Bonch, Dolakha 1989 Before Community Forestry Bonch, Dolakha 2010 After Community Forestry
1. INTRODUCTION <strong>Two</strong> <strong>decades</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong>: <strong>What</strong> <strong>have</strong> <strong>we</strong> <strong>learned</strong>? Development projects conceived now are rarely expected to <strong>have</strong> a life <strong>of</strong> more than fi ve years, perhaps ten years at most. Look<strong>in</strong>g back over more than t<strong>we</strong>nty years <strong>of</strong> project experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> - itself grounded on an <strong>in</strong>tegrated development project <strong>of</strong> a similar time span - is thus a rare opportunity. Of course trees and forests require a longer establishment period than many other development <strong>in</strong>terventions, and that is part <strong>of</strong> the rationale for a long time frame – but not the only one. The project has also sought to promote social change <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> the poor and disadvantaged, and it was recognised both by those <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the project and by <strong>in</strong>dependent evaluators that this is not rapidly achieved 1 . The beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong>’s <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> programme may be traced back to the late 1970s, at a time when there <strong>we</strong>re many concerns about the environmental stability <strong>of</strong> degraded Himalayan slopes and the subsistence needs <strong>of</strong> the grow<strong>in</strong>g population (Eckholm, 1976; World Bank, 1978). Huge progress has been made over the <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g years, with <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g widely hailed as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong>’s success stories (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991; Gautam et al., 2002). Some 25% <strong>of</strong> the total forest area <strong>of</strong> the country is now productively managed by local communities. Yet there are critics. Indeed, the <strong>Nepal</strong> Swiss Community Forestry Project (1990 – 2011) has reached an end at a time <strong>of</strong> rene<strong>we</strong>d and grow<strong>in</strong>g scepticism about <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong>’s media and amongst some key fi gures <strong>in</strong> the <strong>forestry</strong> sector – a criticism that <strong>in</strong> many ways is born <strong>of</strong> the success <strong>of</strong> the programme overall. Regenerated, productive forests are a source <strong>of</strong> <strong>we</strong>alth, and who benefi ts – or who should benefi t - from that <strong>we</strong>alth is a source <strong>of</strong> contention. As was made clear dur<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>ternational conference on <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> held <strong>in</strong> Pokhara <strong>in</strong> September 2009 2 , <strong>Nepal</strong>’s <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> programme has played a signifi cant role <strong>in</strong> empo<strong>we</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g rural forest users – <strong>in</strong> economic, social and political terms (Pokharel et al 2009). Yet the degree to which this has happened varies across the country, and many challenges rema<strong>in</strong>. Indeed, throughout the world, <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> is recognised as hav<strong>in</strong>g far more potential benefi ts for the poor and disadvantaged than <strong>have</strong> yet been achieved (IUCN, 2011; International Forestry Review, 2009; RRI, 2008). This document seeks to review and document the part that NSCFP has played <strong>in</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong>. Although for simplicity, the name NSCFP is used to refer to the project over its entire lifetime, it <strong>in</strong> fact began <strong>in</strong> 1990 as the Dolakha Ramechhap Community Forestry Development Project. It then became NSCFP <strong>in</strong> 1996, when the district <strong>of</strong> Okhaldunga was added. When SDC took the decision to move <strong>in</strong>to Khotang district <strong>in</strong> 2009, and to phase out all its activities <strong>in</strong> Dolakha by the end <strong>of</strong> 2010, NSCFP follo<strong>we</strong>d the same pattern – although it was already <strong>in</strong> its last phase. 1 See for example Gronow et al (2003), and Hobley et al (2007) for <strong>in</strong>dependent project reviews. 2 For the declaration made at the workshop, see http://www.<strong>forestry</strong>nepal.org/article/tags/4404 1