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

Box 6: Governance coaching at CFUG level
Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
Governance Coaching is a tool developed by NSCFP to encourage CFUG members to
refl ect on governance practices within the group, and on what can be done for the bipanna.
NGO service providers were trained in its implementation, and were at fi rst accompanied
in the fi eld by a member of NSCFP staff, although this is no longer considered necessary
except for occasional monitoring. The tool is fully described in NSCFP Issue Paper 5 (2007).
Normally some 30 or so persons take part in the coaching – executive committee members
plus others selected on the basis of full member representation. The governance practices
discussed include the style of leadership, fi nancial record-keeping, the way that meetings
are organised and recorded, etc. Then the provisions for the poor and disadvantaged are
reviewed. How this works in practice is refl ected in the following comments by a CFUG
executive committee member:
“During the Governance Coaching we reviewed the [Operational] Plan – what we had
decided, what we had done, who had come to the meeting, what was written and then
what had actually been done. One thing we realised was that everyone who participated
signed, and then the decisions were written afterwards as we thought that everyone had
agreed – but actually the correct thing to do is to write the decisions fi rst and then to sign.
We also realised that there was not a single decision in the Plan that was specifi cally about
the poor – most decisions related purely to forest management…. We learned what we had
overlooked, where we had made mistakes - such as not thinking about the bipanna, and
not recording income and expenditure thoroughly - and we realised how to improve…”
Ganesh Bahadur Majhi – Secretary, Ampani Thulobhir Community Forest, Ramechhap
District.
However, governance coaching requires more than one input in order to be effective, as
this refl ection from a facilitator indicates. He was speaking about the CFUG of Manthani,
in Charikot municipality.
I followed up closely myself for my own interest over a fi ve month period, even though we
[ECARDS] had a contract for only 1 month facilitation. When we fi rst came, the participation
of women, bipanna and Dalits was low, and the fund was stuck in a bank gaining virtually
no interest. So I was curious to see what changes took place. After fi ve months, a woman
was chairperson; they had created a scholarship for two bipanna, and were making loans
at a slightly lower interest rate for bipanna – basically, a lot of changes in a short time. After
two years, I went again. Now there are fi ve women in the committee, but a woman has not
been retained in the position of chair….Essentially, I feel that there needs to be follow-up.
Whilst there was initially a lot of change in the CFUG, this was because the project paid for
facilitation. Since then there hasn’t been project input, and so the whole change process
has stagnated. Follow-up should focus on issues specifi c to the particular CFUG. If you can
go at least three times in the fi rst year, using the opportunity of regular meetings to do some
coaching, it could really make a difference. During this time you have to train some people
in the group who will afterwards continue to take things forward”
Jagannath Basnet, facilitator, FECOFUN (formerly ECARDS)
It is of course also important that transparency is demonstrated by the facilitating
NGO service provider staff; and with regard to relations with and within the Forest
Department. For example, when approving an Operational Plan, the DFO should
37