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 />
Another observer – and active participant at the time – makes the po<strong>in</strong>t that it was very<br />
important <strong>in</strong> policy discussions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong> to <strong>have</strong> strong back<strong>in</strong>g from Switzerland,<br />
and that this was <strong>in</strong>deed forthcom<strong>in</strong>g. At this time, <strong>of</strong> course, NSCFP was directly<br />
implemented by SDC; thus the donor representative <strong>in</strong> discussions, Patrick<br />
Rob<strong>in</strong>son, was an <strong>in</strong>dividual who had <strong>in</strong>-depth knowledge <strong>of</strong> project experiences.<br />
“From the outset….and for the fi rst years <strong>of</strong> project implementation, [SDC was] consistent<br />
<strong>in</strong> their priority and commitment for a radical change <strong>in</strong> donor support towards equitable<br />
rural household demand based and managed susta<strong>in</strong>able forest development, … As there<br />
was strong resistance from many quarters <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong> aga<strong>in</strong>st these strategies, the unfail<strong>in</strong>g<br />
support provided <strong>in</strong> the early years by key SDC COOF and Head Offi ce staff was crucial.”<br />
Patrick Rob<strong>in</strong>son, Forestry adviser to SDC <strong>Nepal</strong> 1989-1995 <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g CTA NSCFP 1990-<br />
1995<br />
In the latter part <strong>of</strong> the 1990s and early 2000s, there was generally less<br />
substantial <strong>forestry</strong>-specifi c policy dialogue, due to the preoccupation <strong>of</strong><br />
government, civil society and donors alike with the deteriorat<strong>in</strong>g security situation.<br />
It was, ho<strong>we</strong>ver, a time that leasehold <strong>forestry</strong> ga<strong>in</strong>ed considerable credibility<br />
with<strong>in</strong> the Department, and was strongly supported by one donor (DANNIDA).<br />
NSCFP refl ected and <strong>learned</strong> from the work <strong>of</strong> others, undertook its own analysis,<br />
and concluded that whilst leasehold <strong>forestry</strong> has potential to be “pro-poor”,<br />
it was <strong>of</strong>ten not so <strong>in</strong> practice (see Baral, 2003; Bhattarai et.al., 2007). Thus the<br />
consistent l<strong>in</strong>e taken <strong>in</strong> donor meet<strong>in</strong>gs with the M<strong>in</strong>istry (also supported by DFID)<br />
was that leasehold <strong>forestry</strong> was more appropriately seen as a sub-component <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong>, rather than a separate programme.<br />
“NSCFP has been engaged more <strong>in</strong> pro-poor <strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong> policies and less on<br />
leasehold <strong>forestry</strong> that is <strong>in</strong>tended only for the poor.”<br />
Ramesh Sunam, Forest Action<br />
Perhaps the most obvious direct role played by NSCFP <strong>in</strong> shap<strong>in</strong>g <strong>community</strong><br />
<strong>forestry</strong> policy <strong>in</strong> <strong>Nepal</strong> today is through the National Community Forestry<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>es. Those draft<strong>in</strong>g the guidel<strong>in</strong>es drew heavily upon the project’s practical<br />
fi eld experience, especially with regard to <strong>community</strong> forest <strong>in</strong>ventories; the use<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>we</strong>ll-be<strong>in</strong>g rank<strong>in</strong>g to identify the poorest and most disadvantaged members <strong>of</strong><br />
the CFUG; and the legal requirement that CFUGs allocate 35% <strong>of</strong> their <strong>in</strong>come to<br />
these persons.<br />
“NSCFP has been able to <strong>in</strong>fl uence national policy through the <strong>in</strong>ventory guidel<strong>in</strong>es. The<br />
experiences <strong>of</strong> Dolakha and Ramechhap <strong>we</strong>re capitalised to formulate the 32 <strong>in</strong>dicators for<br />
<strong>community</strong> <strong>forestry</strong>.”<br />
Khil Bahadur Tamang, Forest Ranger, Ramechhap<br />
“NSCFP has actively participated and provided technical support dur<strong>in</strong>g the forest policy<br />
mak<strong>in</strong>g process….. NSCFP contributed to mak<strong>in</strong>g the CF guidel<strong>in</strong>es pro-poor by<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g the provision <strong>of</strong> 35% fund <strong>in</strong>vestment for the poor. The contribution <strong>of</strong> NSCFP<br />
was vital <strong>in</strong> the preparation <strong>of</strong> CF guidel<strong>in</strong>es”.<br />
Balaram Kandel, Forest Offi cer, Department <strong>of</strong> Forests<br />
75