Community Forestry in Nepal - an A'WOT Analysis

(1)

Faculty of Science and Forestry

COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL – AN A’WOT ANALYSIS

Sonam Ojha

MASTER’S THESIS

CBU Forestry

JOENSUU 2021

(2)

AUTHORS

Sonam Ojha

CBU Forestry, University of Eastern Finland Email: ojhasonu05@gmail.com

(3)

FOREWORD

Writing this thesis has been one of the most challenging and the most exciting experiences in my academic career. I would like to express my gratitude to all of the respected personals for their support during my study. Firstly, I am grateful to the department of forest science of the University of Eastern Finland for giving me the opportunity to acquire knowledge in this prestigious University. I sincerely appreciate all the services and opportunities provided by the department of forest sciences that led to a smooth and successful study life in the University. Secondly, I am extremely grateful to my coordinator, Marjoriitta Möttönenfor her constant input, direction and clarity she provided throughout the entire study period.

My special thanks go to my supervisor Dr Jyrki Kangas for his inspiration, intellectual inputs, insightful suggestions, valuable feedbacks, advice and guidance throughout my research and for providing me financial support for my research without which this work wouldn’t have been completed. The work has been funded by Saastamoinen foundation (project 69251) and it belongs to the UNITE Flagship of the Flagship Programme by the Academy of Finland.

Finally, I owe special thanks to my family for being the source of my inspiration and for their sacrifice, endless encouragement and motivation.

(4)

Over the last four decades, 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 in Nepal. Thus, it is necessary to identify key strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities for achieving sustainable development of the Community Forestry Program in Nepal. The paper proposes an interdisciplinary multi-level decision-making A’WOT method for reviewing Community Forestry (CF) approach in Nepal. Through a combination of literature reviews and experts’ opinions, this study explores key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of community forestry in Nepal. The SWOT analysis of CF approach was measured from the three dimensions of sustainability; social, economic and ecologic. The study not only had identified some significant risks but also suggests numerous existing and possible opportunities so that we can fully utilize the CF resources and get maximum outcomes sustainably. This study suggests a new approach to the decision makers in evaluation of CF through the different dimensions of sustainability.

Key words: Community forestry, A’WOT, sustainability, SWOT

(8)

1 COMMUNITY FORESTRY: AN OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The primary focus of natural resource management activities over the past decades has shifted to engage local communities and their institutions as community-based natural resource management has been a successful approach (Ainslie 1999, Campbell et al. 2001, Leach & Fairhead 2001).

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) has been one of the potential tools to support the development of many developing countries toward greater national power distribution, redistribution of power, and participatory approaches to national processes and development (Campbell et al. 2001). Community development has not been an easy way to improve the efficiency of natural resource management in areas with low natural resource management skills.

Communities nowadays have become more dynamic and different than often assumed due to which the community-based approaches are being limited and have frequently not been able to live up to expectations (Leach & Fairhead 2001).

1.2 The Nepali Context

Nepal is a South Asian country located between India and China covering 148.000 square km and comprises different physiographic regions: high mountains, middle hills, and lowlands. The total population of Nepal is 27,1 million out of which 84 % are living in rural areas (World Bank 2006).

Nepal falls under the least developed countries in the world having 31 % of its population below the national poverty line (World Bank 2006). Nepal is a small country with rich diversity in terms of its cultural, religion, ethnicity, race, caste, biodiversity and natural resources. In 2005, forest area in Nepal was 36.300 square km which was around one fourth of the country (FAO 2005). The average population density is approximately 157 persons per square kilometer. The rural parts of Nepal are very high in proportion having the capacity of agricultural land more than 600 people per square kilometer due to which they are fully dependent on agricultural land, forest and livestock (Satyal Pravat 2004). About 81 percent of fuel consumption comes from forest (Satyal Pravat 2004) which is also a source of livelihood for the rural people. Nepal is also called as agricultural country because majority of Nepalese are involved in agriculture for their sustenance.

(9)

Looking in to the political history in Nepal, the latest transformation was called Panchayati through which King monopolistically ruled the country from 1951-1990. But in 1990, a revolution started for multiparty system with constitutional monarchy and demand for that later established a multiparty system with constitutional monarchy. This revolution was initiated jointly by the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal. The communist party has brought political instability in Nepal and also the ongoing changes in government and unstable political coalitions had created uncertainties in the country. Finally, after a long struggle and instability, Nepal government and Maoist signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006. On May 28, 2008, the newly elected Constituent Assembly declared Nepal a Federal Democratic Republic, abolishing the 240- year-old monarchy. Nepal today has a President as Head of State and a Prime Minister heading the Government.

