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

Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
“The well being ranking exercise promoted by NSCFP and practiced now by CFUGs helped
to mobilise CFUG funds. This has also attracted other agencies to help such identifi ed
poor. Many development agencies now have started using the household as their target
benefi ciary, as identifi ed by the well being ranking exercise. Many households which have
been identifi ed through well-being ranking are now getting opportunities and help from
various agencies other than NSCFP.” Brahma Dhoj Gurung, NSCFP
In addition to the above, NSCFP has provided interest-free loans to the identifi ed
extreme poor for home-based livelihood activities. This provision is known as LIP
– Livelihood Improvement Programme (see box 3, Pokharel and Carter, 2007 and
Tembe, 2010). Under the LIP, some 2,786 extreme poor households were assisted
in improving their livelihoods. A study (Tembe, 2010) investigated how a 10%
sample of the fi rst 1,436 (reached between mid 2004 – mid 2006) had fared. It
found that 84% of the households had made signifi cant economic gains – enough
to be food suffi cient through the year, and in the case of 34%, to make some
household purchases in addition. Furthermore, some 76% reported lower
anxiety, often linked to a feeling of better social status within the community.
The 16% of households that had not been able to benefi t signifi cantly from the
programme were the very poorest – comprising elderly, handicapped or otherwise
destitute individuals with no able-bodied family members. For such cases, the only
solution seems to be a form of social security payment by the local government.
Box 4: Livelihood Improvement Programme (LIP)
Under the LIP, the selected bipanna households are entitled to a loan of Rs 5,000, of which
75% should be paid back in instalments to form a rotating fund within the CFUG. The
funding is channelled through the CFUG, which is paid a further 15% service charge
for organising the loans (thus providing incentive). For these livelihood activities, the
disadvantaged households make the choice themselves, and draw up a simple fi nancial
plan with facilitation from a service provider. Given the fi nancial limit of Rs 5,000 and
the paucity of options in remote areas, it is diffi cult to be very innovative. Furthermore,
households identifi ed as bipanna are quite often so because of the ill health or disability
of a key member – thus rendering them unable to undertake physical labour. Most plans
thus involve simple interventions such as the raising of livestock (usually goats or pigs),
or the manufacture for sale of leaf plates, brooms, wooden utensils, bamboo products and
furniture. Households often give preference to traditional (caste) occupations with which
they are familiar, although the project sought to challenge such stereotypes.
Overall, the LIP may be considered highly successful, and a clear demonstration
that such intensive household-directed efforts are effective – although of course
the numbers compared to the numbers of extreme poor in the project overall are
fairly small. It is calculated that an investment of at least $ 200 is required to bring a
person out of poverty, although this fi gure must be used with caution as it depends
on the level of original poverty, the time span of engagement (for the development
of social and human capital), and accessibility to basic services such as drinking
water, road and electricity. A further complicating factor is the degree to which legal
25