Table of Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................... i
Reuisiting the Excellence: Are Community Forests winning Ganeshman Singh
Conseruation Award sustainable in Nepal? .............................................................. 1
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2
2. Objectiue ................................................................................................................. 5
3. Materials and Method ............................................................................................. 5
4. ResuLts .................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Area of the forest ............................................................................................... 9
4.2 (jroup size ......................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Size of the WorRing Committee ........................................................................ 11
4.4 Women member in worRing committee ........................................................... 12
4.5 Forest type ....................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Case studies ...................................................................................................... 13
5. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 21
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 24
7. Way forward ......................................................................................................... 24
ACRnowledgement .................................................................................................... 24
References .................................................................................................................. 25
Annex 1: Preuious criteria' and indicators for the (jSCA deueLoped and used by the
Ministry of Forests and SoiL Conseruation, NepaL .................................... 26
Annex 2: Reuised criteria and indicators used by MFSC to award best community
forests with (jSCA in 2011 ......................................................................... 28
Annex 3: List of Community Forests receiuing (janeshman Singh Conseruation
Award 2054 .............................................................................................. 35
Annex 4: AnnuaL Income sources and Expenditure items of (jSCA community forests
(in NRs) ..................................................................................................... 37
Annex 5: Map showing VDC and MunicipaLity uisited by the research team for case
study ........................................................................................................ 40
~ ~ ~ ~
Reuisiting the Excellence: Are Community Forests winning
Ganeshman Singh Conseruation Award sustainable in Nepal?
A.R. Sharma' and K. I<ilanbu'
Abstract
This paper is based on a study on reuisiting the community forests awarded
with the prestigious <;;aneshman Singh Conseruation Award. It seells to assess
characteristics of successfuL forestry outcomes, using the theoreticaL
frameworll of AgrawaL and AngeLsen (2009). The paper is based on an anaLysis
of 178 community forests nominated for the award, aLong with detaiLed study
of fiue community forests in Nepal. One of the important Learning indicates
the limited applicability of the mentioned frameworll in best practices of
community forestry in Nepal. The paper couLd stimuLate policy discourse in
formuLating criteria and indicators for successfuL outcomes in community
forestry.
Keywords: award, community forest, management, nomination, user group.
1 Community Forestry DeueLopment Officer, Community Forestry Diuision, Department of Forests,
e-mail: anuj128@gmaiL.com (Corresponding author)
2 Information speciaList/Statistician email: itedarh:u@gmail.com
1
Introduction
The present article is based on study about the success stories of community
forest management in Nepal. It focuses on the characteristics of successfuL
community forests based on the nominations for the prestigious Ganeshman
Singh Conseruation Award (GSCA). The paper further anaLyzes the features of
success aLong with the documentation of successfuL stories based on the
nominations and awardees from 1998 to 2011 in Nepal.
Forest resource of NepaL: NepaL extends 800 11m east to west aLong the
southern sLope of the HimaLaya. The county is LandLoclled, and is a narrow
strip of Land squeezed between two Asian giants, India and China. NepaL is
diuided into three ecoLogicaL zones, nameLy the Terai/ Inner Terai (100-300 m
aboue sea LeueL), the MiddLe Hills (300-3000 m a.s.l.) and the High Mountains
(aboue 3000 m a.s.l). The MiddLe HiLLs, or Mahabharat Lellh, represent the
region where Community Forestry (CF) is widespread howeuer, the
programme extends throughout the country. Most of the country's forest
occurs in the MiddLe HiLLs. The MiddLe Hills aLso haue the greatest ecosystem
and species diuersity (Sharma, 2010).
NepaL's forest resource constitutes 39.6 percent of the totaL Land area. The area
of the forest is about 4.3 million hectares whiLe shrubLand measures 1.6 million
hectares. Except priuate ones, the gouernment owns aLL types of the forest.
NearLy one-third forests are being managed by LocaL institutions under
participatory forest management regimes. The remaining area is being
managed under Protected Area (PA) management system and gouernment
managed forests. The PA management system accounts approximate 15 to 17
percent of totaL forest area. In forestry sector, power and reuenue sharing
mechanism exist among the stallehoLders with uaried forms in gouernment
owned and protected area system. Moreouer, the gouernment hoLds aLmost aLL
LegaL rights in ruLe mailing, imposing and reuolling participatory practices. The
forests together with agricuLture and fishery contribute to 32.7 percent of the
GDP of the nation.
The forest resource continues to decline at a rate of 1.3 percent annually which
is euen higher in the case of the Hills and the Mountain. The annuaL rate of
2
deforestation in the Hills between 1978/79 and 1994 stood at 2.3 percent per
annum whiLe deforestation in the Terai for the comparabLe period remained
1.3 percent (DFRS, 1999). The Terai region of the country experienced a sharp
reduction in deforestation in the Late 1990s (DoF, 2005).
There are different studies carried out during different periods report different
statistics regarding forest and shrub Land areas. The reports published by
Forest Resource Suruey Office (FRSO) and Land Resource Mapping Project
(LRMP), carried out before 1980s, reported more than 6 million hectares of
totaL forest area. The Latest auaiLabLe report published by NationaL Forestry
Inuentory (NFl) showed substantiaL increase in shrubLand areas which was
substantially more than reported by the Master PLan for Forest Sector (MPFS).
An assessment of the forest inuentory is at the offing with Finnish
gouernment's support and the outcome of the suruey certainLy wiLL refLect the
impact of community forestry in the restoration of degraded forest areas in
NepaL especiaLLy in the hilly areas of the country.
Communitu Forestru in NepaL: NearLy one third of the forest areas (1.66 million
hectares or aLmost 30 percent) throughout the country has been handed ouer
to the LocaL communities as community forests for ensuring communities
primariLy to fuLfiL their basic needs of forestry products, besides their actiue
participation on conseruing biodiuersity, and instigating sociaL deueLopment
at LocaL Leuel. NearLy 18,000 Community Forest User Groups (FUGs) are
managing forests throughout the country and impLementing different
programmes reLated with forest conseruation and LiueLihoods improuement.
The efforts made so far are not onLy spatially confined within the communities
but are aLso temporaL in nature. Such efforts depend heauiLy on externaL
support that rippLes off with the termination of the projects. ConsequentLy,
LiueLihoods and conseruation efforts are not onLy fragmented but aLso L a c ~
shared uision. Management interuention in the community forests aLso uaries
wideLy by geographicaL regions often guided by short term gains and L a c ~ i n g
concern for Long term sustainabiLity and economic gains. Documentation of
success stories and following discourse heLp conseruation institutions to deuise
mechanisms to sustain participatory management of forests in Nepal.
3
(janeshman Singh Conseruation Award jSCA): Ministry of Forests and SoiL
