Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri
Community Forestry Program in the Hills of Nepal:
Determinants of User Participation and Household Dependency
Depa rtment of International Envi ronment and Development Studies Master Thesis 3 0 credits 2005
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
UMB
Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri
Community Forestry Program in the Hills of Nepal:
Determinants of User Participation and Household Dependency
Depa rtment of International Envi ronment and Development Studies Master Thesis 3 0 credits 2005
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
UMB
Community Forestry Program in the Hills of Nepal:
Determinants of User Participation and Household Dependency
Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri
Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
May 2005
___________________
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture
Credit
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, May 2005 e-mail: [email protected]
Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
Declaration
I, Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, hereby declare to the senate of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) that this thesis is my original work and all other sources of information used are duly acknowledged. This work has not been submitted to any other university for any academic award.
Signature: ………..
Date: ………..
Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) Ås, Norway
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my father Padam Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, who brought me up and gave the value of education.
I will always love you and remain grateful to you.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to my main supervisor Dr. Scient. Fred Hakon Johnsen, Associate Professor, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, who directed me to carryout this study, for his superb supervision, encouragement and good advice at every step of my writing. I extend my sincere regards to my Co-supervisor Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula and local Supervisor Dr. Binod Bhatta for their co-operation, invaluable comments and continuous encouragement throughout the study.
I am specially grateful and thankful to the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD) for granting me the fellowship to study at Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. Thanks to the Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Nepal for its recommendation and granting me the study leave. I am thankful to all faculty members and administrative staffs at the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara for their all kind of assistance that enabled me to carry out my research.
Sincere gratitude is extended to the staff members of Noragric specially Liv and Ingeborg for their support whenever necessary. I feel pleasure to thank Jeentra, Baikuntha, Deepak, Thakur, Bharat and Ram for their valuable suggestions in data analysis. Bharat Man Shrestha deserves special thanks for his invaluable comments and devoted time spent on refining the final draft. I invariably thank to all Nepali friends in Ås and also the international friends who joined UMB in my batch for their nice company during my stay in Norway.
I am grateful to the residents of the study sites who gave me their precious time to discuss about their socio-economic condition, answering the questionnaires and replying many queries. Thanks to the staff of District Forest Office Kaski, especially Santa Kafle for her hospitality and co-operation. I extend my special thanks to my research assistants Mr. Bishnu Shrestha and Mr. Suman Bhattarai for their help in the field. Snjeev Bhattarai also deserves thanks for helping me in preparing the maps of study sites. Many many thanks go to Niru Thapa for her direct and indirect assistance in data collection and tabulation.
My daughter Prechha and son Prabal missed my love during my stay in Norway. Thanks for their patience and endurance. My appreciation is due to my sister Sirjana who has been with my wife and kids during my study.
My beloved wife Hasina, all this would have not been possible without your constant love, care and encouragement, which is secret of my success. I am also grateful for your endurance and patience for the whole period I have been away from you and lonely taking care of our son and daughter.
Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri Ås, May 2005
Abstract
Community forestry program in Nepal represents arguably the most advanced and progressive model worldwide for the participatory management of natural resources.
Though, the importance of community forest products to the households living in the rural areas has been increasingly recognised, the program is however, not yet able to fully ensure equitable, gender sensitive and poverty focused outcomes. Detailed analyses on the level of participation of user household in major forest management activities and the contribution of community forest resources to the livelihood of the rural poor, remains a critical gap. This study examines the factors influencing participation of user households in community forest management activities, namely; forest protection, resource utilization and decision-making. It also investigates the variation in degree of dependence on community forest income and how the dependence is conditioned by the key household characteristics among the user households. The study was conducted in five selected forest user groups in Kaski district, Nepal. The analyses are based on primary data collected through household survey using a random sample of 176 respondents, comprising 69 males and 107 females. Office records, informal interviews and direct observation were the other sources of information. Chi-square tests and correlation analyses were employed to examine the strength and direction of relationship between the different selected social, economic and biophysical factors and participation. Three ordered logit regression models were developed to identify the determinants of participation of the households in forest protection, resource utilization and decision-making. Descriptive statistics, Gini-coefficients, and multiple regression analyses were employed to quantify the community forest income and the level of dependence on community forest resources.
The study suggests that participation in community forest management activities is dependent upon various social, economic and biophysical factors. Larger sized households, represented in forest user committee, who are from the larger forest user groups, managing smaller forest area and who own less land were the more active participants in forest protection. Women of the larger sized households, who reside close to the forest and market, showed their strong positive influence on participation in forest resource utilization. The key factors identified for the low participation of women and lower caste in decision making were education and traditional customs causing low representation in forest user group committee.
The result shows that community forest income contributed an average of 7.4% of the total household income, which is equal to 56% of the total forest income of the user households.
The main sources of community forest income are fuelwood, fodder, ground grass and leafliter. The middle class households derived more than twice as much community forest income compared to the rich and the poor households. Households who own more livestock and have access to larger area of community forest are extracting higher value of community forest income. As the income level raised, the dependency on community forest income declined. Cash income, agricultural income and other forest income have the inverse relation both with community forest resource use and dependence. The community forest income is more important for the poor and had a strong equalizing effect on local income distribution.
There is a need to establish the approach of community forestry with further emphasis on socio-economic objectives.