1.3 The Forestry Sector

Forests in Nepal have gone through three phases of development: privatization, nationalization and community involvement (Springate-Baginski & Blaikie 2003). Before 1950s, in Rana regime, all the forests were completely under the Rana’s control and people and no any rights to use the forest resources. But after the fall of the Rana dynasty in 1957, all the forests were nationalized and now 99% of the forest is owned by the government and the remaining 1% by private people (FAO 2005). Thus, until 1978, the Department of Forest (DoF) was the only public and strong agency to manage the forest, but the lack of appropriate strategies and management skills of DoF, the forests left the possibility of rational use of the forest (Kanel & Acharya 2008). During that time, people didn’t have the right to use forest resources independently and since the rural people are dependent on forest for firewood and fodder, the problems of encroachment and forest degradation began to occur. This not only caused harm to forest but also had an effect on livelihood of locals in the mid-hills (Baginski et al. 2003).

Malla (2001) finds out that the resource depletion was primarily due to the power of forest control being in the hands of elites with the DoF’s support and not because of overuse of forest by local people. In fact, the poor were refused to access the forest, while those of higher status were managing the access and use of the forest. In the late 1970s, the government of Nepal began to focus on environmental protection and realized that local people had to be included in the forest management process to restore the declining state of the forest (Kanel & Acharya, forthcoming).

(10)

Thus, the state has given the right to manage and utilize forests in other parts of the country to local forest users (also known as community forest user groups), while retaining ownership rights of forest property.

1.4 Community forestry history and background in Nepal

The community forestry in Nepal is the innovative approach in the field of participation and is regarded as one of the pioneers in community-based forest management system globally (Rajpoudel et al. 2014). It has existed already for 40 years covering to the wider scale especially in Middle Hills of Nepal. Nepal comprises more than 22 thousand community forests covering more than 2, 237, 670. 524 ha to 2, 907, 871 households for protection, management, utilization and benefit sharing of forest resources (DoF 2018) and this is increasing continuously.

Table 1: Data of Community Forestry of Nepal, DoF 2018

Indicator Number Share Source

Households directly affected 2, 907, 871 (32% of total population)

DoF 2018

Number of CFUGs <22,000 DoF 2018

Number of districts with community forestry operations

77

(100% of all<

districts)

DoF 2018

Area of forest under CFUG management < 2,237,670.

524

(25% of total forest area)

DoF 2009

Community forestry program is one of the key components of local forest management for equitable sharing between stakeholders and the management of sustainable forest resources.

CFUG is currently established as one of the largest and most powerful community organizations in the country, and while other forms of forest management are also in the race, community forestry programs have dominated other forest management strategies (HMGN 2000). For smooth implantation of CF, some major steps have been mentioned in the Forest Act, Forest Rules and Community Forestry Guidelines that every CFUGs should follow. At first user should be identified and then CFUGs should be formed. After that CFUGs constitution should be formed so that there

(11)

won’t be any conflicts. Along with the constitution, operational plan should also be formed with proper planning. Those prepared constitution and OP should be followed and implemented thoroughly. However, implementation is not the end point, they should be revised and monitored time and again.

The actual initiation of community forestry program actually evolved from 1978 when there was Panchayat system in Nepal and they were given the name as 'Panchayat Forest' and 'Panchayat Protection Forest'. These forests were later handed over to the forest user groups as 'Community Forest' under the Forest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulations, 1995. In this process, local people were given rights to utilize, protect and manage the forest resources as per their willingness and all the revenue collected from that forest will be in their vicinity. This approach was mainly introduced to protect large scale deforestation and degradation as Government centric approach was not worth it. Thus, to reduce the forest degradation and deforestation, it was decided to try community-based forest management approach. Although, livelihood stability is also connected with the forest degradation, but the primary goal of CF establishment was just forest restoration (Springate- Baginski & Blaikie 2003).

Earlier, the forest management responsibility was taken over by local Panchayat 2, but it failed.