Conseruation (MFSC) has a tradition of awarding the best performing Forest
User Cjroups (FUCjs) with the prestigious Suprement Cjaneshman Singh
Conseruation Award, named after the ueteran politicaL Leader of Nepal. The
award consists of prize money of Rs 100 thousand aLong with a certificate of
appreciation for the first winner. The FUCjs throughout the country can
participate in the compLetion and are to be nominated from the respectiue
District Forest Offices (DFO). The FUCjs are monitored and rewarded reguLarLy
at uarious LeueLs, based on the criteria and indicators (Annex-1). ALthough
considerabLe schoLarLy efforts has gone into the deueLopment of "criteria and
indicators" for sustainabLe forest management of community forests and
deuising seLection criteria and indicators for the best performing community
forests in NepaL, such efforts haue remained LargeLy theoreticaL made through
formaL negotiations by bureaucrats with the office bearers of FECOFUN, the
Federation of Community Forestry User Cjroups, Nepal. Howeuer, there was
strong criticism of those officiaL criteria being different from that of the
uiLLagers (see PokhareL, 2005a, PokhareL, 2005b, PokhareL and Larsen, 2009;
PokhareL and Suuedi, 2007). Community Forestry Diuision in year 2011 reuised
the criteria and indicators for nominations to the prestigious CjSCA with wider
consuLtation among the community forestry specialists and instituted a
seLection committee which recommended for the successfuL community forests
based on the newLy deueLoped criteria and indicators (Annex -2). There is aLso
Lack of mechanism to deliuer incentiues based on their performance or
contribution to liuelihoods improuement and biodiuersity conseruation.ln Long
term any mechanism in pLace for deliuering incentiues based on performance
can make them accountabLe towards conseruation and liuelihoods
improuement. The study and documentation of success stories LargeLy
contribute to identify important characteristics for the success and on Long run
may contribute to deuise mechanism for distributing the benefits and institute
benefit sharing mechanism.
4
Objectiue
The foLLowing are the objectiues of the present article:
.:. Assess characteristics of successful participatory forest management
.:. Document success stories of community forests based on the
nominations and awardees of CjSCA
.:. Way forward based on opportunities and constraints to translate the
studies for future replications
Materials and Method
CoLLection of success stories: To ensure that preuious nominations for the
prestigious award are properly documented, the information related to the
nominations and award for past
were coLLected from the respectiue
agencies.
Data CoLLection: The characteristics
of successful community forests
were coLLected from the national
FUCj database auailable at
Community Forestry Diuision,
Department of Forests, Nepal.
Data Visualization: The Cjarmin CjPS
Photo-I: Research team with CF members at
were coLLected coordinate ualues of Gaurati CF.
selected awarded community
forest, demonstration plot, office, meeting places of FUCj and other necessary
places to locate on Map using Cjoogle Earth. Number of Cjaneshman Singh
Conseruation Award (CjSCA) both nominated and awarded community forest
user group by district were uisualized in Nepal's map using ArcCjIS 9.2.
Analysis of Data: Important aspects of the successful community forests were
analyzed using the theoretical framework of Agrawal and Angelsen (2009)
5
appropriate statisticaL tooL such as Chi-square tests were performed for
statisticaL significance and the resuLts were documented. The IBM Statistics
SPSS 19 was used to anaLyze 2*2 contingency tabuLation.
FieLd uerification: The research team paid uisit to NawaLparasi,
Tanahu, Myagdi and to uerify and document the successfuL
community forests receiuing the prestigious C;SCA (Annex 5). The districts were
seLected on the basis of award and proximity to the centre. The team aLso heLd
interaction meeting with the concerned for better insights and
uaLidation. The crux of the discussion was what attributed the most for them
in getting the prestigious award. The members of the FUC; were aLso to
describe what they perceiued to be the outstanding management features of
the forest and to prouide information on the specific eLements of demonstrated
management performance. The photographs were aLso used in the context of
documentation.
Results
SeueraL community forests were nominated more than once in successiue
years. The research team was abLe to collect a totaL of 178 nominations from
50 districts of Nepal. The nomination Lists were auaiLabLe for the year 1998-
2002,2004,2006 and 2011. The nomination Lists for year 2003, 2005 were not
auaiLabLe. The MFSC discontinued the award from 2007 to 2010 for
reason. The smallest community forest nominated is onLy 1.36 hectares in area
(Baghdharae CF, I<athmandu) though the seLection committee of C;SCA on year
1999 (1999/3/12) had decided that for nominations to the C;SCA award, the
community forests shouLd be at Least 10 hectares in area. The Largest one
extends ouer nearLy 2400 hectares (B.P Nagar CF, Doti) - more than totaL
forest area of the smallest district of NepaL 119 sq 1994 ha
forest area). The diuersity in primary management objectiues is astonishing.
There are forests managed mainLy for subsistence forest products such as
firewood, fodder and timber. Howeuer, other management objectiues such as
the protection of watersheds or the conseruation of biodiuersity are aLso
considered as important aspects in community forestry operationaL pLans. The
main criteria of Terai based community forests, comprising mainLy of Shorea
6
robusta (SaL), focus on the production of timber as one of the main forest
products.
Nominations for Cj5CA encompassed community forests and indiuiduaLs with
outstanding contribution towards forest conseruation in NepaL The scope of
this research is Limited to the community forests Nominations were most
numerous for forests in districts: Dang (9), (8), BagLung (7) and
Terathum (7), NawaLparasi (6), and Chitwan (5), RoLpa (5) and
(5). In contingency tabLes (tabLe 1 to tabLe 4), the category
good denotes the nominations from the District Forest Offices (DFO) whiLe
those getting the prestigious Cj5CA are categorized as outstanding. The List of
community forests winning Cj5CA is giuen in Annex-3.
The quality of the submissions made for the nominations uaried wideLy with
many nominees prouiding suppLementary information including excerpts from
operationaL pLans, auditor's report , copies of major decisions done by the
group, proof of compliance with preuaiLing forest policies and reguLations,
Community Forestry CjuideLines in particuLar and other supportiue materiaLs.
Howeuer, SeLection committee in year 2011 disqualified seueraL nominations
due to the of supportiue documents. ALL of the nominations were
systematically Listed and characteristics for community forests were collated
from nationaL FUCj database. The googLe map of study area in Cjaurati is giuen
in Map 1. The detaiLs of districts of NepaL nominated and wining of Cj5CA is
giuen in Map 2.
In one of the interaction meetings at Cjaurati, (see Photo-1) the
of community forest were to describe what they perceiued
to be the outstanding management features of the forest and to prouide
information on the specific eLements of demonstrated management
performance.
They opined that their initiation to establish a reuoLuing fund, with the income
from the saLe of forest products, and the aLLocation of NRs 90 thousand for the
purpose was one of the important factors contributing to their outstanding
performance. The fund was mobilized for improuing the economic condition of
the poorest of the poor househoLds. The fund was inuested in the group
comprising of 5-7 indiuiduaLs and the Loan was prouided at 12 percent interest
rate whiLe the rate was exorbitant. The other important aspect was the
7
prouision of sutkari kharcha (an aLLowance prouided to the women who had
just giuen birth to a baby: Rs 500 for boys and Rs 700 for girLs).
Map-1: Gaurati community forest, SindhupalchoR showing uarious pLaces uisited by
the research team
Map-2: NepaL's map showing districts nominated and awarded with GSCA (1998-
2002,2004,2006 and 2011)
8
egend
"_ ....... . , L ~ ..... ,, c:::::::::J N " ' , , ~ , , ' ~ " "
= ,
= .,
-"
4.1 Area of the forest
N
A
C hina
o 2550 100 km
