Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups

ROLE OF WOMEN IN DECISION MAKING IN BUFFER ZONE
COMMUNITY FOREST USER GROUPS
(A COMPARATIVE STUDY FROM BUFFER ZONE OF SHIVAPURI NAGARJUN AND
CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK)
ANIL KOIRALA
T.U. Registration No.: 2-2-0017-0003-2013
ADVISOR
YOGENDRA YADAV
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Supported By:
Hariyo Ban Program
PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED AS A PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY.
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
HETAUDA CAMPUS, HETAUDA NEPAL
APRIL, 2018

i
Role of Women in Decision Making in Buffer Zone
Community Forest User Groups
(A comparative study from Buffer Zone of Shivapuri Nagarjun and Chitwan National Park)
Submitted By:
Anil koirala
T.U. Registration: 2-2-0017-0003-2013
Advisor
Yogendra Yadav
Asst. Professor
IOF, Hetauda Campus,
Supported By:
Hariyo Ban Program
Project paper submitted as a partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Forestry.
April, 2018

ii
© Anil Koirala
April 2018
E-mail: koiralanil47@gmail.com
Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry,
Hetauda Campus, Hetauda Nepal
Website: www.iofhc.edu.np
Citation:
Koirala, A. (2018). Role of Women in Decision Making in Buffer Zone Community Forest User
Groups (A comparative study from Buffer Zone of Shivapuri Nagarjun and Chitwan National
Park). A Project paper submitted for the partial fulfilment of Bachelor of Science in Forestry
degree, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Hetauda Campus, Hetauda Nepal.

iii
Declaration
I, Anil Koirala, hereby declare that this project report entitled “Role of Women in
DecisionMaking in Buffer Zone Community Forest UserGroups (A comparative study
from Buffer Zone of Shivapuri Nagarjun and Chitwan National Park).” is my original
work and all other sources of information used are appropriately acknowledged. I have not
submitted it or any of its part to any other university for any academic award.
………………………
Anil Koirala
B.Sc. Forestry (2070- 74)
Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry,
Hetauda Campus, Hetauda Nepal

iv
Date: 2018-04-25
Certificate of Acceptance
This is to certify that the project paper entitled “Role of women in decision making in buffer
zone community forest user groups” (A comparative study from Buffer Zone of Shivapuri
Nagarjun and Chitwan National Park) has been accepted as a partial fulfilment for the award
of the degree ofBachelor of Science in Forestry from Tribhuvan University, Institute of
Forestry, Hetauda Campus, Hetauda, Nepal. It is a record of real field and research work
carried out by Mr. Anil Koirala (T.U. Registration No.: 2-2-0017-0003-2013)
under my guidance and supervision. No part of this research report has been submitted for any
other degree or dioloma.
I congratulate him for this success and wish him all the best in his career ahead.
…………….………….
Yogendra Yadav
Assistant Professor
Institute of Forestry
Hetauda Campus, Hetauda

v
Acknowledgement
Many individuals and institutions have contributed their invaluable time, resources and
knowledge without which, materialization of the report in this form wouldn’t have been
possible.
My deepest gratitude and sincerest thanks goes to respected supervisor Mr. Yogendra Yadav,
Assistant professor at IOF, Hetauda for his impressive guidance, constructive criticism and
intellectual support. His crucial role to make this report culminate is undescribable.
I also want to thank Hariyo Ban Project, WWF Nepal for granting financial support to carry out
this research work. DNPWC staffs especially Sarita Lama and Ajaya Yadav, ranger of
Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park Keshav Dhudhari, Durga Chaudary and Anish KCand ranger
of Chitwan National Park Shanta Bd. Magar and Kamal Kafle are also thanked a lot.
I am very much grateful to respected sir Mr. Krishna Pd. Dahal (campus chief), Mr. Narayan
Pd. Tiwari, Dr. Shiv Kumar Manjan, Mr. Keshav Acharya, Mr. Damodar Gaire and entire IOF
family for the guardianship and the encouragingly supportive family environment they provided
during my B.Sc. study.
My colleagues with whom 4 years elapsed as 4 days because of the co-stay with all pain and
pleasure being shared fully. Special mention goes to Sujan, Ananta, Manoj, Niraj, Anup,
Santosh, Gyanendra, Ramanuj, Gyan, Bishal, Ramesh, Prakash, Puspa, Prerana, Saraswoti, and
2070-74 batch mates.
At last but very far from the least, I pay honour to my parents and my brothers and sisters whose
wonderful love, unconditional support and inspiration have been fundamental to pave the path
for successful journey in my academic pursuits.
Anil koirala
2-2-0017-0003-2013

vi
Abbreviation
BZ Buffer Zone
BZCF Buffer Zone Community Forest
BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest Users Group
BZMC Buffer Zone Management Committee
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBO Community Based Organization
CNP Chitwan National Park
DAGs Disadvantaged Groups
DFO District Forest Office
DFRS Department of Forest Research and Survey
DNPWC Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation
DoF Department of Forest
Ha. Hectare
IGAs Income Generation Activities
I/NGO International Non-Governmental Organization
IOF Institute of Forestry
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
MFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
Nepal-UKCFP Nepal - United Kingdom Community Forestry Project
NP National Park
OP Operational Plan
PAs Protected Areas
SNNP Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
VDC Village Development Committee
WWF World Wildlife Fund

vii
Abstract
Women's participation in Nepal has been recognized as the main part of community resource
development and management. It is therefore very important to examine the involvement of
women in community forestry development, management process and practices. For this
purpose, research entitled “Role of women in decision making in buffer zone community
forest user groups” (A comparative study from Buffer Zone of Shivapuri Nagarjun and
ChitwanNational Park)was carried out in one BZCF of SNNP and twoBZCF of CNP managed
by female only, to assess the decision making process and practices. Primary data were
collected through household survey, focus group discussion, key informant interview and direct
observation. Secondary data were collected through different relevant sources. Mean,
Percentage and Frequency were mainly used for analysis of the data with the help of computer
software.
The study shows the activities carried out by women were FUG formation, OP preparation,
decision making, silvicultural operations, nursery management, protection and income
generating activities. Respondents views are indifference to their gender as tested using Chi-
square under 0.05 level of significance. Most of respondents believe that the decisions made
are democratic followed by neutral at both region and presence of female in general assembly
is more compared to that of male. Decisions are made by committee member followed by user
member then followed by chairperson and last by influential persons at both the regions.
Education, family support and culture and social norms were the major motivating and
hindering factors respectively for women's role in CF management. Therefore, women should
be empowered to participate not only in activities like plantation, protection, collection of forest
products but also in the decision making aspect, mobilizing fund etc. through increasing their
capacity. It will be helpful to mitigate the factors that hinders women’s active participation.
Keywords: Buffer zone, Community forest, Decision making, Participation, Women

viii
Declaration...............................................................................................................................iii
Certificate of Acceptance........................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................v
Abbreviation............................................................................................................................vi
Abstract...................................................................................................................................vii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Questions...........................................................................................................4
1.4 Objectives of the study......................................................................................................4
1.4.1 General objective ....................................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Significance of the study: .................................................................................................5
1.6 Limitation of the study:.....................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................6
2.1 History of Community Forestry in Nepal .........................................................................6
2.2 Status of Community Forestry in Nepal ...........................................................................7
2.3 National Parks and Buffer Zones ......................................................................................8
2.4 Women Participation ........................................................................................................9
2.5 Community Forest and Women......................................................................................10
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY........................................................................................12
3.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................12
3.1.1 Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park Introduction ...................................................... 12
3.1.2 Chitwan National Park Introduction ........................................................................ 16
3.1.3 Community forests selection procedure................................................................... 19
3.2 Data collection................................................................................................................21
3.2.1 Primary Data Collection: ......................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Secondary Data Collection....................................................................................... 24
3.3 Data analysis...................................................................................................................24
Table of Contents

ix
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................26
4.1 Socio Economic condition of respondents......................................................................26
4.1.1 Respondents by Sex composition ............................................................................ 26
4.1.2 Respondents by Age class........................................................................................ 27
4.1.3 Respondents by Ethnic composition........................................................................ 27
4.1.4 Respondents by Educational status.......................................................................... 28
4.1.5 Respondents by Occupational status........................................................................ 29
4.1.6 Respondents by Wellbeing status ............................................................................ 29
4.1.7 Expenditure ranking by Respondents ...................................................................... 30
4.2 Activities undertaken by CFUG......................................................................................30
4.2.1 Forest management activities .................................................................................. 31
4.2.2 Forest product collection and distribution system .................................................. 31
4.2.3 Community development activities......................................................................... 31
4.2.4 Income generation activities.................................................................................... 31
4.2.5 Change in condition of forest................................................................................... 32
4.3 Respondents Present at General Assembly .....................................................................32
4.4 Perception towards decisions made ................................................................................33
4.5 Role of Male for BZCF Activities ..................................................................................33
4.6 Conflicts of BZCFs are resolved.....................................................................................35
4.7 Effectiveness of female headed BZCF............................................................................36
4.8 Decision making process in BZCFUG ...........................................................................36
4.9 Affecting factors for decision making by women...........................................................37
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...........................................40
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................42
APPENDICES........................................................................................................................47
Appendix I ............................................................................................................................47
Appendix II...........................................................................................................................50
Appendix III..........................................................................................................................58
SOME PHOTO PLATES......................................................................................................59

x
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Study area map ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.1: Sex structure of the respondents............................................................................ 26
Figure 4.2: Age group of the respondents................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.3: Ethnic composition of the respondents.................................................................. 27
Figure 4.4: Educational status of the respondents.................................................................... 28
Figure 4.5: Occupational status of the respondents.................................................................. 29
Figure 4.6: Wellbeing of the respondents ................................................................................ 29
Figure 4.7: Respondents Present at General Assembly by sex category ................................. 32
Figure 4.8: Respondents perception towards decisions made.................................................. 33
Figure 4.10: Conflicts resolved by........................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.11: Effectiveness of female headed BZCF ................................................................ 36
Figure 4.12: Decisions passed in BZCFUG by various stakeholders ...................................... 36
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Brief description of study area ................................................................................ 20
Table 4.1: Expenditure ranking of Respondents ...................................................................... 30
Table 4.2: Change in condition of forest.................................................................................. 32
Table 4.3: Ranking by Mudkhu Shrijansil users...................................................................... 37
Table 4.4: Ranking by Paryatakiya Vutaha users .................................................................... 38
Table 4.4: Ranking by Hariyali Mahila users .......................................................................... 39

