SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad

SIT Digital Collections

Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad

Spring 2013

“hariyo ban Nepalko dhan” (“Nepal’s Wealth is the

Green Forest”): The People’s Participation in
Structuring Sustainable Development through
Community Forestry
Natasha Eulberg
SIT Study Abroad

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection

Part of the Forest Management Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons,
Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Sustainability Commons

Recommended Citation
Eulberg, Natasha, "“hariyo ban Nepalko dhan” (“Nepal’s Wealth is the Green Forest”): The People’s Participation in Structuring
Sustainable Development through Community Forestry" (2013). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 1556.
https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1556

This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 “hariyo ban Nepalko dhan” (“Nepal’s Wealth is the Green Forest”):
The People’s Participation in Structuring Sustainable Development through
Community Forestry

Natasha Eulberg
Academic Director: Daniel Putnam

Gettysburg College
Environmental Studies, Anthropology

South Asia, Nepal, Lalitpur, Hattiban and Godavari

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Nepal: Development and Social Change, SIT Study Abroad

Spring 2013
 Abstract

Community forestry has a long history in Nepal, and despite the

nationalization of the country’s forests in the mid-twentieth century, current
legislation determines that rights and execution of community forest management lies
largely with community forest user groups (CFUGs). This research questions to what
extent CFUGs truly represent autonomous bodies with the full power and ability to
manage and utilize community forests and forest resources. This research also seeks
to determine the impact and distribution of CFUG operations and benefits on CFUG
members, and the ways in which CFUG management practices have impacted how
group members perceive and interact with concepts of “land,” “environment,” and
“sustainability”. In attempting to answer these questions, this investigation employs a
case study approach of the Godavari Kunda CFUG in the Lalitpur District of Nepal
and utilizes methodologies of interviews, focus group meetings, and participant
observation.

Keywords: community forestry, sustainable development, conservation

Eulberg ii
 Dedication

This research is dedicated to my wonderful Nepali pariwaar, whose warm

welcome made me comfortable in a country of strangers, whose affection and
kindness created a home for me halfway around the world, and whose familiarity and
fond teasing gave me the confidence to take risks and laugh at myself, and the ability
to let others do so, also.

To bua, Anish, Manga-didi, Gita-didi, Rita-didi, Bunty-didi, Asu-didi, and, of

course, aamaa: tapaaῖharulaai dherai maayaa garchhu.

Eulberg iii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my immense gratitude to the members of the Godavari

Kunda Community Forest User Group for their kindness and assistance over the past
few weeks, and for their generous willingness to take the time to share their
experiences and stories with me. My thanks and appreciation also go out to the
employees of the Lalitpur District Forest Office, particularly Ajeet Kumar Karn, for
their readiness to assist and inform me with all of my many questions. To the various
kind strangers and bus bhaaiharu who regularly assisted me in locating various
towns, offices, and buildings throughout the course of my fieldwork: you have my
deepest thanks, and my eternal appreciation.
Innumerable thanks to Dan-ji for his support and assistance in developing and
conducting my research; to our excellent guruharu for providing me with the
foundational skills to communicate in Nepali and for so frequently “suggesting” that I
utilize those skills; to the SIT Program House Staff (particularly Don-daai) for their
reassurance during our periods of self-doubt and for their general loveliness
throughout the semester (and the past month in particular); and to my wonderful
fellow students and friends, for gamely putting up with my occasional moods of stress
and mild panic, for acting as remarkably helpful sounding-boards throughout the
entirety of the research process, and for being such amazing and interesting
individuals, whose motivation and encouragement has been greatly appreciated.

Eulberg iv
Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………….......1

Methodology………………………………………………………………......9

Research Findings…………………………………………………………....13

“No Community and No Support”: Management Autonomy of the Forest……….....13

“At the Site, In the Field”: Trainings as Shaping Forest Management………….…...16

“This Is Your Forest”: Community Mobilization and Strengthening…..……………18

“Shifting Their Practices”: Interactions and Perceptions of Land………………......22

“Desert” to “Dense”: Sensitivity to Environment and Changing Landscapes…….….23

Discussion/Analysis…………………………………………………………...26

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….32

Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………………….34

Appendix………………………………………………………………………35

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..36

List of Interviews……………………………………………………………...38

Eulberg v
Introduction

Community use and management of forests in Nepal is a historic and

well-documented process (Gilmour and Fisher 1991). However, in recent decades

perceptions of which communities have the right to management authority over

these all-important resources have largely shifted within Nepal to support

nominally, if not in practice, a “development from below” approach to forest

management. As a result, the formation of community forest user groups

(CFUGs), partnerships between the Nepali state and “local” communities, have

become prevalent throughout Nepal. Although community forestry as a practice

was first implemented in Nepal through the Decentralization Acts of 1982 and

1984 (IUCN Nepal 1995, 32), the Forest Act of 1993 essentially placed “all the

accessible hill forests” under the authority and management of local

communities, and today the concept of “community forestry” is often understood

to be centered on “the idea of increasing the direct benefits of forest resources” to

local CFUGs in a sustainable manner (Gilmour and Fisher 1991, 7).

History of Forest Legislation in Nepal

Forested area within Nepal approximates 3.9 million hectares (ha),

constituting roughly 27.3% of the country’s total geographic area (FAO 2005).

Of this forested land, 48% is classified as “mid-hills,” 25% is categorized as

“plains” (Terai), and 27% is considered to be distributed among the “high

mountains” (DFRS 1999).

Community forestry and use has a history that predates any legislation of

Nepal’s forests, with communities throughout the country dependent on forest

resources both for subsistence and for economic growth. In the mid-hills, where a

majority of Nepal’s forested land is concentrated, communities have traditionally

Eulberg 1
have relied upon forests as sources of fuel wood, housing materials, livestock

fodder, “agricultural inputs,” and, in some cases, the sale of non-timber forest

products (NTFPs) (Gauli 2011, 2). Until the mid-twentieth century, forest

resources were used and managed according to the needs and knowledge of the

communities who depended on them; however, in 1957 the nationalization of

Nepal’s forests brought these lands and their resources under government control.

Recognition of the difficulties encountered with conserving such large tracts of

land led the Nepali Government in 1974 to propose a new mechanism of forest

protection through the “active participation of local people” (Gauli 2011, 2): in

other words, community-based forest management (Gilmour and Fisher 1991).

The logic of using local communities as a means of forest conservation is largely

in line with Olson’s (1965, 1) assessment of group theory, that “if the members of

some group have a common interest or object…would all be better off if that

objective were satisfied,” then those individuals “would voluntarily act so as to

try to further those interests” (Ostrom 1990, 5). Operating under this paradigm,

communities which were traditionally reliant upon forest resources could be

granted the management of their local forests, and could be counted upon to

effectively manage and conserve those lands since – being dependent on

continual access to forest resources – the preservation of those resources would

be in their best interests, both as individuals and as a group.

