Income Generating Activities of Community Forest User Group in Nepal

INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY
FORESTRY USERS GROUP
(A CASE STUDY OF SHREE JAYMIRE BHANJANG COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUP IN SANTINAGAR VDC 2, 7, 9, JHAPA,
DISTRICT)
A Thesis
Submitted to Central department of Economics
Faculty of Humanities and social Science
Tribhuvan University, kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
ECONOMICS
By
Krishna Bhandari
Roll No.
T.U.Registration No.
Central Department of Economics
1
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal
July 2010
Acknowledgement
The successful completion of this paper was made possible only

by the contribution of encouragement, knowledge, help,
guidance, and constructive criticism from many individuals.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher and
advisor Mr. Gangadhar Chaudhary for his inspiring advise,
constant guidance and strong support from proposal preparation
to the completion of this paper.
I am also thankful to Mr. Narendra Bahadur Chand, Forest Officer,
Regional Tree Improvement and Silvicultural Component, Mr.
Rabindra Maharjan, Forest Officer, BISEP-ST and Mr. Devi Chandra
Pokharel, Forest Officer, Regional Directorate for their invaluable
time and fruitful suggestions,
I am sincerely obliged to Churia Watershed Management Project,
a joint project of Care Nepal and Department of Soil Conservation
and Watershed Management in Mahottari and Sarlahi for
providing partial financial support to conduct this research.
I am equally indebted to Mr. Prakash regmi, Mr. Krishna Khanal,
Mr Buddhi Pokarel. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation,
invaluable time, and fruitful suggestion from Mr.Krishna Bhujel
and Mr. Megha Raj Rai for data analysis and report preparation. I
would like to express my gratitude to the project staff for their
cooperation during my field data collection.
I would like to the users of Shir Khola Community Forest User
Group for their warm hospitality, homely environment, active
participation and kind cooperation during my field work. My
special thanks to Mr Hari Pokahrel, Mr. Kafle, Mr. Mohan Pokharel.
I am highly obliged to DFO staff especially to Mr. Marich Kumar
Lama for his overwhelming response and cooperation. I would like
to express thanks to Rai sir and Rumba for their cooperation in
the fieldwork. I wish to express heartfelt thank to all my friends,
colleagues and well wishers for their cooperation, sympathy and
brotherly feeling during the study.
At last but not least, I am in debuted to my family special to my
farther and mother for their encouragement and inspiration to
complete Bachelor of Science in Forestry
2
ACRONYMS
CBO : Community Based Organization

CF: Community Forest
CFUG: Community Forest User Group
DDC: District Development Committee
DSCO: District Soil Conservation Office
FECOFUN: Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal
FOP : Forest Operational Plan
HH: House holds
IGA: Income Generation Activities
INGO: International Non-Governmental Organization
IOF: Institute of Forestry
MDG: Millennium Development Goal
MFSC; Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
NPC: National Planning Commission
NTFP: Non- timber Forest Products
PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal
RHH: Respondent House Hold
TU: Tribhuvan University
UG : User Group
UNDP: United Nation Development Project
VDC : Village Development Committee
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.
LETER OF RECOMMENDATION i
LETER OF APPROVAL ii
ACKNOWLWDGEMENT
iv
ACRONYMS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES
x
CHAPTER-ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
1
1.2 Problem Statement and justification
4
1.4 Important of the study of the Study
4
1.5 Limitations of the Study
5
1.6 Organization of the Study
6
CHAPTER- TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7
2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal
4
2.2 Income Generation from Community Forestry
2.3 Participation and forest management
2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood