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The unique geographical position and variations in altitude and climate have made Nepal as
one of the storehouses of biological diversity in the world. It is a home to diverse floral and
faunal species, natural ecosystems, ranging from lowland Terai region to the high Himalayas.
Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) established in 1980, aims
to protect the endangered species, protect their habitat and ecosystem, promote ecotourism,
enhance wildlife research and monitoring and contribute towards ecological and economic
prosperity of the country. The Protected areas (PAs) management formally begun in 1973 with
the enactment of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973. The PA system covers
23.39 % of the country's land. Till date there are a total of 20 Protected Areas including 12
National Parks, 1 Wildlife Reserves, 6 Conservation Areas and 1 Hunting Reserve (DNPWC,
2018) PAs has gone through several major phases from species conservation to ecosystem,
integrated conservation and development, at landscape and ecoregion levels. Nepal has
progressively marched from conservation policies from ‘people exclusionary’ and ‘species
focused’ towards ‘people-centered and community based’ approaches (DNPWC, 2017).
To promote integrated and long term conservation management by improving co-operation
among Protected Areas and Buffer Zone communities, on 2052 BS Buffer Zone Management
Regulations was introduced and as its implementation 13 buffer zones are declared. Various
Bio-diversity Conservation and Development Programs are being conducted now at buffer
zone areas with the participation of local consumers Amended National Park and Wildlife
Conservation Act, 1973 has made a provision to allocate 30-50% of the total revenue generated
for local community development. Buffer zone management and the establishment of Buffer
Zone Management Committee, BZ Management Committee and BZ Users Groups have
enabled local peoples to improve their livelihoods drawing benefits from PAs and contribute
towards biodiversity conservation. Communities, local authorities, and civil society
organizations are now directly involved in supporting PA management and associated
livelihoods programs (DNPWC, 2017). The Community-based forest management practices,

2
community managed conservation areas, the community based-seed and genome conservation
practices, and buffer zone resource conservation are exemplary participatory resource
management practices developed within unitary system of government (DFRS, 2017).
The growing interest in the effectiveness of management of protected areas can be traced
through the emergence of the topic at the decadal World Parks congresses (Hockings et al.,
2007)—first emerging in papers at the third congress (in Bali) in 1982, progressed at the fourth
congress (in Caracas) 10 years later and then being one of the priority topics discussed at the
fifth congress in Durban in 2003 after a significant effort by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and others to advance work on this issue in the intervening
period. Including as a part of self-assessment, protected area management effectiveness is a
key element of a broader investigation of progress on the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) strategic plan and its constituent Aichi Targets especially Target 11, which addresses
the contribution that an effectively and equitably managed protected area system can make to
the overall goals of the convention (Hockings et al., 2015):
Community forest was the formal beginning of the community based forest management in
Nepal (Gautam et al., 2004) for the effective management. Buffer zone community forest plays
vital role for the resource management along with the fulfillment of basic needs of the nearby
residents. The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS 1989) further developed the CF
program by recognizing it as one of the primary forestry program. To date, 19,361 Community
Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) have been formed (benefited HH 24,61,549) of which 1072
are composed of only women members (DOF,2017). Women have different and
complementary interests relative to men within a CFUG which stem from the differences in
concerns and nature of dependence on forest that women have relative to men (Agarwal, 2000,
2010). Women have better knowledge than men of certain forest products, on how these
products should be extracted and which species should be planted. Given the specific interests
of women in certain forest products and particularly in fire wood, they thus have the incentive
to ensure the availability of these products and ultimately to protect the forests. Women may
also have different preferences than men (Chattopadhyay and Duo, 2004).

3
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Women are the primary users of the forest and they know a lot about the uses of forest in terms
of fuel woods, best fodder species, medicinal value of herbs, nutritional value of forest foods
and fruits, etc. which men may not know. Supporting their families through the use of such
products has become increasingly difficult in the present scenario of rapidly degrading
environment. Hence, women who are clearly a major beneficiary of the conservation and
sustainable management of biodiversity, their recent demands of rights to be treated justly in
order to maintain the benefits from the adjoining vegetation and to overcome the difficulty
they have to face biodiversity degradation, is praise worthy. Forest user groups in Nepal are
characterized by a comparatively high level of women's participation. As a result several forest
user groups are predominantly or entirely composed of women. Women in most of the groups
are very committed to forest protection and management, although in many cases they have to
re-vegetate with severely degraded forest patches (Stoian and Yadav, 1997).
Women around the world have triple responsibilities i.e., for production, for reproduction at
the household level, and for management of arrange of activities at the community level.
Donors and the development partners have started to recognize the importance of equity and
as a result have sought to foster the participation of women and marginalized castes within
community forestry (Arnold, 1998). Only involvement of local communities in government
programs will not be successful. The users should get feeling of ownership and benefit. It has
been proved that the organized communities are the better managers. They should be
empowered and supported.
People and government is now increasingly convinced that women are capable of making
decisions regarding forest conservation and its sustainable use. In many cases, FUGs entirely
composed of women may be nominal so that decisions made by them may be the reflection of
their male heads. There are examples of women organizing themselves and establishing self-
help groups, with involvement in decision making in biodiversity conservation. In spite of such
few cases, most of the women users are still out in decision making process. The betterment of
women and natural resource are directly linked, so the involvement of women on decision

4
making greatly affects the future condition of women and the resource. This study compares
the role of women in decision making process of two different ecological zones which are also
different in terms of education level, socio economic condition and population composition.
1.3 Research Questions
 Do women have different decision making role in women BZCFUGs?
 What are the affecting factors for decision making by women in BZCFUGs?
 What are the constraints and possibilities of women in effective decision making?
 What is the men's role in supporting women managed?
 How park authority is helping women run BZCFUG to work effectively?
1.4 Objectives of the study
1.4.1 General objective
The general objective of this study is to compare the role of women in decision making
process in the buffer zone community forestry user group of two different ecological
zones.
1.4.2 Specific objectives:
 To determine the existing system of decision making in BZCFUG of respondent
protected area.
 To identify the affecting factors for decision making by women in studied BZCFUGs.
 To compare the decision making factors in CF activities between two BZCFUGs of Mid
hills and inner Terai.

5
1.5 Significance of the study:
This report will be beneficial to protected areas staff to effectively collaborate with women
run community forest user groups present at their buffer zone area. They can also compare
the efficiency of their community forests. It will be also beneficial to community forest
users group as they can identify the constraints affecting their participation in decision
making. It will also motivate the local women to form user group so that the effective
management of park resource along with women empowerment takes place.
1.6 Limitation of the study:
Followings are the limitations of study which are to be considered during its further use:
 The study has been conducted to women run community forest present at buffer
zone two National Parks (Shivapuri Nagarjun and Chitwan) present at mid hill and
Terai of Nepal, which therefore, may not reflect the decision making role of women
in other protected areas of Nepal and of other physiographic regions.
 The study is based on the information gathered during the field survey, which needs
further verification.
 It is a micro study which attempts to explore the decision making role of women in
the BZCFUGs of certain area. So, it can't comprehend the macro view of the subject
matter because women's role is vague in CF and this study reflects only some of the
variables of it.

6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Historyof Community Forestryin Nepal
History of community forestry dates back to the mid-1970s. In Nepal community forestry was
formally started in 1978 with amendment of conventional forest act that gave authority to the
Department of Forest to transfer of national land to the local communities (Kanel, 1993). With
the realization of people’s involvement in the forest management and the recommendations of
the 9th Forestry Conference held in Kathmandu in 1974, the government drafted a national
forestry plan in 1976 which was the first time plan recognizing the role of local communities
and specifically emphasizing their participation in forest management (Gautam et al., 2004).
Community Forestry has been a changing process in Nepal since its initiation in the 1980s
(Hood et. al, 1997). The first institutional shift occurred in 1978, when Operating rules for the
Panchayat Forest(PF) and the Panchayat Protected Forest (PPF) were prepared and was enacted
that provided local government bodies (Panchayats) with limited rights to manage designated
forest areas (Malla,1997).
Community forest was the formal beginning of the community based forest management in
Nepal (Gautam et al., 2004). The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS 1989) further
developed the Community Forestry program by recognizing it as one of the primary forestry
program with its four objectives as
i. Satisfaction of basic needs.
ii. Sustainable utilization of forest products.
iii. People's participation in decision making and sharing of benefits and
iv. Socio economic growth.
The Plan recommended handing over all accessible forests in the hills to local communities to
the extent that they were willing and able to manage them (Bartlett,1992) and its formulation
and implementation is considered as turning point in the history of forestry sector policy in
Nepal (Gautam et.al., 2004). After democracy was rest or in 1990, the government framed the
Forest Act of 1993, which focused on sustainable management of forest resources under

7
community-based property rights regimes (Kafle, 2008). The Forest Act vested more legal
authority in Forestry User Groups (FUGs). The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector 1989, the
Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of 1995, the Operational Guidelines of 1995and10th
Five Year Plan (2002-2007) provide the current legal and operational framework of Nepal’s
Community Forestry (Pokharel et. al, 2007).
These instruments have legitimized the concept of the Community Forest User Group (CFUG)
as an independent, autonomous and self-governing institution responsible to protect, manage
and use any patch of national forest with a defined forest boundary and user group members
(Kafle, 2008). Once the CF is handed over to the FUG, this can in dependently manage,
conserve and use the forest according to an operational plan while the land ownership remains
with the state (Ojha et al., 2005). The objective of CF in Nepal was the protection and
management of forests with the clear aim of halting forest degradation in Nepal. A strong focus
on learning and exchange between groups was put in place (Hobley and Shakya, 2012). The
policy of the government originally intended to meet the basic requirements of the communities
through the active participation of individuals and communities in forest development and
management. After years of protection, growing stocks and potential yields of community
forests have increased. Surplus of forest products for commercial sale is now available (Kanel
and Kandel, 2004). Annual income of Nepal from sale of forest product was 297 million in
fiscal year 2014/15 and is increasing (CBS, 2015). Now, the Community Forestry is being
increasingly recognized as a promising approach to achieve sustainable management of forest
and improve livelihood mostly in rural areas of developing countries (Poudel, 2002). It is widely
believed that Community Forestry shows promising results in ecological, economic and social
fronts and is leading towards sustainability. Management of many Nepalese forests has been
handed over to local communities who have been entrusted to supply forest products and to
address local environmental problems (Chand et.al; 2010).
2.2 Status of Community Forestryin Nepal
As per the provisions of present forest legislations, traditional users of forest form a group to
manage the adjoining forest. Community Forestry (CF) is one of the priority programs. Bilateral
donors are also involved in the development of Community Forestry Program. About 35% of