The legislative answer for how the management power of community

forests should be structured was found in the Panchayat Forest Rules and the

Panchayat Protected Forest Rules 1978, products of a 1976 National Forestry

Plan that laid the foundation for implementing community forestry through

localized governing bodies known as “Panchayat,” the smallest political and

Eulberg 2
administrative units in Nepal at the time. Although people’s participation in

forestry management was nominally emphasized within this legislation, the

Panchayat system “tended to be dominated by the traditional elite in rural

society” (Adhikari 2011). Additionally, the Panchayat was considered to be too

large of a governing body to effectively manage and protect the forested areas

under their administration.

Shankar Adhikari of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation of

Nepal claims that the 1990s saw an awakening to “deficiencies in the legislative

framework under which the community forestry model was being implemented”

and a questioning of the effectiveness of the Panchayat (Adhikari 2011).

According to Shankar, community forestry shifted towards the establishment of

CFUGs as a means of allowing “those people most directly affected” by forest

management – in other words, those individuals dependent on the use of forest

resources, or forest “users” – to make management decisions. Thus, the Forest

Act 1993 was enacted, in which CFUGs were granted “full power, authority, and

responsibility to protect, manage, and utilize” the resources of the majority of

Nepal’s hill forests (Adhikari 2011)

Since the implementation of the Forest Act 1993 and the subsequent

Forest Regulation 1995, a Community Forest Development Guideline was passed

in 2002 to “[direct] the representation of individuals from marginalized sections

of society in management committees to make the committees more accountable

to users” (Gauli 2011, 3). Another development in community forestry trends in

more recent decades has been the presence of donor agencies within the program.

The influence of international and non-governmental “donor” agencies and

organizations has long been felt within Nepal’s community forestry program,
Eulberg 3
although the phenomenon’s origin is disputed and the effects of this influence are

in some cases controversial. Gutman asserts that in the early 1980s, a growing

global environmental movement sparked concern over degradation of Nepal’s

Himalayan region and led to an in-pouring of “technical and financial

support…from international agencies” (1991); this support was then used to

“establish forest plantations” within the Himalayan zones “as a quick fix”

(Gilmour and Fisher 1991). Later, the government of Nepal concluded that forest

management was an important conservation goal for the country and that “active

involvement of local people in forest management was essential” to accomplish

this task (Chhatre et. al. 2009, 1). Others assert that community forestry was

launched by the Nepali government, independent of international aid, in order to

address problems within forestry legislation and management that were

perpetuating deforestation, and that international aid became prevalent after the

Forestry Act of 1993. Regardless of the true nature of the origin of community

forestry-related donor aid in Nepal, donor organizations have undeniably played a

part in influencing the formation and management strategies of CFUGs since the

early 1990s.

Aims and Objectives of Community Forestry

According to the Department of Forests (DoF), by 2011, more than

16,900 CFUGs had been created in Nepal, “covering 1.57 million ha of forest

land and involving 2,075,944 households, i.e. 35.6% of the total households of

Nepal” (CFD 2011). Each of Nepal’s 75 districts is involved with community

forestry operations in some way, and more than 25% of Nepal’s total forest area

is under CFUG management. The “community forests” which these groups

manage are officially defined in the Forest Act of 1993 as “National Forest[s]
Eulberg 4
handed over to a users’ group…for its development, conservation and utilization

for collective interest” (Forest Development Project 1993, 1). This act made

provision for establishing community forestry in Nepal in order “to meet the

basic needs of the public in general, to attain social and economic development

and to promote a healthy environment and to ensure the development and

conservation of forest and the proper utilization of forest products” (Forest

Development Project 1993, 1).

Summarily, the main aim of community forestry is establish CFUGs,

which “are legal, autonomous, and corporate bodies having full power, authority,

and responsibility to protect, manage, and utilize forest and other resources as per

the decisions taken by their assemblies and according to their self-prepared

constitutions and operational plans” (Adhikari 2011). These groups represent

partnerships between local communities and the Nepali government, wherein

ownership of forested land remains with the state, but land-use rights of these

areas are granted to CFUGs. Several different, though interwoven, motivating

objectives exist within this over-arching goal of user group creation, including

environmental conservation and – in some cases – restoration, improved

socioeconomic conditions for local communities, and the creation of “local

democracy” (Adhikari 2011) through the cooperation of District Offices and local

communities in managing the forests (Gilmour and Fisher 1991, 6).

Gauli suggests that the primary incentive for the creation of Nepal’s

community forestry program was “to protect the environment,” focusing initially

on regeneration of degraded forests and bare areas and on the practice of

“sustainable” forest management (2011, 4). Indeed, Gilmour suggests that the

basis for the decision to establish CFUGs was initially born less of a desire to
Eulberg 5
improve the access of forest users to resources or increased socio-economic

benefits than of a recognition that the Nepali government could not “exercise

effective control over the forests, particularly in the hills, without the active

involvement of local communities” (1988, 3). The incorporation of local

communities within forest management and “ownership” (in sentiment though

not in deed) therefore became necessary. Even after the establishment of CFUGs

in 1993, the program consisted primarily of a “protection-oriented, conservation-

focused agenda” which did not truly account for “forest use, enterprise

development, and livelihood improvement” until much later in the program’s

development (Chhatre et. al. 2009, v).

This shift in the program’s goals occurred in the early 2000s, when

“recognition of the importance of forestry for people’s livelihoods and its

potential for poverty reduction” (Gauli 2011, 4) led to increased policy emphasis

on the socioeconomic effects of community forestry. As a result, “pro-poor” and

“community development” activities have become prevalent within CFUGs

throughout Nepal, ranging from endeavors such as infrastructure development

and drinking water system installation to scholarship provision and income

generation unrelated to the sale of timber. Such programs, in conjunction with the

increased collaboration between local and state knowledge, are said to not only

“substantially [affect] household livelihoods” (Chhatre et. al. 2011, 2), but also to

be “nurturing democracy at the grassroots despite a prolonged insurgency and

political upheavals,” providing a model for democratic governance (Chhatre et.

al. 2011, 1).

Eulberg 6
Responses to the Community Forestry Program

Nepal’s community forestry program “is now widely perceived as having

real capacity for making an effective contribution” towards addressing

environmental, socioeconomic, and political problems within the country

(Adhikari 2011), and for empowering forest users (Nepal-Swiss Community

Forestry Project 2011, 1). It has been labeled “a global innovation in participatory

environmental governance that encompasses well-defined policies, institutions,

and practices” (Chhatre et. al. 2009, 1) (Kumar 2002), and Nepal is often

considered at the forefront of community forestry world-wide.

Although the goals of community forestry are often simplified into two

distinct categories (either “forest conservation” or “poverty reduction”), this

binary approach fails to take into account the complex web of social

relationships, cultural practices, and economic considerations which serve as the

basis for understanding “development” within a Nepali context and which are

therefore indistinguishable from concepts of environmental sustainability and

protection. Nightingale asserts that the success of community forestry in Nepal is

attributable to an understanding of the interwoven nature of these factors, and

that, as a result of this understanding, Nepal’s community forestry program “in

many ways…exemplifies the best in participatory development” (2010, 224-6).

