community forestry in nepal at the cross-roads: where do we go? narayan kaji shrestha women acting...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-
Roads: Where Do We Go?
Narayan Kaji Shrestha
Women Acting Together for Ch ange (WATCH), Nepal
1. INTRODUCTION
Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Ever est and the Himalays is also is known as the Country of Community Forestry
Many issues and problems being raised Issues become significant in the context
that three agencies are vying for control of forest management
1.1 Contending Forces
Government forest agencies, local government agencies and user groups are contending and vying for power, authority, and control over and manage forestry resources in Nepal.
. The forest bureaucracy gets its power and authority to control and manage forestry resource through the state
The local government agencies through politics and election.
FECOFUN being a representative has to strengthen itself by improving credibility of users by setting up horizontal accountability among users themselves.
1.2 Background
Loot the Resource from People and Destroy Environment
Forest Destruction in Himalayan Country reached up to 3.9% per annum
“Eco-Doom” and “Tragedy of Commons” Himalayan Kingdom to be a Desert by
2000 Bureaucracy-Politicians-Contractors’
Nexus Destroyers of Forests People are Blamed
Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources? Historically, State and Rulers Encroached
upon Forest Resources of People Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward,
etc. Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s
Forest for Railway Slippers and others. By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land
Distributed to Elites and Powerful and Three-Fourth went to the Rana Families
1.3 Initiative after 1951
Nationalization of Private Forests Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration PP PPP PPP PPPPPP The Master Plan (1989) developed policy
to devolve rights of management to userP
P PPPPPPP PPP PP PPPPPPP PPP P PPPPPPPPPP Plan by consensus are requirement for h
PPP-PPPP
DFO is supposed to make sure cons ensus is reached
However, the process is not followe d and issues raised
The Change Process: Trusting People as Managers Moving from Resource Creation to
Institution Building and Strengthening
Focus on People Rather Than Trees Users as Managers and Forest
Officials as Facilitators Secure Rights of Users To Manage Decision Making by Consensus
Outcome:
The Forestry Officials are Reoriented Local Users Have Developed Ownership 18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million
Hectare of Forest Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction
is halted Community Development Activities
Initiated FECOFUN is Created
1.4 Statement of the Problem
Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field for rulers, politicians and bureaucrats.
Community forestry as a priority program
61% of forest is supposed to be turned into community forests
The forest bureaucracy backtracking with introduction of OFMP and CFM
The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law
The LGAs have rights to manage fallow l and, raise taxes and develop plans for re
PPPPPPP P PPPPPP PPP The Forest Department and the LGAs are
allying against users with provision of DF CC and allocation of 20% revenue
2. Analytical Framework
2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution Debate
2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights
2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors
3. Description of Initiative U PP PPPPPPPP: 3.1 Is There a Fish in the Bowl? 3.2 Did Pictures Speak? 3.3 What is the Goal? 3.4 Are User Groups Rooted
Enough? 3.5 Are Stems Strong Enough? 3.6 What Fruits User Groups
Require?
Perpetual Rights over Resources Integrated Resources Management Good Governance Consensus Participatory Democracy Social Justice Accountability
4. Analysis and Discussion 4.1 Actors and Their Playing Field:
Forest Bureaucracy, Local Government Agencies and FECOFUN
Deconcentration, Decentralization, and Devolution operational side by side
The Donors are under pressure to follow the Government
FECOFUN needs to improve its strength by improving effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.
The proper process of user group formation
FECOFUN played critical role in the recent movement 2006 by announcing itself with the democratic forces
However, they are paying the price
5. The Lessons Learned:
Resource Management Requires Active Participation by Users
Elites and Powerful Withheld Information from People to Control Them
User Group Formation Process with Consensus is a Time Consuming Process
Some Bureaucrats Can Change but Most of Them are Hard Nuts to Crack
6. Conclusions and RecoPPPPPPPPPPP The state itself is creating confusio
n by creating contending forces thr ough decentralization
CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory Democracy
Users need to practice consensus in their decision making process and good governance
FECOFUN needs to promote govern ance in their structures to bolster th
eir credibility as a lobbying organization
FECOFUN needs to develop a proce ss which can address issues of gove
rnance in the user groups
What’s There for Us
Your Support for CF is also Support for the Participatory Democracy
So-Called Experts are Trying to Destroy CF from Nepal, Please Help Us.
Nepal can Come Out of Poverty only by Managing Its Own Resources, Help Us in This. We do not Want to be a Beggar Nation.
CF will Lead Us to Democratic Republic, Please Stop Exploitative Forces to Undermine Our Aspiration of Being a Democratic Republic.