The delivered forest were badly degraded and the main forest users were excluded in the whole process. However, by late 1980s, the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector came officially with a sign of involving local people in the forest management. In late 1970’s, government realized the roles of local users in the forest management as they are the real users and the one close to the forest. Considering this, a strategy of CF was made and then various policies and guidelines were formed for the active participation of people. Later it was decided to hand-over almost all possible forests in the mid-hills to the CFUGs for the sustainable management of the forest. This decision was made under the Master Plan for Forestry Sector (MPFS) Nepal 1988 (HMGN 1988).

In 1990, the local Panchayati system was abolished and Nepal had become a democratic country after which user groups were given complete power to use, protect and manage community forests.

The Forest Act of 1993 and the Forest Rules of 1995 (HMGN 1995) give Community forests user groups (CFUGs) the prior right to manage community forests and from then the participatory processes got the legal and procedural basis for its existence. The Forest Act of 1993 defines the CFUG as a registered group of those “desirous to utilize the forest products by developing and

(12)

conserving such forest for the collective interest”. CFUG was established as an independent organization with land use rights and forest tenure that must be legally registered at the relevant District Forest Office (DFO). The role of DFO has shifted towards to facilitating and advising the user groups rather than only policing the forests. According to the policies formed, local people have rights and access to manage, utilize, protect and share the benefits of the community forestry (Gilmour & Fisher 1991).

The community forestry program in Nepal is a well-defined and inclusive approach comprising of all aspects of sustainability from policies formulations to livelihood increment, biodiversity conservation strategies, enterprises, social inclusive, forest restoration, equitable benefit sharing mechanism and many more. This might be the reason; it has been recognized as a global innovation for participatory environmental governance (Kumar 2002). Another reason is that it also uplifts the economic status of local people which supports in poverty reduction of the nation, though it was not thought before but it came out with twin to conservation (Kanel & Acharya 2008, Pokharel et al. 2007).

Nepal's new forest program includes improved legal and regulatory frameworks, cooperating agencies, benefit-sharing strategies, local forestry and biodiversity conservation strategies. The program is seen as a new global innovation in the area of environmental management and cooperation (Kumar 2002) and has evolved using a history of implementation and a viable approach to achieving conservation and poverty reduction goals (Kanel and Acharya 2008, Pokharel et al. 2007).

The Community Forestry Program in Nepal encompasses many policies and institutional innovations that enable local communities to manage forests for their livelihoods and enhance conservation benefits. The process of CF is almost similar like political process in Nepal, general assembly of CF that are usually all the members of the CFUG, have the power to select CFUG committee. The assembly generally gather one or twice a year and select the candidates for forming users’ committee through voting or elections. They also, define the roles and responsibilities of the User’s committee together and the user’s committee act as a bridge between forest management system and the local users for the smooth implementation of CF activities.

After the introduction of the community forestry program in Nepal, inevitably there has been improvement in forest condition along with the livelihood increment of local people (Acharya

(13)

2002, Kanel 2004). However, in the actual field, there is still dominancy of men and elite groups in the decision making due to which the issues and voice of women, poor and disadvantaged group has not been included. In addition, the Forestry Program uses the concept of the community as a homogenous entity. Therefore, there is no difference between different social, economic or political groups within the community. This allows the elites to take over in forest management process without consulting poor and marginalized groups in the community.

1.5 Introduction of AWOT method in Community Forestry

In recent years, various versions of A’WOT approach has been used in many different areas worldwide (Kangas et al. 2016). However, AHP applications in forestry, agriculture, and natural resources were limited till 2000 (Schmoldt et al. 2001). In 2000, the hybrid method A’WOT, which combines the use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT, was presented by Kurttila et al. (2000) who applied it to natural resource management (Kangas et al. 2016). Immediately after the concept of A'WOT was first applied in Finnish forestry, a similar method was used for tourism management, in exploring the potential of silvo-pasture adoption in south-central Florida (Kajanus et al. 2004, Shrestha et al. 2013). Stewart et al. (2002) used exactly the same A’WOT version as before in an information technology management case study. Later it was used in selection of management scenario in the Finnish Forest and Park Service (Pesonen et al. 2001). Yuksel &

Dagdeviren (2010) advanced to the next level. That is, they assumed that the SWOT factors presented in the hierarchical structure were not mutually independent and because the AHP model has some shortcomings.

