
National forestry Plan 1976
4
Forest user: It refers to the total members of a social group of the community that regularly use a product of forest
for grazing, collection of forest products and form themselves into a group to protect, manage and utilize that area of
forest.
5
Berlett and Nurse;1990
6
R.B. and Pandey, T.R. 1992; User group forestry in the far western region of Nepal
Under social forestry forest occupants are regarded as comrades rather than criminal because the
care and conservation of forest resources will be ensured only when forest benefits are equitably
shared by the people who live and work in the forest.7

Internationally, the term community forestry simply means management of a group of trees by a
group of people who have common interests. In general, community forestry is used in forestry
parlance with the same meaning as social forestry, as distinct from farm forestry, which refers
management of trees by an individual landholder.

2.2 Issues and challenges in community forestry:8

Despite achievements and contribution in the community forestry that has made in Nepal, there
are many unresolved issues and challenges in all areas of capital as well as governance. Although
CFUGs have been successful in terms of their institutional capacity to get people organized and
form capital at group level, perhaps the most critical in terms of livelihoods and the relatively
weak generation of financial capital for the forest dependent poor and women. While trends
towards resource degradation have been arrested and in many cases forest cover is reported to be
improved (see NUKCFP, 2000), the livelihoods of the local forest dependent communities,
particularly the poor and disadvantaged, have not improved as expected. In worst cases, in fact,
the implementation of Community Forest policy has inflicted added costs to the poor, such as
reduced access to forest products and forced allocation of household resources for communal
forest management with insecurity over the benefits.

Furthermore, one of the major challenges underpinning the lack of financial capital for the
poorest of forest users relates to low social capital in FUGs, as well as FUG institutional
arrangements and decision-making processes that reinforce those trends. Multiple stakeholders
with differences in 'power' speak, voice and be heard differently. The poorest are the ones who
are suffered the most since they cannot afford to participate and hardly speak, are rarely heard
7
Feese and Brien 1993

8
Contribution of Community Forestry to People's Livelihoods and Forest Sustainability: Experience from Nepal
Dr Bharat K. Pokharel available at www.wrm.org.uy/.../Nepal.html accessed on 10th march 2011.
and benefit from community forestry. Given the unequal social structure in terms of class, caste,
gender and regional disparity, there is unequal access to decision-making, to opportunities, to
contribute and to benefits. Although involvement of marginalized people in community forestry
with their perceptions and actions have direct impacts on forest systems and their livelihoods,
marginalized groups in multi-stakeholder settings have often been excluded and under-valued,
with the perception that they have less ability to make and act on decisions. As a result, poor
peoples' access to resources has been reduced, with consequent negative impacts on their
livelihoods and on the condition of government forests in neighboring areas of community
forests. Clearly this situation, in transparent decision-making and fund management reflect weak
FUG level governance in many cases.

Furthermore, it has been increasingly recognized that inequitable distribution of benefits,

combined with uneven sense of ownership and motivation in the FUGs, and lack of clear
options, as well as technical knowledge (and some policy implementation constraints) have
resulted in relatively 'passive' managements of forests. While forests have been generally well
protected, it seems increasingly likely that the majority of FUGs are not utilizing their forests to
their full potential in terms of income generation. Leadership positions on community forest user
groups and among other stakeholders are typically captured by power elites, and their
management systems are somewhat rigid and top-down. Since they have weak monitoring
systems, they make decisions without adequate information and even if they have information
available, they are slow to make the best use of the new information for making decisions. This
also reflects a lack of human capital in terms of knowledge and skills (and incentives) to
undertake successful participatory decision-making in highly heterogeneous environments, as
well as to generate and apply necessary forestry and institutional knowledge.

