This presentation by Naya Sharma Paudel and Dil Bahadur Khatri Experiences of CF talks about watershed and landscape level forest management initiatives, REDD/PES piloting at different scale and lessons & insights on institutional aspects.

1. Looking REDD at landscape level:
learning from CBNRM in Nepal
Naya Sharma Paudel
Dil Bahadur Khatri

2. Outline
• Experiences of CF, watershed and landscape
level forest management initiatives
• REDD/PES piloting at different scale
• Lessons and insights on institutional aspects

3. Community forestry: a successful model
• Government’s major programme
• Over 18000 community groups (35%
of pop)
• A quarter of forest area under CF
• Regeneration of once barren hills
despite all gloomy predictions
• Substantial livelihoods
benefits, community
infrastructure, social services

4. Watershed and PAs: narrow focus on forests
Examples: ACAP (in 1986), buffer
zone (in 1996), terai arc landscape
& eastern Himalayan landscape (in
late 1990s), protected forests
(2010)
Structural asymmetry: Three DFOs
with their territorial authorities;
FECOFUN organised at district level
Conflicting mandate: Programme
relies on forest authority, Local
governments have mandates for
infrastructure development, not
conservation

5. Landscape conservation: multiple challenges
Examples: Western Terai Arc Landscape, Kailash Sacred Landscape;
Sacred Himalaya Landscape
1.
2.
3.
4.
Narrow focus on forest, biodiversity
Deforestation and degradation at high level
No effective mechanism to deal with diverse actors
Undefined accountability structure – blame each other

6. Unsustainable
extraction of forest
products
Illegal logging
Fuelwood collection
Grazing
NTFPs collection
Agriculture
Sukumbasisettlem
ents
Gradual
encroachment
Shifting
cultivation
Infrastructure
 Road
contruction
 Hydro-power
 Mining
 Urbanisation
 Industrial area
 Buildings
Others
Forest fire
Invasive species
Agriculture, infrastructure and energy are key
non-forestry drivers of deforestation
Economic, socio-political and governance
related issues are at the heart of deforestation
Economic
Increased demand for
forest products
Increased access to
market
High price of
substitute
Poverty and high
dependency on forests
Policy, institution
&governance
1.Poor transparency
and participation
2.Weak law
enforcement
3.Corruption
4.Weak tenure
Socio-political
Prolonged political
transition, instability
Differentiated and
fragile society
Rent seeking
behaviour
Demographic
drivers
Population
growth
Migration
Identity
movements
Technological
drivers
Poor technology in
forest management
Low agriculture
productivity

7. Piloting of watershed level REDD
• A ‘multi-stakeholder’
advisory committee at
national and at
watershed level
• Internal monitoring but
independent verification
• Bundling of CFUGs at
watershed level
• Core forest management
functions at CFUG level

8. • REDD-Net has become
instrumental for
effective coordination
among CFUGs and
project implementation
• Uneasy relation
between REDD-net and
FECOFUN (REDD-Net is
seeking formal identity
including mandate to
manage fund that
creates latent conflict
with FECOFUN)
• Challenges of
integrating watershed
level institutions to
political and
administrative bodies
(DDC, DFO, DADO, DFCC
or other M-SHs bodies)
Institutional misfit

9. PES initiatives in Kulekhani watershed
12.5% of
electricity tax
goes to local
region for
watershed
protection
DDC
allocates
20% of
this sum to
the special
fund for
upstream
8 VDCs in
the region
equally
divide this
money
Poor ecosystem services due to
• No watershed level institution for
planning and implementation
• Program relied on local government
that spends on roads
• Poor monitoring (of fund use and
ecosystem services)
Major
spending in
road
construction
Sedimentatio
n has
increased
due to roads

10. Experiences of NRM at different scale
Scale
Management regime
Experiences
Forest patch Community forestry
Strong robust institutions, clear benefit
distribution arrangements
Watershed
PES piloting (Kulekhani),
REDD piloting (3 sites)
Some level of confusion over benefit
sharing, high transaction costs
Landscape
Terai arc landscape,
Sacred Himalayan
landscape
No compatible institution operate at this
scale, external agency facilitates the project
Key lessons
• Grassroots institutions are robust, multi-purpose,
• Watershed level institutions are beginning to develop as federated bodies
• There are no organic, indigenous institutions or compatible administrative
agencies at landscape level. Projects structures manage such areas
• Higher level resource management initiative narrowly focus on forest/forestry
and have failed to establish effective cross-sectoral coordination

11. Government initiatives to develop ER-PIN for TAL
• Larger emission reduction
potential
• Biodiversity hotspot
(Potential co-benefit)
• Inhabited by Tharu
Community (Indigenous
People)
• No match between administrative and ecological boundaries
• No single authority to manage resources, monitor and store data
• No established governance system (community institutions, CSOs and
private sector organised and functionl at this level)

12. Key messages
• Robust institutions with strong collective action are key to resource
conservation, effective monitoring and equitable benefit sharing
• Resource conservation initiatives at higher scale have been less
successful primarily due to lack of political, administrative and civic
institutions symmetrical to the ecological units
• Landscape level REDD may introduce new institutions thereby
inducing latent conflicts with the existing authority which could
jeopardies the scheme
• Landscape should not only refer to higher scale of resource
management but must adequately embrace the diversity and
complexity of the actors and their dynamics