Table of content
Credit... i
Declaration... ii
Dedication... iii
Acknowledgements... iv
Abstract...v
Table of content... vi
Extended summary...1
Introduction...1
Objectives of the study...3
Structure of the thesis...4
Materials and methods ...4
Results and discussion ...6
Conclusions and recommendations...8
References...9
Research papers...12
Paper I Community forestry program in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management activities ...13
Paper II Economic dependence and inequality: quantitative analysis of Forest User Groups in Kaski, Nepal...42
Appendices...67
Appendix I: Questionnaire for household survey ...67
Appendix II: Distribution of households according to caste and educational status in five study sites...79
Appendix III: Level of participation of user households according to the household characteristics...80
Appendix IV: Output of statistical analyses ...81
Extended summary Introduction
In response to the rapid deforestation and inability of traditional systems to arrest or reverse the process, community forestry is gaining more and more recognition in many countries of Asia, Africa and America during the past two decades. Nepal has been promoted as a country where participatory approach through the community forestry program has spread most widely with strong legislation in place (Mahat, 1998). Local people, particularly in the mid- hill, through the forest act of 1993 have been exercising maximum control over the forest resources (Kanel and Kandel, 2004; Springate-Baginski et al., 2003; Hobley, 1996; Kanel, 1993). The basic concept of community forestry program lies on the participatory approaches for the management of the forest resources through a group of traditional users. The term forest management encompasses both technical and social arrangements involved in the management of forests including protection, utilization and decision-making activities. The ultimate aim of the program is to promote rural development by increasing production efficiency, equity and sustainability of the management system. The program is now successfully promoted for the participatory management of natural resources (Pokharel and Nurse, 2004).
People‘s participation is the basic strategy to which the community forestry program is committed. It aims at involving people at every stage of community forest management activities. Participation of user households in every forest management activity can stimulate an ongoing learning process by increasing the awareness of collective responsibility within the community (Agrawal, 2001). However, despite the continuous and conscious effort toward the participation of all users, the active participation of poor and marginalized people in forest management activities is quite low. Further, the program is causing some household to have significant problems in meeting their needs (Springate-Baginski et al., 2003). In deciding whether to participate, or not to participate in a community forest management activity, a household would be motivated by a number of factors. Poor households do not benefit from community forests as much as the others and are not very interested in community participation (Malla et al., 2003). Poor households also have a high opportunity cost of participation as the time spent on participation could be used as labour for cash
income (Adhikari et al. 2004). The criterion of ‘authentic participation’ and indispensable role in the pursuit of equitable benefit sharing is still questionable (Nightingale, 2002).
There are many outstanding questions and uncertainties about how the community forest resource use interacts with income and welfare of rural community. The nature and degree of household dependency on forest resources is largely determined by the socio-economic characteristics of the user households (Adhikari et al., 2004; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001;
Gunatilake, 1998). In many of the forest user groups, emphasis is often placed on protection rather than use, intensifying the burden for poorer households who lack alternative resources, such as private trees. It is not clear to what extent the forest products harvested from the community forest contribute to overall household economy. The economic gap between the rich and poor is widening, traditional rights of the poor and their dependency on the forests have often been curtailed or controlled (Pokharel and Nurse, 2004). According to Vishwakarma (2002), the social, economic and political inequalities are also compounded by the caste system. The cumulative effects of these ill-defined values and norms, and discrimination have gradually converted into class and social struggles. Until recently, ongoing Maoist conflicts have disrupted the ethnic harmony and it is said that most of the militia and hard core fighters of the Maoist rebels are from the socially disadvantaged groups such as the poor, untouchables and illiterates (Murshed and Gates, 2005). No matter how the Maoist uprising is finally resolved, the underlying power structure provoking the movement remains an obstacle to empowerment (Lachapelle et al., 2004). Inequality may increase the scope of the powerful minority to impose the rules of the game contributing to conflict in forest management (Lama and Buchy, 2002; Nightingale, 2001; Leuschner and Shakya 1998;
Dahal 1993). In spite of problems of elite peoples domination at local level, has widely been accepted (Adhikari et al. 2004; Ojha, et al., 2003; Timsina, 2003; Malla, 2000; Graner, 1999;
Pandey, 1999) there has been little systematic effort to reflect the situation and change the scenario.
Regardless of the variations of various community Forest User Groups (FUGs), determinants of successful community forestry program and the importance of community forest products in rural livelihoods are highlighted in several studies (Gautam and Shivakoti, 2005; Kanel and Kandel, 2004; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Gunatilake, 1998; Jackson and Ingles, 1995;
Knisely, 1993; Chhetri et al., 1993). Analysis of the obstacles associated with achieving the goals of community forestry, particularly its emphasis on participation and equity are
becoming more common and is presented in various studies (Lachapelle et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2003; Chakraborty, 2001; Malla, 2000; Olsen and Helles, 1997). However, most of these studies do not properly examine the possible relationship between household socio-economic variables and participation. More precisely, household determinants of participation in forest protection, resource utilization and decision-making activities of community forestry programs have not been systematically examined. Recently, some empirical evidence has emerged (Adhikari et al., 2004; Richards et al. 2003; Malla et al., 2003; Edmonds, 2002) to underpin the significance of community forest resources to the rural community. But the quantitative information about the extent to which community forest resources fulfil the goal of providing resources to the poorest of the poor and the variation of these resources to different socio-economic groups are still lacking.
It is reasonable to expect that there exist certain factors that affect people‘s participation in community forest management and their dependence on community forest resources. A clearer understanding of the influence of the household level parameters on human behaviour is helpful in explaining the induced resource use problem (Holmes, 2005). Hence context specific empirical research is needed to examine the level of participation of user households in community forest management activities and their variation in degree of dependence on community forest resources. A quantitative analysis of these relationships may inform policy makers and development planners for the improvement of community forestry programs with better understanding of the dynamic interaction between the community and the forest resources.
Objectives of the study
The major concern of the study is to analyze empirically whether participation in community forest management activities and the dependence on community forest resources, can be better understood by identifying the factors related to it. Specifically, the study addressed the following objectives.
1. To identify the determinants of household participation in forest protection, resource utilisation and decision-making activities of the community forestry program.
2. To examine the variability of community forest income and dependence on community forest resources among the various socio-economic groups of the user households.