Promotion
CHAPTER-THREE
STUDY AREA
3.1 Jhapa District
3.1.1 Community Forestry in Jhapa
3.2 Description of Selected CFUG
CHAPTER- FOUR
RESEARCH METHODLOGY
4.1 Selection of the Study Area
4.2 Wealth Ranking
4.3 Sampling design and sample size determination
4.4 Data collection
4.4.1 Primary data
4.4.2 Secondary data:
4.5 Data analysis:
4.6 Methods for Calculating Household Income
4.6.1 Components of Household Income
4.6.2 Methods for Valuing Products
CHAPTER- FIVE
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5
5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents
5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents
5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents
5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents
5.1.4 Education Status of the Respondents
5.1.5 Occupation Status of the Respondents
5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents
5.1.8 Land Holding Size of the Respondents
5.2 Household Income of the Respondents
5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household
5.2.2 Livestock income of the respondents

5.2.3 Non-farm income of Respondents
5.2.4 Community forest income of the respondents
5.2.5 Total household income of respondents
5.3 Contribution of Community Forest Income to Users’
Household Income
5.4 Participation of the respondent's different activities
5.4.1 Participation in meetings and assembly
5.4.2 Participation in Plantation
5.4.3 Participation in training
5.4.4 Participation in forest protection and management
5.4.5 Participation in Income Generating Activities
5.4.6 Participation on decision making