Furthermore, Chhatre et. al. claim that the political changes which have

continually occurred within the Nepali government since the community forestry

program was initiated has made local people “increasingly…able to claim rights

over forests as active political agents rather than as passive recipients of

government service” (2009, 2)(Paudel et. al. 2009). Despite the assertions,

however, that “the discourse and practice of community forestry in Nepal is now
Eulberg 7
shared equally by the government and civil society” (Chhatre et. al. 2009, 2) and

that the dissolution of the Panchayat and the establishment of CFUGs did away

with much of the domination of elitism within the community forestry (Adhikari

2011), this conclusion fails to take into account that unequal representation in the

form of traditional elitism of “high caste” individuals may still exist within

CFUG communities, perpetuated by the prevalence of the caste system’s

influence within Nepalese society. Although this elitism may not based directly

on caste discrimination, it may result from the greater range of opportunities

afforded to individuals of “higher” castes, such as access to education, which

could potentially result in an unequal distribution of leadership opportunities and

benefits within CFUGs, contradicting the concept of egalitarian distribution

among differing socio-economic groups for which community forestry is so

noted (Gauli 2011, 5).

Furthermore, although the practice of community forestry following the

dissolution of the Panchayat system is widely perceived as “decentralized and

community-based” (Chhatre et. al. 2009, 2), questions remain over whether

CFUGs retain the right to determine the type of management strategy to

implement within their associated forests, or simply the right to oversee the

execution of a management strategy. Nightingale (2005) suggests that although

CFUG projects allow group members to gain control over the forests their

livelihoods are tied to, these projects simultaneously devalue local knowledge of

forest sustainability while emphasizing the “expert” status of (non-local)

professional knowledge. Community forestry projects are thus implemented on

the basis that CFUG members have little or no “correct” prior knowledge of

forest management and must be trained in “proper” management strategies. This

Eulberg 8
assessment is similar to that of Gilmour and Fisher (1991, 2), which argues that

“we often forget that people in the past frequently developed very sensible and

sustainable working arrangements to manage their natural resources.” The

eagerness, however, of workers in government or non-government organizations

for “people’s participation – getting local populations to plan and execute their

own projects on a self-help basis” (Gilmour and Fisher 1991, 7) has led to the

establishment of a stereotype which overlooks the capacity for local people’s

prior knowledge and suggests that “they must be educated, motivated, informed,

‘convinced’” about the desirability of sustainable forestry development (Fisher

1988, 35).

Research Objectives

This research seeks to question to what extent CFUGs actually represent

autonomous bodies with the “full power, authority, and responsibility to protect,

manage, and utilize” forest resources (Adhikari 2011). I question in what ways

CFUG operations, including interactions with donor and government

organizations, impact relationships and interactions within CFUG member

communities; to what degree “indigenous” (Gilmour and Fisher 1991, 46)

knowledge and methods are used within CFUG forest management practices; and

what impacts the distribution of CFUG operations and benefits has on CFUG

members. Specifically, this project explores how the formation of CFUGs have

impacted the ways in which group members perceive and interact with concepts

of “land,” “environment,” and “sustainability” within their daily lives.

Methodology

In attempting to determine the impacts of the community forestry

program in terms of distribution of management authority, participation, and

Eulberg 9
benefits, a case study approach of the forestry program in one district was

utilized. Multiple methodologies were used to collect information, including

structured and semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and collective

focus group meetings. Research was carried out in the Lalitpur District, although

interviews were conducted primarily in Hattiban and Godavari. The Lalitpur

District was selected as an area of study for its location within Kathmandu Valley

and for the high density of CFUGs within the district (see Appendix A) (Sharma

2005), many of which are found in relatively close proximity to the District

Forest Office (DFO).

Information was collected from among four levels of the community

forestry program: the Lalitpur District Forest Official, a Lalitpur District Forest

Ranger, the Executive Committee of the Godavari Kunda Community Forest

User Group, and community members of the Godavari Kunda Community Forest

User Group. This format was utilized as a means of determining the impact of the

community forestry program infrastructure on the successful implementation of

the program’s goals. Furthermore, this format facilitated a comparison across

multiple levels of the information provided by participants regarding forest

management plans and techniques, trainings, member participation, benefit and

leadership distribution, and community impacts. The Godavari Kunda CFUG was

used as a case study user group throughout this research, and semi-structured

interviews were conducted among four members of the group’s Executive

Committee, and among three members of the group’s community members.

These interviews were used to gain a better understanding of the

functionings of the group’s structure, operation, and forest management plan, and

to collect representative accounts of the group members’ perspectives of the

Eulberg 10
CFUG’s influence on their community, their ecosystem, and their personal lives.

The semi-structured nature of these interviews also allowed group members the

ability to provide any information in additional to the questions which they felt

was important to include, with the result that some of the interviews became

modified “life history” accounts of the CFUG.

In planning this research, I intended to use Participatory Rural Appraisal

methodologies such as resource mapping, “well-being” mapping, and social

mapping to determine – through the CFUG members’ own input – how the

community at Godavari Kunda was physically and figuratively structured in

terms of physical formation, economics, household characteristics, interpersonal

interactions, and natural resource distribution and access within the community.

However, the large size of the CFUG and the nature of my meetings with the

members of Godavari Kunda were not conducive to this type of research

methodology, as all of my visits to the CFUG and my interactions with the

community members were facilitated through the CFUG’s Executive Committee.

Meetings were generally conducted at the CFUG’s Committee Office at the edge

of the Godavari Kunda Community Forest, while the majority of the community

members themselves lived approximately two kilometers away from the site. The

absence of these various physical and figurative mapping methodologies meant

that my findings of community structure were in many ways reliant upon the

general information provided to me by community and Executive Committee

members during various interviews and focus group meetings, and that topics like

management opportunity and benefit distribution – though still representative of

the community, according to the community members – could not be effectively

Eulberg 11
analyzed in comparison to demographic markers (eg. gender, household size,

economic circumstances, caste group, etc.) except in broad terms.

Throughout the course of my research, I attempted as much as possible to

ensure that my meetings with community members remained separate from my

interactions with the Executive Committee. This distinction was intended to

ensure that the community members did not feel compelled by the Executive

Committee members’ presence to participate, and to attempt to provide them with

the ability to speak freely about their perceptions of the CFUG, should they

choose to participate. However, my interactions with the Godavari Kunda CFUG

were facilitated by members of the Executive Committee and at least one

committee member was present at each of my meetings with the community

members, my findings may reflect some bias regarding who was available to

speak with me during the days, times of day, and places that I was told that I

could visit the community forest.

Structured interviews were conducted with forestry officials of the

Lalitpur District, including the District Forest Official and the Forest Ranger who

works with the Godavari Kunda CFUG. These interviews were used to address

not only the District Office’s interactions with the Godavari Kunda CFUG and

the management of the Godavari Community Forest, but also as a means of

contextualizing the CFUG within a larger scheme of community forestry in the

Lalitpur District and in Nepal as a whole.

Participant observation was used to better understand the functioning of

and interactions within the structural hierarchy of the community forestry

program in the Lalitpur District, in order to compare the nominal versus actual

circumstances of these interactions. Throughout the course of fieldwork,

Eulberg 12
participant observation also proved useful in gauging the awareness and

knowledge of the community forestry program within the mindset of the general

public, helping to establish a context for consideration of how community

forestry factors into the idea of Nepali “development.”

