Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page


Impact of community forestry policy on rural
livelihoods and food security in Nepal

Y.B. Malla

Yam Bahadur Malla is Lecturer and Course
Director for the M.Sc. in Participatory Forest
Management and Extension, Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development Department,
University of Reading, United Kingdom.

Is community forest management incompatible with securing livelihoods from the forest?

Two decades have passed since community forest management was formally introduced in Nepal. Although improvements in the physical situation of forest and tree resources on both public and private lands have been reported (see, for example, Gilmour, 1988; Gilmour and Nurse, 1991; Jackson and Ingles, 1995; Branney, King and Malla, 1994), improvement in local communities' access to forest products such as timber, fuelwood and other non-wood forest products (NWFPs) has not been clearly demonstrated. In addition, there is a substantial social cost associated with the intervention of community forestry (Malla, 1992; 1998; Maharjan, 1998).

This article analyses the socio-economic impact of community forestry policy implementation in the Middle Hills region of Nepal, drawing on various reports and the author's own observations. It shows that some households, especially poorer ones, have less access today to forest products for subsistence use and income than they had before the community forestry intervention, and that income from the forest is minor and realized only after a long time. The few income-generating activities that involve the poor and women have had little impact. The article thus draws attention to a need to reconsider the approach to community forestry in the light of its socio-economic objectives.

COMMUNITY FORESTRY POLICY IN NEPAL

In Nepal, forest and tree resources almost always have a place in rural livelihoods. More than 90 percent of the population lives in rural areas, where most people earn a living from agriculture and livestock production activities. People rely on forests and trees for fodder and bedding materials for livestock, for leaf litter which is mixed with manure for use as fertilizer, for timber and poles for houses and agricultural implements (ploughs, etc.) and especially for fuelwood, which is the most important, and often the only, source of energy for cooking and heating for most rural households. In addition, rural households collect diverse NWFPs for use at the household level and for cash income.

In 1978, the government, recognizing the rapid depletion and deterioration of the country's forest resources and the Forest Department's limited capacity to handle the problem alone, introduced community forestry policy to seek local communities' cooperation in the sustainable management and use of the country's forest resource. The policy puts control of forests in the hands of the users of the resource, with the role of the Forest Department staff shifting from that of manager and controller of forests (policing) to that of adviser for forest users (HMGN, 1989).

To date, this policy has only been implemented in the hills region. About 532 500 ha of forests have been handed over to forest user groups (Shrestha, 1997), affecting some 800 000 rural households (4 million people). This accounts for roughly 15 percent of the total potential community forest areas in the hills (Subedi, 1999) and 40 percent of the hill and mountain population.

Forest user groups vary significantly in size; the number of households per forest user group in a survey of selected hill districts ranged from 10 to 850, with a mean of about 95, and the area of forest handed over ranged from less than half a hectare to 750 ha, with a mean of about 50 ha (Roche, 1996). A forest user group generally comprises various castes and ethnic groups with different social, economic and cultural backgrounds. Forest management is governed by an executive committee; this is often dominated by wealthier, high-caste males in the key positions (Paudel, 1999).

FLOW OF FOREST PRODUCTS FROM COMMUNITY FORESTS TO USER HOUSEHOLDS

Table 1 summarizes the general patterns of rules regarding access to forest products under community forest management. Most forest user groups restrict the use of forest products that have cash value or are in short supply such as timber, fuelwood and traded NWFPs. Some groups permit free collection of certain forest products and charge for others. Some groups specify a time for harvesting only green wood (fuelwood and timber) and allow other forest products to be collected free of charge any time of the year. Some forest user groups allow the collection of only dead and dry materials (fallen twigs and branches and leaf litter) and impose a complete ban on the use of other forest products.

TABLE 1. Rules for access to different forest products in community forests

Product

Distribution

Time of collection

 

Free of charge

Nominal charge

Sale through auction/tender

Any time

Specific time, more than once a year

Specific time, once a year

Dry leaf litter

Most

-

-

~2/3

<1/3

-

Green leaf litter/tree fodder

~2/3

<1/3

-

-

<1/3

~2/3

Dry fallen twigs/branches

~2/3

<1/3

-

<1/3

~2/3

-

Grass

~2/3

-

<1/3

-

~2/3

-

Green fuelwood

-

Most

-

-

<1/3

~2/3

Timber

-

-

Most

-

-

Most

Fruit, seeds, flowers, herbs, climbers and other NWFPs with no cash value

Most

-

-

Most

-

-

Fruit, seeds, flowers, herbs, climbers and other NWFPs with cash value

-

<1/3

~2/3

Most

-

-

Many forest user groups will provide construction wood to households that suffer damage from fire, landslides, earthquakes or other natural calamities; a certain amount of fuelwood for ceremonial use (weddings, cremations or funerals); wood free of charge for public works such as construction of schools or health posts; and additional loads of fuelwood, also free of charge, to local blacksmiths for manufacturing agricultural tools.