Structure of the thesis
The thesis is presented in paper form and is organised in three distinct sections. The first section presents the extended summary while the remaining two sections are the self- contained papers that deal with each one of the objectives mentioned above. Section two (Paper I) presents the level of participation of user households on forest protection, resource utilisation (benefit sharing), and decision-making activities of FUGs. This section also explores the household determinants of participation in each of the stated activities of FUGs.
Section three (Paper II) presents the contribution of community forest income to the rural household’s economy and degree of dependence on community forest resources across the different socio-economic groups. This section also investigates the income equalizing effect of community forest income to the households of the community FUGs.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted in five-selected community FUGs representing both semi-urban and rural settings of Kaski district, where community forestry program has been practiced for many years. The district chosen for the study represents the typical mid-hill region of Nepal in terms of the community forest management and the socio-economic background of the rural hill population. About 65% of the total area of the district is relatively intact natural area, of which 45% is forest and 20 % shrub land. Agricultural land covers 24% while 11%
area is under human settlements (CBS, 2003). The national forest area in the district is 89,943 ha and the potential community forest area is 96,711 ha (DDC, 2002). The major species found in community forests are Castonopsis indica, Schima wallichii and Shorea robusta.
According to the District Forest Office Kaski (DFO), (2004, December), there are altogether 401 community forests handed over to the local communities. In the study area, the members of FUGs are the households who have since long been managing and utilizing the forest resources.
Detailed information on the existing socio-economic situations of member households in the selected community FUGs was collected using a random sample from a household survey carried out in October and November 2004. The sample consists of 176 households comprising of 69 males and 107 females. A self-administered questionnaire was used to elicit information from the respondents. Questions were asked to obtain information on
demographic characteristics, level of participation of a household in community forest management activities, land and livestock ownership, forest incomes, agricultural income and other off farm income sources. Office records, informal interviews and direct observation were the other sources of information.
The descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency, standard deviation, standard error of mean, minimum and maximum were employed in presenting and summarizing the data. The independent variables used were from three different categories, namely household characteristics, wealth indicators, and the other contextual variables. The strength and direction of relationship between the different selected independent variables and the level of participation in forest protection; resource utilization and decision-making activities were examined using Chi-square tests and correlation analyses. The level of participation was measured in order, ranging from 0 to 3 where, 0 stands for no participation, 1 for low, 2 for average and 3 for high degree of participation.
Three ordered logit regression models were developed to identify the determinants of participation of the households in forest protection, resource utilization and decision making activities.
In order to study the income decomposition, inequality and the contribution of community forest income among the user households, total household incomes were summarized under cash income, agricultural income, community forest income and other forest income. Based on the income level, households were categorized as poor, medium and rich households in order to investigate income differences among the income groups. Income differences were also analyzed based on the other key households characteristics such as sex of the household head, caste and literacy status of the respondents. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of difference of community forest income, relative community forest income and the other forest income according to different household characteristics. Gini-coefficients and Lorenz curves were employed to explore the income inequalities and the income equalizing effects of community forest income among the user households. Total community forest income and the relative community forest income were regressed against household characteristics, wealth indicators, and the other contextual variables to study the influence of factors on community forest income and the level of dependence on community forest resources.
Results and discussion
Paper I Community forestry program in the Hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management activities
There are very few households who do not participate in any of the forest management activities. Majority of the respondents showed medium level of participation. On an average, respondents showed greater degree of participation in forest protection and resource utilisation than in decision-making. The households with large family size are found in better position to utilise the community forest resource. The finding to supports the population- environment link theory that increased population negatively influences the environment.
Males are more likely to participate than females in decision-making and forest protection activities whereas females participate more than males in resource utilisation supporting the traditional view that producing energy is mainly a female activity. The untouchable castes and illiterate are also less likely to participate in decision-making activities compared to the others. This finding is similar to Nightingale (2002), who concluded that, across the hills of Nepal, social norms relating to men and women differ to some extent and in a very few places females have privileged access to community decision making processes. In contrast, it is considered normal for upper caste literate men to be the community leader and to take active role in the welfare of the community. In the line of this argument, the findings indicate that the households not holding the executive position of FUG participate less both in decision-making and forest protection than the households holding executive position. It is apparent that the local educated male elite tends to be over represented in the executive committee and the decision-making process is done by socially and economically privileged sections of the community. Mehta and Kellert (1998) also reported that low participation in forest user groups committee and their absence in key position such as chairperson have marginalized women in decision-making activities of community forestry.
The result shows that the participation of the respondents in forest management activities tended to be enhanced with the decrease in the size of the land area. The reason could be that the households with large land area might have had enough supply of fuelwood, fodder and ground grass and hence less need for participation in forest management activities. The smaller the size of community forests the higher the level of participation of the households in forest management. This is because, if the forest area is small people would be more
conscious to participate in order to protect than the people with access in larger forests.
Households with more livestock are more inclined to use community forest resources for their higher demand of fodder and ground grass. Condition of the community forest also plays the important role to decide a household whether to participate or not to participate in forest management activities. Time to community forest and distance to the market from the household showed significant inverse relationship with participation in resource utilisation.
The reason is obvious that when the forest resources are further way, it is more difficult to participate in utilising it. Some forest products like fodder become extremely difficult to utilise due to energy and transport costs. The finding is similar to Varughese and Ostrom, (2001) who concluded that users who live close to the forest have a more secure and accessible supply of forest products regardless of whether or not there are allocation rules in place. On the other hand, the poor and marginalized people who live far from the market are often not included in the FUG committee and could not harvest unauthorised forest products due to the strict rules and penalties for the rules violators.
Paper II Economic dependence and inequality: quantitative analysis of Forest User Groups in Kaski, Nepal
Of all the income sources, cash income (including the income from livestock and livestock products) is the major source comprising 62.8% of total household income. The subsistence income from agricultural products contributes 23.9%, community forest income contributes 7.4% and the other forest income contributes 5.9% to the total household income. The study clearly indicates that the off farm activities played a key role to the total household economy.