Research Findings

“No Community and No Support”: Management Autonomy of the Forest

Prior to the CFUG’s formation eighteen years ago, the Godavari Kunda

Forest was still managed by the Nepali state, and was at that time, according to

the Vice-President of the Godavari Kunda CFUG, Rama Chhetri, “empty as a

desert.” When some of the residents of the village of Godavari were approached

by a Lalitpur Forest Ranger in 1995 and asked why the condition of the forest

was so degraded, the villagers replied that there was “no community and no

support” to care for that land, and that they didn’t know how to do so. Rama

states that the Forest Ranger in turn told the community members, “Make a

community and we’ll teach you how to preserve it.”

District Forest Official Ajeet Kumar Karn explains that the process of

CFUG formation begins when “a community organizes to be handed an area of

forest.” Generally, groups are created when the DoF and its associated district

offices recognize a need for localized management where a forest is not being

protected, and approach a nearby community. Sometimes, however, communities

organize and determine independently that they would like to form a user group.

Although Karn suggests that the former is the more prevalent trend in group

organization, “Sometimes committees approach us and we go to the community;

sometimes we go to them.”

Eulberg 13
 At Godavari Kunda in 1995, thirteen villagers initially expressed an

interest in becoming a part of a CFUG after being approached by the Forest

Ranger, and the DFO trained these thirteen members in how to preserve and

manage the forest. After these trainings, an official management plan for the

forest had to be developed, submitted, approved, and thereafter followed. This

plan was formulated by the user group with the support the forest’s associated

Forest Ranger; thereafter, the forest was divided into blocks and the plan

established how each block should be managed. Karn stressed the fact that the

management plan, developed and updated on an annual basis, is a product of the

CFUG members’ input, with the help of a Forest Ranger or the Assistant Forest

Officer, who also provide assistance in taking the annual inventory of the forest,

which is “the prescription to decide how to manage the forest blocs.” Executive

Committee member Thomas Dulal characterized the entirety of the process as

“co-organization,” describing a joint partnership in which the community

members and the DFO work together in order to establish the CFUG and

effectively manage the forest.

The Godavari Kunda Community Forest, which encompasses 147

hectares within four blocks, is actively managed for three months out of each

year. This “active” management refers to the work the group members do within

the forest itself every January, February, and March, weeding, pruning and

thinning the trees, and “cleaning” the land. Within this process of “bush

cleaning,” or “jaarisaphai,” group members clear unwanted bushes, climbing

vines, and “undesirable” species from the forest floor, working within one block

each year. The process leads to the regeneration promotion of desired species,

and within four years, each of the forest’s four blocks is thus “cleaned.” This
Eulberg 14
management strategy also serves as a significant method for forest fire control

through the removal of flammable materials, which is an important consideration

for Godavari Kunda. Rama asserts that the villagers used to have to contend with

fires everywhere, which presented a substantial problem for the individuals who

rely upon the forest resources; thus, fire prevention has become a crucial aspect

of the management plan of the Godavari Kunda CFUG over the years.

The Godavari Kunda CFUG itself is structured to include both general

community members, who comprise the bulk of the group’s membership, and the

Executive Committee, which is currently composed of eleven group members.

The Executive Committee members meet once each month to discuss

management of the forest among themselves and with the forest’s associated

Forest Ranger, Sumitra K.C. Says Ranger Sumitra: “In a broad sense the roles of

Executive Board Members of the Godavari Kunda CFUG is to lead the CFUG

but in particular their role is to solve the problem of general members regarding

the forest product needs, carrying out activities according to their OP and

Constitution, punishing the users if they do [something] against their OP and

Constitution, [and] communicating information from the DFO to the general

members.” These committee members are selected at the group’s annual public

community meeting, wherein all community members gather to discuss the year’s

progress in terms of forest management, budget, and programs implemented

through the group’s fund. At this time, leaders are nominated from among the

group, and according to Thomas, are chosen based on considerations such as skill

sets, educational level, free time, and knowledge about the forest. Community

members seem to find these considerations indications of an individual’s merit to

serve on the Executive Committee, rather than limitations establishing barriers of

Eulberg 15
exclusivity for leadership opportunities. One community member, Asta,

explained the process of leadership nomination and selection, and when asked

about the impacts of this process, said that it was successful and resulted in good

leadership: “The people choose their leaders.”

The internal management of the Godavari Kunda CFUG also plays into

a larger scheme of district forestry management, which in Lalitpur District

encompasses three levels of DoF offices: the DFO, located in Hattiban and

headed by the District Forest Official; two Ilaka Forest Offices; and twelve

Range Posts, which represent the lowest level of the DoF. At each Range Post at

least one ranger with a required minimum of an Intermediate Degree in Forestry

is stationed, although Karn states that many rangers today have achieved

Bachelor’s Degrees in forestry. Although some Range Posts have also hired

research officials to research the local forests and help develop strong

management practices for the areas, the rangers stationed at these Range Posts are

the individuals primarily responsible for the management trainings provided to

CFUGs by the DFO.

“At the Site, In the Field”: Trainings as Shaping Forest Management

After a CFUG is organized and registered, trainings represent a significant

part of the DoF’s involvement with group members. Karn states that the main

source of these trainings is the Community Forest Development Program, which

is funded by the Nepali government and which provides trainings to the user

groups. The District Forest Official also went on to explain that there is a training

center in the village of Godavari, the Central Regional Forestry Training Center,

which provides trainings for DoF and DFO personnel regarding the development

Eulberg 16
of new research related to management practices, enabling forestry officials to

better train user group members.

The user groups, in turn, are thus able to train their own members in the

ways of forest management and to teach them, as Rama states, “the rules of the

forest.” When a large enough group (usually approximately thirty members,

according to Asta) is unaware of CFUG regulations or doesn’t understand how to

manage the forest, the CFUG will arrange for a training session through the

Range Post and will also, Asta says, “provide assistance to attend that training.”

Regarding whether or not a distribution of power is created as a result of

these training sessions between Executive Committee members and community

members, Karn asserts that the DoF does not “discriminate between the

committee users and the other users.” Trainings are provided “in the field, at the

site,” in order to best fit the context of the individual forest, and to ensure that all

community members who need or want to be a part of the experience have access

to the information provided in the session. This goal of increasing access also

extends to encourage gender equality within CFUG management in the Lalitpur

District, as well: according to Karn, the DFO intends to have at least fifty percent

of training attendees be women, although this goal, he said, is proving “difficult.”

When asked why, he replied that he was unsure, but thought that perhaps it had

something to do with the demands on women within the household, or the

burdens imposed by childcare or work in the home.

The trend of CFUG trainings within the Lalitpur District has progressed a

great deal since the inception of the community forest program. Initially, when

the Godavari Kunda CFUG was registered, there were several donor

organizations and programs that worked with the DFO and the Executive
Eulberg 17
Committee to support the user group, including the National Resource Assistance

Program and the Baghwati Management Program. These groups, according to the

DoF, supported “the technical parts” of establishing a CFUG, including providing

different types of trainings and assistance to Executive Committee members.