5.5 Income Generating Activities (IGA)
5.5.1 Description of the existing IGA
6
5.5.2 Distribution of the IGAs
5.5.3 Annual income through different IGAs
5.6 Forest product distribution system
5.6.1 Timber distribution system
5.6.2 Fuel wood distribution system
5.6.3 Grass and fodder distribution system
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1 Conclusion
6.1.1 Participation
6.1.2 Income Generation Activities
6.2 Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Household Survey
Appendix II: Questionnaire for Key Informant Survey
List of Table
Table 1: An overview of the studied CFUG
Table 2: Different wealth class population and sample population
from each wealth class
Table 3: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by sex
Table No. 5: Respondent's Family Size
Table no. 6: Education Status of the Respondents of Sampled
Households
7
Table No.7: Occupation Status of the Selected Sampled
Household
Table No. 8: Livestock Holding Status of the Sampled Households
Table No. 9: Land Holding Size of Sampled Household
Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled
Household According To Household Categories
Table No.11: Annual Average Livestock Income per Sampled
Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled
Household according To Household Categories
Table No.13: Annual Average CF Income per Sampled Household
according to Household Categories
Table 14: Annual average total income of sampled households
according to household categories.
Table 15: annual mean CF income per user household and its
share in total household income according to household
categories (NRs)
Table 16; hypothesis t-test for different economic class of
sampled HH receiving CF income
Table 17: Training participants in the year 2065/066
Table 18: Distribution of the IGAs on the basis of Sex, Wealth, and
Ethnicity
Table 19: Income from different types of IGA
CHAPTRE – ONE
INTRODUCTION
8
1.1 Research Background
Nepal’s community forestry is a well-established management form
in the country as it is 3 decades old in practice. It is a major program of
the government in the forestry sector and is being implemented
throughout the country. More than 14,000 community forest user
groups (CFUGs) currently manage over 1 million hectares of forestland,
involving 1.6 million households (DoF 2008). An important activity of
community forestry in Nepal is income generation. CFUGs generate
income from various sources such as the sale of forest products,
membership fees, and fines from rule violators. The income generated
is not shared with the government; instead, it accumulates in the CFUG
funds. The annual income of the CFUGs in Nepal is estimated to be
more than US$ 10 million, with forest products contributing the major
share (Kanel and Niraula 2004). Of the generated income, 25% must
be invested in forest development and maintenance activities and out
of these the Community Forest User group can be used the remaining
money for their needs and the interests of the community (Gautam et
al 2004).
Community forestry broadly refers to the transfer of national forests
to local communities organized in CFUGs for the protection,
management, and utilization of forest resources. The basic institution
that implements community forestry is a CFUG. CFUGs are legal
entities with autonomy in decision-making; access rules, forest product
prices, mechanisms for allocation of forest products, user fees, and
other important policies are agreed upon by user members (NORMS
2003 quoted in Kanel and Niraula 2004). The policy of community
forestry today is to use community forestry as a tool for poverty
reduction. This is considered possible because income generation
allows CFUGs to use accumulated funds in development activities.
Currently, it is a matter of debate whether investment made by
Nepalese CFUGs in development activities truly benefits the poor, as
9
more funds are being invested in rural infrastructure such as schools,
roads, and temples and the poor do not directly benefit from such
infrastructure.
Community forestry does have the potential to contribute positively
to the improvement of rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation (Fomete
and Vermaat 2001; Brown et al 2002; NPC 2002). In recent years,
Nepal’s government introduced poverty reduction as an important
objective of community forestry. The strategy is to achieve poverty
reduction through a targeted pro poor program (PPP) that utilizes CFUG
funds. Indeed, some portion of CFUG funds is expected to go toward
PPP. The PPP is designed to help the poor to improve their economic
condition by supporting activities that generate income. CFUGs
therefore initiate PPPs as income-generating activities (Koirala et al
2004). PPPs include activities such as flow of loans, skills-oriented
trainings, and scholarships (Kandel et al 2004). Nepal’s Three Year
Interim Development Plan has targeted 35% of the CFUG funds to be
utilized for pro-poor activities (NPC 2007). In this context, this paper
aims to investigate what portion of CFUG funds is being invested in PPP
by the CFUGs. It also inquires whether there is a close link between
CFUG income and the investment made by the CFUGs in PPP; however,
whether investment made by CFUGs in PPP really benefits the poor is
beyond the scope of this study. This study focuses on investment
made by CFUGs in PPP rather than on who exactly benefits from the
funds.
It is said that community forestry policy of Nepal is one of the most
progressive forest policies in the world. Community forestry is one of
the major programs of the Department of Forest (DOF). Participatory
forestry program has been implemented through out Nepal with
support from several bi- and multilateral organizations. The foundation
for the community forestry program was laid out in late seventies, and
since then the program is being implemented in Nepal. With the
10
successes of the community forestry approach, several complementary
models of participatory community based resource management also
came in operation, such as Leasehold Forestry (LF), Collaborative
Forest Management (CFM), user group based watershed management
and buffer zone forest management.
Though there is a vital role of forest in the environmental aspect
with many indirect benefits that are, generally not considered in
planning and measuring the impact due to the difficulty in quantifying
them. The benefits that users feel important and get easily are the
obvious direct benefits like timber, fuel-wood, tree fodder and grasses,
leaf-litter and many other NTFP (CF Bulletin, 2008).
CF is contributing to livelihood promotion in many ways. These
include fulfilling the basic needs of local communities, investing money
in supporting income generation activities of the poor people,
providing access to the forestland (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).
Poverty reduction is a major concern at global level and is explicitly
spelled out in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United
Nations. The MDGs have also been reflected in the strategic
imperatives of Nepal's Tenth plan. The objectives of the forestry sector
policy in the Tenth Plan are conservation and sustainable use of forest
resources, poverty reduction. Furthermore, Forestry policy emphasizes
poverty reduction through participatory approach and providing
income generation and employment opportunities (HMG/N, 2002).
1.2 Problem statement and justification

Despite achievements and contribution that community forestry
has made in Nepal, there are many unresolved issues and challenges
in all areas of capital as well as governance. While trends towards
resource degradation have been arrested and in many cases forest
cover is reported to be improved, the livelihoods of the local forest
dependent communities, particularly the poor and disadvantaged,
11
have not improved as expected. In worst cases, in fact, the
implementation of CF policy has inflicted added costs to the poor, such
as reduced access to forest products and forced allocation of
household resources for communal forest management with insecurity
over the benefits (NUKCFP, 2000).
Although CFUGs have been successful in terms of their
institutional capacity to get people organized and form capital at the
ground level, perhaps the most critical in terms livelihood and the
relatively work generation of financial capital for the forest dependent
poor and women (Pokhrel, 2003).
CF program has not been able to fulfill the daily needs of the
poor and marginalized people, which have needs and priorities (Sinha
et. al. cited by Ghimire, 2001).The local community leaders and elite
groups mostly dominate decisions of the user groups; fulfilling the
concerns and needs of poor and marginalized groups is still a difficult
practice in community forestry. Thus, supporting poor and
marginalized groups for their livelihood sustenance is a big challenge
in community forestry (Kandel, 2006).
Therefore, this research study would be fruitful to evaluate the
impact of this project in improving livelihood of rural people and
generating IGAs through natural resource management. The
significance of this research is to find out the income generation
activities through the CF income. The outcome of this research was
beneficial for making effective ways to overcome issues related
livelihood.
1.3 Research objectives

