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

Two decades of community forestry in Nepal: What have we learned?
11. CONCLUSION
In reviewing the 20 years of support for community forestry provided through
NSCFP, this document has highlighted particular successes as well as areas in
which achievements have been more muted. The project is particularly proud of
its record in building the capacities of the poor and socially excluded (especially
women and Dalits) and promoting socially inclusive practices amongst its various
stakeholders; of supporting – literally – the greening of the project area through
well managed community forests; and of the way it continued fi eld-level
engagement during the confl ict period. Matters on which NSCFP was not able to
make as much progress as hoped include the wide scale promotion of forest-based
enterprises, the productive management of high altitude forests, and the
integration of experiences of good governance at CFUG level into village level
democratic planning processes and their implementation.
A detailed study of the achievements of NSCFP in comparison with other
donor-supported community forestry programmes in Nepal was beyond the scope
of this “capitalisation” exercise. However, a review and synthesis of lessons learned
from NSCFP and the DFID-supported Livelihoods Forestry Programme (LFP) was
undertaken recently (Campbell, 2011), in order to carry forward this experience in
the up-coming Multi-stakeholder Forestry Project (MSFP). The review found many
similarities between the two projects, particularly with regard to the signifi cant
improvements in forest condition, and the major contributions made in reducing
rural poverty. In addressing discrimination, the long-term thinking of NSCFP
in building the capacities of stakeholders at all levels – most notably of village
girls and children of disadvantaged backgrounds as future development actors -
was particularly highlighted. The review also fully confi rmed the validity of
multi-stakeholder support to community forestry (in which NSCFP was an early
pioneer), and of the use of multiple funding mechanisms (that is, channelling funds as
appropriate through government, NGOs, CFUGs – and in the case of LFP, district
level committees).
Signifi cantly but not surprisingly, the review found that both NSCFP and LFP
have met with greatest diffi culties in the same areas. Promoting viable community
forest-based enterprises was recognised as a major challenge due to “major chronic
constraints in the regulatory environment, harvesting regimes, processing and
market access constraints, and the business investment environment” (Campbell,
opp. cit). Support for multi-stakeholder VDC and district level planning has been
piloted by both projects with mixed success, mainly due to the current lack of
democratically elected local level structures. Once local elections fi nally take place,
however, opportunities in this regard will be greatly increased. Although neither
project – especially not NSCFP – labelled its activities in terms of adaptation or
79