8
the total development budget allocated to MFSC is spent on Community Forestry Program.
About 60% of the total development budget of the CF program is funded through foreign
assistance. Nepal has been a very successful program since its implementation in the late 1970s
(Nightingle, 2003). To date, 19,361 Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) have been
formed (benefited household 24,61,549) of which 1072 are composed of only women
committee members (DOF,2017).. In order to manage the forest the CFUG prepares the
Operational Plan with the technical assistance from the DFO. The income from the sale of the
forest products and the annual membership fee raised by the users is deposited in a fund
managed by CFUG itself. The contribution of community forestry is about 25.40% to increase
the income of the households (Bhattarai, R.C., 2012). Although, Community Forestry program
has halted the trend of forest degradation since handing over of the community forest to local
people, second generation issues such as livelihood and social justice, good governance and
active forest/biodiversity management have also to be solved as we further move on improving
Community Forestry in Nepal (Kanel and Kandel, 2004). Six national workshop in Community
Forestry held in June (16-18); 2014 has focused on sustainable development, climate change,
ecosystem and bio-diversity.
2.3 National Parks and Buffer Zones
Nepal crossed the threshold into the modern history of biodiversity conservation with the
enactment of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973. Clause 3 of this act
empowers the Government of Nepal to establish protected areas such as strict nature reserves,
national parks, wildlife reserves, hunting reserves, conservation areas, and buffer zones within
four boundaries in any part of the country through gazette notification. The Act also allows the
government to withdraw from the protected areas and to hand over ownership or modify the
boundaries through similar notifications. At present, the protected areas in Nepal include twelve
national parks, one wildlife reserves, six conservation areas, and 12 buffer zones covering
23.37% of the country’s land area having 80 out of 118 ecosystems of Nepal are covered by the
Protected Areas (DNPWC, 2018). National Park means an area set aside for the conservation,
management and utilization of flora, fauna and scenery along with the natural environment
(National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 B.S.). A national park is a park in use for

9
conservation purposes. Often it is a reserve of natural, semi-natural, or developed land that a
sovereign state declares or owns. Although individual nations designate their own national
parks differently, there is a common idea: the conservation of 'wild nature' for posterity and as
a symbol of national pride (Europarc Federation (eds.), 2009). An international organization,
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and its World Commission on
Protected Areas, has defined "National Park" as its Category II type of protected areas.
Buffer Zone means a peripheral area of a national park or reserve prescribed under the Section
3a in order to provide facilities to use forest resources on a regular and beneficial basis for the
local people (National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 B.S.). With the
implementation of the concept of buffer zone, increasing availability of the forest products to
the local community, community development support, conservation education programs and
a positive environment has been created. 30% to 50% of the income of Protected Area can be
allocated and is utilized for development of bio-diversity through the community people and to
increase their livelihood (DNPWC, 2018).
2.4 Women Participation
WID (1993) reported that the eighth five-year plan has quiet assessed the need for equal and
meaningful participation of women in the national development process. For the first time a
separate chapter "Women in development” was incorporated in the country's five-year plan.
The plan places special emphasis on enhancing women's participation in economic and social
sectors like agriculture and forestry by raising the employment and carrier development
opportunities in these sectors. Moser (1989) indicated in the 1980, the efficiency approaches
was adopted to women in development which attempts to ensure that development is more
efficient and effective through women's economic contribution. The most recent development
approach is to empower women through greater self-reliance for their participation in
development activities. Women as well as men represented the composite household, contrary
to the conventional wisdom of women's goals and" perceptions being different from those of
male members of HH (Karki et. al, 1994). The number of women engaged in self-earning
activities is obviously low, this is not unnatural as women are lagging far behind men even in

10
literacy (Acharya et. al, 1993). Tulachan (2001) Concluded that factor related to women's
self- esteem and confidence are influenced by many things including gender ideologies, stage,
ascribed roles, cultural taboos and expectation education and exposure to the outside world,
case earning abilities, role in decision making and their own inner sense of autonomy, identity
and strength etc. USAID (2001) published that the men and women will have different
points of view and ideas for solution about the same problems. To understand how gender
shapes activities affecting the environment, it is useful to look who use resources, who is
affected by resource use and who has the authority to make decision about resource use.
Platiner (1995) reported that the women's issues of career and job opportunities in the forestry
profession and related decision making arena may not have the same significance as the issues
facing rural women in developing countries, they are still an important aspect of finding lasting
solutions to the world's forest crisis. Rogers (1960) also defined community decision making,
as the process by which a community chooses a plan into an action.
2.5 Community Forest and Women
Women have different and complementary interests relative to men within a CFUG which stem
from the differences in concerns and nature of dependence on forest that women have relative
to men (Agarwal, 2000, 2010). Women have better knowledge than men of certain forest
products, on how these products should be extracted and which species should be planted. Given
the specific interests of women in certain forest products and particularly in fire wood, they
thus have the incentive to ensure the availability of these products and ultimately to protect the
forests. Women may also have different preferences than men (Chattopadhyay and Duo, 2004).
The forest is one of the most important natural resource in the country. In addition, the
23,92,755 household population are benefited by community forestry programme (CBS, 2015).
Women in most of the groups are very committed to forest protection and management,
although in many cases they have to re-vegetate with severely degraded forest patches (Stoian
and Yadav, 1997). Though women are involved in forest related day to day activities;
usually they appear much less than men in the public affairs. A strong FUG is supposed to
have its all members, men and women, rich and poor participating actively in the open
for the decision making. The female participation in assemblies is found less (Pandey, 1995).

11
There is a provision of women in executive committee and in decision making aspects and also
actively involving in the forest management activities since the community forests came in to
existence (Lammichhane, 2004).
When committees are formed without female representation (or even women are involved, men
generally play the dominant role consciously or unconsciously) the decisions usually fail to
recognize women’s need and constraints (Kharel, 1993). Shrestha J.K. (1998) concluded that
simply forming women's committees or involving them in committees is not enough because
this is just like plantation without protection. Men must be sensitized about women's role and
about the importance of involving them in women related program. Women in most of the
groups are very committed to forest protection and management, although in many cases they
have to re-vegetate with severely degraded forest patches (Stoian and Yadav, 1997). The
attention towards female social inclusion and empowerment in Nepal increased substantially in
recent years at different levels within society and in particular in the forestry sector as tested by
the recent Gender Equality and Social Inclusion strategy (Pradhan,2010) and by the Forest
Sector Gender and Social Inclusion strategy(MFSC,2012). Their quality of life has improved
due to increase in the availability of food, health care and education and decrease in household
task (Pandey, 2003). A specific new provision was introduced for female representation that in
particular indicates that there should be at least 50% of women representatives in the Executive
Committee (EC), the main decision making body of FUGs. FUGs are legal and autonomous
bodies which have full power and authority over forests whose ownership remains in the hands
of the state. Each FUG has the right and responsibility to manage, protect and use forests. All
benefits from CF got other FUG. All management decisions are taken by FUGs and each
member should have in principle equal rights over the resources (Leone, 2013). Despite the fact
that women are still largely under-represented at all institutional levels in Nepal, forestry is now
the sector where the presence of women in key positions is highest (Pokharel et al., 2008).

12
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area
3.1.1 Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park Introduction
Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park (SNNP) is situated in the northern fringe of Kathmandu
valley with sub-tropical and lower temperate climate. It has two islands of forests namely
Shivapuri and Nagarjun surrounded by heavy sub-urban population. Geographically Shivapuri
forest located within 27°45' to 27°52' N latitude and 85°16' to 85°45' E longitude and Nagarjun
forest is located within 27°43' to 27°46' N latitude and 85°13' to 85°18' E longitude. The
elevation ranges from 1350 masl to 2732 masl. It claims part of Kathmandu, Nuwakot, Dhading,
and Sindhupalchowk districts of Nepal (dnpwc.gov.np, 2018).
The area was gazetted as the country's ninth national park in 2002 and its Nagarjun block was
added in 2009 resulting an area of 159.00 sq.km. Prior its declaration as national park, it was
managed under the Shivapuri Watershed Development Board, and was later declared as
Shivapuri Watershed and Wildlife Reserve. Everyday about 30 million liters of water is tapped
from rivers such as the Bagmati and the Bishnumati as well as from several other smaller
streams. The park includes some historical and religious sites, and a popular hiking route for
local people and tourists. The park headquarters is located in Panimuhan village just 12
kilometers away from Kathmandu downtown. SNNP has three sector offices viz. Manichur,
Dhakalchaur, and Nagarjun. The park is demarcated by stone and brick wall.
In 2016, March 25 an area of 118.61 sq.km, surrounding the park was declared a buffer zone,
which consists of forests and private lands including cultivated lands. The park and the local
people jointly initiate community development activities and manage natural resources in the
buffer zone. The government of Nepal has made a provision of plowing back 30-50 percent of
the park revenue for community development in the buffer zone. (DNPWC, 2018).