• To analyze the socio- economic condition of the forest user
group.
• To analyze the income generating activities of forest user
group
12
• To assess participation of forest user Groups in different
activities
1.4 Importance of the Study
Forest resource is the main parts of natural resources many more

things is being provided by forest to the environment. Such as, ecology
balance, fodder, leaf, liter, water sources etc. It covers the area of 29
percent of the country. Community forestry programme is very effective
in a rural agrarian country like Nepal. It makes people feel that the
forest belongs to them and they took after in carefully. Different types
of income generating activities have been started by users to improve
their livelihoods.
There have been so many researches and studies regarding

community forestry programme but in the terai region of Nepal
especially Shree Jaymire Bhanjang Community Forest Santinagar VDC,
Jhapa District, there have not been any satisfactory studies. In other
words, it is a virgin area from the view points of research.
Therefore, the present study is focused on virgin area to explore

something inside the community forestry with field level data. It is
hoped that the outcome of the study will be helpful to introduce
different types of benefits derived from community forest programme.
1.5 Limitations of the Study
Followings are the limitations of this study
1. This present study has focused on only Shree Jaymire Bhanjang

Community forestry Santinagar VDC Jhapa district. Therefore, the
findings of the study may not give the whole picture of other
groups.
13
2. The study has focused on income aspect of the households only.
3. Simple statistical tools are used to analyze the data obtained.
1.6 Organization of the Study

The study encompasses seven chapters. The first chapter
introduces the background: Introduction, statement of problem,
objectives, importance, limitation and organization of the study. The
second chapter describes the review of literature. The third chapter
deals with the research methodology of the study. The forth chapter
introduces the introduction to the study area. The fifth chapter deals
with the socio-economic status of the study area. The sixth chapter
describes the income generating activities of CFUGs in the study area.
And the last chapter describes major findings, conclusion and
recommendations.
14
CHAPTER- TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal

