Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?

Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
The multi-partnership approach, introduced in the third phase (beginning 1996),
represented a major change in the modality of project implementation. That is,
the project no longer partnered solely with the Department of Forests, but sought
to support multiple actors in community forestry – in particular NGO service
providers, but also advocacy organisations (most notably the Federation of
Community Forest Users, FECOFUN), and actors in the private sector - as
and where possible. The reasons for this were varied. One was very practical:
the growing recognition of the diffi culty of working solely with the government
agency in a situation of civil confl ict (this indeed became the over-riding factor).
With increasing Maoist presence in the project area, Forest department staff
became largely confi ned to the district head-quarters and it was locally based
NGOs, with their local knowledge and contacts, which were able to continue to
operate. There was also the more moral argument of wishing to work in a balanced
manner with different sectors of society, and to do so in a manner that particularly
supported the disadvantaged. NGOs were seen as having specifi c potential in this
respect, and indeed over the years have become increasingly vocal about support
for the poor and disadvantaged.
“The major question is to what extent the resources reach the CFUGs – they who are
the targeted benefi ciaries of the project. In comparison to the money paid for DFO
quarter maintenance, the money reaching CFUGs is actually very limited. CFUGs have
also started questioning this... The transparency on the fi nances of the DFO programme is
very questionable.”
Shankar Katuwal, Chairperson, FECOFUN Okhaldunga
“Budget allocation has been somehow balanced as it is channelised through various
stakeholders such as the government, NGOs, CFUGs and FECOFUN.”
Dil Bahadur Khatri, Forest Action
In the late 1990s, it became a common trend for donors to reduce their number
of employees in-country (retaining generalists rather than specialists), and to
out-source project management to professional organisations that could offer
appropriate technical, fi nancial and managerial competences. The rationale for this
was that when the full costs were taken into account, out-sourcing was (generally)
cheaper and more effi cient – and left donor personnel more free to engage at
strategic and policy levels. A call for tenders to manage NSCFP was won by
the Swiss non-profi t making organisation Intercooperation, which managed the
project since 2000. Intercooperation thus undertook full responsibility for fund
management, employment of project personnel, and delivery of expected results
- including monitoring and reporting. All project funds were channelled through
Intercooperation, which, through its project offi ce in Kathmandu, channelled
funds to the Government of Nepal Treasury for Red Book activities, and to other
partners for direct-funded activities. This worked smoothly and effectively, but led to a
perception of the part of some stakeholders that the project was costly to run.
6