13
3.1.1.1 Habitat type
Shivapuri Nagarjun national park is located in a transition zone between sub-tropical and lower
temperate zone of Nepal. Park has recorded 1250 species of vascular plants and 129 species of
mushrooms. Schima-Castanopsis, Pine, and Oak-Rhododendron are the dominant vegetation in
this park. SNNP has four major forest types viz.
(i) Lower mixed hardwood forests, (ii) Chir pine forests,
(iii) Oak forests and (iv) Upper mixed hardwood forests.
The common vegetation include Schima wallichii, Castanops isindica, Alnus nepalensis, Pinus
roxburghii, Myrica esculanta, Pyrus pasia, Quercus semecarpifolia, Quercus lanuginose,
Rhododendron arboretum, Juglans regia, Taxus wallichiana,etc.
3.1.1.2 Species diversity
A total of 19 species of mammals including clouded leopard Pardofelis nebulosa, pangolin
Manis sp., Assamese monkey Macaca assamensis, leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis are the
protected mammals found in SNNP. Common mammals include common leopard Panthera
pardus, Himalayan black bear Ursus thibetanus, Himalayan goral Naemorhedus goral, jungle
cat Felis chaus, Himalayan serrow Capricornis thar, wild boar Sus scrofa, barking deer
Muntiacus muntjack, sambar deer Cervus unicolor, rhesus monkey Macaca mulata, civets,
porcupine, yellow throated marten.
The park has 311 species of birds including 117 migratory birds. Common species of bird
species are white backed vulture, Himalayan griffon, black vulture, beard vulture dark kite, hen
harrier, goshawk, sparrow hawk, sikhra, common buzzard, Asian black eagle, steppe eagle
magpies, kalij pheasant, leafbirds, flycatcher, bushchat, babblers, cuckoos, bulbul, swift,
warblers. Importantly, the spiny babler Turdoides nipalensis, wren babler Pnoepyga pusilla are
the endemic birds found in Shivapuri Nagarjun national park (Pokhrel, 2012),.
King cobra, green pit viper, rat snake, skink, lizards, geckos are common reptiles found in
SNNP. Frogs and toads are common amphibians. The park has 102 species of moths and
butterflies.

14
3.1.1.3 Climate
The park is located in a transition zone between subtropical and temperate climate. The annual
precipitation of about 1,400 mm (55 in) falls mostly from May to September, with 80%
during monsoon. Temperatures vary from 2–17 °C (36–63 °F) during the winter season, rising
to 19–30 °C (66–86 °F) during the summer season.
3.1.1.4 Buffer Zone Area
In 2016, March 25 an area of 118.61 sq.km, surrounding the park was declared a buffer zone
In buffer zone area of SNNP 17 VDCs of Kathmandu district (currently, VDCs are included in
the Shankharapur, Kageswori Manahara, Gokarneswor, Budhanilkantha, Tokha, Tarakeswor
and Nagarjun municipality), nine of Nuwakot district, two of Sindhupalchok and one of dhading
district with the total 29 VDCs of four districts. Out of 149 ward of 29 VDCs, 105 wards are
fully included while 44 wards are partially included in Buffer Zone. It consists of 14,558
households with population of 79,776 (40,187 male and 39589 female). As per the National
Parks and Wildlife Protection Act, 2029 B.S. there is a legal provision that will not affect the
land ownership of the locals in that area after announcing buffer zone area. (dnpwc.gov.np,
2018).
The area covered with forest and range lands inside the buffer zone area is 27.174 sq km
(23.28%), cultivated land is 86.89 sq km (74.47%) and land used in other purposes 2.61 sq km
(2.24%). According to the records received from District Forest Office Kathmandu, Nuwakot,
Sindhupalchok and Dhading. (DNPWC, 2017)
3.1.1.5 Description of the SelectedCFUGs
There are 49 community forests (4665 HH benefited) of area 805.95 ha, a leasehold forest of
area 100 ha and a religious forest having 37 ropani of land area present for conservation,
management, and use of the resource (Buffer zone bulletin), of which just one CFUG is run by
women only. That particular forest user groups has been studied named as Mudkhu Shrijansil
Community Forest User Group.

15
Mudkhu Shrijansil Community Forest User Group.
This Community Forest is situated in Tarakeswor municipality - 12, Goldhunga of
Kathmandu District, which is situated at 12 k.m. away from capital city. This CF formerly
belong to Panchmane Illaka Ban Karyalaya and now to Nagarjun sector. The main plant species
of the forest are Uttis, Chilaune and Kattus while the main wildlife species are pangolin
Manis sp., Assamese monkey Macaca assamensis, jungle cat Felis chaus, Salak, Chittal,
Chituwa. The total area of the forest is 3.37 ha. The CFUG consists of 39 household having
population of 92 (42 male and 50 female). The primary ethnic groups of this community forestry
users group are Brahmans. An operational plan and constitution was drafted and the CF was
formally handed in 2057/11/9 BS with its forest user group code KAT/PA/36/02 and OP was
revised at 2066/30/3 (CF operational plan, 2066).

16
3.1.2 Chitwan National Park Introduction
Chitwan National Park is situated in south central Nepal in the sub-tropical lowlands of the
inner Terai of Chitwan, Makawanpur, Parsa and Nawalparasi districts. Geographically it lies
between 27°16.56’- 27°42.14’ Latitudes and 83°50.23’-84°46.25’ Longitudes. The elevation
ranges from 110m to 850m above sea level. The park is bounded by the Rapti and Narayani
River in the north, Parsa Wildlife Reserve in the east and Madi settlements and India border in
the south. The physiography of the park consists of the Terai and Siwaliks. Three major rivers
Narayani, Rapti and Reu, and their floodplains; and several lakes and pools are the major water
sources of the park.
Being the first protected area of Nepal, it has a long history of over three decades in park
management and rich experiences in nature conservation. Chitwan was a big game area for the
royal families. The area comprising the Tikauli forest from Rapti River to the foothills of the
Mahabharat extending over an area of 175 km2 was declared as Mahendra Deer Park in 1959.
The area south of the Rapti River was demarcated as a Rhino Sanctuary in 1963. It was
proclaimed as Royal Chitwan National Park with an area of 952.63 km2 (former 932 sq km) in
1973. After the peoples’ revolution in 2006, the park’s name was changed to Chitwan National
Park and has it’s headquarter at Kasara, Chitwan (DNPWC, 2018).
In recognition of its unique biological resources of outstanding universal value, UNESCO
designated CNP as a World Heritage Site in 1984. In 1996, an area of 729.37 km2 (present)
surrounding the park was declared a buffer zone, which consists of forests and private lands
including cultivated lands. The buffer zone contains a Ramsar Site – Beeshazari Lakes.
The park and the local people jointly initiate community development activities and manage
natural resources in the buffer zone. The government of Nepal has made a provision of plowing
back 30-50 percent of the park revenue for community development in the buffer zone.

17
3.1.2.1 Habitat type
The Chitwan valley is characterized by tropical and subtropical forests. Roughly 70 percent of
park vegetative cover is Sal (Shorea robusta) forest, a moist deciduous vegetation type of the
Terai region. The remaining vegetation types include grassland, riverine forest and Sal with
Chir pine Pinus roxburghii. The later occurs at the top of the Churia range. The riverine forests
consist of Khair (Acacia catechu), Sissoo (Dalbergia sisoo) and Simal (Bombax ceiba). The
grasslands are mainly located in the floodplains of the rivers and form a diverse and complex
community with over 50 different types of grasses including the elephant grass (Saccharum
spp.), renowned for its immense height. It can grow up to 8 meter in height.
3.1.2.2 Species diversity
A total of 68 species of mammals, 56 species of herpeto fauna and 126 species of fish have
been recorded in the park. The park is especially renowned for its protection of One Horned
Rhinoceros, Royal Bengal Tiger and Gharial Crocodile. The park harbors not only the world’s
largest terrestrial mammal (wild elephant) but also the world’s smallest terrestrial mammal
(pygmy shrew). A total of 544 species of birds has been recorded so far including 22 globally
threatened species including critically endangered Bengal Florican, Slender-billed Vulture,
White-rumped Vulture and Red-headed Vulture.
3.1.2.3 Climate
The park has a range of climatic seasons each offering unique experience. October through
February with average temperature of 25C offers an enjoyable climate. From March to June
temperatures can reach as high as 43C. The hot humid days give way to the monsoon season
that typically lasts from late June until September when rivers become flooded and most of the
roads are virtually impassable. Mean annual rainfall of the park has been recorded 2150mm.
In late January, local villagers are allowed to cut thatch grasses to meet their needs, which offer
a better viewing of wildlife to visitors. Also, between September and November, and February
and April, migratory birds join the residential birds and create spectacular bird watching
opportunities. While the monsoon rains bring lush vegetation, most trees flower in late winter.

18
3.1.3.4 Buffer Zone Area
In 1996, an area of 729.37 km2 (present) surrounding the park was declared a buffer zone. In
buffer zone area of CNP 20 local bodies of Chitwan, Makwanpur, Parsa and Nawalparasi
districts (formerly 35 VDCs and two municipalities of four districts) are present. Out of 149
ward of 29 VDCs, 122 wards (formerly 223) are included in Buffer Zone. It consists of 59,707
households with population of 2,73,977 (1,22,885 male and 1,42,624 female). As per the
National Parks and Wildlife Protection Act, 2029 B.S. there is a legal provision that will not
affect the land ownership of the locals in that area after announcing buffer zone area (DNPWC,
2017).
The area inside the buffer zone area is covered with forest 329.30 sq km (42.91%), grassland
8.7 sq km (1.13%), range lands 9.74 sq km (1.26%), and cultivated land is 355.01 sq km
(46.25%) and land used in other purposes 64.74 sq km (8.43%) (CNP Annual Report, 2017).
3.1.2.5 Description of the SelectedCFUGs
There are 65 community forests handover (4665 HH benefited) of area 11915.97 ha, 3 leasehold
forest of area 100 ha and 12 private forest present for conservation, management, and use of
the resource (CNP, 2017), of which two BZCFUG is run by women only. Those particular
forest user groups that has been studied are named as Paryatakiya Vutaha and Hariyali Mahila
Buffer Zone Community Forest User Group.
Paryatakiya Bhutaha Community Forest User Group
This Community Forest is situated at Narayani VDC - 03, Nawalparasi District and is under
Nanda Vauju User Committee of CNP. The main plant species of the forest are Sal, Sisssoo,
Simal, Jamun, Botdhairo etc, while the main wildlife species are Deer, Rabbit, Monkey, wild
boar,etc . The total area of the forest is 3.37 ha. The CFUG consists of 89 household having
population of 481 (250 male and 231 female). The primary ethnic group of this community
forestry users group is Tharu. An operational plan and constitution was drafted and the CF was
formally handed in 2069/11/15 BS with its forest user group code CNP/NP/NA/69 (CF
operational plan, 2069).

