Trust among local stakeholders in a community forestry programme: how does reality fit with the programme’s expectations?

Context: The Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) is a bilateral programme between the Government of Nepal and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). LFP aims to reduce vulnerability and improve livelihoods among poor and excluded rural people in Nepal through financial, social, and technical interventions.

While District Forestry Offices (DFOs) are key partners delivering technical forestry activities, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are responsible for delivering the programme’s social component. LFP has been working with its partners to establish and strengthen a network of Village Development Committees (VDCs) as an institutional home for best practices and pro-poor initiatives at the local level. LFP is also using Community Forestry User Groups (CFUG) as an entry point into local communities.

Although CFUGs are getting social and technical support from Samuhik Abhiyan (an NGO) and from Range Post (a technical forestry unit of the District Forest Office), other Government of Nepal agencies also deliver services i.e. agriculture, Village Development Committees, livestock, etc. Likewise, a VDC network has been set up to enhance coordination, planning, and implementation at local levels, with CFUGs involved as members.

The Chhahare Suerini CFUG of the Bokhim VDC—located about 2 hours from the district headquarters (Bhojpur Bazaar)—is categorised as an active CFUG in terms of institutional development/social inclusion, resource management, and livelihoods opportunity (CFUG categorisation study 2006).

In 1987, the Government of Nepal granted 11 ha. of forest to this CFUG. A majority of the land contains mature Katus-Chilaune forest. Altogether, 130 households are managing the forest. Of these, 4%, 35%, and 61% are from Dalit, disadvantaged Janajati, and other communities respectively. Almost half of residents were identified as poor based on a participatory well-being ranking.

LFP has prepared a sustainability plan that involves transferring responsibility for social mobilization to the VDC-net (Village Development Committee network), and withdrawing direct LFP involvement for social aspects of the programme by 2010. To understand better whether or not the conditions are good for VDC-net to play this key leadership role, LFP held a meeting. The goal of the meeting was to assess the extent to which trust in the VDC-net is strong, and to identify where a lack of trust might exist among the various stakeholders involved. To better understand whether or not the conditions are good for VDC-net to play this key leadership role, LFP held a meeting. The goal of the meeting was to assess the extent to which trust in the VDC-net is strong, and to identify where a lack of trust might exist among the various stakeholders involved.

The methodology used to do the assessment of trust among stakeholders was Network Dynamics from the Social Analysis System (SAS²)

Purpose: To assess the relationships of trust among stakeholders participating in a community forestry development programme. Results of the assessment would be useful for the programme’s planning process and for institutions responsible for social mobilisation.

Participants: A total of 28 people took part in the assessment. The main stakeholder groups identified in the assessment were: representatives from the executive committee of CFUGs, Tole groups (sub-groups of CFUGs), Village Development Committees (VDCs), VDC networks, the NGO Samuhik Abhiyan, Range Post, Cooperative Group (saving and credit), nearby CFUGs, and the government’s Agriculture Office.

Process: A network of trust is a set of connections where people show confidence in other parties and rely on them to provide support, to behave in appropriate ways, and to do what they are expected to do.

During the rating process, people answer the questions: ‘To what extent does this stakeholder (name the row stakeholder) trust that stakeholder (name the column stakeholder)?’ The resulting matrix (see Table 1) provides an index for trusts others (vertical axis) and an index for is trusted by others (horizontal axis).

Findings: The VDC network was found to be one of the key stakeholders that trusts and is also trusted by others. Likewise, the CFUG’s executive committee members and Samuhik Abhiyan were rated highly on both kinds of trust.

The Cooperative, Range Post, and Agriculture Office were deemed to not be adequately supporting community forestry process as expected by the local community members. Participants clearly flagged that the Cooperative group was not functioning in line with the interests of most people in the local community since the Cooperative does not focus on the truly poor households (see Figure 1).

CFUG and Tole (hamlet) groups are not highly trustful of VDCs, whereas VDCs only feel trusting toward the Cooperative.

Figure 1: Position of the stakeholders in community forestry development process

Interpretation: As a result of the assessment, members of the Samuhik Abhiyan team, who are responsible for social mobilisation, have a new insight into the situation and roles of local stakeholders.

Due to the bridging role that Samuhik Abhiyan plays between the local community and other district level line agencies, the Range Post, a permanent Government unit responsible for technical forestry, now sees itself as being isolated from other stakeholders in the community. Likewise, due to lack of coordination between the Ministry of Forests and other Government of Nepal agencies, the Government Agriculture Office sees itself as detached from other stakeholders.

The VDC network is a parallel institution working at the local level. It is parallel to the CFUGs, and the local community likes to get support on problems beyond forestry from the CFUG, not from VDCs. This raises a challenge for policy-makers and other government channels seeking to balance the demands of the local community.

The Cooperative institution, which was set up to improve the economic conditions of targeted groups, is dominated by elites and is implementing activities in favour of other than poor communities.

A big challenge that the assessment made clear is the fact that CFUGs have a degree of dependency on Samuhik Abhiyan. This may have an impact on the LFP’s plan to shift the management of social aspects of its programme to the VDC-net level by 2010.

The future: The beneficiaries, i.e. members of the CFUG, feel its strength and understand what they need to do to make the community forestry development process stronger. Samuhik Abhiyan agrees with the approach the CFUG will take. The CFUG has decided to initiate a strategy that will support interdependency with others. This will involve preparing its annual plan by coordinating with other government agencies working at local level beyond the forestry sector, such as the Agriculture Office, Livestock office, etc. Likewise, the CFUG has stated that it is a high priority to incorporate its annual plan into the VDC’s plan.

Two stakeholders—the CFUG and Range Post—feel their relationship is weak. The Range Post staff has considered increasing its field level activity and participation in CFUG’s meetings and assemblies. Likewise, Samuhik Abhiyan has shown its commitment to increasing acceptance of government offices by the local community. To achieve this, it will decrease activities that might be creating dependency by the local community on its services.