There are few data on the quantity of the various forest products harvested from community forests and distributed among the members of the forest user group or on the extent to which the household's requirements for forest products are being met.

Although forest user group assemblies
include men, women and children, they
are often dominated by wealthier males
in the key positions; on the
right, note the temple built using the
group's fund

- Y.B. MALLA

Fuelwood

Harvesting and distribution of fuelwood, especially green fuelwood, is the main concern of most forest user groups (Timala, 1999).

It is not clear to what extent the fuelwood harvested from community forests contributes to households' overall fuelwood requirements. A study in the hill district of Baglung showed that little green fuelwood is harvested from community forests, whether plantation or natural forests; most forest user groups provide less than ten headloads (one headload = 50 kg) of fuelwood to each household, and two thirds of forest user groups provide three headloads or less to each household annually (Timala, 1999).

With the equal distribution
of fuelwood under
community forest
management, the average
poor household obtains less
fuelwood than before

- FAO/
10836/F. BOTTS

In most cases the harvested green fuelwood is distributed equally to all member households. Forest user group committees generally believe that this is the only way to treat all the members fairly and equally. The Forest Department and field project staff also generally seem to be reasonably satisfied with this approach, as it has not been questioned in field visits or field reports.

However, equal distribution does not take into consideration the prevailing differences in household economies. Timala (1999) estimated that the average rich household requires about five headloads of fuelwood from community forests annually, compared with 28 headloads in the medium economic category and 45 headloads in poor households (Table 2).

Before the community forestry intervention, the average rich household collected only five headloads from community forests, since richer households often obtained fuelwood from their own private trees. The current arrangements provide these households with more than twice as much fuelwood from community forests as they received before. In contrast, the average poor household receives only about one third (in the case of natural forests) to one fifth (in the case of plantations) of the amount collected from community forests before the intervention. The average household in the medium category also receives considerably less than before. In addition, poorer households previously collected fuelwood more than once a year, free of charge, as they required it. Today, the forest is opened by the committee members once a year, and community members have to pay for fuelwood.

Forest user groups generally allow collection of dry, fallen twigs and branches in the community forests free of charge. These are probably collected mainly by the members of poorer and medium households. However, these types of fuelwood are not available in large quantities, especially in plantation forests, and cannot be expected to contribute greatly to overall household fuelwood requirements.

TABLE 2. Comparison between fuelwood received from community forests and household needs (headloads)

Fuelwood

Household economic category

 

Rich

Medium

Poor

Total required

90

90

90

Required from community forests

5

28

45

Received from community forests (plantations)

8

8

8

Difference

+3

-20

-37

Percentage difference

+60

-71

-82

Received from community forests (natural forests)

16

16

16

Difference

+11

-12

-29

Percentage difference

+220

-43

-64

Source: Timala (1999).

Recent research results from four community forests in the western hills region indicate that with more intensive management and harvesting it would be possible to increase the fuelwood supply from community forests. The current yield of 1.5 tonnes per hectare per year could be increased to 5.3 or 6.4 tonnes per hectare per year on a five- or eight-year rotation, respectively (Branney, Neupane and Malla, 2000). The extent to which this can be achieved will depend on the number of households, the size and condition of the forest and the management regime. Some of the study's harvesting techniques are now being adopted (Malla, Neupane and Branney, 2000).

Leaf litter can be collected freely from
community forests for use as
livestock fodder, but access to such
products is not necessarily
equal

- FAO/10544-A-35/F. BOTTS

Wood for housing and farm implements

Although Nepal's forest policy restricts commercial timber harvesting from community forests, forest user groups may make provision for supply of timber and poles from community forests for construction or toolmaking within the forest user group. Most forest user groups restrict harvesting specifically for these purposes; however, when fuelwood is harvested the straight stems or poles that are considered to be satisfactory for making ploughs, construction poles or sawntimber are set aside for distribution. Individual households must make tool handles using their own share of fuelwood or wood obtained from other sources.

The timber and poles are usually distributed within the forest user group through auction or tender (i.e. the highest bidder gets the wood). The price is usually lower than the market price; however, the committee members usually try not to let the price go too low to avoid having many bidders for a limited quantity of wood. Thus only certain members of the forest user groups can afford it. This system favours the wealthier households.