, , , , ,
AnaLysis of nominations by forest areas shows that about 42 percent of the
nominations are 50 hectares or smaller community forest, The nominations
by size of the community forests are giuen in figure-1,
Figure 1: Frequency of GSCA nominations by size of the forest (ha)
GSCA nominations by Forest size (hal
.. 80 -,----------------------
c
o
.. 60
l!!
' ~ 40
c
'S
~ 20
1!
~ 0
z
<50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 >251
Areas of the forest (hal
9
The 2*2 Contingency tabLe regarding size of the community forests (groups)
and nominations getting the CjSCA award (referred to as outstanding in the
tabLe) is as beLow (tabLe 1):
Table 1: Nominations for the award and awardees by size of the community forest
Area Outstanding Good TotaL
<50 ha 8 61 69
>50 ha 12 83 95
TotaL 20 144 164
Chi square = 0.040, TabuLated uaLue of Chi-square for 1 df is 3.841. Since
calcuLated uaLue of Chi square is Less than the tabuLated uaLue, it is not
statisticaLLy significant at 5% LeueL of significance.
Note: Missing number of forest areas is 14 (7.9%)
4.2 Group size
We found that 55 percent of the awardees haue Less than 150 househoLds in
their group and ended up with the following 2*2 contingency tabLe.
Table 2: Nominations for the award and awardees by size of the FUq group
Households Outstanding Good Total
<150 11 76 87
>150 9 67 76
TotaL 20 143 163
The computed Chi-square = 0.024 and tabuLated uaLue of Chi-square for 1 df
is 3.841. Since caLcuLated uaLue of Chi square is Less than the tabuLated uaLue,
it is not statistically significant at 5% LeueL of significance.
Note: Missing number of size of the FUCj group is 15 (8.4%)
10
4.3 Size of the Working Committee
Analysis of nomination by size of the worlling committee shows that 87
percent of the nominations had 15 or less members in the executiue
committee.
Figure 2: Frequency of CjSCA Nominations by size of the worhing committee
Nominations by size of the working
committee
150 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oft
IS
~ 100 +-------
c
E
o 50 +-------
c
'S
~ O ~ ~ - - - - -
11
E
Up to 10 10 to 15 16 or more
::I
Z Number of the members in the working
committee
Table 3: 2X2 contingency table for the size of worhing committee and nominations
Members Outstanding Good Total
<15 16 123 139
>15 4 17 21
Total 20 140 160
The association between rows (groups) and columns (outcomes) is
considered to be not statistically significant. Fisher's exact test. The two-
tailed P ualue equals 0.3040.
Note: Missing number of size of the worlling committee is 18 (10.1%)
11
4.4 Women member in working committee
Figure 3: Nominations by Number of women members in the FUG working
committee
..
c
~
..
c
'E
0
c
-
0
~
II
'" E
" z
Nomination by size of the women
members in the working committee
100
80
60
40
20
a
Upt02 3t05 >5
Number of women members in the working
committee
Note: Missing number of size of the women members is 14 (7.9%)
4.5 Forest type
Figure 4 Frequency of nominations for GSCA by the Forest type
Frequency of nominations by forest type
60 ,--------------------------------------------------
..
50 + - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t; 40
.5 30
~ 20
c 10
~ 0
~
E
"
z
Forest type
12
Table 4: 2*2 Contingency table for nominations by forest type
Forest Type Outstanding Good Total
Sal 8 40 48
Non Sal 12 97 109
Total 20 137 157
The computed Chi-square ualue is 0.960 whereas tabulated ualue for 1 df is
3.841.
Therefore, the association between rows (groups) and columns (outcomes) is
considered to be not statistically significant.
Note: The missing number of forest type is 21 (11.8%)
4.6 Case studies
The research team uisited fiue sites consisting of community forests awarded
with the prestigious GSCA. The community forests were selected on the basis
of award and proximity from the centre. A summary of characteristics of the
community forests selected for the study is giuen in tabular form (Annex 6).
The details about the community forests are giuen below:
13
Sundari Community Forest, Amarapuri, Nawalparasi
Sundari CF includes user members of aLL wards of Amarapuri Village
DeueLopment Committee (VDC) whiLe the forest is situated in two VDCs,
Amarapuri 1,2 and Ratanpur 6,9 respectiueLy. The totaL area of the forest is
384.75 hectare and includes 1553 househoLds as beneficiaries. The operationaL
pLan of the forest was first approued in year 2002 and Later amended in 2007.
The income from the forest has been
inuested in forest management and
to carry out speciaL programs for
poor, women and disabLed persons.
The FUej possesses its own buiLding
that can accommodate up to 40
persons for residentiaL training
program. The worlling committee
includes 15 members including fiue
women. The group prouides fuLL time Photo 2: Housing for poorest families of
empLoyment to 3 persons. The group the Fua in Sundari CF.
operates a forest nursery and possesses an herb demonstration pLot. There
are Leaf-pLate mailing and an ayuruedic enterprise owned and operated by
the group. The group carries out awareness raising actiuities through cuLturaL
programs against forest fires and climate change. The group has instituted a
mechanism of forest patrolling to controL the forest fires. The group aLso
conducts training on non-timber forest products, candLe mailing, farming,
radio announcer, aduocacy for slliLL deueLopment of generaL users. The group
carried out weaLth-ranlling and saLe forest products based on differentiaL
pricing of the products. The group has constructed housing for poorest of the
poor and 15 families haue so far benefitted (Photo 2). The group has prouided
schoLarships and seed money for disabLed and genuine students. The disabLed
persons are prouided with orthopaedic boots, sticlls, wheeL chair etc.
14
Taldanda Community Forest, Dulegauda-8, Tanahu
This forest is situated in the northern side of DuLegauda bazaar and was
compLeteLy destroyed some 35 years bacll. With ensuing probLems arising due
to the forest degradation, peopLe realized the need to conserue the forest. In
1993, the forest was handed ouer to the LocaL community as community forest.
The totaL area of the forest is 84
hectare and the operationaL pLan was
renewed in 2008. There are 325
househoLds as beneficiaries of the
community forest. The forest is
compLeteLy protected against illicit
felling, forest fire with the
construction of fire-Lines and reguLar
controlled firing and cleaning. Such
actiuities haue resuLted into quality
and quantity improuement in growing
stocll of the forest (Photo-3). The
~ ~ .....
~ J f '
Photo 3: Taldanda CF showing improved
forest condition after hand over to the
FUG.
forest is protected through seLf discipline whiLe there is aLso prouision of forest
watcher. The user group carries out forest management worlls as per
scheduLed in the operationaL pLan and has established a demonstration pLot
for timber stand improuement. The forests products are distributed on equity
basis and the group has so far not done any outside saLe. The group has
maintained financiaL transparency with reguLar public auditing and auditing
through registered auditor. The group has inuested 35 percent of their income
in forest management and deueLopment actiuities. They haue aLso inuested
more than 10 percent of the amount in pro-poor actiuities. Women's
participation in annuaL assembLy is high. The participants of CF internationaL
worllshop, Pollhara uisited this community forest in 2009. The group has
substantiaLLy inuested in uarious community LeueL infrastructures including a
LocaL hospital. The groups beLieue that their initiation in establishing an
improued grass cuLtiuation pLot to promote animaL husbandry for income
generation has attributed to their success.
15
Gaurati Community Forest, Pipaldanda 1,7,8 Sindhupalchok
The community forest extends ouer 103 hectare and includes 239 househoLds
as FUCj members. The forest mainLy comprises of pine and 5chima spp. The
group members hoLd the opinion that they were awarded with Cj5CA for their
initiation of establishing the reuoLuing fund. A reuoLuing fund was established
with the income from the saLe of forest products, with an aLLocation of NRs 90
thousand and the fund was mobilized for improuing the economic condition of
the poorest of the poor househoLds. The fund was inuested in the group
comprising of 5-7 indiuiduaLs and the Loan was prouided at 12 percent interest
rate. The Loan was channeLLed in the following areas:
Cjoat farming
Loan
