Criticising Nepal's Highly Successful Community Forestry is a NO-NO in mainstream environmental discourse of Nepal but here my students are encouraged to critique even so called successful sustainable development programs such as community forestry in Nepal.

2.  Community forests are the parts of national
forests that are managed and used by local
users organized into community forest user
groups, legitimatized as independent and
self governing institutions by the
government.
 The objective of the community forestry
program is to produce collective benefits to
the local communities of forest users from
the development, conservation and use of
forests.

3.  Total control by state, forest officers given special
rights, but still massive deforestation
Need for people’s participation in forest
management realized.
 Forest Act 1961 amended in 1977 made provisions
to handover parts of government forest to
Panchayats.

4.  Panchayat forest and Panchayat Protected
forest rules initiated implementation of
community forestry program in Nepal.
 First project-Hill Community Forestry Project
operated in 38 hill district, supported by
World Bank.

6. • 13,600 Forest User Groups (FUGs) with nearly
1.4 million household members,(~20,000
CFUG in 2017)
• manage about 1.1 million ha forest areas,
nearly 25% of the existing national forest of
the country.(~1.7 million ha or 35% in 2017)
• average of two FUGs are being formed every
day
• achievements can be seen in terms of better
forest condition, good governance, social
mobilization, income generation for rural
development and institution building at grass
root level.

7. Sustainable forest management
 Denuded forest have regenerated and the
condition of forests has improved.
 the net forest area has been increased by 794
ha and the number of patches has been
reduced from 395 to 175.
 Shrub land and grassland has been converted
into productive forest.
 biggest source for the forest products such as
timber and NTFPs (grasses, fodder,
firewood) which are consumed locally as
well as sold by the user group.
 Protection of wild life and indigenous plants
and trees.

8. Livelihood Promotion
 fulfilling subsistence need of local
communities.
 Supporting income generation activities for
the poor (loans, training on forest based
skill development, access to forest)
 Conduct social activities and maintain
harmony among people in the society.
 local level capacity building through
trainings on silviculture, gender equity, record
keeping etc

9. Good Governance
 the CFUGs operate as independent, autonomous and
self governing entity.
 25% of the income has to be spent on the protection
and management of forest and 75% on community
development
 The practice of disadvantaged group participation,
election for selecting the User committee, transparent
legislation and accountable user group, makes the
system more strong and democratic.
 Generating social capital
 42% of total labour is spent for community forest
protection, 19% for meetings and assemblies and 19%
for forest product harvesting

10. By: Manish D. Dhakal
Date: 1st
March 2010

11.  So making these institutions more accountable
and responsible to poor and disadvantaged
groups & women is challenge.
Unsolved discourse
In revenue sharing
Issue among local users, local bodies & State.
Hunting & wildlife farming in
CF
Wildlife-high income generating but…no
legislation.

12.  Issue of inclusion
 Should distant users be deprived of the forest
benefit?
 Inclusiveness of participation
 Transparency
 Forest Management
 Forest Product flow
 Accountability of executive
community

13.  Responsiveness
 Linking and Tapping Diverse
funds for poverty reduction
 Issue of Equitability & Benefit
Distribution
 Conflict between different
theories

15.  Forest taken as a thing for acquisition of
social power and rapid upward mobility.
 Conflicting Data

19.  Hausler unravels the complexity of
community forestry by viewing it through the
lens of history, politics and power relations.
She claims that it is imperative to look at
how power relations (and therefore the
socio-political context of our country and in
a larger context the world) dictate decisions
that are made environmentally.

20. the causes for environmental
degradation that policies tackle are
aimed at
and NOT at
- overpopulation
- overgrazing
- cultivation of steep slopes
- farmers' ignorance
- overuse of scarce forest resources
- rapid industrialization
- export oriented growth policies
- deteriorating terms of trade for
South
- unfavourable exchange rates
(foreign currency)
- foreign debt
- transnational timber corporations
- corruption
- national and local power structures
because these policies are aimed at
changing patterns of lifestyle of rural
population dependent on forest
resources.
nothing that disrupts current
hegemony of the West and western
political, economic structures on the
South. also perpetuates existing
power relations within the country.

21.  Why is forestry chosen as a profession?
 Because of power relations.
 A single forester has the authority of:
 an army commander,
 a magistrate,
 a revenue officer
 and a businessman
 thus, places him high on the social order.

22. • What is the importance of indigenous
knowledge systems?
• could this signal the possible redistribution
of power relations?
• or does this perpetuate northern heirarchies?
Such discourse is crucial because it extends
beyond the bounderies of forest management
and environmental conservation to other
aspects of live in the South.