Community forest income contributed an average of 7.4% of the total household income, which is equal to 56% of the total forest income of the user households. The main sources of community forest income are fuelwood, fodder, ground grass and leaflitter. In absolute term, middle class households derived more than a double value of community forest income than the rich and the poor households. The community forest income to the upper caste, male headed and illiterate household is higher than those of untouchable, female headed and literate households. The household dependence on community forest income varies according to the socio-economic attributes of the household characteristics and the resource condition.
As the income level raised, the dependency on community forest income declined.
Community forest income is more important to the poor, illiterate and untouchable households who owned lower household capital. It represents 13.6% of the total household
income for the poor while the proportion goes down to 10.8% and 2.1% for the middle and rich households respectively. Several empirical studies (Escobal and Aldana, 2003;
Cavendish, 2000; Reddy and Chakravarty, 1999) also confirmed that poor households derive relatively larger share of their income from forest compared to the better off households in the same community.
Gini-coefficients according to the income sources were computed to study the income inequality among the user households. The Gini-coefficients to all types of income sources namely, cash income, agricultural income, community forest income and other forest income are found higher than the Gini-coefficient of total household income. It clearly indicates that the different households in the study area are adopting different types of income activities.
The Gini-coefficient computed for the total household income is 0.38 while it increased to 0.53 when the community forest income is excluded from the total household income. This shows that the community forest income has a strong equalizing effect on the total household income among the sampled households. In order to identify the influencing factors on community forest income and dependence of user households on community forest resources, community forest income and relative community forest income were regressed against household characteristics, wealth indicators and the other contextual factors. The result showed all the three types of income sources namely; cash income, agricultural income and other forest income have significant negative influence on dependence of user households on community forest resources. Similarly, cash income and other forest income showed significant negative influence on community forest income. Larger livestock unit is responsible for both extracting higher community forest income and showing higher level of dependence on community forest resources. Adhikari et al. (2004), also reported that households who keep more livestock are benefiting more from the community forests.
Households owning larger area of community forest are having higher level of community forest income. On the other hand, households managing a degraded community forest patch are more dependent on community forest resources.
Conclusions and recommendations
The heterogeneous socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of community forest user groups appeared to have a profound influence on the extent of participation in community forest management activities. The study suggest that households represented in forest use
group committee, who are from the larger forest user groups with access in smaller forest area and who own less land are the more active participants in forest protection. Women of the larger sized households who reside close to the forest and market participate more in forest resource utilisation. Illiterate, women and lower caste households, not representing in forest user committee show their low level of participation in decision-making processes.
Irrespective of the caste, gender, education and income status, rural households are deriving benefits from community forests. In absolute term, middle class households collect more benefits from community forest resources. The dependence of the households on community forest is mainly on the benefit derived by fuelwood, fodder, ground grass and leaflitter.
Contrary to the absolute income values, the level of dependence on community forest income declines as income level rises. The community forest income is more important for the poor and has a strong equalizing effect on local income distribution.
The study clearly suggests that policies based on the homogeneity of community forest users neither can guarantee the equal participation of all users nor solve the equity issue of resource distribution. Collective decision-making process remains a great challenge because of the barriers of caste, gender and socio-economic status. In order to integrate the interest of all users, attention should be given towards the equal participation of illiterate, lower caste and women for collective decision-making. Forest management policies need to be directed to develop equitable benefit sharing mechanism, which ensures every household to obtain what they need at different point in time.
References
Adhikari, B., S.D. Falco and J.C. Lovett (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependence: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48, pp: 245-257.
Agrawal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusion, community forestry and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10), pp: 1623-1648.
Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households:
evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28(11), pp: 1979-2000.
CBS (2003). Statistical year book of Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics. HMG, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Chakraborty, R.N. (2001). Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Tarai region of Nepal. Ecological Economics 36(2), pp: 341-353.
Chhetri R.B., M.C. Nurse and S.P. Baral (1993). Self-reliance among users groups: towards sustainable community forestry in Nepal. Banko Janakari, A Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal 4(1), pp: 53- 56.
Dahal, R.D. (1993). A review of Forest User Groups: case studies from Eastern Nepal. International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Kathmandu, Nepal.
DDC (2002). District profile 2058. District Development Committee, Kaski, HMG/Nepal.
Edmonds, E.V. (2002). Government initiated community resource management and local resource extraction from Nepal's forests. Journal of Economics 68(1), pp: 89-115.
Escobal, J. and U. Aldana. (2003). Are non-timber forest products the antidotes to rainforest degradation? Brazil nuts extraction in Madre De Dios, Peru. World Development 31(11), pp: 1873- 1887.
Gautam A. P. and G.P. Shivakoti (2005). Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society and Natural Resources 18, pp: 153-171.
Graner, E. (1999). Forest policies and access to forests in Nepal. In R.B. Chhetri and O.P. Gurung (eds.), Anthropology and sociology of Nepal: culture, societies, ecology and development, pp: 212-224, Sason, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Gunatilake, H. (1998). The role of rural development in protecting tropical rain forests: evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 53, pp: 273-292.
Hobley, M. (1996). Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3, Rural Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Holmes, M.C. (2005). Cultural variations, decision-making and local institutions: an examination of fuelwood use in Western Tanzania. Society and Natural Resources 18, pp: 61-73.
Jackson, W.J. and A.W. Ingles (1995). Developing rural community and conserving the biodiversity of Nepal’s forest through community forestry. In H. Wood, M. McDaniel and K. Warner (eds.), Community development and conservation of forest biodiversity through community forestry. Proceedings of a seminar, Bangkok, Thailand, 26-28 October 1994, pp: 115-135. RECOFTC Report 12, Bangkok Thailand.
Kanel, K. (1993). Community forestry and the 1993 forestry legislation: implications for policy and implementation. Banko Janakari, A Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal 4(1), pp: 2-5.