BuffaLo farming
Sutkaeri I<harcha (an aLLowance for women who has just giuen birth to a baby)
was prouided to the women hauing onLy two chiLdren (Rs 700 for girLs and Rs
500 for boys). Those group members who were the uictims of naturaL
caLamities were prouided with monetary grants from Rs 400 - Rs 1000. One of
the group members who had suffered burns whiLe extinguishing forest fire was
aLso giuen treatment expenses.
The outstanding students of the LocaL schooL and the dalit (scheduLed caste)
students were prouided with the schoLarships and Later this actiuity was
carried out by the District Education Office. For some period the group aLso
prouided dress aLLowance for the students from poor families and girLs were
giuen priority. The group aLso inuested their fund in LeueLLing the schooL
ground. Cjroup had Locally deuised strict ruLes to prohibit forest offences such
as digging red soiL, cutting branches by confiscating the headband and doko
(basket). Those suffering from inferno were prouided with 25-30 cft timber at
free of cost. The group had aLso pLanted Sugandhabal ( VaLerian a
;atamansi) howeuer due to forest fire it was destroyed. The group had pLanned
income generating program but remained unimpLemented. The group had aLso
prouided bakal (strips) to the group members at free of cost to construct the
16
toiLets and due to the incentiue 50-60 toiLets were made some of them are still
functional. With fund crunch the group has now stopped giuing sutkari
kharcha. According to Min Bahadur Shrestha, Secretary of the FUG: WhiLe
giuing continuity to distribution of timber from the wind thrown trees, DFO
during morning came across and gaue instruction to inuestigate directly
from the district forest office, and about 500 cft Logs were confiscated (uaLued
at NRS 22,000) and haue initiated actions against the office bearers of group.
The inuestigation is nearLy compLete and most the group wiLL be
permitted to distribute the confiscated timber within the group.
Ghorlas Community Forest, Ghatan - 3, Toripani, Myagdi
The community Forest User
Group (FUG) was established
with the objectiues: deueLop,
protect,
greenery
and promote
whiLe
simuLtaneousLy carrying out
sociaL actiuities for the
prosperity, progress and
weLfare of LocaL communities.
The FUG committee comprised
of seuen members with one
th ird representation from
women and dalit. The forest
Photo 3: Research team having interaction meeting
with Ghorlas FUG members
ranges from aLtitude 1618 m to 1910 m and couers an area of 27.64 hectares.
The FUG comprises of 156 househoLds among which 106 househoLds are
disaduantaged group. The forest consists of Pinus, Schima waLlichi and ALnus
nepaiensis.
17
The FUCj has established a garden and nursery of timur (Zanthoxylum
armatum) with the support of District Forest Office and Federation of
Commerce and Industry, District Chapter. The group feels that they were
awarded CjSCA 2003 for their spectacular works related with forest
management, maintenance and preseruation of the forest and well-built
Photo 4: Plough making enterprise being run by
the group in Ghorlas
social actiuities, income
generating programs such as
plough making enterprise
(Photo 4) and furniture
industry. The FUCj are still
continuing the actiuities for
which they were awarded, and
prouiding seruices for a
betterment of the life of people
of this forest user group.
Besides aforementioned
actiuities the group had also
prouided seruices such as
operational plan reuision that were supposed to be prouided through DFO's to
more than fifty neighboring community forests on their own expenses for the
deuelopment of community forests. The group regularly submits "Community
Forest User Cjroup's Monitoring Form" compiling details information about i)
Community Forest's group ii) User group's organization deuelopment, social
incorporation and rule iii) liuelihood and income generating iu) In cooperation
between VDC Community Forest Cjroup and Community Forest User Cjroup u)
Sustainable forest management to the DFO.
18
Rani Community Forest, Hetauda Municipality -6, Chaughada, Maltwanpur
Raniban, with the literaL meaning:
queen's forest, is situated six km
east from Hetauda market aLong
Kanti Raj Path at Hetauda
Municipality, Ward NO.6,
Chaughada, Makwanpur district.
About three decades ago, the forest
was dense with the main tree
species Shorea robusta (SaL), and
wiLd animaLs like tiger and Leopard.
Later on the forest degraded with
excessiue tree felling with
deueLopment of the market area.
With ensuing enuironmentaL
Photo 5: Rani Community Forest, Hetauda-6,
Makwanpur
probLems, the LocaL peopLe realized the need to protect the forest. With the
commitment to preserue forest, enuironment and wiLd animaL, a group of
uiLLagers formed Forest User Cjroup in January 6, 1994. The group was Later
registered Legally in District Forest Office, Makwanpur.
Rani Community Forest couers 151.87 hectare, with aLtitude 460 meters (a.s.L)
and composed of naturaL trees and pLantation species (Photo 5). The major
tree species are Shorea robusta(SaL}, Terminalia tomentosa, Michelia
champaca, Eugenia ;amboLana, Lagerstroemia paruifLora, and Schima
waLlichii. The Rani CF was diuided into seuen bLocks depending upon the nature
and characteristics of forest for sustainabLe forest management and in order
to protect forest from fire and naturaL disaster.
The FUCj set up executiue committee to gouern daiLy actiuities and the
committee comprises of 11 members out of which 3 are women members. The
group consists of 708 househoLds with a popuLation of 4025 (maLe 2132 and
femaLe 1823), among which indigenous and backward popuLation is 1537. The
majority of this user group's ethnicity is composed of Brahmin, Chhetri
foLLowed by Rai, Tamang, Newar and others.
Since its establishment, Rani FUCj has been successfully inuoLued in
maintaining sociaL and socio economic deueLopment by inuesting in
community and LocaL deueLopment actiuities, such as haruesting and
19
pLantation in forest. They haue successfuLLy rejuuenated forest like it was
three decades before. The group is undertaking actiuities such as selling of
timber, fueL wood, catering seruices, LocaL handicraft. The group is famous for
its actiuities and has receiued numerous awards reLated with enuironmentaL
conseruation. For that reason, the group aLso receiues numerous obseruers and
study tour groups and obseruation and membership fees are prominent mode
of income sources of the group. The research team noted an important
characteristic of the group: uery strong motiuation amongst FU<;j for
preseruation of their forest. The group distributes onLy non commerciaL nature
of forest products onLy to the members of the FU<;j and haue so far neuer adopt
selling of timber and fueL wood to the outsiders for commerciaL motiue. They
generaLLy seLL timber for house construction, schooL, and furniture enterprise
run by the FU<;j's member at a reLatiueLy cheaper price of NRs 500 per cubic
feet (for SaL) whereas the current market price is around NRs 4000/cubic feet
at Kathmandu uaLLey.
The group's sociaL deueLopment actiuities haue indeed benefited the users
considerabLy. Their major priority based programs are drinking water suppLy,
prouiding Loan for uarious agricuLtures business at Low rates, women
awareness program, construction of schooL and road, renouation of tempLe.
The group has aLso prouided annuaL schoLarships to girL and poor students
worth NRs 10,000. The group has aLso Lunched mobiLe heaLth camp, heLp
construction of ruraL eLectrification and uarious other actiuities for rapid
deueLopment of the community.
Furthermore, the group has weLL maintained and managed the group's assets
and Inuentory, buiLt up their own office buiLding. They haue aLso promoted
transparency, accountability in group's work and haue good book keeping
system. The group is aLso disseminating CF reLated information, besides strong
sociaL deueLopment actiuities such as the FU<;j prouided financiaL support for
agricuLture business, buiLding house for financially poor members and set up
bio gas pLant to reduce consumption of fire wood and deuising ways to
diuersify CF's income (For exampLe FU<;j in fiscaL year 2010/2011 had NRs
797,772 whiLe it was mereLy NRs 90,942 in FY 1993/1994). The group has aLso
created fuLL time empLoyment to three members including women in their
office. They haue aLso established good coordination and networking with