However, although Rama stated that the Godavari Kunda works in cooperation

with certain organizations, such as the Federation of Community Forest Users,

Nepal (FECOFUN) and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain

Development (ICIMOD), Karn attested that these organizations do not provide

the kind of aid that similarly associated organizations had afforded in the past,

and that currently there is no “donor support” in Lalitpur District, with

government programs offering the only assistance to CFUGs in the area.

“This Is Your Forest”: Community Mobilization and Strengthening

According to Karn, the main role of the DFO in forming a CFUG

revolves around community mobilization: “We have to mobilize the forest and

sensitize them [referring to user group members]: ‘This is your forest, you must

protect it.’ Community mobilization is a big part of what we do.” Members of the

Godavari Kunda CFUG, however, suggest that this DFO mobilization is

relegated more to the initial formation of the group, and that community

mobilization in building group membership has rested primarily with the group

members themselves. The primary means of achieving this membership growth

has been, according to Tejas, who is currently the Treasurer at Godavari Kunda

and has served on the group’s Executive Committee for seventeen years, has

simply been to make the announcements calling for group members public.

Initially when the CFUG was formed, he said, the committee members would

simply put up notices in public places within Godavari where they could be easily
Eulberg 18
seen, such as shops or markets. Sometimes they were able to make

announcements about the CFUG during public gatherings, and in this manner,

through word of mouth, knowledge about the CFUG spread throughout the

village. Today, when an individual or household wants to join the CFUG, he or

she is required to make a formal request and submit an application to the CFUG

office. Thomas explained that the Executive Committee reviews these

applications and “maybe” accepts them; however, potential community members

must know about forest rules and regulation before joining the group, because if

they are unaware of these practices, how can they care for the forest? If, however,

individuals are uninformed about the regulations governing the CFUG, their

introduction to the group is still possible, since these new members will,

according to the Executive Committee, be taught in the field about forest

management. Through this process, group membership has gradually grown to

include 600 families, all of whom live within approximately two kilometers of

the Godavari Kunda Forest.

Community members tend to feel that the annual membership fee for the

user group of 100 rupees per household is well worth the expenditure, given the

nature of the benefits they receive in return. When questioned about the benefits

they received as members of the CFUG, all members cited benefits which could

be classified as either “tangible” or “social.” The more tangible benefits tended to

be the first listed when group members discussed the advantages of being part of

the CFUG. For instance, on the first day of each month, each member household

is provided with one bari, or mass unit, of firewood which can then be used

throughout the month at the discretion of the household. The trees and timber are

in many cases also available to group members: when a member wants to cut a
Eulberg 19
tree, he or she must submit an application to the Executive Committee, which

then determines whether or not the cutting can occur and how timber may be

distributed. Timber in the Godavari Kunda CFUG is generally used in the

construction or repair of members’ houses, or in the construction and subsequent

sale of furniture, the profits from which are deposited into the CFUG’s account

fund. 25% of the annual income to this fund must be used for forest development

activities and programs, according to DoF guidelines regarding community

forestry. Members also generally categorized trainings organized through this

fund allotment as an additional service provided to them, although the benefit

was considered primarily indirect and was always listed after other benefits,

including the 100 rupee per year salary received by each of the eleven Executive

Committee members.

Benefits which were less tangible in nature were generally mentioned

after the benefits of access to tangible forest resources were explained, but group

members were able to expand far more on the impacts of these types of “social”

assets than on their access to firewood and timber. One of the more significant

programs described was the group’s poverty alleviation effort, which comprises

scholarships and start-up funding for business ventures, such as pig farming. The

scholarships enable the children of impoverished families in the community to

attend school, while the start-up funding for endeavors like farming provide

poverty-stricken individuals the opportunity to earn money. Suri, a woman who

was the recipient of some of these funds one year ago, now runs a small pig farm

which she says is doing well. The poverty alleviation program is a government-

implemented measure, which requires that 35% of the CFUG’s annual income be

used for this goal; however, the CFUG members are able to identify the
Eulberg 20
individuals within their community who will be the recipients of these funds, and

what kind of program or activities will be implemented within their group to

fulfill this requirement. The Godavari Kunda CFUG also chooses to provide four

monetary prizes annually – to two girls and two boys – who have achieved good

marks on their School Leaving Certificates (SLC), thereby creating an incentive

for children to not only go to school and do well, but also for families to send

their children to school and encourage them to do well.

The sale of timber – an income-generating benefit for a CFUG – is also

being converted into a community strengthening effort in Lalitpur District. DoF

guidelines allow a CFUG to sell timber if there is an excess of the group’s

demand in a given year. However, before they are able to sell outside of the

district (at which point they are not allowed to sell directly to the market but must

instead sell the timber through an auction), the CFUG must first supply their

excess timber to nearby user groups who have need of it (due to a shortage that

year, etc.), and then to user groups in other parts of the district who are unable to

meet their members’ own needs. The concept behind this mandate is to ensure

that user groups in need of them benefit from the forest resources before the

general market does, and in doing so, to build a localized network of resource

distribution among neighboring CFUGs. In Lalitpur District, however, and in the

Godavari Kunda CFUG, particularly, there is not usually an excess of timber

during any given year. Karn claims that many user groups are reluctant to give

their timber to their neighboring CFUGs due to the potential loss in profit from

not being able to sell the wood outside the district; therefore, most groups only

harvest what their own members need (within the constraints allowed by their

management plan) in order to conserve their timber for themselves. The Godavari
Eulberg 21
Kunda CFUG, however, pointed out that much of its saleable timber was

currently only 7-8 years old, and was therefore as yet too small to merit sale and

not worth cutting.

The Godavari Kunda CFUG has brought substantial benefits to one group

within the community in particular: women. Before the formation of the CFUG,

Shakunta and Asta explained, there were not many opportunities available to

women. They were not often allowed to leave the area surrounding Godavari,

Asta said, and neither were they allowed nor did they have the ability to work

outside the home or to take on public roles. Now, however, many of the CFUGs

members are women who are actively involved in forest management, and

several women serve on the Executive Committee, as well, so in many ways the

opportunities afforded to women have increased as a result of the CFUG’s

establishment.

All of the community members and Executive Committee members

interviewed asserted that the community which the Godavari Kunda CFUG is

composed of is “very good, very strong. If we were not so strong,” Rama stated,

“maybe other people [would have given] us trouble many times.” The living

standards of community members have increased as the members have received

the benefits of the forest resources and fund, according to Asta, who shyly but

smilingly claimed that, “Among all the community forests in the area, Godavari

Kunda is one of the best. I actually feel proud to live here.”