TABLE 3. Dependence on community forests for fodder and leaf litter

Landholding category (ha)

Fodder supply

Bedding materials

 

Amount per livestock unit (MJ)

Percentage from common land

Amount per household (kg)

Percentage from common land

²0.5

25 560

34

2 270

60

0.51-1.5

39 600

24

5 040

64

³1.5

69 830

18

7 730

66

Mean

46 480

23

5 230

64

Source: Adapted from Malla (1992).

Non-wood forest products

For household use (no cash value). NWFPs used by households include herbs, climbers, grasses, roots, bark, flowers, fruit, seeds and leaves of trees and shrubs. Forest user groups do not usually have rules for the use of NWFPs that do not have a market value, except for grass, tree fodder and green and dry leaf litter, which are regarded as critical to the farming system. There is no information on who collects these products or on the quantity of them derived each year from community forests. Most forest user groups allow free collection of grass, fodder and leaf litter. Some allow collection of grass by contracting to the person who offers to pay the most. It is generally the wealthy large-scale land-holders and livestock owners who have benefited from this arrangement.

Although free collection of grass and leaf litter implies that every household within a forest user group has equal access to these products, poorer households do not necessarily obtain large quantities, probably because richer households with more land have more livestock and more labour. Smallholders obtain a greater proportion of their fodder and leaf litter from community forests or public lands (see Table 3). Nevertheless, in terms of absolute quantity, households in the largest landholding category obtain much more fodder from community forests (12 570 megajoules [MJ]) than do households in the smallest landholding category (8 690 MJ) Ð a difference of 3 880 MJ (45 percent). Similarly, the average household in the largest landholding category uses nearly three times more leaf litter than the average household in the smallest landholding category.

For cash value. A considerable number of rural people, especially women and children from poorer households, participate in collection and sale of various NWFPs from community forests (Edwards, 1996a; Subedi, 1999). In some areas, up to a quarter of the total household income is derived from the sale of NWFPs in the market (Subedi, 1999). However, community forest management in most areas has, to date, concentrated largely on the production of timber, fuelwood, fodder and leaf litter. The rules included in community forest management plans generally revolve around timber or better-quality wood (such as what to cut or what not to cut, which species should be left and which should be removed), and these are often incompatible with the management and use of NWFPs (Edwards, 1996b). For example, the rules usually state that weeds and other unwanted plants should be cleared so that high-value trees can grow well, but in the process many NWFP species such as herbs and climbers, some of which have important medicinal value, may also be cleared.

Maharjan (1996) reported on efforts of some forest user groups to grow species that provide NWFPs with cash value in their community forest areas, including Swertia chirata (an indigenous medicinal plant), ginger, broom grass, cardamom and bamboo as well as trees for resin tapping and pines for souvenir production. These programmes emphasized the involvement of women and poor households. However, some of these activities ended with losses and the withdrawal of participants as a result of inadequate financial support and inef-ficient community forest management (Maharjan, 1998).

INCOME FROM COMMUNITY FORESTS AND ITS USES

The potential of community forestry to raise funds that could be used for village development and to improve the villagers' well-being is frequently advocated. To what extent has this objective been achieved in Nepal?

Forest user group income

Forest user groups obtain income from a variety of sources: the sale of forest products (green fuelwood, poles, timber, seeds, grass, tree seedlings), membership fees, fines, cash payment by members in lieu of labour, contributions, donations, and rewards and support from the District Forest Office and field projects for plantation and protection activities (Hunt, Jackson and Shrestha, 1996). Information on the proportions of the contribution of the various sources to the total income is unavailable, but it appears that a major portion of the income of most forest user groups is obtained from non-forestry activities.

The amount of income generated by forest user groups varies widely and depends on the size, condition and type of forests, the level of forest utilization, the type and proximity of markets and the kind of income-generation activities practised. Overall, however, the cash income of most forest user groups is very low. In 1994-95, the average income for 17 Middle Hills districts (comprising 369 forest user groups) was 18 400 rupees (NRs) or US$340 (Hunt, Jackson and Shrestha, 1996). The annual income of almost all of the forest user groups was lower than the average household income (NRs 32 200, or US$600) (Malla, 1992). Only one district (with nine forest user groups) had an average income above NRs 100 000 (US$1 850), partly because one group had a very high income, NRs 790 800 (US$14 640). The other 360 forest user groups (97.7 percent) had less than NRs 35 000 (US$650) average income. Some 317 forest user groups (86 percent) had an average income below NRs 20 000 (US$370), while 200 (54 percent) had an average income of less than NRs 7 500 (US$140). Some forest user groups reported no income.