I/N<;jOs, and other bodies that benefit them with trainings: herbaL pLantation
and nursery techniques.
20
The group has successfully won a number of community based nationaL LeueL
awards. So far they haue won ten awards including "Supreme <;janeshman
Singh Forest Conseruation Award" in 1999. After winning this prestigious
award many CF users from nationaL as weLL as intentionaL LeueL uisited for
obseruation tours. Rani forest has now become a uaLuabLe pLace to study and
Learn about CF for forest Master and PhD students and inteLLectuaLs.
The research team found that Rani FU<;j has still kept continuing their
actiuities. The group's executiue committee members haue aLso approued pLan
to transLate current manuaL management of forest assets and inuentory, office
inuentory, accounting, and archiue system into computerized system. After
that they belieue they can deliuer their seruices to FU<;js more efficientLy and
effectiueLy and continue conseruation of Rani Forest in sustainabLe manner
and brighter future of members of FU<;j.
Discussion
Based on the worLd's experience of successfuL community forest management
(CFM), AgrawaL and AngeLsen (2009) deueLoped generaL characteristics of
community forest management (box-1). Their work is a serious effort in
understanding the attributes of successfuL CFM, howeuer, the theoreticaL
framework deueLoped needs to be judged based on fieLd experiences. In our
study we haue tried to assess some of the important characteristics attributing
to the successfuL CFM from the resuLts of this study.
Box-1 (jeneral characteristics of successful CFM
CLuster of success factor
Resource system
- BiophysicaL
- User group
Socio-politicaL
Factors contributing to success
- Medium to Large community forests
- WeLL defined, easiLy monitored
boundaries
- PredictabLe benefit fLow
- Small to medium sized group
(face to face interaction)
- Interdependent
21
Economic
Institutional arrangements
Context
Demographic
Marllet
Macro-political
Stability of policy conditions
Does size of the forest matter?
- Homogeneous
- Relatiuely well off
- Moderate dependence on resource
- No sudden shoclls in resource demand
- Cultural ualuation of forest
- Past experience with forest
management
- Rules easy to understand and enforce
- Rules locally deuised
- Rules help deal with conflicts
- Rules hold users and officers
accountable
- Effectiue local enforcement and
sanctions
- Tenure security
- Capacity to exclude outsiders
Stability of demographic conditions
Stability of marllet conditions
Stability of technological conditions
Cjouernment support to reduce collectiue
action Costs
The results and findings shows that while using the theoretical frameworll of
Agrawal and Angelsen (2009), we did not get any support to belieue that
management of larger forests are more successful than the smaller ones nor
we haue support on the age-old belief that small is beautiful. We also repeated
the analysis for community forests of size 100 hectare but the results were
similar.
22
Size of the FUG group
According to AgrawaL and AngeLsen (2009), for successfuL community forest
management group size is aLso a factor contribution to success. Our resuLt
shows that there is no significant difference in the success outcome for group
size.
Size of the working committee
AgrawaL and AngeLsen (2009) haue not mentioned about the size of the
w o r ~ i n g committee. Our resuLt shows that there is no significant difference
between the groups 15 members and >15 members) and the outcomes
based on the size of the w o r ~ i n g committee.
Are SaL (Shorea robusta) forests more successfuL than Non-Sal?
The resuLt shows that there is no significant difference between SaL and non-
SaL forests regarding successfuL forestry outcomes. Though, at prima facie it
seems that nominations of SaL forests are greater as compared with other
forest types. The economic uaLues of SaL forests are substantiaLLy higher than
the others so one can specuLate them to be more infLuentiaL for successfuL
forestry outcomes. This outcome can be quite significant in the context of
community forest management howeuer further research on this dimension is
beyond the scope of this study.
Socioeconomic characteristics of successful outcomes:
In case studies, the research team tried to expLore the contribution of
community forests in the socioeconomic condition of the Locality. A summary
of the Latest financiaL statement is giuen in Annex 4. The statement shows that
CFs are prouiding uarious seruices to the LocaL community euen in remote
Localities where deLiuery of state seruices are quite rare. The community
forests besides seruing the forestry needs, are aLso catering needs in sociaL,
heaLth and education areas.
23
Conclusion
AgrawaL and AngeLsen's theoreticaL for successfuL community
forest management though seems usefuL has Limited applicability in successfuL
community forests of Nepal. The attributes such as size of the forest, group
size, size of the committee do not haue significant effect on successfuL
forestry outcomes. Moreouer, SaL forests are not significantLy different from
non-SaL forests in successfuL outcomes. Despite aLL these important findings,
we firmLy agree with the excerpts from "In search of excellence" (Durst et aL.
2005) - One thing is certain, these goaLs continue to change and euoLue and
today's excellence may weLL be tomorrow's mediocrity. In reuisiting the
exceLLence, we found that Cjaurati CF is Lagging behind other community
forests and may turn into mediocrity with souring reLations with the concerned
District Forest Office. Thus, the search for exceLLence - for those who truLy
it - wiLL thus be a ceaseLess endeauour that continues in Nepal.
Way forward
The finaL outcomes of the study had enlisted important characteristics of
Community forests that Lead towards successfuL management. The present
study on the success stories of community forests in NepaL wiLL serue as a draft
for identifying important attributes for successfuL community forest
management in NepaL and has a solid foundation based on actuaL data. The
amount of prize money has remained same from its inception, hence needs to
be increased to at Least NRs 1 miLlion for wider participation. We firmLy beLieue
that this study wiLL paue way for policy discourse on participatory forest
management in the Light of the need for future replication of the success
stories on participatory forest management in SAARC regions and beyond.
Acknowledgement
We are to SAARC Forestry Centre for giuing us opportunity to prepare
this paper. The uiews expressed are those of authors and not necessariLy
represent the organisation of author's affiliation.
24
References
Agrawal, A. and A. Angelsen, 2009. Using Community Forest Management to
achieue REDD+ {ioaLs. Chapter 16.
DFRS, 1999. Forest resources of NepaL (1987-1998). Department of Forest
Research and Suruey, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal
DoF, 2005. Forest couer change anaLysis of the Terai districts (1990/91 -
2000/01). Department of Forests, His Majesty's Cjouernment, Nepal.
Durst, P., C. Brown, H. D. Tacio and M. 2005. In Search of Excellence:
Exemplary Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific. Asia-Pacific Forestry
Commission, Regional Community Forestry Training Center For Asia And The
Pacific, Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations Regional
Office For Asia And The Pacific,
R. 2005a. Assessing community forests' condition using uariables
recommended by local people: a case of district, Nepal, Banko jankari,
Vol. 15 (1): 40 - 48.
R. 2005b. A local perspectiue on indicators of successful community
forestry program: A case of Nepal's District. Forestry:journaL of Institute
of Forestry, NepaL, No. 13: 29-34.
R. 1<. and Larsen, H. O. 2007. Local uersus official criteria and
indicators for eualuating for community forest management, Forestry: An
InternationaL journaL of Forest Research, Vol. 80 (2): 183 -192
R. K. and Suuedi, M. 2007. Indicators for measuring the success of
Nepal's community forestry program: A local perspectiue, Human EcoLogy
Reuiew, Vol.14 (1): 68 -75
Sharma, A. R. 2010. Using Cjini coefficient for analysing distribution of
community forests in Nepal by deuelopment and ecological regions.
InternationaL JournaL of SociaL Forestry, 3(1),17-25.
25
Appendices
Annex 1: Preuious criteria> and indicators for the GSCA deueloped and used by the Ministry
of Forests and Soil Conseruation, Nepal.
, Indicators with scores for 1