The natural resource management is a complex phenomenon that contains wide range of attributes and wider scope. Hence, decision making process should wise and strategic to combat the complexity of natural resource management (Kaya & Kahraman 2000). The complexity of most natural resource issues today is increasing because of the way in which different social groups or stakeholders understand the importance of standards they adopt. On the other hand, the traditional SWOT analysis, which also implies optional ranking of criteria and sub criteria, although independently without taking into consideration of the potential interaction between them, is not sufficient for implementation of many practical situations. In order to overcome these shortcomings, SWOT analysis had been combined with multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM). A multi-criteria decision-making tool is especially useful for solving problems that

(14)

determine or express preferences, or for making decisions based on several contradictory indicators of competing for importance. This allows for simultaneous distribution of generated strategies based on the interaction between multiple SWOT factors and subfactors, providing a good basis for solving many operational problems. Many researchers have tried to use different MCDM methods with SWOT analysis as an effective approach for the natural resource management.

SWOT-SMART analysis is an important tool to find out internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) factors in any Community Forestry. Since local people have important role in CFM, their perspective on SWOT factors can have significant input in effective implementation of management and policy formulation process. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate CFUGs feedback and opinions in the decision-making process. In this study, SWOT- SMART analysis will try to find out the positive and negative aspects of community forestry along with their ranking. Therefore, it will provide an opportunity to inform decision makers about the strengths and opportunities of community forestry and potential weaknesses along with threats.

After the introduction of Community Forestry, the forest priorities have been shifted from forest products supply (Gilmour & Fisher 1991) to establishment of good forest governance and to make productive forest by maximizing the economic benefit (Hobley 1996). At present, it is more intended towards commercialization of those forest products in a sustainable way (Paudel et al.

2010). Due to this change, on one hand, community forestry was moving towards more systematic management of economic resources but on the other hand it allows corruption and mismanagement in some cases (Paudel et al. 2010). Apart from this, there are other numerous issues such as men and elite dominancy, social exclusion, lack of transparency and accountability etc. which can be still seen in community forestry. In the same way, future of community forestry depends on the present actions and decisions being made. Thus, in order to continue making community forestry as a successful program in the future, it is very necessary for the decisions makers about the factors that could affect community forestry along with the shifting scenario. Therefore, this study tries to collect information about the overall internal and external factors of CF in Nepal which might be supportive for the decision makers for sustainable management of community forests.

The use of hybrid methods in practical applications have gained increasing support by researchers and practitioners. Belton and Stewart (2002) pointed the importance of such integrated approach,

(15)

such as hybrid methods, or other various MCDM methods combined together to a decision problem, can be more effective in actual ground. The basic A’WOT methodology was developed and enhanced. Thus, Kajanus et al. (2012) in their further research instead of the AHP use SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) in combination with the SWOT analysis.

In their review article, Kangas et al. (2016) expected still wider application of the hybrid approach, applying also voting techniques and other MCDM methods than just AHP. Already in 2001, the book “The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making”

(Scholdt et al. 2001) was published which constituted the updated compendium of applications of the AHP in natural and environmental management until 2001. The book briefly reviews some of the applications of the AHP for forestry and natural resources. From then to now, inevitably, A’WOT has been used and applied in the wider field of natural resources management.

(16)

1.6 Rationale of study

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.

(17)

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

(18)

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

(19)

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.

(20)

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.

(21)

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

(22)

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

Easy access to forest 81.75

Weaknesses

Lack of meaningful participation 72.5

Forest operational plan backlog 85

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

(23)

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 Climate change adaptation/mitigation 83.75

Weaknesses

Forest fires, floods etc. resulting in the biodiversity

loss 69.25

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

(24)

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

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

(25)

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.

4.1 Social

The concept of CF approach was formally introduced in the late 1970s as a solution to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. However, its alternative objective was to encourage local people participation in forest management which can also uplift their livelihoods. In the time period of forty years, participation has become the major strength of community forestry in Nepal.

After the success of this CF concept, many other organizations in Nepal have shifted towards community-based approaches. Community forestry had great impacts on livelihoods of CFUG members. This program had increased social cohesions among users, and therefore, there was considerable change in degree of participation and putting ideas confidently in meeting. According to respondent, because of mandatory inclusion of women and pro-poor in CFUG committee, there is increase in equal participation in the process. All the people can freely express their opinions in the decision-making process.

(26)

Backlog of operational plans was resulted as the major weakness of community forestry in Nepal.