Kanel, K.R. and B.R. Kandel (2004). Community forestry in Nepal: achievement and challenges. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 4(1), pp: 55-63.
Knisely, S. (1993). Community forestry as a process of capacity development: United Mission to Nepal‘s experience. Banko Janakari, A Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal 4(1), pp: 37-41.
Lachapelle P.R., P.D. Smith and S.F. McCool (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of of three Community Forest User Groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review 11(1), pp: 1-12.
Lama, A. and M. Buchy (2002). Gender, class, caste and participation: the case of community forestry in Nepal.
Indian Journal of Gender Studies 9(1), pp: 27-42.
Leuschner, W.A. and K.M. Shakya (1998). Local participation through development planning: a case study in Nepal. Journal of World Forest Resource Management 3(1), pp: 1-13.
Mahat, T.B.S. (1998). Some options for development of community participatory forestry in the Tarai region of Nepal. In T.B.S. Mahat and C.P. Upadhyaya (eds.) Community participatory forestry development experience in the Tarai region of Nepal. Proceedings of the national workshop, Institute of Forestry/Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, 8-10 November 1997, pp: 31-61. Workshop proceeding series, Pokhara, Nepal.
Malla, Y.B., H.R. Neupane and P.J. Branney (2003). Why aren’t poor benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forestry and Livelihood 3(1), pp: 78-90.
Malla, Y.B. (2000). Impact of community forestry on rural livelihood and food security in Nepal. Unasylva 202(51), pp: 37-45.
Mehta, J.N. and S.R. Kellert (1998). Local attitudes towards community based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun conservation area. Environment Conservation 25(4), pp: 320-333.
Murshed, S.M. and S. Gates (2005). Spatial-horizontal inequality and the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Review of Development Economics 9(1), pp: 121-34.
Nightingale, A.J. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2(1), pp: 17-24.
Nightingale, A.J. (2001). Land management in Mugu District of western Nepal: power, cultural practices and ecological conditions. Himalayan Research Bulletin 21(1), pp: 41-44.
Ojha, H., B. Pokharel, C.M. Dougall and K. Poudel (2003). Learning to govern: how to improve monitoring system in community forestry in Nepal? Journal of Forestry and Livelihood 2(2), pp: 23-34.
Olsen, C.S. and F. Helles (1997). Making the poorest poorer: policies, laws and trade in medicinal plants in Nepal. Journal of World Forest Resource Management 8, pp: 137-158.
Pandey, T.R. (1999). Local strength and institutional limitations: issues of user group conflict in community forest management. In R.B. Chhetri and O.P. Gurung (eds.), Anthropology and sociology of Nepal:
culture, societies, ecology and development, pp: 234-250, Sason, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Pokharel, B.K and M. Nurse (2004). Forest and people’s livelihood: benefiting the poor from community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 4(1), pp: 19-29.
Reddy, S.R.C. and S.P. Chakravarty (1999). Forest dependence and income distribution in a subsistence economy: evidence from India. World Development 27(7), pp: 1141-1149.
Richards, M.; M. Maharjan and K. Kanel (2003). Economics, poverty and transparency: measuring equity in forest user groups. Forest and Livelihood 3(1), pp: 91-104.
Smith P.D., B.B.K. Chhetri and B. Regmi (2003). Meeting the needs of Nepal’s poor. Creating local criteria and indicators of community forestry. Journal of Forestry 101(5), pp: 24-30.
Springate-Baginski, O., N.P.Yadav, O.P. Dev and J. Soussan (2003). Community forest management in the middle hills of Nepal: the changing context. Forest and Livelihood 3(1), pp: 5-20.
Timsina, N.P. (2003). Promoting social justice and conserving montane forest environments: a case study of Nepal’s community forestry programme. The Geographical Journal 169(3), pp: 236-242.
Varughese, G. and E. Ostrom (2001). The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development 29(5), pp: 747-765.
Vishwakarma, H. (2002). The Dalits of Nepal and their struggle for social justice. Development 45(3), pp: 90- 92.
Research papers
Paper I
Community forestry program in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management activities
Abstract
Community forestry in Nepal is one of the most cited success stories for the participatory management of natural resources. The program is however not yet able to fully ensure equitable, gender sensitive and poverty focused outcomes. Analyses of the factors influencing participation in community forest management activities of the user household’s remain a critical gap. This study empirically examines the influencing factors on participation of user households in forest protection, resource utilization and decision making activities of forest user groups. The study was conducted in five selected forest user groups in Kaski District.
The analysis is based on primary data collected through household survey using a random sample of 176 respondents, comprising 69 males and 107 females. Office records, informal interviews and direct observation were the other sources of information. Chi-square tests and correlation analyses were employed to examine the strength and direction of relationship between the different selected social, economic and biophysical factors and participation.
Three ordered logit regression models were developed to identify the determinants of participation of the households in forest protection, resource utilization and decision-making activities. The study suggests that participation in community forest management activities is dependent upon various social, economic and biophysical factors. Larger sized households, represented in the forest user committee, who are from the larger forest user groups, with smaller forest area and who own less land were the more active participants in forest protection. Women of the larger sized households, who reside close to the forest and market, participated more in forest resource utilization. Households with more livestock managing good forest are more inclined in forest resources utilization. The key factors identified for low participation of women and lower caste in decision making were education and traditional custom causing low representation in forest user group committee.
Keywords
Caste, community forestry, decision-making, forest user group, household, participation, Nepal.
Introduction
The goods and services derived from forest are critically important for most people in Nepal because subsistence often depends on access to and control over forest resources. In the past, the hill people had adopted strategies of expansion of agricultural lands and cropping intensification in response to the increasing demand for food and fibre (Thapa and Poudel, 2000). Heavy pressure was exerted on the forest by the ever growing human and livestock population (Mahat, 1987). In order to conserve and manage its natural resources, series of government rules, regulations and policies have been initiated (Barlett and Malla, 1992).
