Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<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>?<br />
Res<strong>in</strong> tapp<strong>in</strong>g requires basic know-how and skill <strong>in</strong> order to maximise yield without<br />
damag<strong>in</strong>g the tree; this is also quite a hard, unpleasant job. The companies<br />
therefore br<strong>in</strong>g experienced res<strong>in</strong> tappers from Palpa who undertake the harvest;<br />
the res<strong>in</strong> is then transported to Kathmandu for fi nal process<strong>in</strong>g and packag<strong>in</strong>g. The<br />
NSCFP approach to this value cha<strong>in</strong> was to suggest that CFUGs conduct res<strong>in</strong><br />
tapp<strong>in</strong>g themselves, and organise process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a local enterprise. To this end,<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>able tapp<strong>in</strong>g methods was provided to selected bipanna, and the<br />
creation <strong>of</strong> a <strong>community</strong>-based res<strong>in</strong> company was encouraged. Established as a<br />
partnership bet<strong>we</strong>en local CFUGs and private <strong>in</strong>vestors, start-up fund<strong>in</strong>g for the<br />
Tamakoshi Community Res<strong>in</strong> and Turpent<strong>in</strong>e Private Ltd. was provided partially<br />
by FECOFUN, and partially from private sources. It has, ho<strong>we</strong>ver, met with limited<br />
success as break<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to the exist<strong>in</strong>g market has proved more diffi cult than<br />
anticipated. A particular problem has been the diffi culty <strong>in</strong> fi nd<strong>in</strong>g will<strong>in</strong>g labour<br />
given that other, more attractive, options exist.<br />
“Not much attention is paid to product market<strong>in</strong>g and quality assurance <strong>in</strong> the management<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>community</strong> based enterprises. Moreover, the contribution <strong>of</strong> voluntary labour to promote<br />
and run enterprises by <strong>community</strong> members is not susta<strong>in</strong>able, as they cannot afford<br />
voluntary participation. Similarly, poor households <strong>have</strong> to be guaranteed employment<br />
opportunities rather than just a share <strong>in</strong> the enterprise capital. Facilitation support to identify<br />
the appropriate enterprise is not adequate. Most importantly, timber based enterprises<br />
<strong>have</strong> not been suffi ciently promoted. Hav<strong>in</strong>g the same leadership <strong>in</strong> FECOFUN as <strong>in</strong> the<br />
enterprise makes the situation complicated, as they cannot <strong>of</strong>fer quality time to both.”<br />
Prakash Katuwal, Area Value Cha<strong>in</strong> Offi cer, NSCFP<br />
Timber is <strong>we</strong>ll known as the forest-based value cha<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> which there is greatest<br />
potential to generate pr<strong>of</strong>i t. Ho<strong>we</strong>ver, it is also the most un-transparent <strong>of</strong> the value<br />
cha<strong>in</strong>s, entangled <strong>in</strong> a <strong>we</strong>b <strong>of</strong> rules and regulations that are diffi cult to follow, and<br />
high levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formal payments (tips and bribes). For this reason relatively few<br />
CFUGs <strong>in</strong> the project area <strong>we</strong>re <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> timber harvest<strong>in</strong>g until recently, and<br />
the project did not make it a fi rst priority. CFUGs are required to obta<strong>in</strong> permission<br />
from DFOs to sell timber, and this is only given if all local subsistence needs can<br />
be proved to <strong>have</strong> been met. Separate permission to transport timber to the sales<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t is also required. Furthermore, timber harvest<strong>in</strong>g is only permitted <strong>in</strong> the drier<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the year (November to June) – which gives a very short harvest<strong>in</strong>g period<br />
for forests at higher altitudes. Another rule is that forest-based enterprises with<br />
the private sector <strong>in</strong>vestment cannot be established with<strong>in</strong> or close to forests; a<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> at least 1 km from the forest boundary must be left. Conditions such as<br />
these tend to dissuade would-be <strong>in</strong>vestors. Other aspects that complicate timber<br />
market<strong>in</strong>g are the royalty rate, which is fi xed as the same regardless <strong>of</strong> the type<br />
and quality <strong>of</strong> timber, and the payment <strong>of</strong> taxes at many po<strong>in</strong>ts along the value<br />
cha<strong>in</strong> (multiple taxation).<br />
In the years 2008 - 2011, NSCFP supported a selected number <strong>of</strong> timber-rich<br />
CFUGs <strong>in</strong> cluster areas <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g commercial use <strong>of</strong> their forests. This <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
66