According to the Forest Act and Regulations of CFUGs, they need to prepare their own operation plans under the guidance. However, still many of them still depend on DFO as they lack confidence and some technical knowledge required to make those plans. For instance; due to the mandatory requirement of forest inventory during the preparation and renewal of operational plans are making the process slow (Acharya 2003). On the other hand, due to limited number of technical staffs in DFOs, it is very hard to manage all the forest inventories on time (Acharya 2003). As a result, there are number of backlogged operational plans that require preparation and revision. The operational plans are generally made for 5 or 10 years but many CFUGs in practice do not renew their plans because of different issue such as lack of financial or technical expertise. This has negative impact in implementation of planned forest management activities as it will affect the sustainable forest management goals. Additionally, it has adverse effect on the livelihood of forest dependent households.

Forest management in actual ground is only possible when all the related stakeholders cooperate with each other and work together for the implementation of various regulatory instruments. In Nepal, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders both can potentially influence decision making process of Community Forestry. Local governments seem to be very interested in community forestry as it relates to livelihoods, biodiversity, and policy. Many international scholars have undertaken case studies of Nepal and the good practices has been praised, appreciated and scaled up in other sectors too. This also helps to identify the information and opportunities for the stakeholders for further collaboration.

Forestry is a field with technical knowledge with lots of academies and or institutions throughout the world for learning technical forestry. However, only few persons get the opportunity to have its technical knowledge. In Nepal almost one third of population is involved in community forestry today and it is not possible to provide sophisticated forestry education to all of them. Instead, technical forestry can be developed blending local people’s indigenous knowledge, that is practically viable in the local context. Community Forestry provides many opportunities to the researchers and institutions and that is why collaboration and research/studies with CFUGs should be promoted.

(27)

Nowadays, CFUG networks had become the center of attraction of every policy debate that affects local forests and people. Because of the social and political mobilization, local government including political parties strongly support community forestry. The local government in Nepal is the official center point of all the local level activities including community forest management.

Some respondents say that community forest is a great source of income in the Terai part of Nepal and thus local government is also interested in it. For this reason, CF appears to be an important institution even during periods of conflict (Banjade & Timisina 2005, Pokharel, Ojha & Paudel 2005). It can also be seen that local government are involving in program formulation, monitoring, coordination, conflict resolution and other possible activities. The decision making of the Community Forestry in Nepal comes under the control of forest department directly but supervision role is been played by local government. If local government and CFUGs work together, such as local government can have investments in the community forestry and CF can also can share income with local government then they both can have win-win situation.

The study shows passiveness of executive committee as a major threat in CF of Nepal. This mainly happens in low income CFUGs as they don’t have more economic benefits from the community forest. In such case, there is not much more interest and it’s just for normal use of fodder and foliage from the forest. Although the forest policy has strictly defined accessibility to forests and forest products and social inclusion with the rights of traditional users, distant and seasonal users have been excluded. These distant users have to pay very high fees to become the member and get access and use rights of related CF and because of this conflict is increasing in CF. Moreover, women involvement has been limited to the document only as they are busy with household work so most of the decision has been made by elite member in the committee. Poor forest governance is the result of passive executive committee in many CFUG of Nepal.

4.2 Ecologic

In terms of forest conservation and forest regeneration, Community forestry in Nepal is considered as an important tool for its improvement (Gautam et al. 2004, Yadav et al. 2003). However, there is no quantitative data to measure this so it is necessary to find out the contribution of CF towards the ecological aspect. In this study it was found that biodiversity conservation is the main strength

(28)

of CF in Nepal and it supports previous studies that showed community forestry as an important tool in biodiversity conservation (Anup 2017). As compared to past, forest biomass, forest products, growing stock, soil organic carbon, carbon stock, forest cover and other ecological benefit from forest resource had improved due to community forestry system (Anup 2017).

Along with the increase, on one hand, the quantity and density of highly productive trees is increasing, whereas on the other hand the number and density of less productive shrubs and bushes are decreasing. However, there is increment in forest biomass and carbon in different forms of plants, such as ground sapling biomass, tree biomass, leaf litter herbs and underground biomass (Anup,2017). In addition, CFM also supports in the increment of wild animals such as leopard, porcupine, monkey and other birds which are frequently seen nearby the forest destroying the crops of people. As per the local people forest is getting denser and is providing habitat to the wild animals than it did in the past (Anup, 2017). Increased biodiversity of the forest and restoration of degraded areas resulted providing local people with various benefits such as various flaura and fauna, (Oli & Manandhar 2002), food security, fiber, wood, fodder and many more sustainable resources (Acharya 2003, Sharma 2016).

