Learning Route on women’s empowerment, business development and sustainable natural resource management. Scaling-up programmes for the rural poor in Nepal. 6 to 13 December, 2014. IFAD & PROCASUR. More contents at: http://asia.procasur.org/portfolio_item/nepal-learning-route/

1. Leasehold Forestry in Nepal: Over
Two Decades of Implementation

2. Why Leasehold Forestry in Rural Areas?
• Agriculture, livestock and forestry main stay of
livelihood
• Limited opportunities for additional income and
employment in rural areas
• Out migration of people in search of income and
employment
• Significant areas of degraded forests
• Soil erosion due to heavy soil working (cultivation of
annual crops) in hill slopes
• Increased women drudgery due to loss of forests –
spending hours for collection of firewood, fodder
Need to balance between environmental
improvement and the needs of the people

3. Leasehold Forest User Group
• Leasehold Forest User Group (LFUG) is a
small group of 5 to 15 poor households
recognized by the District Forest Office for
the management and utilization of the
Leasehold Forest.

4. Characteristics of LFUG
• Small group of 5 – 15 HHs
• Involvement of only resource poor HHs
• Homogenous group having similar well being
status

5. Leasehold Forestry
Leasehold forestry is a
participatory model of forest
management where part of
the national forest (degraded)
is given to the group of poor
households aiming to raise
their income and improve
living condition
simultaneously improving the
ecological condition of the
hills

6. Characteristics of Leasehold Forestry
• Land belongs to the government
• Management and utilization of LF by the
LFUG/HH
• Regulation of LF by LFUG and DFO
• District Forest Officer approves the
operational plan of LF and issues a lease
certificate
• Possibility of extension of lease period by
another 40 yrs

7. Leasehold Forestry Profile
• Total number of CFUGs = 7,419
• Total number of households involved = 75,021 HH
• Total area of LF handed over = 42,835 ha.
• Average size of LFUG = 10.1 HH
• Average size of the LF = 5.8 ha
• Average LF area per household = 0.6 ha.
• Percent of women in the Key position = 39
Source: LFLP (as of 1st Nov 2014)

8. Geographical Coverage of the Programme

9. Conceptual Model of Leasehold Forestry
Community participation in
Restoration of forests for increased
resources
Poor and
Vulnerable
People
Degraded
Forest
Increase
capacities and governance
Restore forests with
multiple products
Increase income and
reduce vulnerability
Sustainable supply of forest
products and env. services
Reduce
HH poverty
Better management of forest land
Increase forest products supply for
capital formation

10. Target Beneficiaries
• People living below the poverty line
• Women headed households
• Hardcore Poor of any caste/ethnicity
– Landless or near landless

11. LFUG Formation and LF Hand
CF Implementation Process
Over Process
Review and Revision
 Monitoring &
Evaluation
 Feedback
Implementation
 OP approval by DFO
 Joint signature (DFO
& Chairperson of LFUG)
Forest & User Identification
User Group Formation
Constitution Preparation
LFUG Registration
Operational Plan Preparation
(LIP included)
Forests Handover
 HH Visit
 Group Meeting
•Group Meeting
 Well Being Ranking
• Approval by DFO
 Household Survey
 Group Level
Information Collection
 Forest demarcation
 Forest Resource
Inventory
 Group Meeting
 Training/Study tour
 Technical support
Financial /Material
Support
 Participatory
Resource Mapping

12. Strategic Approach
• Coordination approach
– Coordination and collaboration with other development
agencies
• Participatory Approach
– Involvement of whole community in site selection
– Identification of poor households through well being
ranking
– Involvement of poor households in the decision making
process
• Process Approach
– Learning by doing
• Integrated Approach
– Forests
– Livestock
– Rural Finance

13. Strategic Approach….
• Social mobilization
– Group Promoters from LFUGs
• Livelihood planning
– Household level
– LFUG level
• Joint planning and monitoring
– Participatory planning and monitoring
– Joint monitoring
• Crop/product diversification to minimize the risk
– Forage cultivation to broom grass cultivation to NTFPs
cultivation to multipurpose tree species plantation
– Forage to broom, paper pulp to fruits, bark, leaf to NTFPs to
fruit