i 1 i Preuious forest area i Barren land (10) i enuironmental i i
r--------r-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------r-------------1
iii Plantation area (6) iii
r-------t-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
iii Natural forest (3) iii
t--------t-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
I 2 I Last year's income I Up to 10000 rupees I Socio-economic I I

I I I 10 000-30 000 rupees I I I
iii (7) iii
c------+------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------1-------------,
I I I 30 000-50 000 rupees I I I
l _______ L _________________________________________
iii Aboue 50 000 rupees iii
I I I (10) I I I

i i expenditure on iii i
c------+------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------1-------------,
i i community i 25-50
0
/0 (6) iii
I I deuelopment I I I I

i i and forest i 50-75% (8) iii
r-------r------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
iii 75-90% (10) iii
r-------t-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
i 4 i Percentage of i Up to 10% (10) i Socia-economic i i
I I expenditure on I I I I

iii 25-50
0
/0 (6) iii

iii 50-75% (4) iii
c------+------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------1-------------,
I 5 I Management I Mechanism (2-5) I SociaL and I I
, , h' f ' " I "
i i mec anLsm 0 i i enULronmenta i i

i i conseruation iii i

I 6 I Forest product I Fair and equity for I s . I I
I I d' t 'b t' I d I OCLo-economLC I I
I I LS n u Lon I nee Y I I I

I 7 I Non-timber forest I Income generating (3) I Socio-economic I _ I
L ______ ___________________________ L ________________________________________ L _____________________________ 1 ___________ J
26
r-------,------------------------------------------T-----------------------------------------T-------------------------------r-------------l
i i income generating i Employment (3) iii
I I I I I I
i i actiuities iii i

iii Social works (2) iii
r-------t-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
i 8 i Women participation in i Up to 10% (2) i Social i i
t--------t-------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
i i forestryactiuities i 10-30% (4) iii
r-------r------------------------------------------t-----------------------------------------t-------------------------------f--------------j
iii 30-50% (6) iii

l __ ___ __ __ __ O_9J _________________ L= ___________________________ 1 _________ =J
, , , MOd hOll ( ) ' "

I I I Chuna (8) I I I
l-_______ l-__________________________________________ !-_________________________________________ !-_______________________________ l _____________
I I I Tarai and Inner-Tarai I I I
iii (6) iii

___ _______ L ________________________________________ L= ___________________________ l _________ =J
* All criteria are weighed equally
27
Annex 2: Reuised criteria and indicators used by MFSC to award
best community forests with GSCA in 2011.
I

t

0
- 0
E
'"
E
0
z

z
'"
'"
0
Criteria
::s 0
Indicators
::s
'"

Score Remartts
.g


0

c 0
..c
'0


'"
'"
..c ..,
''';
u
'"
'"
:::;
3
'i5 :::; '''; ,5
u
.5 3
, , , , , ,
Forest I
condition Non I
5 1,1 or fallow land 5 i
, hand , , , , cumulatiue I
f-------+----------------------I----------+---------+------------------------------------1---------------+---------+----------------------j
I I I I I Natural or mixed forest I I I I
I I I I 1.2 I of moderate condition I 3 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
1-------+----------------------1----------+---------+------------------------------------1---------------+---------+----------------------j
I I I I I NaturaL or mixed forest I I I I
I I I I 1.3 I of good condition I 2 I I I
l------L---------------------L--------L-------l-----------------------------------L-------------L--------L-------------------J
Changes in
2
forest
Condition
after being
managed as
community
forests (at the
time of
euaLuation)
10 2,1
Promotion of greenery
in or fallow Land
Cumulatiue
f--------t-----------------------t----------+----------t------------------------------------f----------------t-----------+-----------------------j
I I I I I Reappearance of pLants I I I I
I I I I 2, I I 2 I I I
r------t----------------------j----------t--------i-------------------------------;------r--------------t---------t-----------------------j
I I I I I ShrubLand conuerted In I I I I
I I I I 2.3 I . I 2 I I I
I I I I I to high forest I I I I
l------L---------------------L--------L-------l-----------------------------------L-------------L--------L-------------------J
I I I I I Stand /canopy density I I I I
I I I I 2.4 I increased I 2 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
f--------t-----------------------t----------+----------t------------------------------------f----------------t-----------+-----------------------j
I I I I I Quality improuement in I I I I
I I I I 2.5 I regeneration I 2 I I I
l------L---------------------L--------L-------l-----------------------------------L-------------L--------L-------------------J
I I I I I Further deterioration in I I I I
I I I I 2.6 I I 0 I I I
I I I I I condition of the forest I I I I
L _____ L _____________________ L ________ L _______ 1 ___________________________________ L _____________ L ________ L ___________________ j
28

Forest I,' through seLf discipline
Non

I I I I I Protection through I I I I
I I I I 3.2 I I 5 I I I
I I I I I rotation system I I I I

I I I I I PrOUlSlon of forest I I I I
I I I I 3.3 I I 4 I I I
!! !!! watcher !!! !
j-------t----------------------j----------t--------i-------------;-----------------------j---------------t---------t-----------------------j
I I I I I Aduerse Impact due to I I I I

i Regular and systematic
I forest management
Practice of i actiuities (for exampLe
4 forest 15 4.1 I presence of trees of 5 Cumulatiue
m ... _' I '" ......
r------t---------------------+---------t---------t-------------------,----------------+--------------t---------t----------------------j
I I I I I Implementation of I I I I

4.3
Establishment of
Demonstration plots
and its replication in
siLuicuLtural
management practices
5
f-------+----------------------t----------+---------+------------------------------------1---------------+---------+----------------------j
5 Forest 6 5.1 Equity based with 6 Non
products speciaL prouisions of cumuLatiue
distribution
system
timber
distribution/saLe to
marginalized users
r------t-----------------------t-----------t---------i------------------------------------t---------------t-----------t-----------------------j
I I I I 5.2 I Equality based - I 4 I I I
iii i i equal distribution iii i
L ______ l. ______________________ L _________ l ________ J ____________________________________ L ______________ l. _________ l.. ______________________ 1
29
,------T----------------------,---------T--------,------------------------------------,--------------T---------T----------------------
I I I I I among the users I I I
I I I I I household I I I

I I I I 5.3 I Adhoc basis - no any I 1 I I I
iii i i systematic provision iii i
l------L---------------------L--------L-------l-----------------------------------L-------------L--------L-------------------J
6 Formation of 6 6.1 Inclusiue 6 Non
FUCj (caste/bacRward cumulatiue
committee group etc.) with 50%
or more women in
executive committee
including major posts
,------j----------------------t"---------1"-----------r------------------------------------,--------------j---------1----------------------1
I I I I 6.2 I Domination of one 2 I I I
I I I I I group/caste/sex I I I

7 Effectiueness 5 7.1 i Regular meetings and 1 Cumulatiue
of FUCj ! assembly as per

7.2 Information sharing
mechanism and
handling of
grievances
i------t----------------------t---------t--------I---------------.---------------------i--------------t---------i----------------------1
I I I I 7.3 I PreparatIOn of annual I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
iii i i progress report iii i
I I I I I I I I I
,..------+----------------------1----------+---------+------------------------------------1---------------+---------+----------------------j
7.4 Assessment of users' 1
needs conducted
before spending
CFUCj funds,
allocating community
land, resources etc
r------t----------------------t---------t--------i----------------------;--------------r--------------t---------t----------------------j
I I I I 7.5 I Annual plannmg and I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I auditing report I I I I
L _____ L _____________________ L ________ L _______ 1 ___________________________________ L _____________ L ________ L ___________________ J
30
8 Financial 5 8.1 Presentation of 3 Cumulative
transparency financial report in
of the FUCj public hearing /
committee general assembly and
access to all users
r------T----------------------r---------T--------J------------------------------------r--------------,---------T----------------------,
I I I 1
8

2
1 I 1 I I I
>-______ ______________________ _________ + ________ ....____________________________________ l-______________ _________ + ______________________ J
I I I I I P bL" I . l d"' I I I I
!! !! 8.3 ! U lC SOCla au ltLn9 ! 1 !! !
f.-------+-----------------------l----------+----------t------------------------------------1---------------+----------+----------------------j
9 Ratio of 6 9.1 Up to 25% 2 Non
women's
participation
in the users
assembly
cumulatiue
I--------t-----------------------l----------+ ---------+------------------------------------1---------------+----------+----------------------j
!! !! 9.2 ! 25-50% ! 4 !! !