According to Forest Act 2049, the existing strict policies of community forestry are in favor of the biodiversity conservation inside the CF. For instance; there are some set of policies that are banned to conduct inside forest such as setting fires, wild animals haunting, large buildings constructions, large pits formulation, soil erosion encouraging activities, etc. (Springate-Baginski et al. 2007).

Increase in forest area and growing stock is considered as another strength of CF in Nepal. Active community participation in the protection, management and utilization of the community forest has resulted in forest restoration in Nepal (Oldekop et al. 2019). According to Forest Resources of Nepal (1987– 1998) report, the deforestation rate in the hilly areas and Terai region was 2.3% and 1.3% respectively, with average 1.7% per annum deforestation rate (DFRS 1999). The rate of deforestation of the Terai and Siwaliks regions in Nepal is only 0.44% and 0.18% per year respectively, reporting a significant reduction in deforestation (FRA/DFRS, 2014a, 2014b). In spite of decrease in number and density of forest shrubs and bushes, there is still increment in forest biomass and carbon in several forms (Anup 2017). In addition, Community Forestry also supports in the increment of wild animals that are prone to destroying agricultural crops in the community. The forest is getting denser and providing more habitat to the wild animals than past

(29)

according to the view of local people (Anup 2017). As a result, local people were benefitted by the increased biodiversity and restoration of degraded areas. Increase in agricultural productivity (Oli & Manandhar 2002), food security, indigenous knowledge, human health and nutrition, fuel wood, fodder, climate, fiber, grasses, water resources, culture and aesthetic values were some sustainable benefits (Acharya 2003).

Despite the global recognition of Community Forestry as a successful forest management modality, several authors have pointed out that CF outcomes are lacking in adequate documentation, which creates difficulty while evaluating their performance to improve forest conditions and benefit the local population (C.M. Danks 2009). Wollenberg et al. (2007) in their study finds out that community-based forests represent significant proportion of the world's forests, but enough information isn’t available on their condition as well as management.

Established monitoring systems or assessments such as FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) or the United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) biodiversity maps tend to operate on a national, international or otherwise large scale. On a small scale, there are not enough mechanism or organizations for it.

Also, information collection mechanism should be shorter and site specific (Colfer 2005) along with few systematic monitoring from regional to national level on a certain time-period.

The CF offers a wide range of ecosystem services, from local benefits such as timber, fuelwood, food, and water to global priorities like climate policies, calamities control, and habitat improvement, as result of forest restoration. Over the four decades of CF in Nepal, many innovative strategies have been emerged, that can certainly create significant markets for the wider adoption ecosystem framework in CF regimes. One of the options would be payment for ecosystem services (PES) that focuses and rewards directly forest management in which users have to acknowledge for the services they are getting from forest like water, biodiversity, aesthetic values and recreation (Paudyal, K. et al. 2017). According to the respondents, incentive to ecosystem service management might be the opportunity for Ecosystem management in Nepal.

Along with the opportunities, CF in Nepal is facing the effects of climate change and forest fire.

It is well known that that climate change and forests are closely linked to each other (FAO 2006).

Due to the global warming, climate change has affected forests with high temperatures, frequently changing rainfall patterns, and more frequent and severe weather occurrence. The global warming

(30)

is already affecting the vulnerable people living in poorest countries of the world such as Nepal.

Additionally, Nepal has various geographic and climatic condition and the Nepalese don’t have enough resources to cope with these climatic effects which makes the country vulnerable (Regmi et al. 2010). Seasonal variations such as late monsoon, short winter, warmer summer, less snowfall and irregular rainfall patterns, frequent flood and glaciers retreat in mountains have been observed by the people. Moreover, water sources drying in the mid-hill and inappropriate cold waves as well as heavy flooding in the terai are making life difficult in Nepalese community (Regmi et al. 2010).

Fire and people are inter linked from the stone age. Even now, fire is often used as a cheapest means of preparing land for cultivation as it can be afforded by poor and small households (FAO 2003, Kunwar 2004). It helps in producing grassland for grazing livestock, and assisting in hunting, land cultivation and clearing. Local people risk their lives, especially for the cultivation and harvesting of perpetual Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) (Sharma 1996, Bajracharya 2002). Thus, fire plays an important role in the lifecycle of forest.