“Shifting Their Practices”: Land Use Interactions in Godavari

Within the Kathmandu Valley today, lifestyles and daily practices are

shifting, and this trend is apparent, according to Karn, within local community

forestry, as well. In other parts of Nepal, the District Forest Official stated, people
Eulberg 22
are very much dependent on the forests for timber and firewood. “In the

Kathmandu Valley, people are still dependent on the forest, but are shifting their

practices.” The time that forest users can actually spend in the forest collecting

resources is decreasing, due to other outside work and job opportunities. As a

result, Karn suggested, there is a general movement away from firewood within

the region, leading people to become more dependent on gas as a primary fuel

source. However, in the Godavari Kunda CFUG, firewood is still a prominent – if

not growing – fuel source, and is used not only in a practical sense to carry out

day-to-day work, but also as an efficient money-saver which facilitates

improvements in the lives of community members. Shakunta and Rama explained

that not many community members use gas for daily activities because it is very

costly. Rather, Asta said, they used firewood, which created a small type of

“saasto [“cheap”] development” within the community. As a result of,

community members were able to take the money they had saved by not

purchasing gas and use those funds to send their children to school.

Within the Godavari Kunda CFUG, a transition from reliance solely upon

forest resources to other work opportunities – some of which are found in the

village, some in the more urban areas of Kathmandu Valley, and some of which

are facilitated by the CFUG itself through its poverty alleviation program – has

community members looking elsewhere for sources of income. Within Godavari

Kunda, nearly every member has some job outside of forest management,

according to the Executive Committee, whether it involves farming, working in

an office or shop, or working near the home. One community member, for

instance, a man named Bashu, explained that he was a handy-man of sorts, doing

vehicle and house repair work, among other various things, because he was
Eulberg 23
unable to support his family based on the benefits from his CFUG membership

alone. In a similar vein, CFUGs themselves are beginning to branch out and seek

other potential sources of income, especially in areas like Lalitpur District, where

the types of timber that can be found (namely pine) are not considered

particularly valuable. The Godavari Kunda CFUG has established a designated

“picnic area” and charges a small fee for the use of the site. This method of

income generation not only raises money for the group fund, but has also

increases the incentive for group members to care for the land in order to keep

tourists visiting the area.

“Desert” to “Dense”: Sensitivity to Environment and Changing Landscapes

Despite the state of the Godavari Kunda Forest – which Rama described

as a “desert” – prior to the 1995 formation of the CFUG, members of the group’s

Executive Committee attested that the forest’s degradation was not a result of the

ignorance of the Godavari community members about the importance of the

environment. Thomas explained that, “We knew already about the environment

and we are really interested in the environment; that’s why we have to preserve

our forest.”

Karn in the DFO agreed with this assessment, and expressed his opinion

that, “The people are doing good regarding conservation particularly,” which has

led to the regeneration of some areas which had become barren before the

implementation of community forestry, and which has proven vital to allowing

the Lalitpur DFO achieve some of its larger conservation coals. CFUGs are

sometimes so concerned with the issue of forest conservation, he suggested, that

they do not always strictly follow their management plans, and even if their OPs

suggest thinning a lot of trees from the forests during a certain year, “user groups
Eulberg 24
are more conservation-minded. Most community forests will cut less [timber].”

This trend may be a result of Lalitpur District’s proximity to the urban areas of

Kathmandu Valley: according to Karn, “Here [in Kathmandu Valley] people are

very much aware of the environment. They are educated also; education levels

are high here. People are sensitive of the environment and know the value of the

forest.”

One of the main problems currently existing in community forestry in

Nepal, however, is the disparity between the way in which forests are treated

given the presence or absence of a sense of ownership for the land. Karn shared

that in some parts of the country, user group members would protect their own

forests, instead (over)harvesting in a forest that was still managed by the

government and hadn’t yet been handed over to a community user group. The

frequent response to this phenomenon has been to employ armed guards and

forest guards to protect the forest, but the DoF simply cannot afford to employ

enough of these guards to effectively protect the lands; moreover, Karn opined

that this system of guarding was often ineffectual and was not the answer to the

problem.

Members of the Godavari Kunda CFUG do, however, at least nominally

recognize the importance of the environment in their daily lives. One indirect

benefit which Thomas described from the maintenance of the Godavri Kunda

Forest’s biodiversity is the support of the CFUG on the part of the DFO and pro-

conservation NGOs working in Nepal. Since there are 300 kinds of birds that

frequently visit the forest, some of which are considered important species to

conserve, these programs will “fully support” the Godavari Kunda CFUG

because their management of the forest helps to protect the kinds of birds and
Eulberg 25
wildlife encountered there. Executive Committee member Shakunta Silwaal

offered another example of instances where community members recognize the

importance of the environment within their communities. The Godavari Kunda

Forest, she explained, contains many water sources which not only distribute

water to urban areas, such as Jawalakhel, but which also provide clean water to

nearby rural areas, including Godavari itself. If the jungle is not preserved, she

questioned, how can this water be preserved?

In addition to understanding these more tangible implications of adopting

a pro-environmental stance to forest management, members also appreciate some

degree of intrinsic value within the concept of “environment,” as well. When

asked what she thought about the environment, Asta replied: “It is

important…When we go to city areas and come back here, it’s really good. We

feel good after returning back from the city areas.” Simply seeing the lush, green

landscape that today surrounds the village of Godavari, it is clear that these

perceptions of “environment” and the influence they have over how the forest is

managed are having a significant impact, and the “desert” which Rama described

is no longer visible in the Godavari Kunda Forest. What’s more, multiple levels

of the community forestry hierarchy in Lalitpur District agree that this result has

been achieved largely through the efforts of the CFUG itself, without outside

influence. Said Karn, “I heard that the forest [in Godavari] was degraded, but

after the user group, they imposed very strict rules – themselves, within their

group – and now the forest is dense, very dense in some places.”

Discussion/Analysis

For all that CFUGs are intended to be – and are marketed as –

autonomous bodies with full authority and power to manage and utilize the
Eulberg 26
forested areas they are granted, the claim is in fact exaggerated by definition

alone. As with many programs and institutions in Nepal, community forestry is

woven into a web of complex social, political, and cultural factors which

furthermore play into a bureaucratic hierarchy of forestry offices at multiple

levels.

The trainings provided to CFUG members by the DFO can be interpreted

in different – and potentially conflicting – ways. On the one hand, the concept

that trainings for the “proper” way to manage forested areas are necessary at all

presupposes the ignorance of community members in matters of conservation

strategies, and establishes a hierarchy of value for knowledge of forest

management, where local knowledge may be underwritten while the “approved”

forestry knowledge distributed by the DoF is accepted as the only “correct”

approach to forestry. On the other hand, however, members of the Godavari

Kunda CFUG have indicated that they felt their knowledge of forestry prior to the

establishment of the group and the trainings they subsequently received was

inadequate to effectively manage the forest. In consideration of this insight,

establishing and training forest user groups in forest management is likely a more

efficient and practical strategy than allowing groups to create an entirely self-

developed management plan without providing those groups any support or

background knowledge.

The question is also raised of what types of forestry knowledge the Forest

Rangers and DFO personnel who conduct the trainings have learned and are

subsequently distributing to CFUGs. Although allegedly no donor organizations,

other than government-funded programs, are today in operation in the Lalitpur

District, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some of the international

Eulberg 27
organizations which initially were influential within the community forestry

program have left vestiges of their own brands of development within Nepal’s

program. The term “block,” for example, refers to a unit area of land use or

management, and is used widely in Australia and New Zealand, a region of the

world which has sponsored several programs relating to community Nepali

forestry, most notably the bilateral aid effort, the Nepal-Australia Community

Forest Project (Collett et. al. 1996). The term “block” is still used today within

the development of CFUG management strategies, and in many cases – as with

the Godavari Kunda CFUG – is the entire basis around which forest management

is designed and implemented, potentially reflecting the presence and continued

influence of these formerly operating organizations.

