Challenges Of Benefit-Sharing

November 26, 2004
12 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

After more than two and a half decades of implementation, Nepal’s community forestry program – a successful model for community mobilization in forest management – has reached into another stage – on issues of sharing benefits, which is going to be more complicated and difficult. There are many ambiguities regarding the role of community user groups and the government. There is no law to define whether the community user groups are just implementing institutions or they have the right of ownership. This confusion has already resulted in a number of disputes between the government and user groups recently. As forests are just beginning to reach the mature stage of generating resources, there will be more such disputes in the future on the matter of sharing benefits. The challenges that lie ahead is how to prevent confrontation in the process of community forest management

By KESHAB POUDEL

A group of villagers from Taruka village in Nuwakot district, 60 kilometers west of capital, were discussing to elect a new leader. As their forest is now at the productive stage, members of the user group wanted a leader capable of utilizing the benefits for the broader interest of community – one who can make tough bargains with the district forest office. Although Maoist insurgents asked the local people to boycott the meeting, a large number of them attended it.

Following the expiry of the tenure of representatives of the local bodies (VDCs and DDCs) two years ago, the community forestry user groups are the only representative institutions at the grassroots level functioning in many parts of the country. Although intensification of insurgency has created a number of problems, user groups have been able to keep their institution intact. Thanks to the threat issued by the Maoists, many user groups have abandoned the election process but many like Taruka villages still hold the meetings and decide the leadership.

Since forest product is lifeline of local population, any hindrance in the utilization of the forest can harm their broader interest. Although it is difficult for them, user groups continue to organize meetings and decide the way out for resource mobilization.

“Of course, there are sporadic cases of looting and killing of members of forest user groups. But the community forestry program is not badly hurt as other programs in the rural areas,” said a senior official at the Ministry of Forest.

Although Maoist insurgents have recently started targeting forest offices in various districts destroying forest posts and range offices in plain and hill areas, only a few user groups were dissolved under Maoist threat. “Problems are there as Maoists are demanding the benefits of community forestry with local population. In many cases, user groups provide certain percentage of total amount of money generated from selling the products to them,” said an office bearer of the Federation of Community Forestry User Group of Nepal. “We are facing real challenges on sharing the benefits of forest resources.”

When depleting forests were handed over to user groups two decades back, most of the forests areas were no more than a patch of bushes. Thanks to the commitment shown by local groups, the situation has changed now as regeneration of the various trees has increased green cover across the country.

“Our forest produces enormous quantity of fodder and other products fulfilling more than 50 percent of the requirement of the local population. We collect the fodder from our own forest,” said Rishab Khanal, a member of Tarkua Forest User Group. “Thanks to the road link with the village, we can sell our product in the market in the capital city.”

Following the intense pressure and court battle, the forest user groups were able to force the government to lessen the imposed tax. However, they still have to pay certain amount of money to insurgents now. In many parts of the far western districts, insurgents have reportedly started to collect the resources from community user groups.

Following intense pressure from the community forestry user groups, the government deducted 40 percent of taxes it planned to levy on total income generated by the users group leaving only 60 percent to them. The government deducted it to 15 percent.

Evolution of the CFUG

This is not a unique case of forest management and preservation through the mobilization of people at the village level. Following a massive deforestation in 1980s, the government introduced community forestry programs with an aim to retain the greenery and preserve traditional forest.

Initially, it was managed by the local bodies. With the restoration of democracy in 1990, new elected government enacted new forest act giving the implementation role to the community retaining the ownership on it.

Under the act, the government handed over depleting forest controlled by it. After the handover of forest, the user groups were given the right to manage the forest and distribute resources among them.

Be in Taruka village of Nuwakot or Begnastal of Kaski or Rampur in Palpa, community user groups have already shown that they can manage the forest in order to benefit larger segment of the population. With the implementation of community forestry program, thousands of hectors of depleting forest have already been revived now.

According to the Community Forestry Division of Department of Forest, more than 11,13,171 hectares of forest areas have already handed over to 13,538 forest user groups till November 11, 2004 covering 15,28,032 household.

Forest for Poverty Alleviation

Experiences have shown that resources generated from forest can be used to alleviate the poverty. In many rural areas, living standards of the people are better in the areas where there is abundance of forest and fodder products.

Forest provides water resources to grass and fuel wood to the people. In the areas of abundant forest resources, people have easy access to all these products. If forest products are available nearby, women do not have to walk for hours just to fetch water.

The National Planning Commission (NPC) has also realized the need to preserve the forest and use it for poverty alleviation. “Forest sector is an integral part of agriculture development and poverty alleviation. Community forest and leasehold programs, (there are over three million h.a of land needing regeneration at present – more than the total agriculture land area in the country), are an important source of livelihoods and income generation for the rural poor, especially rural women. Forestry is also an important source of manure for field crops, fodder for animals, and fuel wood and timber for households. In addition, forest conservation helps to improve rural environment by checking soil erosion and flooding,” writes Program Report on Poverty Reduction an Assessment of the Tenth Plan (PRSP) Implementation.

Poverty Reduction Strategy and Tenth Plan have attached high priority to the forestry sector especially to community forestry and leasehold forestry programs.

