The aim of this research is to gain insight and explore the relationship of forest benefits and their distribution mechanism among users by evaluating existing institutional arrangements in the community forests (CFs). This empirical research endeavours to discover the real world in the community forestry (CF) in communities. The CF programme has started in Nepal since 1978. Although it has rejuvenated degraded forests in mid-hill into green resource, still many issues on CF are needed to be addressed. CF has been facing many challenges in benefit sharing and resource allocation process among users and stakeholders. Several studies have pointed out inequality and unfair distribution in benefit sharing as a part of CF problems. In particular, pro-poor support activities through derived resources are very insignificant. Majority benefits such as timber, fuel wood and other community funds are more enjoyed by upper wealthier than poor and minority users. Similarly, poor and disadvantaged users are little participating in the decision process of the community forestry in planning and implementing activities. Against this background, three research questions were posed to investigate the problems.
- What are the institutional arrangements regarding actual benefits sharing among users and other stakeholders?
- What household benefits are actually generated from CFs?
- What community level benefits are actually generated from CFs?
CF is a valid and firmly adopted mainstream programme of Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation in Nepal. The Master Plan for Forestry Sector of 1989 and Tenth-five-year plan (2002-2007) insist for poverty alleviation through participatory CF. More than 14,000 user groups and about 39 percent people in the country are involved as members in community forests. Obviously the basic needs such as timber, fuel wood, fodder, grasses, and several forest products along with collected community funds have been annually distributed among users and other stakeholders. Regarding this distribution, addressing the poverty alleviation issue is often lacking. Therefore, the problem of equity in forest benefit distribution needs to be better documented and analysed in order to come up solutions. For better distributing practices, such a study also provides reflective knowledge for forestry professionals. Thus, this study explores an empirical situation as a contribution towards better understandings and practice.
In community forestry, the forest resources are considered as common pool resources, and its product and management affect people and their daily livelihood resources. In Nepal, the forest is an integrated component of agricultural farming systems in the rural livelihood. The contribution to livelihood generation through the forest resources has been taken as a starting point for analysis in the study. Timber and firewood for fuel, fodder and grass for livestock, wild food, and medicinal plants are important forest products. In addition, the forest entitlement approach has been used for in-depth understanding of the entitlement of users. Hence, the benefit flow from the forest to users and its relation with institutional mechanism has been developed as a conceptual framework for this research.
An in depth explorative approach with case studies has been used as a research strategy to obtain the research objective. Two community forests were purposively selected in Makawanpur District in the central Nepal. Rani is a non-commercial CF, which has not been selling the forest products except to their users; and Simpani is regarded a commercial CF, that sells timber and fuel wood to timber merchants. Interviews with the respondents, through stratified sampling based on three types of wealth ranking categories, was a major method for primary source of data collection. Besides, observation of the assemblies and the EC meetings were carried. Secondary records from the registers of both CFs were collected to obtain information on allocation trends of material benefits and community funds.
An operational plan and a constitution are the major basic documents for the CF institutional procedures. The composition of users in both CFs is heterogeneous. Access of poor and minority group in executive committee and assembly meeting is still very poor. Richer and mid-wealthier users dominate the User Group Committee (UGC). Also, timber and firewood is consumed more by richer and mid-wealthier users than poor and lower caste group. Collected other products than timber, grass, fodder, litter, and wild food are freely distributed and with very less control. Such as timber is strictly distributed in controlled access. A trend over fifteen and six years' timber distribution among users shows more or less a similar trend among rich, mid-wealthier, and poor category users. If it is not changed, the distribution may remain the same in future. In this case, the marginalisation of poor and minorities users may increase more in forthcoming period. Comparatively, Rani CF (a non-commercial motive CF) users have more benefited than Simpani (a commercial motive CF) users from firewood, timber, and community funds. Thus, Commercialisation and tapping more income has not supported pro-poor activities. Water is not considered an important environmental benefit, and is used freely by users and neighbours too.
Regarding income sources, timber and fuel wood selling to users or timber merchants are major income sources for both CFs. The fund allocation seems more devoted to the social development than core forestry development activities. Pr-poor distribution of funds has a low priority. Correspondingly, institutional measures are more focused on timber and its processing. Empowerment of poor people and effective planning process have not been clearly prescribed in the operational plan and the constitution.
Overall, although the CF forests are regenerating and reversing the degraded forest land into a green zone, the derived benefits are not distributed based on basic of equity consideration, but on general community consideration, and prevailing social relations. In particular, poor and minorities such as Damai, Kami, Sunar, Chepang, Danuwar, and Tamang have been marginalised from the present practice of the institutional arrangements. In addition, the livelihood resources from the forests that are consumed by users have not impacted on livelihood improvement of poor and minorities. At the same time, the richer and midwealthier users are improving their quality of life by timber, furniture, and other associated developmental activities. The challenge remains how to share the benefit on the basis of equity among users without antagonising the community sections. A solution may be achieved through intervening policy, convincing local leaders, interacting among users, and making a common understanding among all stakeholders. This research recommends studying gaps among different stakeholders in understanding of the differentiated role of forests products in livelihood of poor and richer people and developing new distribution mechanism.
Post new comment