Finally – and perhaps most significantly – to what extent can a body truly

be considered autonomous if the group is required either to answer to or work in

conjunction with another institution (ie. the DoF) throughout every step of the

community forestry process, from the initial group trainings, to the development

and approval of an OP and Constitution, to the implementation of the

management strategies outlined in that OP, to the amount of forest resources the

group is allowed to access during a given year? Logistically speaking, the degree

of the bureaucratic checks-and-balances encountered within the community

forestry program might logically make sense, given that ownership of the forests

does still reside with the Nepali state; however, it proves something of a

hindrance to establishing true autonomy of CFUGs. Interestingly enough,

however, this consideration does not truly seem to prevent the CFUG members

from feeling a significant degree of ownership for the forest that they manage.

All accounts pertaining to the management of the forest given by user members
Eulberg 28
very liberally use the term “we,” referring to the collective forest community, and

the tone of a majority of these accounts are not passive, but rather remarkably

active. Although group members do sometimes refer to attending the trainings

and developing the management plan in a passive tone (“trainings are held”),

when speaking of the actual management of the forest, the forest resources which

group members are able to access, or the changes which have been implemented

within the community through the use of the CFUG fund, group members

frequently employ phrases such as “we manage,” or “we get benefits.”

The distribution of benefits within the Godavari Kunda CFUG is an

interesting concept: in terms of the physical forest resources received by the

community members, each member household receives the same amount of

firewood, and all members must undergo the same process to receive the right to

harvest timber; furthermore, all members have the same access to undertake that

application process. Yet a great deal of the benefits provided by the CFUG’s

account fund are not only mandated by the DFO as per the guidelines established

by the DoF, but are also received by only a small portion of the CFUG members.

For example, the Godavari Kunda CFUG’s poverty alleviation effort is targeted

only toward the most impoverished members of the group. Theoretically, this

idea is not a negative one; however, in implementation, it creates a

socioeconomic barrier by which community members characterize and ultimately

categorize themselves. During one focus group meeting, for example, three

women were discussing the poverty alleviation effort and describing the

recipients of the program as “poor people,” even though one of the women who

had recently received money for pig farming from the program was sitting next to

them during the entirety of the conversation. Since impoverished individuals in

Eulberg 29
Nepal are also generally more likely to belong to a “low caste,” these self-

imposed social barriers established within the community in conjunction with

similar benefit programs may ultimately create power dynamics of inclusivity

and exclusivity within a group that is meant to characterize social inclusion and

participation.

Similarly subtle power dynamics may be seen in the interactions between

the DFO and the CFUGs they work with, and between the Godavari Kunda

CFUG’s Executive Committee and the group’s general community members. For

instance, in describing the approval process for the forest’s management plan,

District Forest Official Karn used the word “permitted” to explain how a CFUG’s

management plan had to be approved by the DFO. Perhaps this phrasing was

simply the result of translation issues between Nepali and English; however, it is

intriguing to consider that although the DFO and local CFUGs may work

together to effectively protect and utilize the forests and although CFUGs

allegedly represent autonomous management bodies, a perceived hierarchy of

power still exists within the current infrastructure of community forestry on a

district level. General CFUG community members may not have any direct

interaction with the DFO personnel at all, however, given the degree to which

interactions with the Forest Ranger and outsiders (such as researchers, for

example) are managed and facilitated by the members of the Executive

Committee. This management by the Executive Committee establishes a degree

of inaccessibility by which all inter-organizational encounters are controlled by

the eleven members who serve on the board, making general community

members reliant upon those individuals for information about effective

management and resource distribution. In many of the interactions between

Eulberg 30
community members and Executive Committee members, moreover, the

community members seemed content to let the Committee members answer for

them, or to reaffirm much of the same information the Committee member had

provided without contributing their own additional insight.

The overlap between the notoriously binary goals of forest conservation

and community socioeconomic improvement adopts an interesting dynamic

within the interactions between the Lalitpur DFO and the Godavari Kunda

CFUG. Forest officials and the DFO, although aware of the importance of

community involvement within Nepal’s forestry program, seem more

preoccupied with the environmental benefits which can result from this

involvement, rather than the implications for socioeconomic change which

community forestry represent. CFUG members, conversely, seem to perceive the

environmental state of the forest primarily as a necessity for achieving the types

of livelihood improvements, benefits, and community changes that they desire.

This observation does not intend to suggest that DFO officials are unconcerned

with the livelihoods of the forest user groups they work with; not does this

commentary seek to portray community members as unaware of the value of

conservation and environmental health as issues in and of themselves. However,

these associated benefits are considered secondary to the more tangible benefits –

such as timber for housing, clean drinking water, and monthly firewood – which

may be directly used to improve their livelihoods and living conditions. Group

members thus seem to be aware of not only the benefits available to them directly

as a result of maintaining the health of the forest (ie. firewood that may be used

presently while still being conserved for the future), but also of the more indirect

socioeconomic implications of a pro-conservationist stance within forest

Eulberg 31
management. Similarly, the DFO and its associated offices seem to primarily be

focused upon forest conservation; any benefits to the communities which manage

those forests are almost perceived as fortunate but incidental side-effects, rather

than true goals. On the whole, however, both the Lalitpur DFO and the members

of the Godavari Kunda CFUG are in agreement that although there are problems

within Nepali community forestry, the program is, on the whole, successful, and

the majority of the members of the Godavari Kunda CFUG seem satisfied with

the management of their forest, and the community established by the CFUG.

Conclusion

There is an old saying in Nepal that “hariyo ban Nepalko dhan,” or

“Nepal’s wealth is the green forest.” This adage, it would seem, proves true in

consideration of the sheer extent of and biodiversity encountered within Nepal’s

forested land area, as well as the associated economic and ecological benefits that

those areas provide to the communities whose livelihoods are inextricably linked

with the use of forest resources. However, this saying takes on new meaning

when considered through the lens of modern environmentalism: Nepal’s wealth is

also the green, or sustainable, forest. This “sustainable forest” may be labeled as

such because of the institutional mechanisms in place which not only allow

CFUG members to manage and utilize the forest, but also incentivize certain

strategies and programs within this management. These incentives not only fulfill

the conservation goals of the Nepali state, but also may be labeled “sustainable”

in that they allow the managing communities to develop economically and

socially viable lifestyles which can be maintained over time.

Though not devoid of its own problems – questions still remain regarding

the power dynamics embodied within the community forestry program as a whole
Eulberg 32
and between the Executive Committees and general members within a CFUG in

particular, and the extent of the true management autonomy which a CFUG

enjoys could be considered dubious – Nepal’s community forestry program is

providing a development model by which problems of social inclusion, economic

growth, and people’s participation are being effectively addressed, if not always

solved. People’s participation is desired in and considered key to shaping the path

that development will take through policy creation and the execution of those

policies. Moreover, within this model, CFUG members seemed to feel that not

only do they benefit from utilization and management of the forest, but that they

are at least in part responsible for those benefits, making them not “passive

recipients” of development process, but active engagers and initiators in the

endeavor.