19
Hariyali Mahila Community Forest User Group
This Community Forest is situated at Madi municapility (former Bagauda VDC 03) of Chitwan
District and is under Nanda Vauju User Committee of CNP.The main plant species of the forest
are Sal, Sisssoo, Simal, Jamun, Botdhairo etc, while the main wildlife species are Rhino, Deer,
Rabbit, Monkey, wild boar etc. The total area of the forest is 2.11 ha. The CFUG consists of
113 household having population of 623 (305 male and 318 female). The primary ethnic group
of this community forestry users group is Tharu. Constitution was drafted and registered at
2070/12/26 BS with its forest user group code CNP/CH/BA/62 (CF operational plan, 2070).
3.1.3 Community forests selection procedure
 Among 49 BZCF present at Shivapuri Nagargun National Park buffer zone area only
one was managed by female and was studied.
 Among 65 BZCF present at Chitwan National park buffer zone area two are managed
by female and both were studied.

20
Map of Study Area
Figure 3.1: Study area map
National park SNNP CNP CNP
BZCF Mudkhushrijansil (I) Paryatakiya (II) Hariyali mahila (III)
Area 3.37 ha. 9.57 ha. 2.11 ha.
HH 39 89 113
Population 92 (42M + 50F) 481 ( 250M + 231F) 623 (305M + 318F)
AAH 23.26 cft 0 cft 0 cft
Table 3.1: Brief description of study area
I
II
III

21
3.2 Data collection
Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered for fulfilment of the research objectives.
Primary and secondary data were collected to catch the mentioned specific and general
objectives.
3.2.1 Primary Data Collection:
Primary data collection is often undertaken after researchers have gained some insight into an
issue by reviewing secondary research or by analysing previously collected primary data.
In this study, primary data were collected using following methods (Driscoll, 2017):
3.2.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey
An initial survey was be carried to identify the general features, existing situation of the study
areas. The reconnaissance survey helped in choice of best possible areas for conducting
household survey and bio-physical survey.
3.2.1.2 Household Survey:
Household survey was carried out to know the past and present condition of women
participation in decision making process.
Sampling Design:
The sample size (n) of the household in the study area was determined by using the statistical
formula given below (Arkin and Colton, 1963; cited in Sharma, 2000); at 95% confidence
level.
Where, n = sample size, N= total number of households, Z= confidence level (at 95%
level, Z=1.96), P=estimated population proportion, d=error limit of 5% (0.05). [The
total number of households (N) was taken from CFUG constitution.]

22
The survey was conducted in Mudkhu shrijansil, Paryatakiya Bhutaha and Hariyali mahila
BZCFUG. The above formula gave sample size of 148 HH which was again allocated using
optimum allocation method. Systematic sampling technique was used to take the sample HH.
Optimum Allocation Method:
Optimum allocation method was used to allocate the sample size to the population stratum i.e.,
in Mudkhu shrijansil, Paryatakiya Bhutaha and Hariyali mahila BZCFUG
Where, nj =required sample size, N=total population of the sample, Sd= Standard deviation,
n=total size of the sample to be taken
BZCFUG Total Households (Nj) Sample Size (nj)
Mudkhu shrijansil 39 24
Paryatakiya 89 55
Hariyali mahila 113 69
Total 241 148
Table 2: Total number of Household's and sample taken
Altogether, 24 samples were taken from Mudkhu shrijansil, 55 from Paryatakiya and 69
samples were taken from Hariyali mahila BZCFUG.
3.2.1.3 Key informant interview
Key informant interviews are qualitative in-depth interviews with people who know what is
going on in the community. The purpose of key informant interviews is to collect informat ion
from a wide range of people including community leaders, professionals, or residents who have
first-hand knowledge about the community. These community experts, with their particular
knowledge and understanding, can provide insight on the nature of problems and give
nj=
𝐍𝐣𝐒𝐝
𝐍𝐣𝐒𝐝𝒌
𝒋=𝟏
xn

23
recommendations for solutions. The objective of using key informants here was to collect
information and gain useful insights into the issues in a short period of time.
The data and information were collected by conducting key informant interview among the
concerned staffs from the Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park, Chitwan National Park and Buffer
Zone User Committee, Community Based Organization (CBO) members, local leaders and
school teachers. Both closed and open ended questions were used for this purpose. (List of
checklist is included herewith in Appendix-III)
3.2.1.4 Focus Group Discussion
Focus group or focus group interview is a qualitative technique for data collection. A focus
group is “a group comprised of individuals with certain characteristics who focus discussions
on a given issue or topic” (Anderson, 2005) According to Denscombe 2007, “focus group
consists of a small group of people, usually between six and nine in number, who are brought
together by a trained moderator (the researcher) to explore attitudes and perceptions, feelings
and ideas about a topic”. A focus group interview provides a setting for the relatively
homogeneous group to reflect on the questions asked by the interviewer. A focus group
discussion was conducted with local residents.
3.2.1.5 Direct observation
It was to make qualitative or quantitative appraisals of relevant physical and social conditions;
and to cross- check information that had been collected using other tools.
3.2.1.6 Informal Discussion
Informal discussions were also carried out with various personals during the field survey period
to get the overall general information about the study area and check the information collected
with other respondents.

24
3.2.2 Secondary Data Collection
Secondary data refers to data that was collected by someone other than the user (Schutt, 2006).
Secondary data were collected mainly for gathering information about the research topic and
methodology as well as for accumulating data for the purpose of data analysis.
Relevant and necessary secondary information and records for this research study were
collected from different published and unpublished literatures from different sources. The major
sources include:
 Office records, reports and other documents of SNNP and CNP
 Constitution and OP of BZCFUGs
 Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
 Other published and unpublished literatures.
 Websites
3.3 Data analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed through standard technique available and
applicable statistical tools were used so as to prove the defined objective. Arc GIS 10.2.2 was
used for map preparation. The data were processed and analyzed using computer software
packages such as MS. Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science). Descriptive
statistics, frequency distribution, mean, standard deviation and percentage were used for
simplistic presentation. The results were presented in text, tables and figures and interpreted
accordingly. Further, the past and present condition of women participation in decision making
process was analyzed based on the primary and secondary data. The Inferential statistics were
used wherever appropriate.

25
Framework followed during the research is as given in flowchart.
Flowchart: Research Framework
Data Collection
Primary Data Collection
(qualitative /quantitative)
Secondary Data Collection
(qualitative/quantitative)
 Questionnaire for semi
structured interview
 Informal discussion
 Formal discussion
 Field observation
 Checklist for key
information
 Accidental interview
 Forest OP of the FUGs
 Minute books
 DFO
records/database
 Reports(Booklet
published by the
DFO)
 Other published and
un-published sources
Triangulation of the data
Data Analysis (by both qualitative and quantitative)
Result and Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendation
Generalization of the finding
Selection of study area

26
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the present studies entitled “Role of Women in DecisionMaking in BZCF” (A
comparative study from BZCFUGs of SNNP and CNP) are presented in this chapter. This
chapter is mainly concerned with the specific objectives and their corresponding results which
can be obtained from the primary and secondary data. These results have been discussed in
different headings. The following results have been discussed only for above sampling area in
different headings.
4.1 Socio Economic conditionof respondents
4.1.1 Respondents by Sex composition
Figure 4.1: Sex structure of the respondents
It shows that in Mudkhu Shrijansil BZCF out of 24 respondents, 45.83% were male and 54.17%
were female, in Paryatakiya BZCF out of 55 respondents, 50.91% were male and 49.09% were
female while in Hariyali Mahila BZCF out of 69 respondents, 47.83% were male and 52.17%
were female respectively in the figure. (Appendix I Table 1)
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
%ofrespondents
Community Forest
Sex structure of Respondents
Male Female

27
4.1.2 Respondents by Age class
Figure 4.2: Age group of the respondents
It shows that in Mudkhu Shrijansil BZCF out of 24 respondents, 29% were between 18-25years
of age group, 46% were between 25-50 years and 25% were above 50 years of age, in
Paryatakiya BZCF out of 55 respondents, 22% were between 18-25 years, 51% were between
25-50 years and 27% were above 50 years of age while in Hariyali Mahila BZCF out of 69
respondents, 26% were between 18-25 years, 42% were between 25-50 year and 32% were
above 50 years of age, respectively in the figure. (Appendix I Table 2)
4.1.3 Respondents by Ethnic composition
Figure 4.3: Ethnic composition of the respondents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
%ofrespondents
Community Forest
Age group of respondents
18- 25 25 - 50 > 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Brahmin Chhetri Janajati Dalit Tharu
%ofrespondents
Ethnicity
Ethnic composition
Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila

28
Questionnaire survey was held from different strata of caste composition on all three BZCF.
BZCF of Shivapuri was dominated by Brahmin while that of Chitwan was dominated by Tharu.
All together majority of the respondents were Tharu with 79.05% followed by Brahmin 16.89%,
Dalit 2.70%, Chhetri and Janajati both 0.68% respectively. (Appendix I Table 3)
4.1.4 Respondents by Educational status
Figure 4.4: Educational status of the respondents
Education is one of the major factors influencing people’s knowledge, attitude towards any
programs. Majority of the respondents were primarily educated with 31.08% followed by
secondary25.68%, illiterate 20.27%, higher secondary 16.22 and graduate and above 6.67%
respectively. (Appendix I Table 4)
Also, the literacy rate of the male was 62.84% whereas female was 37.16%. It shows that most
of the female are illiterate so they still need extension programs about CF.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher
secondary
Graduate and
above
%ofrespondents
educational status
Educationalstatus of respondents

29
4.1.5 Respondents by Occupational status
Figure 4.5: Occupational status of the respondents
Occupation of the local people is one of the most important aspects while concerning the social
aspect in forestry activities. Dependency on forest products and level of participation in forest
management activities is governed by their occupation. Most of the respondents HH depends
upon agriculture (35.81%), followed by service (17.57%), business (14.86%), foreign
employment (14.19%), wage labor (11.49%) and other (6.08%). (Appendix I Table 5)
4.1.6 Respondents by Wellbeing status
Figure 4.6: Wellbeing of the respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Agriculture Business services Wage labour Foreign Other
%ofrespondents
Occupation
Occupationof respondents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Rich Medium Poor Very poor
%ofrespondents
Wellbeing category
Wellbeing of Respondents