District Forest Office staff and a field
project adviser meet with officers of
a forest user group committee

- Y.B. MALLA

Expenditure

Hunt, Jackson and Shrestha (1996) found that cash expenditure also varied greatly among forest user groups. In the highest earning district with nine forest user groups, average expenditure was about NRs 87 000 (US$1 610), again mostly because one forest user group had very high expenditure (NRs 751 700, or US$13 920). However, 313 forest user groups (85 percent) had less than NRs 7 000 (US$130) average expenditure, while 164 (44 percent) had only NRs 2 700 (US$50) or less average expenditure. It has not yet been determined if there is a correlation between income and expenditure.

Forest user groups have used their income for a variety of purposes, including salary of nursery staff, forest watchers, wages for tree planting and weeding labour, and general administration and operating costs.

Many forest user groups have contributed money to various village development works such as building schools
and libraries, roads, drinking-water and irrigation schemes and extending electricity systems to villages. Some forest user groups have also purchased cooking utensils and stoves and helped finance construction of village temples and forest user group offices.

These village welfare and development activities, although generally positive, do not necessarily benefit all the forest user group members, especially those who are most in need, and some activities may only benefit poorer members in the long term. For example, some forest user groups have built schools, without providing the support to enable children of poorer households to attend school. Irrigation channels and drinking-water schemes, which are possible only below the catchment level, have often only benefited the wealthier families that own fertile land in the valleys; most poor households own terraced land on the upper slopes, out of reach of the water systems (Hunt, Jackson and Shrestha, 1996).

These development activities often require additional local contributions in cash or labour, or both. In general, the wealthier households provide cash while the poorer households usually provide labour, as the cash contribution required is often beyond their capacity. The irony of this is that since members of poorer households often work in a nearby market centre on a higher wage rate than in the village, their labour contribution may end up costing them more than the amount paid by members of wealthier households.

Moreover, households that cannot afford to contribute to the development activities may not benefit from them. One forest user group decided 13 years ago to use most of its income from the forests, together with contributions from individual households, to bring electricity to its village. A household that was not able to contribute directly to the fundraising scheme has still not been connected to the electricity system, even though it contributed indirectly through volunteer labour on another project which enabled the forest user group to save money for the electricity system.

To date, little effort has been made to use group funds for the benefit of poorer households. However, better information can lead to better planning decisions. For example, a forest user group committee in the western hills region is applying the results of a research project which defined household categories based on wealth ranks (Malla, Neupane and Branney, 2000) in order to use part of the group fund to lend to people from the poorest group with a low interest rate and without collateral.

BEYOND SUBSISTENCE NEEDS: COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND WIDER MARKETS

The emphasis of community forestry policy in Nepal has been on the protection of community forests and allowing access for subsistence purposes only. However, limiting the utilization of forests even when they could yield wood and non-wood products at sustainable levels has resulted in the loss of potential income for the local people and the State. Prior to the community forestry interventions, many poor households earned money by selling fuelwood in nearby market centres. These activities have virtually ended since the government imposed restrictions on harvesting of timber and fuelwood from community forests for commercial uses.

However, market opportunities for forest and tree products in the Middle Hills region have grown over the years and have led in some places to the rapid development of forest industries which have placed substantial demand on local resources. In response to the demand, farmers have started to grow trees for fuelwood, timber and fruit on their farmland for sale in the market. Growing trees on farmland is less labour demanding than agriculture and requires very little capital investment. Some agricultural terraces are no longer used for crop production.

These changes are illustrated by the situation in a hill district, Kabhre. In 1990, at least 108 forest- and tree-based industries, all established since the early 1970s, were operating in and around the district's urban centres, employing some 500 people directly and thousands indirectly. These industries used some 4 600 m3 of timber and fuelwood in 1990; of this, more than 75 percent was obtained from private tree growers (the rest came from government forest lands in the southern plain area). These industries purchased more than NRs 4.6 million (US$92 000) worth of wood from private tree growers in 1990 (Malla, 1992).

The decision not to use community forests to respond to the market demand for forest products has some serious implications. First, only private tree growers are benefiting from the opportunities provided by the market, and large-scale landholders benefit the most. Of 28 179 trees grown by 102 households surveyed, 71 percent (20 124 trees) were owned by 36 larger landholders (35 percent of the total households surveyed), while 29 households with landholdings of 0.5 ha or less owned only 4 percent (1 247) of the total trees (Malla, 1992; 2000).