9.3 More than 50% 6
r------t-----------------------t-----------t----------t -----------------------------------r--------------t-----------t-----------------------j
I I ' I '" I ' I 1:;0'""0'
r------t----------------------j----------t--------i------------------; --; --------------r--------------t---------t-----------------------j
I I I I 10.2 I Between mmlmum I 4 I I I
I I I I I quorum to 75% I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
r------t----------------------j----------t--------i------------------------------------j---------------t---------t-----------------------j
I I I I 10.3 I More than 75% I 5 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
iii i i participation iii i

11 Community 10 11.1 Forest improvement 3 Non
Forest Fund (management/develo Cumulative/
Mobilization pment) activities cumulative
Below 25% (1),
31

(Soft loans and/or
seed money for poor
users to support
income generating
actiuities)
35% or aboue (3)
10-35% (2)
Less than 10% (1)

r------t----------------------t---------t--------i---------------.---------------------t--------------t---------t----------------------j
I I I I 11,4 I Commumtyand I 1 I I I

I I I I 11.5 I Other actLuLtLes I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I
>- ______ +-______________________ >-_________ + ________ --+____ --------------------------------1---------------+-------___ -I-______________________
12 6 12.1
community-leuel
adaptation awareness activities
mitigation
measures
>-______ ______________________ _________ + ________ ....____________________________________ l-______________ _________ + ______________________ J
12.2 Incorporated and 1
implemented
climate change
mitigation and
adaptation measures
in operation plan
32


iii i i actiuities iii i
I I I I I I I I I
>- ______ +-_________________________________ + ________ ....____ --------------------------------1---------------+-------___ -I-______________________ j
12.5 Increasing
auaiLabiLity of water
sources and improued
quality of water

! and/or Landslides
___ 1 . .....--
and access
to
gouernment
(within 3 hrs traueL
distance, easy access
to public seruice
and non and/or externaL
CumuLatiue
gouernment support)

13.2 auerage (3-6 hrs
traueL distance, with
Limited access to
public seruice and/or
externaL support)
13.3 RemoteLy Located
(more than 6 hrs
traueL distance and
almost no access to
public seruice and/or
externaL support)
4
5
______ _ _____________________ 1-_________ ________ _ ___________________________________ I-______________ L _________ L _____________________ _
33

r------t-----------------------t---------t--------i----------; --------------.-----------t--------------t----------t-----------------------j
!! !! 14.2 ! RotatlonaL grazmg ! 4 !! !
f------+----------------------+---------+--------+----------------------------------+-------------+---------+----------------------1
I I I I '" I I ' I I

i 15 i Condition of i 5 i 15.1 i Complete prevention i 5 i i Non i
I I forest fires I I I of forest fire I I I Cumulative I
l ______ L _____________________ L ________ L _______ l ___________________________________ L _____________ L ________ L ___________________ J
15.2 Users' immediate
involvement in
extinguishing the
forest fire
3
t-------t-----------------------t----------T----------t------------------------------------t---------------t-----------r----------------------1
15.3 No inuoLuement of 0
the users in
controlling the forest
fire
34
Annex 3: List of Community Forests receiuing Ganeshman Singh
Conseruation Award 2054
Decision to award first, second and third winners NRs 100,000, NRs 75,000 and NRs
50,000 respectiueLy.
GSCA20SS
Decision to prouide NRS 75,000 to Laxmi MahiLa CF, Prithiuinagar -8,
and NRS 25,000 to Deupanna CF, Peugh a VDC-6,
SeLection Committee meeting dated 2055/12/2 recommended that onLy CF area
Larger than 10 hectare be nominated for the award.
GSCA20S6
Cjitthapani CF, Rishpata, Bajhang first prize
Rischi MahiLa CF, DadeLdhura second
ThuLodanda gaira saLLeri , Mijhing RoLpa Third
CjSCA 2057
Rani CF, Chughadha, Hetauda, MAI<WANPUR First
Raniban, Second
CjaLeshwor thuLo saLLeri, Cjhatan, Myagdi Third
GSCA20S8
Cjaurati CF, PipaLdanda-8 First
Pallo CF, I<uim 3 Itar, BagLung Second
B.P. Nagar CF, B.P. Nagar, Doti Third
GSCA20S9
Cjahate CF, Lamjung First
Soti Banarasi CF, Second
SiLum Kasmari tatha simsar patLe swari Third
35
GSCA 2060
GhorLas CF, Myagdi First
YaLamber CF, Dharan, Sunsari Second
Jhauri CF, Parbat, Third
GSCA 2061
ChuchhaeRhoLa CF, Hetauda na pa 6, MaRwanpur First
l<oiU MahiLa CF, BudhaRhani VDC - 5, KabhrepaLanchoR, Second
GSCA 2063
HariyaLi CF, Dharan-19, Sunsari First
SemaiLaL Chaudhari MagheLi-5, JhumRi, Sunsari Second
l<oiLi CF, BudhaRhani, KabhrepaLanchoR, Third
GSCA 2068
Sundari CF, NawaLparasi, First
TaLdanda CF, DuLaegauda, Tanahu, Second
36
Annex 4: Annual Income sources and Expenditure items of GSCA
community forests (in NRs)
.,
u..

LL

u..


"0 .....

u

,
u..
0 0
.,
u
" "
u
c u U
"

"
.2.
.,
u
.,
E
.;: 0
"0
0 . .,
0
'"
0 u..
"
.,
u

.s

u
E
0-
0
"
0
c
0
"
0
";::- 0
0
::s
u
"0
N
"
N
0-

0-
N

0
0 .5
c
:9
::s
0

0
c 0
u
Vl ::s

"
N
0 .::::