Community forestry program in Nepal has evolved as a management of forest under some form of common property management regime (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001). The program was formally started in 1978, with the enactment of the progressive legislation which provided authority to the Department of Forest (DOF) to hand over national forests lands to the local communities (Kanel, 1993). Forest User Groups (FUGs) are formed from the household of local communities, which are responsible for the development, conservation, management and utilisation of forest in line with the terms and conditions stated in an operational plan (Baral, 1993). In fact, community forestry is the result of earlier experiences with different political turmoil, population growth, regulatory enforcement and adjustments, excessive dependence of people on forest resources, and a paradigmatic shift in global development thinking (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001). Studies related to community forestry program in Nepal, has demonstrated community forest as a potential tool for dealing with the problems with scared forest resources and environmental degradation in Nepal (Maharjan, 1998). The program is now acknowledged as the most successful, most innovative and progressive model world-wide for the participatory management of natural resources (Pokharel and Nurse, 2004).
Management of community forest has an important role in meeting the needs of the rural community. The biological sustainability of heavily used local forest is mainly dependent upon the structural characteristics of local institution governing the forests (Gautam and Shivakoti, 2005). The physical properties of the resources have bearings for local peoples participation and the use of local institutions in forest conservation (Smith et al., 2003).
Active forest management by local users can increase the regular supply of forest products without degrading the forest resources (Chhetri et al., 1993). Participation can stimulate an ongoing learning process by increasing the awareness of collective responsibility within the
community. The greater the control by outsiders the less local communities tend to be involved at critical decision-making stages (Agrawal, 2001). At the earlier stages of community forestry policy development, there was a general assumption that people from all walks of life would benefit from improving resources. Indeed, this assumption has been found unreliable (Upreti, 2000; Jackson and Ingles, 1995). The forest resources have generally improved and continue to do so but the livelihood of the poorer groups have not significantly improved, as most community forest user groups do not take account of broader socio-economic and institutional issues of the society (Varughese and Ostrom 2001; Malla, 2000; Upretri, 2000). Community forestry issues have now been associated with wider socio- economic, environment and political concerns (Timsina et al., 2004). Effective participation on forest protection, resource utilization and decision-making processes are essential ingredients if FUGs are to realize their potential for more effective forest management.
Maximum consensus and widespread participation of the household makes the FUGs more effective. Lachapelle et al. (2004) reported that access to the forest represents wealth, power and prestige in society as well as a means of livelihood and access to the resources.
Shortcoming in participation of users has led to an overall weakness in various user groups and studies suggest that many of the user groups are termed as ‘Committee’ or ‘Chairman’
forestry, rather than ‘Community ‘ forestry (Dev et al., 2003). In many of the user groups, though people show their physical presence, the criterion of ‘authentic participation’ and their indispensable role in the pursuit of equitable benefit sharing is still questionable (Goulet, 1989).
Nepal’s social structure is based on caste1 system, with prevalent discrimination on gender and wealth. Upper caste people have historically oppressed lower caste communities (Lama and Buchy, 2002). Major problems being encountered in community forestry program are due to the lack of involvement of poor, lower caste, illiterate and women at various activities of community forest management (Lachapelle et al., 2004; Pandey 1999). Poor households do not benefit from community forests as much as the others and are not very interested in community participation (Malla et al., 2003). Poor households also have a high opportunity cost of participation as the time spent on participation could be used as labour for cash
1 Caste system is deeply rooted in Hindu society based on the four primary divisions. These are Brahmins (considered as priest and religious leaders), Chhetries (warriors), Baisya (artisans, like Gurung, Newars, Magars, Thakali, Limbus, etc.) and Sudra (occupational caste like Kami, Damai, Sarki, Lohar, etc., are traditionally considered as untouchables). Brahmins and Chhetries are treated as upper caste and Sudras as lower caste.
income (Adhikari et al., 2004). Medium class households benefit the most in comparison to high and lower class households (Pokharel and Nurse, 2004). In spite of problems of elite peoples domination at local level, has widely been accepted (Adhikari et al., 2004; Ojha et al, 2003; Timsina, 2003; Malla, 2000; Olsen and Helles, 1997), there has been little systematic effort to reflect the situation and change the scenario.
Studies have shown that there are various socio-economic and biophysical factors, which make difference in participation. Shrestha (1987) in her study found that farm size affects participation negatively but fuelwood requirement has a positive effect on it. According to Maskey et al. (2003) age, gender, and households’ income have significant effect on participation in community forest management. However, they have not pointed out the different level of household participation at different stages of community forestry activities.
Empirical studies are needed to examine the participatory role and behaviour of forest users and to identify the factors that influence the levels of participation at each stage of community forest management.
The objective of this study is to identify the factors influencing people’s participation in community forest management. It is intended to examine the relationship between individual attributes of a household and participation in forest protection, resource utilisation and decision-making activities of community forestry. Further, the influencing factors on participation of households in these activities are identified. It emphasises the important dimensions such as who are participating, (among the heterogeneous rural community), in what activities (forest protection, resource utilisation, decision making) to what effect (level of participation) and the extent (influencing factors) of participation. The findings will provide specific patterns and tendencies of human behaviour toward building theoretical foundations on people’s participation testified under a particular socio-ecological setting, thus allowing further investigation on hypothesised relationship of the variables.
Theoretical framework
Participation is to take part in an activity or program or have a share in it. It can include situations in which someone takes part in joint action, shares something in common or is actively involved with other members of a community in decisions that affect them. The concept of participation is perceived in multiple and divergent ways by various authors. Soen
(1981) regards community participation as the means of involving people outside of the government in planning process, while Fagence (1977) sees it as a means of reducing power differences. In the version of Knox and Meinzen-Dick (2001), participation is the means for a widening and redistribution of opportunities to take part in societal decision-making. For Magjuka (1989), participation is a process of joint decision-making. United Nations (1975) defines people’s participation as a means of mass sharing benefits of development; mass contribution to development; and mass involvement in decision-making process to development. The general definition is open to wide interpretation and allows for many different activities to be labelled as forms of participation. Indeed, participation is a concept that is widely used in development literature and practice but obeys no single definition (Oakley, 1988).
