Community Forestry Development Program (CFDP) has been established as a socially acceptable, environmentally sound and economically affordable option for restoration of the environment and poverty reduction of the rural areas. Community forestry in Nepal is a holistic approach which runs on a certain forest governance negotiation process between local users and the government where external entities such as donor agencies, local NGOs and other related stakeholders provides some advisory and advocacy inputs. These institutions interact at multiple levels, that affect forest management choices and actions of local people (Ojha, Agrawal & Cameron 2009). Therefore, when we talk about CF sustainability it shouldn’t just concentrate on external factors but also focus on local perspective and then can be explored from a wider scale. In the same way, for the sustainability analysis of CF, it is important to involve opinions of CFUGs and then that of government and related stakeholders and also analysis should be done from all perspective of sustainability.
Almost four decades have been passed by but the A’WOT analysis of CF in Nepal from the three dimensions of sustainability has been done yet. Thus, it is necessary to identify key strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities of the Community Forestry Program in Nepal which can be helpful to further sustainable development along with the society transformation. The study not only will try to identify some potential weaknesses and threats but also figure out various strengths and opportunities that will lead the CF in Nepal towards greater success.
2 METHODOLOGIES
Achieving sustainability has become the main focus after the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015. It has been a global commitment to gain sustainability but it is not defined or communicated properly on how to achieve this target. It needs a careful considerations and evaluation from all the three dimensions of sustainability. In short, sustainable development can be achieved through a balanced integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions. Sustainability cannot be evaluated on the basis of assumption, it should be analyzed through appropriate methods, tools and approaches. Sometimes, there might be differences in the results even having the same datasets when applied to different methods. This generally happens in case of quantitative methods because it summarizes in one dimensional index that may induce suspicion due to lack of clarity and uncertainties. Sustainable development requires balanced integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions. Therefore, it is important to modify methods as per the need and reality of case studies especially in the fields of decision analysis.
The study is evaluating overall situation of Community Forestry in Nepal. It has been four decades Community Forestry approach has been initiated in Nepal and several studies has been conducted using various methods and tools till now. However, a well-structured review using A’WOT method via three dimensions of sustainability has not been done. In this sense, this research is very important and interesting to understand Community Forestry contribution on past achievements, present implementation and the possible future steps for achieving sustainable development.
SWOT analysis is a strategic management tool that helps to identify internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats for any organization, project, or individual (Dwivedi & Alavalapati 2009, Dyson 2004, Houben et al. 1999). This method plays an important role in decision making process but it does not quantify the SWOT factors on the basis of their importance. However, this limitation can be overcome by the use of MCDM methods with SWOT analysis. This combination is named as A’WOT method which allows the comparison of SWOT factors within each SWOT category quantitatively by prioritization. Hence, SWOT analysis is combined with various MCDA methods such as AHP, SMART, voting, ANP etc. The greatest strength of the A’WOT method is that it is a participatory tool. Since the natural resource
management directly depend on the decision made by the people, it is very fruitful to go through the participatory process. This is one of the main reasons for its wider acceptance. With the participation, interest of people and related stakeholders increases as it becomes transparent to everyone.
However, due to the complexities of Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) technique, it becomes difficult for people to understand as well as trust the result obtained from the method. The uncertainties and complexities of the AHP method has also been the biggest threat. Technically, Analytic Network Process (ANP) is more productive than AHP but since it is a participatory tool, it is very difficult to understand for the people. Today, where people are struggling even with AHP, it is not wise decision to use ANP in the field. On one hand, most of the people are already familiar with the SWOT which makes the process effective. On the other hand, the complexities and uncertainties of the AHP, ANP method is becoming barrier for the local people and the stakeholders to trust the result of this method. If people don’t understand the process, then they might not be interested in this method. But if simple calculations that are acceptable by the community can be integrated then the method would be more productive, demanding and useful in the future. These drawbacks of AHP and ANP method can be overcome with the use of other MCDM methods such as fuzzy MCDM, SMART, voting methods etc. Being the participatory method, results are totally dependent on the participants so if participants are given the familiar tools, results can be fruitful (Myllyviita 2013). The study follows the process of the hybrid methods that combine SWOT and MCDS as stated by Kangas et al. (2001).Thus, the SWOT-SMART method was selected for the study because it involves community friendly tool and people’s participation plays a crucial role in Community Forestry evaluation.
Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) is one of the simple weighing methods that helps to prioritize the most relevant alternatives quantitatively. SWOT-SMART is conducted in the first three step process. In the first step SWOT factors are listed for each SWOT category. In the next step, those factors are compared within each category by scoring the factors from 0-100.
