English | French | Home

Forest Policy and Practice

Forest Policy and Practice The forestry sector policy in Nepal can be divided into three broad groups, viz. privatization (pre- 1950), nationalization (1957 and up to the mid 1970s) and the community orientation which began in the late 1970s with the introduction of community forestry concept23. Following the democratic revolution in 1950, the government nationalised all forests in 1957 in an attempt to prevent the feudal Rana rulers from continuing to use Terai forests as their personal property. The Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957 was primarily concerned with bringing an end to indiscriminate felling of trees in the Terai forests and the unregulated trade of timber with a view to check the further degradation of forests in the country. However, the nationalisation of all forestland in 1957 and subsequent protectionist practices by the government undermined indigenous management systems and led to overgrazing and random harvests. This accelerated degradation of the landscape and caused deforestation on a massive scale, which gave rise to the emergence of community forestry in Nepal.

Community forestry has evolved as one of the major components of Nepal's forest development strategy during the past 25 years, with local Forest User Groups (FUGs) preserving the forests with support from the government and donor agencies. Community forestry is most accurately and usefully understood as an umbrella term denoting a wide range of activities which link rural people with forests, trees, and the products and benefits to be derived from them. Gilmour and Fisher (1991) define community forestry in terms of control and management of forest resources by the rural people who use them especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their farming systems24. Despite the rather gloomy political and socio-economic background, it is praiseworthy that the community forestry policy in Nepal has made considerable headway.

Community forestry in the mid-hills is often regarded as one of the few notable success stories in the national context of poor public sector management, improving people's livelihoods on the one hand and conserving natural landscapes on the other25. Though the current political crisis in Nepal is casting a shadow over community development efforts, there has been good progress in community forestry initiatives. It is important to note that since there are no elected officials at present in Nepal, Community forest user groups (CFUGs) currently operationg are the only existing form of democratic governance in the country, albeit imperfect at times. The rate of formation of FUGs has exceeded original estimates and a backlog of groups awaits registration. By 2003 there were 12,079 community forestry user groups formed across Nepal, managing 15 percent of Nepal's total forestland area (955,358 ha out of 6,306,000 ha of total forestland area), and over 28 percent of the land allocated is to be handed to communities (3,551,849 ha)26. The formation of FUGs has proceeded at the rate of about 1,000 per year. Some critics suggest that the emphasis on 'quality' of the formation process has gradually changed to an emphasis on 'quantity'. The implementation of community forestry has also proceeded in the Terai region, with 1,477 FUGs (12 percent of the total) now managing 224,136 ha27. However, different conditions of high-value and accessible forests, recent settlement and problems in identifying and organizing user groups, together with wide-spread and organized illegal timber-felling, have caused much slower progress28. Illegal logging, fuelwood cutting, grazing, fire and agricultural conversions have contributed to the deterioration of Nepal's forests.

The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1989) recognized that the restoration of public forestlands in the hills could only be achieved through the participation of local people (the users). It envisaged that people, principally through community forestry, should manage all accessible forestland in the hills. Community forestry concept was institutionalized through Forest Act (1993), Forest Regulations (1995), the Operational Guidelines (1995), Revised Operational Guidelines (2001-02), and the Forestry Sector Policy (2000). These legal instruments have legitimized the concept of CFUG as an independent, autonomous and self-governing institution responsible to protect, manage and use any patch of national forest with a defined forest boundary and user group members. CFUGs are to be formed democratically and registered at the District Forest Office (DFO), with CFUG Constitution, which defines the rights of the users to a particular forest. The forest is handed over to the community once the respective members through a number of consultative meetings and processes prepares the Operational Plan (OP), a forest working plan, and submits it to the District Forest Officer (DFO) for approval. The plan has to be countersigned by the Chairperson of the CFUG. The general assembly of the CFUG is the supreme body to finalize the plan before it is submitted to the DFO for its approval. The plan is generally implemented by an executive committee nominated by the general assembly29.

Despite three decades of supporting local forest management practices and the achievements and contribution that community forestry has made in Nepal, there is still a lack of appropriate approaches to assist community and local forest stakeholders in developing monitoring mechanisms that could effectively help to reflect, review and adapt their forest management practices and through this maximise impacts on forest condition (landscape) and rural livelihoods. This leaves an urgent need to develop effective monitoring mechanisms and provide civil society with the skills and tools to regulate the sector and monitor the forestry activities more efficiently. Monitoring skills may also help to plan and decide the harvest and marketing potential of forests and its resources. Recently, during the development of and under the Tenth Plan, monitoring has become a highly recognized issue. Considering the importance of effective implementation and monitoring of the poverty reduction strategy, the Government is developing a comprehensive participatory implementation, monitoring and evaluation strategy, with technical support and assistance from the development partners (Tenth Plan 2002-2007). To address this, ministries have to develop their respective plans using a logical framework approach where indicators are the key.

Besides community forests, some areas of forests in Nepal are classified as leaseholds forests, which are leased to private individuals, cooperatives, institutions and commercial enterprises. In 1998, National Planning Commission (NPC) of Nepal declared leasehold forestry as a priority programme for poverty alleviation. These allow for the leasing of land with degraded forest to poor communities on 40-year leases, automatically renewable upon satisfactory adherence to the agreed operational plan, with exclusive rights to the produce of the land. A total of 25 districts have been identified for implementing leasehold forestry programme for poverty alleviation, 10 districts were already under this project by 1999 with initiative of International Fund for Agriculture Development with Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests (Ohler 2000). A new project is currently being developed30. In 1999-2000, there were a total of 1,549 leasehold forests user groups with about 10,500 socially and economically disadvantaged families managing some 6,600 ha of forest area in several districts of the country (Ohler 2000)31. The Leasehold Forestry Policy 2002 envisages the granting of leases to: (i) commercial forestry enterprises; (ii) entrepreneurs for eco-tourism; and (iii) households living below the poverty line32.

Some forests are owned, controlled and protected by the state (national forests)33. And some areas have been kept under protected areas system, which form about 17 percent (24,717 km2) of the total land area of the country. These consist of conservation areas, hunting reserves, wildlife reserves, and national parks (see Resources Nepal 1999)34. With the introduction of the concept of Buffer Zone area management, community orientation in protected areas system is getting wider recognition35.

The following is a summary of information about forestry sector and practices in three major zones of Nepal: the highlands or mountains; the Mid-hills; and the Terai. As there is a wealth of information about community forestry in the Mid-hills of Nepal, the focus of this profile will be on the Terai, which has often been neglected but possesses high-value potential for a sustainable forestry sector if managed effectively.


Fig 2. Map of Nepal showing the position of the Mountains, Mid-hills and Terai
(Source: www.southalabama.edu/nepal/map.htm)