30
Majority of the respondents were from medium class 46.62% followed by poor 28.38%, very
poor 14.19% and rich 10.81% respectively. (Appendix I Table 6)
4.1.7 Expenditure ranking by Respondents
Activities Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila
Fooding I I I
Education II III II
Clothing III IV III
Agriculture/livestock V II IV
Medicine IV V V
Social work VI VI VI
Housing VII VII VII
Table 4.1: Expenditure ranking of Respondents
Above table indicates that all three BZCF spent their majority of income on fooding, followed
by education for Mudkhu Shrijansil and Hariyali Mahila BZCF while by Agriculture/livestock
for Paryatakiya and so on.
4.2 Activities undertaken by CFUG
Every CFUG has its own constitution and operational plan (OP). Generally, constitution
describes about rules and regulations of the CFUG as an autonomous organization. In other
hand, OP explains the overall technical management of CF including forest inventory. Every
CFUG has to follow its constitution and OP and perform the activities accordingly, however
OP of Mudkhu Shrijansil is in the process of conversion to that of buffer zone, as previously
it was under DoF and provision of wildlife management was not included in it.
At CNP, Paryatakiya BZCF was carrying out its activities as per its operational plan while in
Hariyali Mahila BZCF it only have its constitution and is in the process of making OP still
managing its allocated forest effectively. Most of the activities are conducted with
committee's decision in all three community forest user groups.
The major activities are categorized as follow:

31
4.2.1 Forest management activities
Mainly forest management activities include plantation, tending operations, forest protection
etc. In all CFUGs, plantation was done through participation of CFUG members. Seedlings
were provided by district forest office, Kathmandu for Mudkhu Shrijansil while by Buffer
Zone Management Committee (BZMC) for Paryatakiya and Hariyali Mahila BZCF of CNP.
Tending operations include cleaning, thinning (mainly 3D: dead, dying and disease trees) and
pruning, where they collect fuelwood. Heralu (forest guard) was hired for protection of forest
in all CFUGs. To protect forest from fire, fire lines are constructed each year. The planted
species are:
In Mudkhu Shrijansil BZCFUG: Amriso, Salla, Uttis and fruit trees as enrichment planting.
In Paryatakiya BZCFUG: Sal, sissoo, Simal, Amala and few fruit trees
In Paryatakiya BZCFUG: Mainly sissoo plantation at flooded area
4.2.2 Forest product collection and distribution system
Firewood and timber for house construction are the main forest products to the members from
CF. Mudkhu Shrijansil of SNNP was unable to collect timber as its OP was in the process of
revision while both BZCF of CNP was only collecting firewood and unable to collect timber
as both of the forest have Zero Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH) i.e., both the forests were
protection and establishment oriented.
4.2.3 Community development activities
Mudkhu Shrijansil had already conducted trail construction, gabion wall construction
activities in different toles. While both BZCFUG of CNP were only oriented for forest
management due to insufficient budget.
4.2.4 Income generation activities
Income sourse of Mudkhu Shrijansil of SNNP were from sale of products, membership
renew, fines etc. while that of Paryatakiya were from BZUC financial support, membership
renew and fines and of Hariyali Mahila were from tharu dance program run by user committee
members, BZUC financial support and membership renew.

32
4.2.5 Change in condition of forest
Change in cf condition Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
Fodder Increasing increasing increasing
Fuelwood Increasing increasing increasing
Timber Increasing increasing increasing
NTFPs Same same increasing
Invasive spp. Decreasing decreasing decreasing
Table 4.2: Change in condition of forest
Forest of all the BZCF is found better than before due to the effective management of the
available forest to them. Also, it is found that at Mudkhu shrijansil and Paryatakiya presence of
NTFPs are same as before.
4.3 Respondents Present at General Assembly
Figure 4.7: Respondents Present at General Assembly by sex category
It shows that at both the regions presence of female in general assembly is more compared to
that of male due to the region that these CF are women headed. In BZCF of Shivapuri Nagarjun
National Park (Mudkhu Shrijansil) 38% of respondents were present sometime at general
assembly, followed by 29% present frequently, 21% not at all and 13% were always present.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
%offrespondents
Respondents PresentatGeneralAssembly
Male Female
ParyatakiyaMudkhu Shrijansil Hariyali Mahila

33
In BZCF of Chitwan National Park (Paryatakiya) 35% of respondents were present sometime,
followed by same 35% present frequently, 16% always present and 15 % were never present.
Also, in (Hariyali Mahila) 30% of respondents were present frequently, followed by 25%
present sometime, 23% not at all and 22% were always present. (Appendix I Table 7)
4.4 Perceptiontowards decisions made
Figure 4.8: Respondents perception towards decisions made
Majority of the respondents said that the decisions are made in a democratic way followed by
neutral and few autocratic. That is most of the agendas are passed in a participatory way.
(Appendix I Table 8)
4.5 Role of Male for BZCF Activities
Figure 4.9: Role of male for BZCF Activities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%ofrespondents
Community forests
Perceptiontowards decisions made
Democratic Neutral Autocratic
Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
Supportive 54% 64% 65%
Neutral 38% 27% 28%
Obstructive 8% 9% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Role of Male for BZCFActivities
Supportive Neutral Obstructive

34
Majority of the respondents of all BZCF said that the role of male for community forestry
activities are supportive followed by neutral and very less supportive. In comparison, males of
BZCFs of CNP are more supportive than that of SNNP. (Appendix I Table 9)
Hypothesis:
Null Hypothesis (H0): Two variables are independent.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Two variables are depended
d.f. = 2, level of significance=0.05
Chi-square Test of Independency
BZCFUG Variable A Variable B Calculated Value Tabulated Value Significance
Mudkhu Shrijansil Gender Role 0.917 5.991 No
Paryatakiya Gender Role 0.506 5.991 No
Hariyali Mahila Gender Role 0.567 5.991 No
Table 4.3: Chi-square Test of Independence
From the above table we can see that, upon performing Chi-square test of independence,
it was found that at all CF the calculated value is less than tabulated value. This means that
our calculated value of chi-square co-efficient lies in the acceptance or non-rejection region
i.e., null hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is no significant difference between
gender and people’s perception about male role. (Appendix I Table 10)

35
4.6 Conflicts of BZCFs are resolved
Figure 4.10: Conflicts resolved by
In BZCF of Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park (Mudkhu Shrijansil) 41% of respondents said
that conflicts are resolved by committee members, followed by users (29%), chairperson (15%),
park personal (8%) and influential persons (7%).
In BZCF of Chitwan National Park (Paryatakiya) 30% of respondents said that conflicts are
resolved by user members, followed by committee members (37%), chairperson (13%), park
personal (11%) and influential persons (9%). Also, in (Hariyali Mahila) 44% of respondents
said that conflicts are resolved by committee members, followed by users (35%), influential
persons (8%) chairperson (7%) and park personal (6%). (Appendix I Table 11)
Chairperson
Committee
members
User members
Influential
person
Park personnel
Mudkhu shrijansil 15% 41% 29% 7% 8%
Paryatakiya 13% 30% 37% 9% 11%
Hariyali mahila 7% 44% 35% 8% 6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Conflicts of BZCFs ResolvedBy

36
4.7 Effectiveness of female headed BZCF
Figure 4.11: Effectiveness of female headed BZCF
In BZCF of Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park (Mudkhu Shrijansil) 83.3% of respondents
agreed that female headed BZCF are effective, while in BZCF of Chitwan National Park
(Paryatakiya) 89.1% of respondents agreed that female headed BZCF are effective and in
(Hariyali Mahila) 92.8% of respondents agreed that female headed BZCF are effective
respectively.It shows that women headed BZCFs of CNP are more effective than that of SNNP.
(Appendix I Table 12)
4.8 Decision making process in BZCFUG
Figure 4.12: Decisions passed in BZCFUG by various stakeholders
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
%ofrespondents
Community forest
Effectiveness ofFemale HeadedCF
Yes No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Chairperson only
Committee members
User members
Influential person
Chairperson only
Committee
members
User members Influential person
Mudkhu shrijansil 13% 46% 33% 8%
Paryatakiya 16% 47% 27% 9%
Hariyali mahila 6% 54% 35% 6%
Decisions Passed in BZCF By

37
In BZCF of SNNP (Mudkhu Shrijansil) 46% of respondents said that decision are passed by
committee members, followed by users (33%), chairperson (13%) and influential persons
(8%).In BZCF of CNP (Paryatakiya) 47% of respondents said that decision are passed by
committee members, followed by users (27%), chairperson (16%) and influential persons (9%).
Also, in (Hariyali Mahila) 54% of respondents said that decision are passed by committee
members, followed by users (35%), chairperson as well as influential persons (6%).
It means that the decisions made by women headed BZCFs of CNP are more conscious in nature
compared to that of SNNP as decisions are made in open floor. (Appendix I Table 13)
4.9 Affecting factors for decisionmaking by women
Decision making process is not an abstract concept and the process may vary by individuals,
nature of decision itself, and many other external factors. The effect of various factors would
be different and sometimes unpredictable as well. This study identified some of the factors that
have direct influence in people’s participation in the decision-making.
At Mudkhu Shrijansil (I) BZCFUG of Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park
Weight
Factors
Education
Age/
Experience
Wellbeing
Social
norms
National
policy
Forest
condition
Urban/
Rural
residence
7 First Choice 11 0 0 7 5 0 1
6 Second Choice 6 2 0 9 6 0 0
5 Third Choice 3 3 1 5 7 1 4
4 Fourth Choice 2 10 2 2 3 1 5
3 Fifth Choice 0 4 7 1 1 5 5
2 Sixth Choice 0 3 7 0 1 8 4
1 Least Imp. 0 2 7 0 1 9 5
Weighted
Mean 6.03 3.62 2.25 5.69 5.09 2.09 3.22
Rank I IV VI II III VII V
Table 4.3: Ranking by Mudkhu Shrijansil users

38
The respondents were asked to rank the factors such as education, age/experience, wellbeing,
social norms, national policy, forest condition and resident area that are affecting their decision
making ability. As per their ranking and its weighted means it was found that in Mudkhu
Shrijansil Education is the major affecting factor followed by Social norms, National policy,
Experience, Urban/Rural residence, Wellbeing and least by Forest condition.
At Paryatakiya Vutaha (II)) BZCFUG of Chitwan National Park
Weight
Factors
Education
Age/
Experience
Wellbeing
Social
norms
National
policy
Forest
condition
Urban/
Rural
residence
7 First Choice 26 4 8 1 15 0 1
6 Second Choice 10 7 17 3 13 2 3
5 Third Choice 3 10 9 9 1 11 11
4 Fourth Choice 16 4 11 1 21 1 2
3 Fifth Choice 0 5 1 16 0 16 17
2 Sixth Choice 0 3 2 19 0 20 11
1 Least Imp. 0 22 6 6 6 6 10
Weighted
Mean 5.85 3.28 4.75 3.02 4.99 2.98 3.13
Rank I IV III VI II VII V
Table 4.4: Ranking by Paryatakiya Vutaha users
In Paryatakiya Vutaha Education was the major affecting factor followed by Social norms,
National policy, Wellbeing, Experience, Urban/Rural residence, Social norms and least by
Forest condition.