Second, the increased demand for timber and fuelwood in the market has resulted in a substantial increase in the value of these commodities. Consequently, fuelwood is no longer a free or cheap commodity. Large landholders and other local _lite groups have begun to offer fuelwood as wages for poor labourers (Malla, 1992). The effects are even felt by poor people in urban and peri-urban centres that are distant from the forests, who must spend a considerable amount of their earnings to purchase fuelwood for cooking and heating.

Poverty alleviation through leasehold forestry in Nepal

A project initiated by the Government of Nepal in 1992, with support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and FAO, is demonstrating the potential of leasehold forestry as a strategy for poverty alleviation and environmental rehabilitation in Nepal. Small groups of the poorest households obtain degraded forest land under 40-year leases. The farmers rehabilitate the land and improve their income and livelihoods primarily through increased fodder production, which is used for stall-feeding livestock. By July 2000 about 1 500 leasehold groups had been formed, including approximately 10 000 families and covering about 7 000 ha of forest land. A recent impact analysis has shown that leasehold households have indeed improved their food security and livelihoods when compared with non-leasehold households. One of the main findings of the project is that the joint implementation of community and leasehold forestry, in which the community decides which area should be community forest, which area should be leasehold forest and which households are the poorest and should be given priority to obtain leasehold forest, is a promising way forward.

Source: F.M.J. Ohler, Chief Technical Adviser, FAO Technical Assistance to the Hills Leasehold Forestry Project (GCP/NEP/052/NET).

DISCUSSION

The above analysis reveals a lack of systematic planning and guided action for socio-economic development of forest communities. Some attempts have been made towards developing income-generating activities and involving various groups, including women and the poor. However, these have been too few to have much impact.

The amount of forest products harvested at present is insufficient to meet the users' needs, and the procedures adopted for their distribution (auction, contracts, free distribution and equal distribution) favour the wealthier households. The assumption that allowing free collection of forest products (e.g. fodder and leaf litter) favours poorer households also needs to be questioned.

At present, most forest user group income seems to come from non-forestry sources (membership fees, fines, donations, etc.). The overall income from community forestry, especially from the sale of forest products, has to date been insignificant Ð barely enough to pay the salary of forest watchers. Extra cash income has often been used for activities that either provide no return for poorer households or provide a return only after a long time.

The underlying reason for the low income of most forest user groups lies in the very concept of community forest management, i.e. protection with limited utilization for subsistence purposes only. Even where there are dense, well-stocked forests and potential for obtaining more forest products through systematic harvesting (Jackson and Ingles, 1995; Branney, 1996) and for earning income by selling excess products in nearby markets, there is no evidence that any forest user group has considered harvesting forest products for purposes beyond subsistence needs.

The lack of response or the slow response to market demand is rooted not only in the government's restrictive forestry regulations, but also in a lack of interest on the part of forest user group committee members and others who control decision-making in the villages. These decision-makers are usually large landholders with many trees on their private lands who therefore have no real reason to press for using community forests for commercial purposes. A household's share of the potential income from community forests may seem insignificant to them, although it could be substantial for poorer households.

Overall, the community forestry intervention has had limited positive impact on the livelihood of rural households. The evidence suggests that some households, especially the poorer ones, have been affected negatively. There are already reports of people who have given up their participation in community forestry activities (Maharjan, 1998). If this trend continues, the final results may be exactly the opposite of that desired.

CONCLUSIONS

The community forestry intervention has contributed greatly to the development of forest resource management institutions at the grassroots level in Nepal. Interaction between District Forest Office staff and village people has greatly increased. The villagers, especially forest user group committee members, are gradually gaining confidence and a sense of ownership of their village forest resources. However, these do not seem to be sufficient conditions for the community forestry intervention to be effective.

There is therefore a need to reconsider the approach to community forestry, with further emphasis on socio-economic objectives. Decentralization and people's participation must not be viewed solely from an environmental perspective.

Field projects should provide support to District Forest Offices and forest user groups to encourage more active (rather than passive) forest management and fuller utilization of the productive capacity of community forests. Projects should also provide guidance in systematic planning and monitoring of socio-economic development activities. For this, District Forest Office staff may need to work closely with local and national non-governmental organizations experienced in community development.

Finally, there is a need for a more balanced approach to community forestry policy intervention which considers both the demand for forest products at the household, subsistence level and the demand of forest-based industries. The initiative for this must come first from the highest level in the government forest bureaucracy.

Bibliography


Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page