In this method, usually the participant is requested to score the decision alternatives by first selecting the least important factor and giving it 10 points, and then ranking is done to all the other factors in relation to the least important one. A slight modification in SMART method was used in this study. The participant was requested to select the most important SWOT factors in each
sub-group and to give 100 points to it and then rank all the others in relation to the most relevant one. Finally, average of each factor is calculated and the one with highest score from each SWOT category is determined.
Figure 1 The hierarchical presentation of A'WOT analysis, (Leskinen et al., 2006).
The study comprises of literature review and expert opinions. Primary data were collected through a survey using a semi-structured questionnaire. A short background of the study and SWOT factors criteria were presented in the first page of questionnaire. In the first round, the questionnaire was sent through emails with open-ended questions, specially focusing on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the CF program followed by some additional questions. The main reason for open ended question is to bring as much as data in the result analysis and so participants were requested to explain as much as possible. In the second questionnaire, brief introduction of sustainability aspects, as presented in Annex along with the list of SWOT factors were introduced briefly. Some respondents were from community who don’t have access to computer and some respondents even cannot write down in paper. In such case, social mobilizers were used who facilitates the respondents face to face and tried to get the information by verbal communication.
Secondary data mainly comprises of literature review such as, institutional reports, records, and research papers related to the subject of study. Similarly, complementary research papers on community forestry and A’WOT methods were reviewed and analyzed. The secondary data were very much useful for backing up the information gathered from primary sources.
The experts from academic to community level were requested to participate in the SWOT analysis of the Community Forestry from Nepal. In total, 25 people were contacted but only 11 responded.
The reasons behind less responses might be primarily because of open-ended questions in first round, corona crisis and no response in spite of repeated reminder. The delegates represented a range of occupational affiliations. Among 11 respondents, 4 were from NGO/INGOs, 2 from government, 2 from university and 3 from community. The respondents were selected on the basis of their experiences on working with community forestry and were knowledgeable enough to identify and prioritize the current SWOT factors. In the second round, the questionnaires were sent to the previous 25 people from the first round and 5 new from the university. This time the response rate was higher than first round because the questionnaire contained only scoring of the SWOT factors. Altogether 15 respondents replied comprising 11 from first round and 4 from the University student who were also engaged in Community Forestry of Nepal.
All the selected participants had expressed their opinions in different way. However, there were some similarities in their responses which made it easy to do the grouping of similar responses.
First of all, all the responses were read and scanned carefully and then those having similar views were put in one group. Later, those scanned detail explanation from each group were categorized into small concise statements. All the categorization was done separately in the same way in three aspects of sustainability, i.e., social, ecologic and economic. During the process, lots of different views was observed from the participants but the ones with highest frequencies were listed out as the potential SWOT factors in each aspects of sustainability and discussed in the rest of this thesis.
This study tries to incorporate all the comments as far as possible in such a way that even response with lower frequencies is also included. After that, SWOT-SMART methods were used to further analyze the results.
3 RESULTS
The results followed two round questionnaire survey. In the first round of survey questions were open ended and respondents were free to express their ideas and opinion to the respective questions. This helped to get diverse and detail information; however, some respondents found it time consuming and difficult to explain their ideas in detail. In the second round, SWOT factors were listed and respondents needed to give scoring on the basis of its importance. SMART method was simple and easy to understand to the respondents which could be observed from their rapid responses. That is why there is even no need to put extra effort for making the method understandable to the respondents. SWOT analysis was also very popular in Nepal; even the community people who were illiterate, they were also familiar with it. Thus, the combination of SWOT and SMART method was found to be fruitful in the context of Nepalese scenario. It could be more productive if it would have been conducted via focused group discussion or other participatory process.
The responses from Community were more intended towards economic aspect such as livelihood increment, income generation activities and local level calamities due to climate change. The combination of respondents from community and from technical experts was found to be fruitful.
Majority of the responses from community included the actual problems they were facing in the ground and that from technical experts were towards solutions to these problems. For instance;
Community people emphasized their livelihood increment and experts from government and non-government organization promoted forest-based enterprise as the solution for it. In the same way community responses on climate change and governance has been supported by experts promoting strategies for climate change mitigation/adaptation and data management of CF in Nepal respectively. Majority of the CFUGs responses were more specific whereas from government and non-government included wider perspectives.
The result obtained were solely based on the participants’ responses including all the SWOT factors and the prioritization of those factors. Later, those factors were supported by other research articles, paper and books via literature review. The factors with highest value in each SWOT group were further described in the discussion part which were accompanied by the related literature review.