Participatory development is conventionally represented as emerging out of the recognition of the shortcomings of top-down developmental approaches (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
Local participation can be seen as a strategy of devolution of authority and power, resources, distribution of rights and duties from state to local level of governance, and from public to civil society (Kothari, 2001). According to Pretty (1995), there are two schools of thought and practice on local participation. One views local participation as a means to achieve a specific goals such as building a better management structure, obtaining improved goods and services and getting natural resources in a good condition. The argument draws attention to the fact that participation is all about negotiating goal. The other perspective sees local participation as its potential to enhance the power of resource users to influence things. In this case the purpose of the participatory process is seen as the development effort increasing the skills, knowledge, confidence and self-reliance of resource users to collaborative and engage in sustainable development. Participation is an end itself rather than just a means to achieve other things. Both arguments purpose that the management of the natural resources can be improved through people’s participation, whether or not participation is a means or an end.
Miller (1990) has stated participation in four interrelated processes as of creating the idea (planning), deciding whether or not to do it (decision-making), doing the work (implementation), and making the value judgment afterwards about the worth of action (evaluation). The level of people’s participation in any program depends upon how they perceive the benefit from the program. Various authors have developed a number of typologies with regard to the level of participation so as to determine the extent of
involvement of people. Most of the typologies could be fitted between the continuum of two extremes, that is, the most democratic approach of bottom-up at one end and the most centralised and authoritarian top-down approach at the other. For example, Pretty (1995) with support from Uphoff (1992), has distinctly classified the level of participation into seven different hierarchies namely, passive participation, participation in giving information, participation in consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation and self-mobilisation. The analysis of his seven levels of participation implies that the relatively higher level of participation is expected in a situation where people are more creative and voluntarily involve in designing programs based on their own needs. For the purpose of the study, a household participation has been operationalized to mean involvement of a household member in each stage of community forest management activities, namely, forest protection, resource utilization (benefit sharing) and decision- making. The extent of participation in these activities is measured in four distinct levels; from no participation to high degree of participation.
Within common property resource management, participation of different interest groups is important to minimize the risk of excluding access by certain resource poor-groups of people (Hanna and Munasinghe, 1995). Number of motivating factors affects a household in deciding to participate or not to participate in various community forest management activities. The access to the forest, their condition and productivity are critical concern. Moe (1981) and Hansen (1985) develop a formal cost benefit model illustrating the factors that make an individual join a group. Hansen (1985) argues that the information available to individuals, their preferences access to resources and attitudes to risk are important factors of participation. Some authors argue that the wealth inequality can affect the rights; one has to use the resource, or a set of rules and norms that govern how a group manage and use the resources (Leuschner and Shakya, 1998). A clearer understanding of the influence of the household level parameters on human behaviour is helpful in explaining the induced resource use problem (Holmes, 2005).
Discussion so far provides a clear insight into the various aspects of participation.
Community forestry program in Nepal is a forest resources conservation and development program, which employs participation as its basic strategy. The issues of participation are crucial in the context of stated goals of community forestry due to its dual mandate: to promote forest conservation and to promote equitable access to the resources (Nightingale,
2002). All households do not need exactly the same amount of each forest product at all period of time. Thus, when a Forest User Group (FUG) is created, each household may or may not participate despite having similar policy preferences with regard to conservation and sustainable use of forest resources. The conceptual framework in this study thus assumes that the level of participation is directly influenced by the economic, social and biophysical factors. A high participation is more likely to occur if the members of a household are interpersonally capable, and have secure access to production incentives. The conceptual framework that guides the analysis is presented in Figure 1.
Economic variables Income
Land Livestock
Social variables Education Caste Sex
Household size FUG size
FUG committee member
Participation Forest protection Resource utilization Decision-making
Bio-physical variables Area of community forest Forest condition
Time to reach to community forest Distance to market
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for participation of a household in community forest management activities
The study area
The study was undertaken in Kaski district, which lies in the middle mountain region of Nepal, where the community forestry program has been implemented during the past two decades. It is about 200 kilometers to the west of capital city Kathmandu (Figure 2). The
elevation of the district varies from 450 m to 8091 m. The district includes high mountains, mid hills and valley floors. According to the population census 2001, total population of the district is 380,000 of which 185,000 were male and 195,000 were females. There are 85,000 households and average household size is 4.47 The district is an extremely multi–caste society where the people belongs to the different caste/ethnic groups such as Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung, Newars, Magars,Thakali, Limbus etc. and some other occupational castes;
Kami, Damai, Sarki and Lohar. The average literacy rate in the district is 56.8% (CBS 2003).
Based on the overall Composite Development Index, Kaski is ranked 5th best among 75 districts of Nepal and it is ranked 7th best on the basis of Poverty and Deprivation Index (ICIMOD/SNV, 1997).
The area has a semi tropical climate with relatively high humidity. There are three distinct seasons, namely winter, summer and monsoon. The monsoon starts early in June and continues until late September. Some parts of the district receive the highest rainfall in Nepal, with more than 5000 mm per annum. The mean maximum temperature is 330C in April and May, which declines during the monsoon period and falls to a minimum of 5-60C during December and January (DDC, 2002). Land use pattern is characterized by heavy human and livestock penetration in the forest. About 65% of the total area of the district is relatively intact natural area, of which 45% is forest and 20 % shrub land. Agricultural land covers 24%
while 11% of the area is under human settlements (CBS, 2003).