Along with the local community, the successful implementation of community forestry program in Nepal is a result of combined efforts of government and donor agencies. Denmark is the largest donor country supporting community forestry program in 38 districts through Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Program under DANIDA.

Livelihood Forestry Project under DFID, GTZ, Australia, Switzerland, Netherlands and CARE-Nepal has also been supporting implementation of community forestry programs. Thanks to their technical and financial support, local people were able to develop the institutional mechanisms.

At a time when the country does not have elected representatives at the Village and district level, the community user groups are the only institutions with elected representatives. Billions of rupees have already been spent by donor agencies to make the institutions at the grass root level democratically functional.

The First Phase

Whereas the first phase of the project was confined to the preservation of the forest project, the second part is going to be more complicated and difficult. Under the community forestry program, the villagers protected the forest and managed it in early days. As the forest areas are now in productive stage, the challenge now is how to share the benefits among different stake holders. Despite their given role as implementers, the forest user groups are demanding ownership rights as well.

“Actually, the communities are the owners and the government has nothing to do with it. The forest areas were traditionally with community. Following the nationalization of forests in 1957, the government took control of forest ownership,” said a forest user group member. “We are not only the implementer of the project but also the owner of our own land.”

Following the handing over of the government forests, the community, too, showed their strong faith and attachment with the forest areas. Till the government held the forest, there was no one to take care of it. As soon as user groups were formed, the people took the responsibility to take care of the forest.

“Denuded areas have regenerated, the condition of the forest has improved, and the users themselves decide the level of forest extraction. Income from sale of forest products is used in community development and forest management activities are based on the decisions of the users themselves,” said Keshav Raj Kanel chief of Community Forest Division of Department of Forest. (See box)

“The initial phase of the community forestry was geared towards assigning responsibilities and rights of local forest management to the village level political bodies,” said Kanel. “It was based on protecting and planting trees to meet the forest product needs of the local people based on the principle of gap analysis. Following the introduction of forest act in 1993, institutionalization of forest user groups (FUG) as an independence and self-governing entity begun. The FUG was given the utilization and management rights and District Forest Officers were made the gate keepers of community forestry.”

Despite all this, only a few forest users groups have made efforts to commercially exploit the forest products. In the hill areas, there is no market to sell the products. The forests – which have access to roads – have the most commercial values. In the remote parts of Nepal, consumers are buyer as well as the members of the community forestry.

One of the visible results of successful community forestry is that the price of timbers remained stagnant in the last one decade as compared to the other construction materials. The prices of wood remain same as it was a decade ago. Thanks to the abundant supply of wood, there is high competition.

The total annual income from the sale of forest products from community forest is about Rs.747 million. In calculating the proportion of the value of forest products, timber generates the highest percentage (69 percent) followed by fuel wood 18 percent and grass and fodder and bedding materials 10 percent.

According to a study conducted by Kanel, CFUGs are spending 28.5 percent of their income in forest protection and management. Community development comprises the highest proportion of CFUG expenses (36 percent), which includes school support, road construction and other community infrastructure development. Although it is very low at 3 percent, the CFUGs are also spending their money on pro-poor programs. The total annual budget of the Department of Forest was about Rs 680 million, and the annual income of the Department was about Rs.550 million in 2002.

“Till now, the community forestry program has focused on the protection of greenery and the management side is weak and ineffective,” said Amrit Lal Joshi, Technical Adviser to NARSMP. “The main challenges now are the forest management and income generation.”

It is easier said than done. There were already a number of frictions between the government and users groups. Just a year ago, the forest user groups forced the government to rebuke its policy to take 40 percent resources generated from the community forestry.

“Community should be given more freedom to work. If the government makes efforts to control the community forestry, it will have negative effect in the overall community forestry program,” said Joshi. “To manage the forest and income generation, both should move side by side.”

As the communities have already protected the forest and it is now time reap the financial benefits, it seems certain there is going to be some sort of confrontation between the user groups and the government.

“We have sacrificed all our life in protecting the forest. Nobody will tolerate the intervention of the government. The issue of taxation should be left to the user groups,” said a member of a user group.

Maila Khatri, 46, a resident of Lele, had not realized that the hills around his village would transform in such a manner within a decade. About two decades ago, a torrential rainfall had washed away the entire village of Lele but now with the success of community forestry, the denuded hills have all turned green and the threat of landslides have subsided.

With the first 25 years of implementation of community forestry program over, local population has developed institutional mechanisms for forest management. The challenge ahead is how to sustain the forest and greenery as well as generate the resources.

The government, too, has to make up its mind whether the community is just implementer or ownership. The issue of ownership must be decided soon. Although the officials claim that this is just a management modality but not ownership, the user groups see the process as handover of ownership. To show its ownership, the government has already taxed the forest. The official line is that the community should be given benefit not ownership.

“The government should be clear on management responsibility. Benefit sharing is one thing and claiming the ownership is another,” said a senior official at the Ministry of Forest.

The first two and half decades of community forestry program has taught that the sustainable forest management is possible in case the user groups at the grass root level are accountable to the people. Despite intensification of insurgency resulting in the disruption of voting exercise at the central and local level, forest user groups – another elected institution at the grass root level – are still functioning; managing the forest for the benefit of a large segment of the population.

As applied in the earlier phase, the forest is for the people, by the people and of the people. If the total ownership is delivered, the people would take right decision on right time.