Despite good policy framework in place, in many occasions, policy formulation and
reformulation processes, from CFUG to different levels of governance, are less consultative and
interactive, leading to inequitable outcomes. This is further complicated by limited monitoring
practices at all different levels and across all institutions. National policies are slow to respond to
change, and various types of inputs and services needed in communities, and implementation
often distorts policy intentions. These reflect some gaps in human capital (knowledge, skills and
incentives for enhancing the speed of effective feedback to and responses of policy), as well as
related planning processes and governance issues (including effective two way communication
between various levels of stakeholders).

2.3 Legislation in connection to community forest of Nepal:

Forest Act:

Chapter 5 of the Forest Act deals with the Community Forest:

Handover of the Community Forest:

Section 25 (1) of the Forest Act states that the District Forest Officer may handover any part of a
National Forest to a Users' Group in the form of a Community Forest as Prescribed entitling to
develop, conserve, use and manage the Forest and sell and distribute the Forest Products
independently by fixing their prices according to Work Plan. While so handing over a
Community Forest, the District Forest Officer shall issue a certificate of alienation of the
Community Forest.9

Section 27 of the same Act has the provision that Community Forest May Be Taken Back:
Section 27 (1) in case the Users' Group cannot operate its functions in accordance with the work
plan in the Community Forest handed over pursuant to Section 25 or operates any functions
which may cause significant adverse effect in the environment or does not comply with the terms
and conditions to be complied pursuant to this Act or the Rules framed there under, the District
Forest Officer, may decide to cancel the registration of such Users' Group and take back such
Community Forest As Prescribed.10

Section 28 of the same Act deals about the Community Forest May be Re-handed Over: 11
The District Forest Officer shall have to re-hand over the Community Forest taken back pursuant
to Sub- Section (1) of Section 27 to the same Users' Group , in case the decision related thereof
is cancelled pursuant to Sub-section (2) of the same Section. In case such decision is approved,

9
Section 25, Forest Act, 2049
10
Ibid section 27(1)
11
Ibid section 28
the District Forest Officer may reconstitute the Users' Group and handover such Community
Forest by completing the procedures As Prescribed in Section 25.

Section 29 deals about the Punishment for Contravening the Work Plan: 12
In case any User operates any function to be contravened to the Work Plan in the Community
Forest, the concerned Users' Group may impose an appropriate punishment and may also realize
the amount involved therein, if there has been any loss or damage.

Section 30 deals about Priority to be given to the Community Forest: 13

Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, any part of the National Forest
suitable to handover to the Users' Group as Community Forest shall not be handed over as
Leasehold Forest.

30A. Expenditure for the development of community Forest:

The Users group shall expend, at least twenty five percent amount of the income derived from
work plan, for the development protection and management of the community forest and
remaining amount for the other development work.

2.4 Community Forest implementation status in Nepal:

Nepal has a total area of 17.5 million hectares, out of which 5.8 million hectares is under forest
cover. A national survey indicated that about 60% of the total forest can be potentially handed
over to CFUGs as community forests. Until now, about 5,000 CFUGs have been formed and
more than 400,000 hectares of national forests have been officially handed over to these CFUGs.
This indicates that more than 10 percent of potential national forest has already been handed over
to local communities.

The implementation of community forestry program in Nepal has implications not only on the
expansion and sustainable management of forests, but also on socio-economic development and
institutional innovational at the grass-root level.

12
Section 29 Forest Act, 2049
13
Ibid section 30
In most of the handed over forest areas, the participation of local people has led to the increased
density and diversity of forests. This has resulted in the increased productivity of the forest.
Similarly, the villagers utilize forest products such as fuel wood, fodder, small poles and timber
in a more equitable manner. The harvesting of these products is mutually decided by the users
themselves. In some cases, the fund generated from the forest is used in other development
activities. This has strengthened users' confidence in undertaking local rural development
activities by themselves.

The creation and mobilization of local users as CFUGs is an institutional innovation which is
very effective and participatory in forest management in Nepal. The government forest officials
are now more engaged in providing technical advice and extension services. The users are now
the managers of the forest. These CFUGs are now active in making democratic decision in the
governance and sustainable utilization of forest.