The district has a natural forest cover typical of the hill region. The national forest area in the district is 89,943 ha and the potential community forest area is 96,711 ha (DDC, 2002). In terms of the organizational and spatial hierarchy of the Ministry of Forest and soil conservation the forest resources fall under the District Forest Office (DFO) Kaski, which administers community forests management activities in the area. The major species found in community forests are Castonopsis indica, Schima wallichii and Shorea robusta. According to the district Forest office Kaski, (2004, December), there are altogether 401 community forests handed over to the local communities. Only 14.43% (13962 ha) of potential community forest area has been handed over and 34,113 households are involved in community forestry activities.
In the study area, the members of FUGs are the households who have since long been managing and utilizing the forest resources. The questionnaire survey was conducted in
selected five community FUGs of different size (Table 1). Fuelwood is the only cooking material for the poor households whereas some of the Brahmin, Chhetri and Newar communities use kerosene and also biogas plants in combination with fuelwood. Agriculture is the main occupation of the community. Paddy, wheat, maize and millet are grown in order of economic importance. Communities keep cows, buffaloes and goats for protein like milk and meet, draft power, and manure for soil fertility maintenance.
Table 1 presents the name of village development committee (VDC) / municipality to which different community FUGs are affiliated, year of handed over of national forest to the community, area of the community forest patch and the forest condition. Selected community forests are diverse in terms of the area covered and the forest condition. The location-wise study area in the district is shown in Figure 2.
Table 1
Information about the selected CFUGs for the study2
SN Name of CFUG VDC/Municipality Year handed over*
Community forest area (ha.)
Forest condition 1 Pachabhaiya** Lekhnath 1995 (2001) 235.2 Degraded
2 Kapase Lekhanath 1997 (2003) 25 Good
3 Lewade Dhikurpokhari 1992 (2001) 18.5 Good 4 Bastolaparipakha Hemja 1994 (2001) 13.8 Degraded
5 Thotnekhola Sarangkot 1993 (1999) 83 Good
* Renewal date in parentheses
** The community forest was seized by DFO in 1998 because of the illegal harvesting
Materials and methods
Sampling design
At the first stage, the database prepared by the DFO Kaski for the handed over community forest was collected. From the list of the handed over community forest, the FUGs, which were handed over at least five years ago, were sampled from the existing DFO records.
Detailed discussion with the DFO staffs was held for analyzing the FUGs records.
Considering the socio-economic criteria, ethnicity/caste representation, accessibility of the
2 Data were from the official record of District Forest Office, Kaski, 2004.
Kaski District
Sarangkot VDC Hemja VDC Dhikurpokhari VDC Lekhanath municipality Community forests Legend
Kapase
Pachavaiya Bastolaparipakha
Lewade
Thotnekhola
N
Figure 2 Map of Nepal showing the study sites in Kaski District
area, age of the user groups and forest condition, five different FUGs were selected representing both rural and semi- urban settings. At the second stage based on the records of the selected FUGs, a sampling frame was made incorporating all households within the selected FUGs. The household was considered as the lowest unit of sampling. Out of the total households in each FUG, more than 20% households were selected using simple random sampling method (Table 2). Separate randomization procedures in each selected FUG were carried out. A total of 176 households were surveyed on respondents’ participation in community forest management activities.
Field data were collected during October and November 2004. A self-administered questionnaire was used to elicit information from the respondents. Once the draft questionnaire was developed, pre-testing of the questionnaire was undertaken in one FUG, which is situated out of the sampling frame. The responses of pre-testing were incorporated and modified into final questionnaire for surveying. Generally the household head (in some cases wives and educated adults) were chosen as the respondent, since they are the decision- makers on behalf of the family. Questions were asked to obtain the information on demographic characteristics, landholding, off farm income sources and the participation/awareness of the household on community forest management activities.
Table 2
Structure of community forest user groups and the sample for questionnaire survey in five study sites*
Number of respondents by sex Name of CFUGs User
households
Committee members
Sampled number
of households Male Female
Pachabhaiya 384 11 77 28 49
Kapase 90 9 25 11 14
Lewade 52 7 17 7 10
Bastolaparipakha 95 9 24 12 12
Thotnekhola 145 13 33 11 22
Total 766 176 69 107
*Source: field survey
Separate interviews with two to three persons of the committee members in each of the selected FUGs were conducted to collect specific community level information. The issues dealt with were mainly on community forestry management in general and people’s participation in particular. During the field study, the researcher kept witnessing events such as people’s holding meeting and discussing the issues relating to forest management. It was
also a common sight for the researcher to note peoples carrying back-loads of bundles of fuelwood tree fodder and ground grasses.
Statistical analysis:
The unit of analysis is the household. Data collected using closed-ended questions were coded before they were transferred to the computer in order to ensure accuracy. The descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, measure of central tendency, standard deviation, standard error of mean, minimum, maximum were employed in presenting and summarizing the data. Cross tabulation were carried out to set up the frequency distribution of one variable against another.
The dependent variable for the study is participation, which has been operationalized as the actual involvement of the household in the following stages of the community forestry activities: (1) forest protection (2) resource utilization (benefit sharing) and (3) decision- making. Respondents were ask to respond to each statement pertaining to the level of participation in terms of four-point scale ranging from ‘no’ participation to ‘high’ level of participation. It is an ordered variable coded from 0 to 3. The variable is coded as follows.
• A household is coded 0 if no individual of the household participates in a particular community forestry activity.
• A household is coded 1 if a household member rarely participates in a particular community forestry activity.
• A household is coded 2 if household member shows average participation in a particular community forestry activity.
• A household is coded 3 if any one of the household members always participates in a particular community forestry activity.
The independent variables selected for the study are divided into three different categories:
economic, social and biophysical. The definition and description of the independent variables is presented in Table 3.
A variety of statistical analyses were carried out in order to determine the relationship between participation and the selected variables depending upon the scale in which these