Table 2: SWOT-SMART analysis of Community Forestry in Nepal
Sustainable dimension
SWOT groups SWOT factors Avg Ranking
Social
Strengths
Participatory process 84.7
Emphasizes gender equity and social inclusion 77
Coordination with stakeholders 79
Policy based on the local needs 69.75
Leadership development 71.5
No proper monitoring and evaluation system 82 Lack of collaboration with academic and research
institution 85.25
Conflict in resource use 62
Inadequate awareness 68.75
Opportunities
Growing concern of newly formed local government
and politicians 79.5
Women and PVSE’s leadership 74.75
Community mobilization 78.5
Important platform to study and research 75.75 Increase employment opportunities 72.25
Livelihood increment 75
Poor governance 77
Threats Encroachment by outsiders 67.25
Migration towards urban areas 66.75
Conflicts in leadership and resources 77.75 High cost to manage for low capital CF 73.25
Passiveness of executive committee 82.25
Economic
Strengths
Livelihood increment 78.25
Increased employment opportunities 77 Emphasize given to PVSE and women 65.25
Ecotourism 76.5
NTFP promotion 73.25
Weaknesses
Protection oriented plans 71.5
Economic valuation are not done. 75.75
Lack of economic incentives 75.5
Adhoc management and underutilization 80.25 Lack of investment from government 78.5
Opportunities
Forest based enterprise 87
Cooperative formation 78.25
Employment generation 81
Ecotourism 78.25
Increasing demand of forest-based products 56.75
Threats
Illegal trading of forest products 78 Fragmentation of forests due to infrastructure
development 73
Forest encroachment by outsiders 64.5
Invasive species 65.75
Soil erosion and landslides if not reforested 55
Ecological
Strengths
Biodiversity conservation 88
Reduction in poaching and illegal trading 82 Increase in forest area and growing stock 87.5 Increase in carbon sequestration 82.5
Proper documentation, monitoring and evaluation
lacking 83.75
Limited understanding on the role of forests in climate
change mitigation and adaptation 77
Failures in avoiding pests and diseases 69.5
Opportunities Incentive to ecosystem service management 88.5
Carbon trading (REDD+) 75.5
Co-benefits 77
Tourism development 80.75
Increasing connectivity 82.75
Threats
Climate change 85
Human wildlife conflicts 82.25
Pest and disease 70.5
Invasive species 78.25
Forest fires 86
Landslides and floods 63.5
4 DISCUSSIONS
The A’WOT method was introduced in 2000 as a strategic planning tool in NRM. It is almost 20 years now and its application has widened its horizon towards forestry, environment, bioeconomy, tourism, water, agriculture and many more. The planning tool has been now used for designing, evaluation, analysis and marketing within NRM sector. The main reason behind its success is the inclusion of participation of people and stakeholders. All the individuals have their own ideas and viewpoint so the same things can have different importance in different individuals as per their situation. In the same way, selection of appropriate MCDM techniques should depend on the participants and their situation such as between developing country and developed country, literate group and illiterate group, professionals and normal people. For instance, with the forestry expert SWOT and AHP might work but in rural community where people are illiterate, SWOT and SMART methods will be fruitful. Moreover, as a participatory tool, the combination of method should be simple and effective to more people and situations.
SWOT and AHP method can be used in such situation where expert will directly involve in the participation and facilitates to the other participants transparently about the AHP process and efficiency. These methods can be very useful where people have trust issue. However, due to the complexities of AHP technique, it becomes difficult for people to understand as well as trust the result obtained from the method. The uncertainties and complexities of the AHP method has also been the biggest threat. If people don’t understand the method, then they might not be interested in this method. But if simple calculations that are acceptable by the community can be integrated
then the method would be more productive, demanding and useful in the future. The CFUGs in Nepal are mainly the rural people who don’t have higher education and are not much aware of the technologies and advance knowledge. Thus, the study uses SWOT-SMART method because this method can have the best utilization in the context of Community Forestry of Nepal where participation is the main governance tool. Since, the community participants were familiar with SWOT and SMART analysis as they participate in several Community Forestry activities, it was easier for them to priotarize the SWOT factors.
Therefore, Community Forestry in Nepal, SWOT with SMART, voting methods and Fuzzy MCDM methods that overcome the challenges of AHP can be combined to make more precise results. However, it is suggested to keep the participatory process as transparent as possible. The more complex the process will be, more confusion and distraction among the participants can arise.
It is better to apply simpler and straightforward MCDM methods in participatory processes, and then complement the analyses using more advanced methods by experts "behind the curtains".
The research was carried out separately with respect to three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, and ecological) which is discussed in detail below.