14. Major Interventions
• Trust building through social
mobilization
• Group formation/networking
• Institutional strengthening
(accounting/ bookkeeping,
leadership, gender and social
inclusion coaching/training)
• Support production and
distribution of planting
materials
• Plantation along contour using
SALT (Forage, fodder,
multipurpose tree speceis)

15. Major Interventions…
• Plantation of other tree species
(multipurpose) from second year
onward
– Cinnamomum tamala
– Fraxinus floribunda
– Ficus glaberrima
– Alnus nepalensis
– Zanthoxylum armatum
– Leucaena leucocephala
– Bauhinia purpuria
• On site coaching on plantation
management (plantation, weeding,
harvesting) to both men and
women of each household
• Protection of natural regeneration

16. Major Interventions…
• Livestock management
• Animal health services
• Rural finance institution
establishment and
strengthening
• Coordination and
collaboration with other
agencies

17. Major Achievements

18. Degraded Forests
converted to
Productive Forests

19. Degraded Forests before intervention

20. Degraded Forests after intervention

21. Degraded Forests after intervention

22. • Production of forage and
fodder increased
tremendously
– Demand of large animals

23. • Livestock production increased through improved
animal health services (from 58 percent of HHs in
2010 to 71 percent of HHs in 2013 )
• Increased annual income from livestock (from 60
percent HHs in 2010 to 70 percent HHs in 2013)
• Average number of goats per HH increased from
3.12 in 2006 to 5 in 2010 to 6.12 in 2013)

24. • LFUGs and Cooperatives established as rural finance
institution (56 cooperatives)
—LFUGs members involved in monthly saving increased from 28
percent in 2006 to 91 percent in 2013
— 77 percent of saving amount mobilized in productive activities
•Social mobilization services build capacity of LFUGs
(95 percent of LFUGs have record keeping system in place)

25. Capacity of women, Dalits
and the poor enhanced
through social
mobilization

27. Fodder collection
time reduced by 2.5
hrs. per/day

28. • Income poverty of LFUG members reduced
through various income generating activities

29. • Resources generation through coordination and
collaboration with other development partners

30. • Livelihood of the poor improved through enterprise
development
Women Entrepreneurs Making Incense Sticks
Bio-briquette Enterprises

32. Bagged with several awards
• Mountain development awards with cash
prize
– Kauledanda LFUG intergroup, Jhirubas, Palpa
(2010)
– Hupsekot LFUG intergroup, Hupsekot,
Nawalparasi (2011)
– Grihakot LFUG intergroup, Chitrebhanjyang
Syangja (2012)
• Environment development award
– Aamdanda LFUG intergroup, Devghat, Tanahun
(2012)
• Letter of appreciation from Palpa District
Development Committee

33. Policy Implication
• Leasehold forestry policy in place
• Leasehold forestry introduced inside community
forestry
• Government continued programme without external
resources
• Leasehold forestry Priority One programme of the
government
• Adoption by other projects and programmes
• Separate division established under Department of
Forests

34. Gender and Social Inclusion
• Both man and woman from each household
are member of the group
• Involvement of women, Dalits and Janajati has
increased
– Women in key position (39%)
– Dalit in key position (13%)
– Janajati in Key position (56%)

35. Other Implication
• Networking of the groups in cluster and
district federation
• Poorest upgraded to poorer and poorer to
poor category
• Biodiversity increment in the leasehold forests
• Soil erosion controlled to a large extent due to
increase in green coverage

36. Key Learning
• Degraded forests can be restored in partnership with
forest dependent poor.
• Intervention is needed at package level: Resource
generation to utilization and marketing.
• Diversification of the products secures investment.
• Local Resource Persons are important for sustainability.
• Savings and Credit Scheme, even at low scale, benefits
poor for income generating activities and for vulnerability
coping.
• Strong coordination between development partners is also
key to the success.
• Livelihood improvement planning best tool for resource
pooling

37. Opportunities and Challenges
• Ever increasing demands for the extension of the
programme in neighboring VDCs and districts
• Extension of the programme in other districts and
other areas in the same district as potential land
(shifting cultivation and degraded forests) available
there
• Possibilities of resources generation through resource
pooling
• Possibilities of enterprise development with increased
production of forage, fodder and NTFPs
• Many species having multiple benefits available to
grow that fetch high price
• Potential model to contribute in mitigation and
adaptation of climate change effects

38. Thank You