1. Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go? Narayan Kaji Shrestha Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal

2. 1. INTRODUCTION  Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Everest and the Himalays is also is known as the Country of Community Forestry  Many issues and problems being raised  Issues become significant in the context that three agencies are vying for control of forest management

3. 1.1 Contending Forces  Government forest agencies, local government agencies and user groups are contending and vying for power, authority, and control over and manage forestry resources in Nepal. . The forest bureaucracy gets its power and authority to control and manage forestry resource through the state

4.  The local government agencies through politics and election.  FECOFUN being a representative has to strengthen itself by improving credibility of users by setting up horizontal accountability among users themselves.

5. 1.2 Background  Loot the Resource from People and Destroy Environment  Forest Destruction in Himalayan Country reached up to 3.9% per annum  “Eco-Doom” and “Tragedy of Commons”  Himalayan Kingdom to be a Desert by 2000  Bureaucracy-Politicians-Contractors’ Nexus Destroyers of Forests  People are Blamed

6. Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources?  Historically, State and Rulers Encroached upon Forest Resources of People  Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward, etc.  Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s Forest for Railway Slippers and others.  By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land Distributed to Elites and Powerful and Three- Fourth went to the Rana Families

7. 1.3 Initiative after 1951  Nationalization of Private Forests  Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration  PF and PPF failed  The Master Plan (1989) developed policy to devolve rights of management to users  Development of Charter and Operational Plan by consensus are requirement for hand-over

8.  DFO is supposed to make sure consensus is reached  However, the process is not followed and issues raised

9. The Change Process: Trusting People as Managers  Moving from Resource Creation to Institution Building and Strengthening  Focus on People Rather Than Trees  Users as Managers and Forest Officials as Facilitators  Secure Rights of Users To Manage  Decision Making by Consensus

10. Outcome:  The Forestry Officials are Reoriented  Local Users Have Developed Ownership  18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million Hectare of Forest  Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction is halted  Community Development Activities Initiated  FECOFUN is Created

11. 1.4 Statement of the Problem  Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field for rulers, politicians and bureaucrats.  Community forestry as a priority program  61% of forest is supposed to be turned into community forests  The forest bureaucracy backtracking with introduction of OFMP and CFM

12.  The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law  The LGAs have rights to manage fallow land, raise taxes and develop plans for resources management  The Forest Department and the LGAs are allying against users with provision of DFCC and allocation of 20% revenue

13. 2. Analytical Framework  2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution Debate  2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights  2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors

14. 3. Description of Initiative Undertaken by FECOFUN:  3.1 Is There a Fish in the Bowl?  3.2 Did Pictures Speak?  3.3 What is the Goal?  3.4 Are User Groups Rooted Enough?  3.5 Are Stems Strong Enough?  3.6 What Fruits User Groups Require?

15.  Perpetual Rights over Resources  Integrated Resources Management  Good Governance  Consensus  Participatory Democracy  Social Justice  Accountability

16.  Transparency  Accountability/Responsiveness  Gender/Equity  Power Balance  Learning Organization

17. 4. Analysis and Discussion  4.1 Actors and Their Playing Field: Forest Bureaucracy, Local Government Agencies and FECOFUN  Deconcentration, Decentralization, and Devolution operational side by side  The Donors are under pressure to follow the Government

18.  FECOFUN needs to improve its strength by improving effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.  The proper process of user group formation  FECOFUN played critical role in the recent movement 2006 by announcing itself with the democratic forces  However, they are paying the price

19. 5. The Lessons Learned:  Resource Management Requires Active Participation by Users  Elites and Powerful Withheld Information from People to Control Them  User Group Formation Process with Consensus is a Time Consuming Process  Some Bureaucrats Can Change but Most of Them are Hard Nuts to Crack

20. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations  The state itself is creating confusion by creating contending forces through decentralization  CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory Democracy  Users need to practice consensus in their decision making process and good governance

21.  FECOFUN needs to promote governance in their structures to bolster their credibility as a lobbying organization  FECOFUN needs to develop a process which can address issues of governance in the user groups

22. What’s There for Us  Your Support for CF is also Support for the Participatory Democracy  So-Called Experts are Trying to Destroy CF from Nepal, Please Help Us.  Nepal can Come Out of Poverty only by Managing Its Own Resources, Help Us in This. We do not Want to be a Beggar Nation.  CF will Lead Us to Democratic Republic, Please Stop Exploitative Forces to Undermine Our Aspiration of Being a Democratic Republic.

23. Namaskar!!  Please Let’s Develop Our Own Model of Democratic Republic Based on The Learning from CF  Let’s also Enjoy Freedom You Have been Enjoying  Please Help Us  Thank You Very Much