Forest fires destroy trees more than any other natural disaster, including pests, insects, frost, and more (Alexandrian et al. 1999). Moreover, it has led to fuelwood scarcity, population migration and many other socioeconomic problems around the world. Forest fires are harmful to both living plants and dead vegetations. After the fire, various invading plants overtake the bare land compromising its fertileness. (Toumey & Korstian 1959). Forest fire is one of the leading causes of deforestation in Nepal livelihood (Anonymous, 2003). The Terai forests in Nepal had been decreased at an annual rate of 1.3% (DFRS 1999) and one of the reasons behind it was fire (GFMC). Usually, controlled forest fires are done in certain time-period which is beneficial but uncontrolled forest fire is harmful to all the creatures and environment.

4.3 Economic

From the economic perspective, livelihood increment has been an important strength of CF in Nepal. Forests can provide both direct benefits which include food, timber, fuelwood, fodder, saleable products, construction materials, bedding for animals, medicines and leaf-litters whereas the indirect benefits like watershed management, enhanced soil fertility, erosion control and windbreaks provide ecological services (Thoms 2008). When community and the forest are

(31)

collectively managed together then contribution of forests towards livelihood became reliable and stable and the perfect example of this is CF in Nepal.

The establishment of micro-credit schemes has been one of the financial capital sources in many CFUG of Nepal. Almost each CFUG administers a communal fund and create a microcredit where interested CFUG member can deposit certain amount and can borrow money for income generating activities with low interest or without interest as finalized by the CFUGs themselves.

As per the CFUG guidelines, preference should be given to women, disadvantage people and pro- poor households and after that to those who had not borrowed any money before. This scheme has been advantageous to women and pro-poor because it was very hard for them to get small loans from the bank but by the establishment of this micro-credit, they can borrow money which is generally required to start income generation activities like vegetable farming, goat and pig rearing, grocery (Dev et al. 2003). These funds were collected from the annual income of CF and also from doner agencies and after that they used it as a revolving fund. Apart from this, CFUG in Nepal are generating income through selling of NTFPs, timber, wood, effective management of natural resources, biodiversity conservation, eco-tourism and establishment of homestay.

Along with its strengths, ad-hoc management and underutilization of CF in Nepal have been found to be the major weaknesses. There were forest management activities like weeding, plantation, etc., which can be taken as an indicator of active forest management, but these activities are not so well planned in CFUGs of Nepal. The decision-making process are still on traditional basis by the CFUGs committee that might lacks enough technical knowledge. Therefore, CFUG needs technical support to strategic planning and better understanding of the potential of sustainable forest management. Another common problem seen in the CFUG Committees, which manages forest management activities, is the coordination and unity of all forest users. This may be due to the lack of a representative from all the tole (communities in Nepal comprises of small areas called tole) who can effectively coordinate with the users of their own tole. Most of the successful CFUGs in Nepal use a system of tole representatives or ultra-poor households with payment to do the forest weeding. Forest management plans and activities are well included in formally agreed Operational Plans (OPs). However, in practice it is different. The specific objectives of the average CFUG are usually not defined in the operational plan, which often cause confusion within the CFUG regarding planning and implementation of forest management. Moreover, OPs of the most of the

(32)

CFUGs in Nepal are not updated leading to passive implementation. Many of the CFUGs divided their forests into blocks, which can be seen in their forest map, as per the suggestion from forest division. In fact, some of the CFUGs are not even aware about the importance and purpose of blocking and so, it is obvious that forest resources are under-utilized. Hence, CFUG forest management activities in operational plan and in actual ground have still some gaps and that is causing ad-hoc management and underutilization of CF in Nepal.

Forest products are one of the great assets for poverty alleviation in Nepal. Thus, the current issue is to find out the potential as well as possible economic benefits of forest products and what are their contributions to the poor’s households in CFUG. To understand the role of CF in local people’s life, it is important to estimate the economic contribution from the forest resources and to find out the benefit sharing among the CFUGs. The study supports forest-based enterprise as an important opportunity of CF in Nepal. The establishment of small-scale enterprises based on local forest resources, local knowledge and the availability of a local market could be an appropriate option for eliminating poverty. Subedi (2006) believes that community forests that are oriented toward enterprises, can be more fruitful from both conservation and livelihood increment. The study too echoes with this research and showed that enterprise-oriented CF could be the potential approach for sustainable development.

