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

Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
cohesion. For example, SDC is actively involved in guiding staff recruitment
processes - usually a matter left to the implementing agency. Similarly, in taking
any sensitive decisions on the ground, project personnel are expected to check fi rst
with security offi cer of SDC in Kathmandu and Liaison Offi cer of SDC responsible
for the respective districts. Thus there is a fi ne balance between independence and
coordination, and a constant need for excellent communication.
In planning the last phase of NSCFP 5 , it was recognised that despite project
efforts, there was considerable variation in the degree of sustainability of the
(then) 919 CFUGs in the project area, with some being much more advanced in
others with regard to the quality of their forest and its management, their ability to
generate income, and their institutional maturity. The decision was made to place
emphasis on terminating the project with a critical mass of CFUGs that could be
considered fully sustainable in ecological, economic and institutional terms, and
would thus serve as role models for others. This fi tted well with SDC’s cluster
approach – which not only entails district level coordination between different
projects, but also the focusing of all activities in particular geographical areas
(clusters) within the district. The CFUG database of project districts clearly
indicates that cluster CFUGs do show overall better performance, as can be seen in
subsequent sections of this document and NSCFP (2011). However, many project
staff and stakeholders have not been convinced by the concept of selective support.
They consider that CFUGs outside the cluster areas have been unfairly treated.
Certainly it was not always easy to explain to non-cluster CFUGs the reasons for
the “two tier” approach.
“There is now discrimination between clusters and non-clusters: Non-cluster CFUGs feel
discriminated as they do not get any resources from the project. I have realised that for the
same kind of work we have to adopt a different approach in the two types of CFUGs…”
Shankar Katuwal, Chairperson, FECOFUN Okhaldunga
“As in the cluster approach, NSCFP could focus on CFUGs to work for the poor and
Disadvantaged Groups (DAGs) 6 more intensively by mobilising local social mobilisers.
However, working for the poor and DAGs in such intensity in non-cluster areas is next to
impossible. Non-cluster CFUGS have been constantly pressurising NSCFP staff for more
programmes.”
Anita Shrestha, NSCFP
In seeking to support CFUGs to become fi nancially independent, another
change introduced in the last phase of NSCFP was the channelling of funding
directly to them, rather than via NGO service providers (who were previously
contracted to undertake work on behalf of the CFUGs). Most of the CFUGs have an
administrative and fi nancial management system in place, although at a small
5 For planning a new phase of an on-going project such as NSCFP, the main goal and objectives of the project are
discussed and agreed at a “planning platform” attended by representatives of key stakeholders. The details are
then worked out in discussions between SDC and NSCFP staff.
6 For planning a new phase of an on-going project such as NSCFP, the main goal and objectives of the project are
discussed and agreed at a “planning platform” attended by representatives of key stakeholders. The details are
then worked out in discussions between SDC and NSCFP staff.
8