• Save
Pashupati Nath KOIRALA "Forest entitlement and benefit sharing in community forests in Nepal"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Pashupati Nath KOIRALA "Forest entitlement and benefit sharing in community forests in Nepal"

on

  • 489 views

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

Statistics

Views

Total Views
489
Views on SlideShare
470
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 19

http://conftool.grforum.net 11
http://www.conftool.pro 7
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Pashupati Nath KOIRALA "Forest entitlement and benefit sharing in community forests in Nepal" Pashupati Nath KOIRALA "Forest entitlement and benefit sharing in community forests in Nepal" Presentation Transcript

  • Benefit Sharing in CommunityForest Entitlement and Benefit Forests in NepalSharing in Community Forestsin Nepal Pashupati Koirala10th April, UNCCD, Bonn Pashupati Koirala Forest Management Officer Department of Forests, Nepal E: koiralapn@gmail.com
  • Overview• Community forestry• Evolution in Nepal• Concepts• Learning• Conclusions 11
  • Evolution of community forestry pre 1990 1978 PF 1976 and PPF Forest Plan rules inclusion of 1961 Forest people Act and participation provisioned Panchayat and 1957 Panchayat protected forest Nationaliz ation of private 12 forests
  • Evolution of Community forestry after 1990..... 1995: Forest Regulation 1993: Forest Act 1989: Master plan of forestry sector 13
  • ObjectiveTo gain insight /explore the relationship of forestsbenefits and its distribution mechanisms amongusers. Two Community Forests Rani Simpani Ha 151.87 358.4 HH 702 389 Respondent: 102 HH 14
  • Forest Entitlement (Community Forestry) National Forests Forest Act, 1993 Regional Forest Directorate: monitoring and appeal hearing DFO: approval of operational plan Endowment CF/CFUG Sub groups and other groups Entitlement Household and community benefits Well being Adapted from Leach et al., 1999 15
  • Community Forest (CF) and Community Forest User Group( CFUG) CFThe part of National Forest handed over to the CommunityForest User Group for its protection, development andutilization. CFUGThe group of local people registered in the District forestOffice for the management and utilization of the CommunityForest. 16
  • BenefitsHouseholds (Provisional Community services) • Community development Infrastructure ( road, school,Material building etc.)• Fuel wood • Social development• Timber Scholarship• Fodder/Leaf litter/Animal bedding• Agricultural implements• Wild foodsNon material• Environmental services : Water• Grant for bio-gas 17
  • 18
  • Problems• Well off users are getting more benefits than poor users ( in equitable distribution).• Elite capture in leadership positions ( Decision process; constitutional, collective and operational).Forest generates benefit for wellbeing ? 19
  • Non commercial Commercial 20
  • RESULTSHousehold Benefits
  • Direct Benefits: Leaf litter/Fodder/Animal bedding/wild food• About 80 % users collect animal bedding/leaf litter. and 20 % users collect fodder• Leaf for plate and ritual ceremonies.• Only 17 HH use wild food ( Chepang community) 22
  • A trend of timber quantity used by users over 18 years in Rani CF1600140012001000800600400200 0 23 Rich Mid-wealthier Poor
  • A trend of timber used by users over six year period in Simpani CF 2500 2000Timber Cubic feet per year 1500 Rich Mid-wealthier 1000 Poor 500 0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 24
  • Timber Distribution (Caste wise) 25
  • Fire wood in RaniFuel wood distribution in Rani Rich Poor 16% 28% Medium 56% 26
  • Environmental benefitsProvisional benefit:Drinking Water and IrrigationBeneficiaries: DW 360 HH Irrigation channel 27
  • Community FundGeneration and Allocation Community Benefits 28
  • 29
  • Payment of community fund in two CFs (Rani 17 and Simpani 13 years)350000030000002500000200000015000001000000 500000 Rani CF Simpani CF 0 30
  • Institutional arrangements• All users have access to membership and voting right to elect executive members.• All have access to forest products. 31
  • Representation of Members in EC Proportional representation of members in executive committee Poor 5% Medium 39% Rich 56%No one included from poor in Simpani yet. 32
  • Rich House Poor houseHiddenSubsidy 33
  • Major household benefit..TimberTimber Rani SimpaniQuantity per HH Equal, 30 to 50 Equal/150 cft/HH cft/HHRate per Cubic NRs. 220 to 220 NRs. 20 to 35 (for remotefeet location NRs 20) 34
  • How forest development cost is shared..• About 25 % of the total cost is named forest development• However it is almost 73% of total amount goes for timber harvesting and depot management 35
  • Major Rich Poormaterial Rani Simpani Rani SimpanibenefitsTimber 268(196%) 70 (39%) 152(84%) 8(18%)BHHAverage 30.01 26.87 12.96 5.34cubicfeet/HH 36
  • ConclusionsHousehold benefits• Timber beneficiaries are rich and medium well being users.• Poor have not been using timber product because of high price.• Poor are more dependent on CF for fuel wood, grass, fodder, leaf litter and very less alternative source. 37
  • Livelihood Strategies...• Safety Net:17 HH has been still using wild food for 3 months hardship period.• Support of current consumption/coping strategy: Fuel wood/Timber/Fodder/Wild foods• Poverty reduction: no noteworthy income for poverty reduction yet. 38
  • Conclusions Institutional aspects• No discrimination in constitution and operational plan for rich and poor.• Poor, including majority users, do not take participation in the assembly.• EC has also not any encouraging activity to get participation of poor users.• EC bodies have been captured by elite and rich users. 39
  • ConclusionsCommunity benefits• Majority fund goes to infrastructure and School support.• Less than 3 % fund has been allocated for pro-poor programme.• Scholarship grant programme is only popular activity for poor users in Rani.• Rich and Medium users are getting grant money from CF for bio-gas installation. CF has not supported to poverty alleviation.Only for not to make more vulnerable in rural set up... 40
  • RecommendationPolicy level:• Mandatory provision for pro-poor activities in Forest Act.• Forest management and pro-poor development activity= First priority. ( Provision in act, rules, guidelines).Implementation:• Mobilisation of forestry staff for effective extension to convince present management bodies of community forests.Forest management:• Change the management objective from timber oriented to multipurpose forestry. 41
  • Thank you. Thank you. 42