Chapter Three

3.1 Analysis and Conclusion:

The Community Forestry programme was formally launched in Nepal in 1978 with the
enactment of the Panchayat Forest Rules and the Panchayat Protected Forest Rules. The
Community Forestry policy along with Community Forestry legislation has been continuously
reformed over time. These reforms have recognized the use rights of the local people in the
management of forest resources and established them as managers. Since the inception twenty-
four years ago the progress in policy shift has been tremendous. However, the actual
implementation is still slow in pace.

Community forestry in Nepal has been the most successful program among the people centered
development program. The user group concept in community forestry have been the major
institution at village level not only for managing the forest, but also harmonizing 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 emphasize
the participation of poor, women and lower caste people, which have also been translated into
practice to some extent.

However, like other development program, Community Forest has not been out of problems.
There are many challenges to overcome 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 marginalized. Community Forest has not
visualized the changing rural economy that needs alternative approach to integrate in changing
context.

Nepal’s community forestry experience is regarded as one of our greatest success stories, and is
being replicated throughout the developing world. The model was built on the need for
grassroots democracy, environmental protection and decentralized decision-making to strengthen
each other. And it worked.

Unfortunately it seems to have worked so well that the central government now wants a share of
the revenue from the forests that the villagers have protected.

In 2001, the government promulgated an ordinance to collect 40 percent of the income from
community forest users in the tarai area. Following a writ petition by the users, the Supreme
Court ruled against the decision. Now, far from withdrawing the rule for the tarai the government
has extended the 40 percent requirement to all community forests all over the kingdom through
Royal Ordinance in the budget

Nepal's forest policy provides an environment to practice and learn from community forestry and
many more have been achieved in terms of capital formation and its flow, governance reforms
and community empowerment. However there are many challenges related to gender and equity,
livelihoods and forest sustainability. Nepal's community forestry has proved that communities
are able to protect, manage and utilize forest resource sustainable. Community forestry approach
is therefore a source of inspiration to all of us working for sustainable forest management and
users' rights. Nevertheless further innovation, reflection and modification in community forestry
are needed according to local context to address the social issues such as gender and equity.
The community forestry aims at sustainable management of forest resources through the active
participation of individual people and communities to meet their basic needs (Bhatta 1998). To
remove further obstacles and constraints on local people's participation in the community
forestry, in 1993, government revamped the existing Forest Act and issued a new "Forest Act
1993" which bars the government to take community forestry back from the local people until
when the forest is properly managed by the users according to the operational plan. The 1993
Act gives prime importance to the participation of local people in the sustainable use and
conservation of forest resources. All the people irrespective of their socio-economic status who
are traditional users of the forest and willing to manage it are regarded as legal forest users and
forest adjoining the settlement is handed over to them based on the approved operational plan
and constitution of user groups.
Bibliography

 Contribution of Community Forestry to People's Livelihoods and Forest Sustainability:

Experience from Nepal Dr Bharat K. Pokharel available at
www.wrm.org.uy/.../Nepal.html accessed on 10th march 2011
 Forest Act 2049 (1993)

 National forestry Plan 1976

 Berlett and Nurse; 1990
 R.B. and Pandey, T.R. 1992; User group forestry in the far western region of Nepal
 Feese and Brien, 1993
 Gilmour, D.A. and R.J. Fisher (1991) Villagers, Forest and Foresters: The Philosophy,
Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal Kathmandu:
Table of Content:

Table of Abbreviations

Table of Statutes

Chapter-1

1.1 Background

1.2 Objective

1.3 Limitation

1.4 Methodology

Chapter-2

2.1 History and development of VAT

2.2 VAT law in Nepal

2.3. Introduction of VAT

2. 4. Types of VAT

2.5 Basis features of Nepalese VAT System

2.6 Major legal aspect of VAT in Nepal

Chapter-3

3.1 Conclusion

Bibliography