Eulberg 33
List of Acronyms

CFUG: Community Forest User Group

DoF: Department of Forests

DFO: District Forest Office

FECOFUN: Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal

ICIMOD: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

NTFP: Non-Timber Forest Products

OP: Operational Plan

SLC: School Leaving Certificate

Eulberg 34
Appendices

Appendix A:

Figure 1: Percentage of Community Forest by Total Forest Coverage per District

(1999). Sharma, Binod P. Report on Gateway to Land and Water Information:
Nepal. 2005. MENRIS Division of the International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD). Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Eulberg 35
Bibliography

Adhikari, Shankar. 2011. “Community Forestry in Nepal.” Ministry of Forests

and Soil Conservation, Nepal.Satoyama Initiative.

CFD. 2011. “Database of the Community Forest Users Group (FUG) in Nepal.”
Nepal: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forests.

Chhatre, Ashwini, Lauren Persha, and Hemant Ojha. 2009. “Community Forestry
in Nepal: A Policy Innovation for Local Livelihoods.” International Food
Policy Research Institute.

Chhetri, R., G. Collett, W.J. Jackson, and K.R. Shepherd. 1996. “Nepal-Australia
Community Forestry Project: Socio-economic Impact Study.” Technical
Note: Nepal-Australia Community Forestry Project (1): xi-186.

DFRS. 1999. “Publication no. 74.” Kathmandu: Forest Resources of Nepal,

Department of Forest Research and Survey.

Fisher, R.J. 1988. “Local Organizations in Forest Management.” Paper presented

at a seminar series at the Institute of Forestry ,Pokhara, September, 21 -36.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2005. “Global Forest Resources

Assessment 2005.” United Nations.

Forest Development Project. 1993. “Forest Act 2049.” Ministry of Forest and
Soil Conservation.

Forest Management and Utilisation Development Project. 1995. EIA of the Bara
Forest Management Plan. Kathmandu: IUCN Nepal.

Gauli,Kalyan. 2011. “Commercialization of Non-timber Forest Products:

Contribution to poverty reduction in Dolakha district, Nepal.” Vienna:
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.

Gilmour, D.A. 1988. “Key Elements in Community Forest Management.” Paper

presented at a seminar series at the Institute of Forestry , Pokhara, September,
1-20.

Gilmour, D.A., and R.J. Fisher. 1991. Villagers, Forests, and Foresters: The
Philosophy, Process, and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal.
Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press.

Gutman, J. 1991. Rpresenting Crisis: The Theory of Himalayan Degradation and

the Project of Development in Post-Rana Nepal. Development and Change
(28): 45-89.

Eulberg 36
Kumar, N. 2002. The Challenges of Community Participation in Forest
Development in Nepal. Operations Evaluation Department Working Paper
No. 27931. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry Project. 2011. Two Decades of Community

Forestry in Nepal: What Have We Learned? Lalitpur: Nepal Swiss
Community Forestry Project.

Nightingale, A.J. 2005. “‘The Experts Taught Us All We Know’: Professionalism

and Knowledge in Nepalese Community Forestry.” Antipode 37 (3):581-604.

Nightingale, A.J. 2010.“A Forest Community or Community Forestry? Beliefs,

meanings, and nature in north-western Nepal.”In Culture and the
Environment in the Himalaya, edited by A. Guneratne, 77-99. London:
Routledge.

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the
Theory of Groups. United States of America: Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. 1990.Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paudel, N.S., M.R. Banjade, and G.R. Dahal. 2009. Handover of Community
Forestry: A Political Decision of a Technical Process? Journal of Forest and
Livelihoods 7(1): 27-35.

Sharma, Binod P. Report on Gateway to Land and Water Information: Nepal.

2005. MENRIS Division of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD). Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Eulberg 37
List of Interviews

Asta. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG community member.

Godavari, May 6, 2013.

Bashu. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG community member.

Godavari, May 6, 2013.

Chhetri, Rama. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG Executive

Committee Vice-President. Godavari, April 29, 2013.

Dulal, Thomas. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG Executive

Committee Member. Godavari, April 29, 2013.

Karn, Ajeet Kumar. 2013. Interview with Lalitpur District Forest Official.
Hattiban, April 25, 2013.

Karn, Ajeet Kumar. 2013. Interview with Lalitpur District Forest Official.
Hattiban, May 3, 2013.

K.C., Sumitra. 2013. E-mail interview with Lalitpur Forest Ranger. May 4, 2013.

Silwaal, Shakunta. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG Executive

Committee Member. Godavari, April 29, 2013.

Suri. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG community member.

Godavari, May 6, 2013.

Tejas. 2013. Interview with Godavari Kunda CFUG Executive Committee

Treasurer. Godavari, April 29, 2013.

Eulberg 38
 Consent to Use of Independent Study Project (ISP)

Student Name: Natasha Eulberg

Title of ISP: “hariyo ban Nepalko dhan” (“Nepal’s Wealth is the Green Forest”): The People’s
Participation in Structuring Sustainable Development through Community Forestry

Program and Term: Nepal: Development and Social Change, Spring 2013

1. When you submit your ISP to your Academic Director, World Learning/SIT Study Abroad would like to
include and archive it in the permanent library collection at the SIT Study Abroad program office in the country
where you studied and/or at any World Learning office. Please indicate below whether you grant us the
permission to do so.

2. In some cases, individuals, organizations, or libraries in the host country may request a copy of the ISP for
inclusion in their own national, regional, or local collections for enrichment and use of host country nationals and
other library patrons. Please indicate below whether SIT/World Learning may release your ISP to host country
individuals, organizations, or libraries for educational purposes as determined by SIT.

3. In addition, World Learning/SIT Study Abroad seeks to include your ISP paper in our digital online collection
housed on World Learning’s public website. Granting World Learning/SIT Study Abroad the permission to
publish your ISP on its website, and to reproduce and/or transmit your ISP electronically will enable us to share
your ISP with interested members of the World Learning community and the broader public who will be able to
access it through ordinary Internet searches. Please sign the permission form below in order to grant us the
permission to digitize and publish your ISP on our website and publicly available digital collection.

Please indicate your permission by checking the corresponding boxes below:

I hereby grant permission for World Learning to include my ISP in its permanent library collection.

I hereby grant permission for World Learning to release my ISP in any format to individuals,
organizations, or libraries in the host country for educational purposes as determined by SIT.

I hereby grant permission for World Learning to publish my ISP on its websites and in any of its
digital/electronic collections, and to reproduce and transmit my ISP electronically. I understand that
World Learning’s websites and digital collections are publicly available via the Internet. I agree that
World Learning is NOT responsible for any unauthorized use of my ISP by any third party who might
access it on the Internet or otherwise.

Student Signature:_____________________ Date:_________________________

Eulberg 39