39
At Hariyali Mahila (III) BZCFUG of Chitwan National ParkWeight
Factors
Education
Age/
Experience
Wellbeing
Socialnorms
National
policy
Forest
condition
Urban/
Rural
residence
7 First Choice 33 10 6 1 19 1 1
6 Second Choice 13 21 9 4 17 2 4
5 Third Choice 20 14 5 1 26 1 3
4 Fourth Choice 4 12 13 12 1 14 14
3 Fifth Choice 0 2 6 21 0 20 21
2 Sixth Choice 0 3 4 24 0 25 14
1 Least Imp. 0 8 28 8 7 7 12
Weighted
Mean 6.07 4.79 3.15 2.87 5.36 2.79 2.97
Rank I III IV VI II VII V
Table 4.4: Ranking by Hariyali Mahila users
In Hariyali Mahila Education was the major affecting factor followed by National policy,
Experience, Wellbeing, Urban/Rural residence, Social norms and least by Forest condition.
Discussion
 The women managed Community Forest are well managed as compared to men or
mixed (Kafle, 2008) which is similar to my findings for Buffer zone Community Forest.
 Evaluation done for the Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project indicates that women
are present at most user-group meetings and this was considered evidence of their
participation in the decision making process (Springate –Baginkshi, 2000) which is
similar to my findings.

40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion
Through the discussions and analysis of facts and figures, the researcher came to the
following conclusions.
 In SNNPnone female run BZCF is present (one of whose treasurer is still a male) while
in CNP total of two female run BZCF are present.
 Small patch of forest having zero Average Annual Harvest are only given to women for
its protection and management
 Women discuss more about subject matter before taking decision, is the main reason to
play effective role in executive committee i.e., agendas are passed by participatory way.
 Decisions are made by committee member followed by user member then followed by
chairperson and last by influential persons at both the region.
 Supportive role of male is more at both the BZCF of CNP in comparison to that of
BZCF of SNNP.
 CF activities are enriching the skills and improving human behavior. The programs
empowering rural men/ women/ poor/ people to give their ideas in meetings/ trainings/
assemblies with active inclusion in decision-making.
 Most of the users are known about different skill development training, homestay
training, study tour, workshop, seminar conducted by National Park, Hariyo Ban
Program, DFO (Kathmandu) and FUG itself.
 There are regular meetings and transparency on account in women managed CF.
 At both the regions presence of female in general assembly is more compared to male
as the community forests were run by female members only
 Education is most influencing factor for decision making in CFUG meeting followed
by Social factor at SNNP while Education is most influencing factor for decision
making in CFUG meeting followed by National policy at CNP.
 Self-motivation as well as self-awareness are necessary to effectively manage the
natural resources.

41
Recommendation
The existing discrimination backed up by socio-economic ritual of Nepali society is much
difficult to eliminate, but it can be reduce to some extent uplifting the women and marginalized
section of society. In order to minimize the discrimination and for effective management of forest
resources, following points are recommended on the basis of this study.
 Capacity building trainings and awareness are necessary for effective decision making
in women managed BZCFUGs.
 Proper support and guidance for forest management as well as for effective fund
mobilization from the concerned authority is needed in women managed BZCFUGs.
 Concerned authority have to trust women users group and have to provide forest with
sufficient AAH of the forest.
 More study on decision making aspects of women in community forests is needed to
make them effective and successful in the management of natural resources for
community development.

42
REFERENCES
Acharya, H., Joshi, A. L. and Acharya, R. (1993) Paticipation of women in the management
of community forest in Gorkha, Nepal, Kathmandu, SCF/USA.
Agarwal, B., 2010. Gender and green governance: the political economy of women's presence
within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, G. and Arsenault, N., 2005. Fundamentals of educational research. Routledge.
Arkin, H. and R. R. Colton. 1963. Tables for statisticians. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Arnold, J.E.M., 1998. Managing forests as common property. Food & Agriculture Org.Rome.
Bartlett, A.G., 1992. A review of community forestry advances in Nepal. The Commonwealth
Forestry Review, pp.95-100.
Bhattarai, R.C., 2012. Economic impact of community forestry in Nepal: a case of mid-hill
districts of Nepal. Economic Journal of Development Issues, 13, pp.75-96.
CBS, 2015. Central Bureau of Statistic. Stastical Year Book Nepal 2015, pp. 213-218.
Chand, N., Kerr, G.N. and Bigsby, H.R., 2010. Why some community forests are performing
better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal. In 2010 Conference, August 26-27,
2010, Nelson, New Zealand (No. 96827). New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics
Society.
Chattopadhyay, R. and Duflo, E., 2004. Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized
policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), pp.1409-1443.
Dauglas, Z.E., 2001: The effects of differing access for forest resource on the Livelihood and
Capital Assets of Poor Women in Kavre District, Nepal.
Denscombe, M., 2014. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
DFRS, 2015. State of Nepal’s Forests. Department of Forest Research and Survey, Forest.
DNPWC, 2018. Protected Areas of Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

43
DoF, 2017. Detail of all CFUGs. Department of Forest, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Driscoll, D.L. 2017. What is Primary Research and How do I get Started? Purdue University.
Europarc Federation (eds.) 2009. Living Parks, 100 Years of National Parks in Europe,
Oekom Verlag, München.
Gautam, A.P., Shivakoti, G.P. and Webb, E.L., 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions,
and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. International forestry review, 6(2), pp.136-
148.
GON, 2017. Forest Act 1993 (revised) Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliament, Kathmandu.
GON, 2017. Forest Act 1993 (revised) and Forest By-laws, 1995, His majesty’s Government
of Nepal, Kathmandu Nepal.
Hariyali Mahila BZCF OP, 2070. Operational Plan of Hariyali Mahila Buffeer Zone
Community Forest Users Group, Chitwan.
Hobley, M. and D. Shakya, 2012. Persistence and change: Review of 30 years of community
forestry in Nepal. Volume 4, HURDEC Nepal, Mary Hobley and ERI.
Hockings, M., Leverington, F. and Cook, C., 2015. Protected area management
effectiveness. Protected area governance and management, pp.889-928.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Courrau, J., Dudley, N., Parrish, J., James, R., Mathur, V. and
Makombo, J, 2007. The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: 2007
Edition. UNESCO, IUCN, University of Queensland, the Nature Conservancy.
Hood, M.S., Rasaily, r. and Timila, G.s., 1997. Community Forestry: A programmer process
17-19 July, 1997. RECOFTC Report No.16, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tulachan, P.M., 2001. Mountain agriculture in the Hindu Kush–Himalaya: A regional
comparative analysis. Mountain Research and Development, 21(3), pp.260-267.
Kafle, M.R., 2008. Contribution of community forestry to user’s household income: a financial
analysis. Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Nepal.
Karki, M., Karki, J.B.S. and Karki, N., 1994. Sustainable management of common forest

44
resources: An evaluation of selected forest user groups in western Nepal. International Centre
for Integrated Mountain Development.
Kanel, K.R., 2010. Community forestry in Nepal: moving ahead in the future. In Proceedings
National Conference on Forest—People Interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 1-21).
Kanel, K.R. and Kandel, B.R., 2004. Community forestry in Nepal: Achievements and
challenges. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 11, pp.5-19.
Kanel, K.R. and Niraula, D.R., 2004. Can rurallivelihood be improved in Nepal through
Community Forestry? Banko Janakari, 14(1), pp.19-26.
Kharel, S., 1993. Women's Participation in Community Forestry: The Nepal-Australia
Community Forestry Project's Experience. Banko Janakari, 4(1), pp.73-5.
Lamichhane, D., 2004. Decision Making Role of Women in Community Forestry-a Case
Study from Syangja District. Tribbhuvan University, Tri-Chandra multiple campus, Nepal.
Leone, M., 2013. Women as decision makers in community forest management: Evidence from
Nepal.
Malla, Y.B., 1997. Sustainable use of communal forests in Nepal. Journal of World Forest
Resource Management (United Kingdom).
MFSC, 2017. Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Selected Protected Areas of Nepal.
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation Conservation, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal
Moser, C.O., 1989. Gender planning in the Third World: meeting practical and strategic
gender needs. World development.
Mudkhu Shrijansil BZCF OP, 2066. Operational Plan of Mudkhu Shrijansil Buffeer Zone
Community Forest Users Group, Kathmandu.
Nightingale, A.J., 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in
community forestry. Journal of forest and livelihood vol, 2(1).
Ojha, H. and Pokharel, B., 2005. Democratic innovations in community forestry—What can
politicians learn. Participation, 7(7), pp.22-25.