In 2008, total contribution from the forest was around 4.3 percent among which 2.5 percent accounts for forest-based enterprises in Nepal (FAO 2011). Previous studies have shown that CF not only contributes towards forest management but also other socio-cultural, institutional strengthening, livelihood and other various sectors (Kanel & Niraula 2004, Pokharel et al. 2007).

Small-scale forest enterprises, especially community forestry enterprises, have traditionally been a tool of sustaining community life in Nepal. Several literatures showed that doing business in CF based enterprises create benefits to their users and these small-scale enterprises are considered as an important asset for economic growth of CFUGs (Subedi et al. 2002) while also improving good governance, rural development and natural resources conservation (Subedi et al. 2002). At this stage, we can see the increasing interest of local people, government and other stakeholders in forest-based enterprises because of its potential benefits in terms of economic, employment opportunities, technological advancement and ecological benefits simultaneously. To be more specific, various factors such as the forest regeneration, community forestry guidelines

(33)

improvement, higher willingness of CFUGs to try novelties and livelihood increment friendly policies are the major reasons behind it (FAO 2018).

Economically, the greatest threats of CF in Nepal are the illegal trading of forest products. Forest governance has become a major challenge in Nepal. In spite of well-defined forest guidelines and policies, poor governance can be seen among majority of CFUGs. Due to lack of accountability, transparency, responsibility, regular meetings, monitoring and weak and inconsistent law enforcement have invited opportunities for corruption and illegal trade. Many stakeholders have active interest and involvement in community forestry and the debate over its management regimes brings controversies and disagreement. For instance, there is ongoing debate between sustainable and scientific forest management approach due to which conflicts between groups and individuals can be seen. Because of these conflicts and poor governance, illegal trade and encroachment in the community forest are increasing.

In Nepal, there is lack of data and information regarding illegal activities in community forestry.

However, there are some official investigative studies, reports, and anecdotal proofs that helps to point out tentative ideas of seriousness of illegal logging. Moreover, lack of technical knowledge and appropriate commercial practice in the management and utilization of forest resources are promoting favorable situation for traders and they seem to have taken full advantage of it. Due to lack of transparency and predictability, and to widespread allegations of corruption, forestry sector in Nepal is often looked with suspicion by authorities and decision makers. It is still up for debate and has not been fully documented and disseminated.

(34)

4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Over the past four decades, community forestry processes in Nepal have continuously expanded – in terms of quantity, area and the number of households involved. In this long journey CF seems to have positive contribution towards social, economic and ecologic development of forest- dependent households and their environment. Behind this success there are various institutional innovations, policy formulations, and evolving practices that promote equal access to forest products, livelihood opportunities, strengthening of local institutional capacity, and ecological development (Dev et al. 2003, Ojha & Pokharel 2005, Subedi 2006, Pokharel et al. 2007).

According to DoF (2018), there were more than 22 thousand community forests in Nepal covering more than 2.2 million ha area and 2.9 million households as user groups who have the responsibilities of utilization, conservation and management of forest resources. However, according to the literature, the results are not consistent among Nepal's forest communities. Some evidence shows that there is negative impact on poor households though forest quality was increased (Malla 2000). Thus, it is very necessary to look all the aspects of CFUGs before evaluating which might further effect in decision making process. Hence, the study aims to evaluate overall strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities of community forestry in Nepal. To make the outcomes more specific, the research was analyzed from the three aspects of sustainability; social, economic and ecologic.

The community forestry program in Nepal has been a successful tool to forest regeneration and improved middle hills situation (Springate-Baginski & Blaikie 2003, Kanel 2006), which was the major goal of its formation. This study also shows that biodiversity conservation and increase in forest area as well as in growing stock are the major strengths of community forestry in Nepal in terms of ecological perspective. At both the regional and national levels, there is an issue of complete monitoring and evaluation. Although the country has the National Community Forestry Database, it is not very active and doesn’t have sufficient and updated information. Some data can be found made by donor agencies but they are limited to specific project areas and it also differs to their particular interests of those agencies.

At the wider scale, community forestry approach is regarded fruitful, though issues of passiveness of executive committee, lack of proper documentation and management effectiveness exist despite some improvements from the early years of implementation. Growing concern of local government

Community Forestry in Nepal - an A'WOT Analysis

Table of Contents