Community forestry in nepal at the cross roads where do we go narayan kaji shrestha
Download
1 / 23

community forestry in nepal at the cross-roads: where do we go narayan kaji shrestha - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 312 Views
  • Uploaded on

Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go? Narayan Kaji Shrestha. Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal. 1. INTRODUCTION. Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Everest and the Himalays is also is known as the Country of Community Forestry

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'community forestry in nepal at the cross-roads: where do we go narayan kaji shrestha' - Albert_Lan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Community forestry in nepal at the cross roads where do we go narayan kaji shrestha

Community Forestry in Nepal at the Cross-Roads: Where Do We Go?Narayan Kaji Shrestha

Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Nepal


1 introduction
1. INTRODUCTION Go?

  • Nepal known for Country for the Mt. Everest and the Himalays is also is known as the Country of Community Forestry

  • Many issues and problems being raised

  • Issues become significant in the context that three agencies are vying for control of forest management


1 1 contending forces
1.1 Contending Forces Go?

  • Government forest agencies, local government agencies and user groups are contending and vying for power, authority, and control over and manage forestry resources in Nepal.

  • . The forest bureaucracy gets its power and authority to control and manage forestry resource through the state



1 2 background
1.2 Background

  • Loot the Resource from People and Destroy Environment

  • Forest Destruction in Himalayan Country reached up to 3.9% per annum

  • “Eco-Doom” and “Tragedy of Commons”

  • Himalayan Kingdom to be a Desert by 2000

  • Bureaucracy-Politicians-Contractors’ Nexus Destroyers of Forests

  • People are Blamed


Who are destroyers of forest resources
Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources?

  • Historically, State and Rulers Encroached upon Forest Resources of People

  • Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward, etc.

  • Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s Forest for Railway Slippers and others.

  • By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land Distributed to Elites and Powerful and Three-Fourth went to the Rana Families


1 3 initiative after 1951
1.3 Initiative after 1951

  • Nationalization of Private Forests

  • Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration

  • PF and PPF failed

  • The Master Plan (1989) developed policy to devolve rights of management to users

  • Development of Charter and Operational Plan by consensus are requirement for hand-over



The change process trusting people as managers
The Change Process: Trusting People as Managers

  • Moving from Resource Creation to Institution Building and Strengthening

  • Focus on People Rather Than Trees

  • Users as Managers and Forest Officials as Facilitators

  • Secure Rights of Users To Manage

  • Decision Making by Consensus


Outcome
Outcome:

  • The Forestry Officials are Reoriented

  • Local Users Have Developed Ownership

  • 18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million Hectare of Forest

  • Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction is halted

  • Community Development Activities Initiated

  • FECOFUN is Created


1 4 statement of the problem
1.4 Statement of the Problem

  • Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field for rulers, politicians and bureaucrats.

  • Community forestry as a priority program

  • 61% of forest is supposed to be turned into community forests

  • The forest bureaucracy backtracking with introduction of OFMP and CFM


  • The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law

  • The LGAs have rights to manage fallow land, raise taxes and develop plans for resources management

  • The Forest Department and the LGAs are allying against users with provision of DFCC and allocation of 20% revenue


2 analytical framework
2. Analytical Framework

  • 2.1 Deconcentration, Decentralization and Devolution Debate

  • 2.2 Collective Action for Property Rights

  • 2.3 Institutional Characteristics or Factors


3 description of initiative undertaken by fecofun
3. Description of Initiative Undertaken by FECOFUN:

  • 3.1 Is There a Fish in the Bowl?

  • 3.2 Did Pictures Speak?

  • 3.3 What is the Goal?

  • 3.4 Are User Groups Rooted Enough?

  • 3.5 Are Stems Strong Enough?

  • 3.6 What Fruits User Groups Require?



  • Transparency

  • Accountability/Responsiveness

  • Gender/Equity

  • Power Balance

  • Learning Organization


4 analysis and discussion
4. Analysis and Discussion

  • 4.1 Actors and Their Playing Field: Forest Bureaucracy, Local Government Agencies and FECOFUN

  • Deconcentration, Decentralization, and Devolution operational side by side

  • The Donors are under pressure to follow the Government


  • FECOFUN needs to improve its strength by improving effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.

  • The proper process of user group formation

  • FECOFUN played critical role in the recent movement 2006 by announcing itself with the democratic forces

  • However, they are paying the price


5 the lessons learned
5. The Lessons Learned: effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.

  • Resource Management Requires Active Participation by Users

  • Elites and Powerful Withheld Information from People to Control Them

  • User Group Formation Process with Consensus is a Time Consuming Process

  • Some Bureaucrats Can Change but Most of Them are Hard Nuts to Crack


6 conclusions and recommendations
6. Conclusions and Recommendations effectiveness and efficiency of user groups.

  • The state itself is creating confusion by creating contending forces through decentralization

  • CF is Looked Upon as Models of the Participatory Democracy

  • Users need to practice consensus in their decision making process and good governance



What s there for us
What’s There for Us bolster their credibility as a lobbying organization

  • Your Support for CF is also Support for the Participatory Democracy

  • So-Called Experts are Trying to Destroy CF from Nepal, Please Help Us.

  • Nepal can Come Out of Poverty only by Managing Its Own Resources, Help Us in This. We do not Want to be a Beggar Nation.

  • CF will Lead Us to Democratic Republic, Please Stop Exploitative Forces to Undermine Our Aspiration of Being a Democratic Republic.


Namaskar
Namaskar!! bolster their credibility as a lobbying organization

  • Please Let’s Develop Our Own Model of Democratic Republic Based on The Learning from CF

  • Let’s also Enjoy Freedom You Have been Enjoying

  • Please Help Us

  • Thank You Very Much


ad