"
N
.E
Vl
"
<.:
N
<.:
a: I-
, , ,
1.00 "I
r-----------r---------------------------\ -----------------t------------------I------------------t------------------t-----------------1
! 1.01 ! Fuelwood ! 207.962 ! 54,055 ! 23,OOO ! 7.270 ! 60,914 !
f.------------f.----------------------------t------------------+-------------------1-------------------+------------------t-----------------...j
i 1.02 i Timber i 22,263 i 310,078 i 300,000 i 208,334 i 526,794 i
I I I I I I I I
>- ___________ >- ___________________________ + _____________ -----+------------------1-------------------+----------________ + _________________ -<
! 1.03 ! Litters/fodder ! 2,200 ! ! ! 18,985 ! !
f.------------f.----------------------------t------------------t------------------t-------------------t------------------t-----------------...j
i 1.04 i Herbs i 18,225 iii 1,243 i i
I I I I I I I I
r-----------r---------------------------t------------------t------------------t------------------t------------------t-----------------l
! 1.05 ! others ! 12,905 ! ! ! ! 23,394 !
f----------+--------------------------+-----------------1------------------1------------------1------------------1-----------------,
Assistance from
2.00
(jouernment
and non
gouernment
organisations
135,300
f------------f----------------------------t------------------t------------------t-------------------t------------------t -----------------1
i 2.01 i Gouernment iii i 50,000 i i
I I I I I I I I

i i Fine/ iii iii
I 3.00 I h I 14,750 I 2,090 I I 840 I 2.065 I
I I Pums ment I I I I I I
l-----------l---------------------------L----------------L----------------1-----------------L-----------------L---------------J
I I Entry and I I I I I I
i 4.00 iii 2,570 iii i
I I membership fee I I I I I I
f4.oi fMembershTpfee I 39;66o l ii'l)160 1++ is;s94 j
I I I I I I I I

37
,----------,---------------------------,------------------,------------------,------------------,------------------,-----------------,
! 4.03 ! Others ! ! 7,465 ! 704,007 ! 180 ! 1,261 !
f.------------f.----------------------------t------------------t------------------t-------------------t------------------t-----------------...j
i i Lending from iii iii
I 5.00 I I I I 518,743 I I I
! ! others ! ! ! ! ! !
f------------f----------------------------t------------------t------------------t-------------------t------------------t------------------1
i 6.00 i Other income i 289,765 i 33,354 i i 8,784 i 15,625 i
~ - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J
I I Last year's I I I I I I
i 7.00 iii 668,687 i 13,48,780 i 177,488 i 66,242 i
~ - - - - - - - - l ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
I i Total i 742,985 i 12,06,250 i 28,94,530 i 307,644 i 735,176
i j j j j j j
38
Expenditure of community forests
'"
>-
u..

1t
u.. u..
>-
u

,

:::l u..

.t:.
u
s::
'-'
u..
,'::: u

0
.2.
'"
u..


'"
E .t:.
""
0
'':: c
u

u..

"0 "0
';:

..... .....
s:: 0
'"
0
s::
0
0 0
..... VI 0
U
0
'"
'-'
: 0
0
N


.9

"0
0 "0
:::l
0

0 s:: 0
Co.
>-
0

><
s::
N
-0
0 N
N
0
N 0 N
u..
<.:!'

a::
UJ :::l
>-

.<:
Vl
<.:!'
SaLary and i
2,01 381,288 52,805 87,500 12,200 120,520 I
allowances i
c------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------f--------------------+----------------+-----------------1
I I Meeting I I I I I I
i 2.02 i allowance and i i 7,619 i i 6,150 i 14,634 i
I I tea /snacRs I I I I I I

i i Forest watcher iii iii
I 2.03 I and protection I 91,790 I I 109,000 I 15,040 I 21,414 I
I I I I I I I I

I 2.04 I Training and I 15530 I I I I I
I I study tour I I I I I I I

I 2.05 I Stationary I 35,035 I 2,454 I 35,000 I 6,899 I 58,429 I

1 1 eqUlpment 1 1 1 1 1 1
c------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------f--------------------+----------------+-----------------1
, " Ld' I I I I I I
i 2.07 i BUl mg i 124,752 iii i i

I 2.08 I SchooL support I I 91,000 I 300,000 I 25,000 I I
i-------------i-Road-----------------t-----------------t-----------------i--------------------t----------------t-----------------I
i 2.09 i tt' i 148,951 i i 350,000 i 81,000 i i
1 1 cons ruc lon 1 1 1 1 1 1
r------------t--------------------------t------------------t-----------------r--------------------t-----------------t------------------!
I 210 1 Emergency 1 1 1 1 1 1
I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i i Pro-poor iii iii
i 2.11 i i 55,500 i 187,916 i 659,500 i 78,169 i 388,754 i

i i Other iii iii
i 2,12 i M' LL i 360,291 i 13,683 i 694,589 i 83,366 i 131,425 i
1 1 lsce aneous 1 1 1 1 1 1
r------------j---------------------------T------------------t -----------------t--------------------t ----------------t ---------------
i j totaL j 1,213,137 j 355,4TI I 2,256,089 j 307,824 j 735,176
39
Annex 5: Map showing VDC and Municipality uisited by the
research team for case study
Map showing VDC and Municipality visited by the research team
Legend
Administrat ive
Boundarl
-101...,.""'"
-Doo_'''_
[>"""
Cas. study di st r ict s
CJ
Sun"", C.,....,....,.,.1 OI
pu"
02550 100kn
40
N
A
:!:;:
Annex 6: Main features of Ganeshman Singh Conseruation Award (GSCA) winning
community forests seLected for case study
r----------------------------------------,------------------------------------,-------------------------,---------------------------,------------------------r-----------------------,
I Characteristics/ I Sundari CF I Taldonda CF I Gaurati CF I GhorLas CF I Rani CF I
i Features iii iii

I I Ratanpur 6,9, I Tanahu 11,7,8 I Toripani, I Municipality I
, , I' I I dh I h L ' d" ' ,
i i Nawa parasL i i Sm upa C 01< i Myag I i -6, i
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I Chaughado, I
I I I I I I I

1 No of Beneficiary 11553 1 325 1 239 1156 1 708 1
i households iii iii
r-----------------------------------------r------------------------------------t--------------------------"1----------------------------t-------------------------t----------------------1
I Number of FUCj I 15 I 13 I 10 I 7 I 11 I
I I I I I I I
i Committee members iii iii
r-----------------------------------------r------------------------------------t--------------------------"1----------------------------t-------------------------t----------------------1
I Women members in FUCj I 5 I 5 I 2 I 2 I 3 I
I I I I I I I
i committee iii iii
r-----------------------------------------r------------------------------------t--------------------------"1----------------------------t-------------------------t----------------------1
I FuLL time employment I 3 I I I I 3 I
I I I I I I I
i (Persons year) iii iii

demonstration plot 1 regular 1 actiuities 1 nursery of
controlled ! ! Zanthoxylum
firing, timber
stand
armatum
improuement

1 FUr;, run enterprises 1 leaf-plate 1 1 1 plough 1 catering 1
I I ayuruedic enterprise I I I I seruices I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I furmture I I
I I I I I I I
L _____________________________________J ____________________________________L ________________________L __________________________ ___________L ___________________J
;e
Other deuelopment
actiuities
awareness raising
actiuities focused on
forest fires and
climate change, sRill
deuelopment training,
scholarships
35 percent of
income in
forest
management
and
deuelopment
actiuities
scholarships,
allowance for
women in early
motherhood
operational
plan reuision
of fifty
neighboring
community
forests
drinRing
water
supply, loan
for uarious
agri-
business,
women
awareness
program,
construction
of school
and road,
renouation
of temple,
scholarships
to girl and
poor
students
f-----------------------------------------+------------------------------------t--------------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+----------------------1
I yaneshman Singh I 2011 I 2011 I 2001 I 2003 I 1999 I
i Conseruation Award iii iii
I receiued year I I I I I I
'--Ma-in-attrlbu-ie-yor------------rho-u-slng-yo-r-p-oor-and---r-impr-oued--grass--rreu-o-Cuing-jund---rForest--------------ri=-orest------------'
receiuing award I disabled focused I cultiuation I for income I management I management
, program I pLot, animal I generating I worRs and I worRs
. , ,
husbandry for i actiuities i plough
income
generation
maRing
enterprise