45
Pandey, D., 1995. Forest resources assessment 1990: tropical forest plantation resources.
FAO.
Paryatakiya Bhutaha BZCF OP, 2069. Operational Plan of Paryatakiya Bhutaha Buffeer Zone
Community Forest Users Group, Nawalparasi.
Pokharel, B.K., P.Branney, M.Nurse, and Y.B. Malla, 2008. Community forestry: Conserving
forests, sustaining livelihoods and strengthening democracy.
H.R. Ojha, N.P. Timsina, C. Kumar, M.R. Banjade, and B. Belcher(Eds.), Communities,Forests
and Governance: Policy and Institutional Innovations from Nepal, pp.44-80. New Delhi:
Adroit.
Pokhrel, G.K., Aryal, P.C., Shah, K.B., Rijal, B., Suwal, M.K., Kharel, S.C., Paudel, E. and
Dhamala, M.K., 2012. Herpetofaunal Diversity in Nagarjun Forest. Nepal Journal of Science
and Technology, 12, pp.358-365.
Poudel, M.P., 2002. Assessment of sustainability of Community Forestry through combined
analysis of field and remotely sensed in dicators: A case study in Siraha and Saptari districts,
Nepal. M.Sc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth
Observation.
Pradhan, G.D., 2010. Gender equality and social inclusion strategy. Report, UNDP,
Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Program (CDRMP).
Praja, B., 2017.Role of women in decision making. A case study from Makwanpur District. A
Project paper submitted for the partial fulfilment of Bachelor of Science in Forestry degree,
Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Hetauda Campus, Hetauda Nepal.
Schutt, R. 2006. Investigating the Social World. Sage Publications
SNNP, 2017. Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park Annual Report. Panimuhan, Kathmandu.
Springate-Baginski, 2000. Community Forestry Policy in Nepal: Progress and Potentials.
Presented at29th Annual Conference on South Asia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.
Stoian, D. and Yadav, S. K., 1995. Medicinal and aromatic plants in Gorkha District-how to
promote their utilisation and marketing. District Forest Office, Gorkha.

46
Platiner, M., 1995. The Status of Women Under International Human Rights Law and the
1995 UN World Conference on Women, Beijing, China.
WID, 1993 Peasant women in Agricultural and Environment: consultation on “Women and
Sustainable Agriculture and Environment “April (18-21), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Surfed websites are:
http://dof.gov.np/dof_community_forest_division
http://dof.gov.np/national_forest_division
http://lib.icimod.org/record/22642/files/c_attachment_183_1664.pdf
http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/
http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/pages/details/about/introduction
http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected_areas/details/chitwannationalpark
http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected_areas/details/shivapurinagarjunnationalpark
http://www.mfsc.gov.np/content.php?id=289
http://www.mfsc.gov.np/policy.php

47
APPENDICES
Appendix I
Table 1: Sex structure of the respondents
Sex (%) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
Male 45.83 50.91 47.83 48.65
Female 54.17 49.09 52.17 51.35
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table 2: Age group of the respondents
Age group (%) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
18- 25 29.17 21.82 26.09 25.00
25 - 50 45.83 50.91 42.03 45.95
> 50 25.00 27.27 31.88 29.05
Table 3: Ethnic composition of the respondents
Ethnic comp. (%) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
Brahmin 96.00 1.82 0.00 16.89
Chhetri 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.68
Janajati 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.68
Dalit 0.00 7.27 0.00 2.70
Tharu 0.00 90.91 98.55 79.05
Table 4: Educational status of the respondents
Educational status (% ) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
Illiterate 12.50 23.64 20.29 20.27
Primary 33.33 30.91 30.43 31.08
Secondary 25.00 27.27 24.64 25.68
Higher secondary 16.67 14.55 17.39 16.22
Graduate and above 12.50 3.64 7.25 6.76
Table 5: Occupational status of the respondents
Occupation (%) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
Agriculture 12.50 41.82 39.13 35.81
Business 25.00 9.09 15.94 14.86
services 29.17 12.73 17.39 17.57
Wage labour 12.50 12.73 10.14 11.49

48
Foreign 12.50 18.18 11.59 14.19
Other 8.33 5.45 5.80 6.08
Table 6: Wellbeing of the respondents
Wellbeing status (%) Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila Total
Rich 12.50 7.27 13.04 10.81
Medium 50.00 47.27 44.93 46.62
Poor 29.17 30.91 26.09 28.38
Very poor 8.33 14.55 15.94 14.19
Table 7: Respondents present at general assembly by sex category
BZCF Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila
No. % No. % No. %
Always Male 1 4 4 7 6 9
Female 2 8 5 9 9 13
Frequently Male 3 13 9 16 10 14
Female 4 17 10 18 11 16
sometimes Male 5 21 10 18 8 12
Female 4 17 9 16 9 13
Not at all Male 2 8 5 9 9 13
Female 3 13 3 5 7 10
Total 24 55 69
Table 8: Respondents perception towards decisions made
Decision is Mudkhu Shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali Mahila
No. % No. % No. %
Democratic 12 50.00 27 49.09 37 53.62
Neutral 8 33.33 19 34.55 22 31.88
Autocratic 4 16.67 9 16.36 10 14.49
Table 9: Role of male for BZCF Activities
Role of Male Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
Supportive 54% 64% 65%
Neutral 38% 27% 28%
Obstructive 8% 9% 7%

49
Table 10: Role of male for BZCF Activities as per gender
Role Gender
Mudkhu
Shrijansil Paryatakiya
Hariyali
Mahila
Supportive
Male 7 19 23
Female 6 16 22
Neutral
Male 3 7 8
Female 6 8 11
Obstructive
Male 1 2 2
Female 1 3 3
Total 24 55 69
Table 11: Conflicts of BZCFs are resolved by
Resolvedby Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
Chairperson 15% 13% 7%
Committee
members 41% 30% 44%
User members 29% 37% 35%
Influential person 7% 9% 8%
Park personnel 8% 11% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table 12: Effectiveness of female headed BZCF
Effectiveness of CF
(%)
Mudkhu
shrijansil Paryatakiya
Hariyali
mahila Total
Agree 83.3 89.1 92.8 89.9
Disagree 16.7 10.9 7.2 10.1
Table 13: Decisions passed in BZCFUG by various stakeholders
Decisions passedby Mudkhu shrijansil Paryatakiya Hariyali mahila
Chairperson only 13% 16% 6%
Committee members 46% 47% 54%
User members 33% 27% 35%
Influential person 8% 9% 6%
Total 100% 100 100

50
Appendix II
Questionnaire for personal interview
Questionnaire No: Date:
Name of interviewer: FUG:
Personal inform ation:
Respondent’s Identification
a) Name of Respondent :
b) District : VDC : Ward No :
c) Gender Male( ) Female( )
d) Age Structure
i. <25 years ( ) ii. 25-50 year ( ) iii. > 50 years ( )
e) Education Status:
i. Illiterate ( ) ii. Literate or Grade 1-5 ( ) iii. High school (6-10) ( )
iv. High schools pass ( ) v. College (Higher education) ( )
f) Occupation
i Agriculture( ) ii. Business ( ) iii. Service( )
iv. Study ( ) v. Wage labor ( ) vi. Other( )
g) Family size:( ) a. Male ( ) b. Female ( )
h) Well-being status (as per constitution):
i. Very poor ( ) ii. Poor ( ) iii. Medium ( ) iv.Rich ( )
i). Income/ expenditure details (annual basis)
SN Income source Income (Rs) Expenditure on Exp. Ranking Expenditure (Rs) Saving

51
Information related to the Community Forest.
1. Do you know about community forest, its area and member households? Y es/ No
If yes, how do you come to know?
2. Do you know the community forests bidhan and karyayojana? Y es / No
If yes what does bidhan and karyayojana mean?
3. According to CFUGconstitution,how many women members mustbe therein executive committee?
a. 25% b. 35% c. 50% d. Not fixed
4. Do you have any idea about community forest executive committee? Y es / No
If yes how many members in executive committee? Male ( ) Female ( )
5. Are you orany members ofyour family is in executive committee ofFUG?
i.Y es ( ) ii. No ( )
6. How frequently do you attend FUGmeeting/assemblies?
i.Frequently ( ) ii.Sometimes ( ) iii.Not at all ( )
7 . Do you participatein decision-making process in CF activities?
i.Actively participate ( ) ii.Some extent( ) iii.Not at all ( )
If not, why?
( ) because I don't know anything.
( ) because they take completely good decision that I don't need to participate.
( ) because no one cares my opinion
( ) others……………………….
8. What are the factors that affects women for decision making by rank wise?
S.No. Factors Preference
1 Education
2 Age/experience
3 Wellbeing
4 National policy
5 Forest condition
6 Resident area
9 Does the user committee listen to others while taking the decisions?
i.Y es ( ) ii.Only sometime ( ) iii.No ( )
If no, why?
……………………………………………………………

52
10. What do you think the decision is?
i.Democratic ( ) ii.Neutral ( ) iii.Autocratic ( )
If democratic,why………………………….…………
If neutral, why…………………………………………..
If autocratic, why…..………………………………….
11. Areyou satisfied with the decision making process ofthe FUG?
i.much satisfied ( ) ii.satisfied ( ) iii.not at all ( )
If not, why?
………………………………………………………………….
12. Have you ever participated in the following events?
Events Yes/ No Remarks
Meeting when constitution was finalized
Meeting when OP was finalized
Meeting when executive committee was formed
Meeting when distribution of forest products decided
Meeting when decision related to fund mobilization was made
Others….
13. How is your group protecting your CF?
i. Patrolling ( ) (Days/month..……) ii. Paying to watch man ( ) (Rate per month......…)
iii. Self-disciplined( ) iv. Others ( )..……………
14. Have you found any change in forest condition after CF program?
Forest products
Availability
(increasing/decreasing/same)
Reason Coping strategies
Fodder
Fuelwood
Timber
Invesive species
Others (NTFPs)
15. What are the activities thatyour CFUGconduct?Please list.
a) b)
c) d)
e)

53
16. What is the main income source ofFUG?
………………………………………..................………….………
17. Did FUG use the fund in the development activities?
i.Y es ( ) ii.No ( )
If yes, in which aspect?
……………………………………………………….…………………..
18. Are there any IGA activities undertaken by FUGs?
If yes, what kinds?
……………………….…..……………………………………………….
19. Do you think IGA should be carried out by FUG?
If yes in which level?
a) Community level b.Household level
20. What do you think the fund should be used for?
a. Forest developmentactivities
b. Loan for poor in low interest rate.
c. Loan for higher interest for morefund accumulation
d. Given to the government.
e. Community development works like construction oftemples,schools etc.
f. Others………………..
21. What may be done for promoting the participation in the decision making in CF?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
22. What can be done to encouragethe participation ofpoorwomen and DAGs in CF related activities?
…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………
23. What can you recommend for the important ofCF program in future?
……………………………..……………………………………………………………………….
24. Any other comments.
…………………………….…………………………………………………………………………

Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups

Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups

Similar to Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Role of Women in Decision Making of Buffer Zone Community Forest Groups