Community forestry is most accurately and usefully understood
as an umbrella term denoting a wide range of activities which link rural
people with forests, trees, and the products and benefits to be derived
from them. Gilmour and Fisher (1991) define community forestry in
terms of control and management of forest resources by the rural
people who use them especially for domestic purposes and as an
integral part of their farming systems. Since community forestry
constitutes both social and biophysical elements, they both are equally
important. The "resource" can be managed effectively with a clear
understanding of forest management principles and knowledge of
natural system and "social" part can be dealt with a clear
understanding of a society and their relationships with the resource
and institutions related to it.
A community forestry program was initiated with the assumption
that local communities will become active participants in forest
management, since they understand the problems, are motivated to
find the best solutions, and possess knowledge of forest conditions and
the changes observed. It is a group of local people who will be able to
15
maintain the conditions sustainably over time due to their vested
interests (Adhikari, 2002).
Nepal is one of the pioneer countries to hand over the
management responsibility of government owned forest area to local
community forming a forest user group as an autonomous body for
forest management and utilization. Though Leasehold Forestry
programme for the poor is the first priority programme of Forestry
sector of Nepal, CF had received the highest priority in the Master Plan
for the Forestry Sector of Nepal (1989) and is regarded as the most
successful (Acharya and Oli, 2004). The Panchayat Forest (PF) and
Panchayat protected Forest (PPF) rules allowed for the transfer of
responsibility for forest management from the government to the local
Panchayat as PF and Panchayat Protected Forest PPF (Joshi 1993;
Bartlett 1992). The promulgation of Panchayat Forest and Panchayat
Protected Forest Rules 1978 provides a convenient bench mark for
community based forest management in Nepal. After democracy was
restored in 1990, the government framed the Forest Act of 1993, which
focused on sustainable management of forest resources under
community-based property rights regimes. The Forest Act vested more
legal authority in Forest User Groups (FUGs). The Master Plan for the
Forestry Sector 1989, the Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of
1995, the Operational Guidelines of 1995 and Tenth Five Year Plan
(2002-2007) provide the current legal and operational framework of
Nepal’s community forestry (Pokharel & Nurse, 2004). These
instruments have legitimized the concept of the Community Forest
User Group (CFUG) as an independent, autonomous and self-governing
institution responsible to protect, manage and use any patch of
national forest with a defined forest boundary and user group
members.
The present form of Nepal's community forestry is guided by the
Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of 1995, and the Operational
16
Guidelines of 1995. These legal instruments have legitimized the
concept of CFUG as an independent, autonomous and self-governing
institution responsible to protect, manage and use any patch of
national forest with a defined forest boundary and user group
members. CFUGs are to be formed democratically and registered at
the DFO, with CFUG Constitution, which defines the rights of the users
to a particular forest. Community forestry is based on the operational
co-operation of Forest Department officers and forest user groups.
Moreover, the devolution of the power and authority to manage forest
areas between these actors is linked to the idea of sharing the
responsibility of forest protection. Therefore, in order to ensure the
feasibility of resource management, it is necessary to emphasis co-
operation between the forester and those who use the forest,
especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their
farming systems (Pokharel, 2003).
Community forestry in Nepal has developed rapidly over the last
decade and about 22.5 percent of potential forests covering the area
by 12,30,000 hectares land have been already handed over to 14,559
FUGs for management and utilization about 16,60,000 households are
benefiting from the implementation of community forest operation
plans in Nepal(Economic Survey, F/Y2008/09).
2.2 Income Generation from Community Forestry

The dependency of the rural people on forests in general, and
community forests in particular is profound in Nepal. Forestry,
agriculture and livestock husbandry are intimately related in the
farming system and this relationship is more pronounced in the hills
and mountains than in the Terai. Rural households get their fuel wood,
poles and timber from the forests. It has been estimated that two-
thirds of the fuel wood supplies come from forest and the rest comes
17
from private trees and agricultural crop residues. About 40% of the
livestock feed is obtained from the forests and trees grown on the
farms (Chapagain et al. 1999).
Community forestry has been a source of income and
employment opportunities for rural communities (Pokharel, 1998).
Recent experiences in Nepal suggest that community forests can yield
more than subsistence needs and that forest user groups can generate
income from a variety of sources. The income generation from
community forests can and does play an important role in providing
local employment and developing local markets (Malla, 2003).
CFUGs have started to incorporate income generation activities
in their operational plans. There are many examples such as inter
cropping of cash crops, cultivation of non-timber forest products and
medicinal herbs. Selling red clay, seedlings, firewood, poles and
timbers, organizing tours for tourists in community forest, membership
fee and penalty are other sources of income from community forests
(Maharjan, 1995). Indicators show that selling of such products and
through the other sources of income, most of the group members have
become capable to collect a sizeable group fund. The present trend
signifies that group funds of most of the user groups are swelling each
year. For example, till November 1996, Baghmare FUG of Dang district
had NRs. 450,000 and Kankai FUG of Jhapa district had NRs 578,000 in
their group fund accrued from the sale of forest products and through
other sources (Singh, 1998).
Eco-tourism is another potential income generating activity in
community forests, particularly for those close to the national parks. A
good example is Baghmara FUG just near Royal Chitwan National Park,
which has developed facilities and infrastructure such as grassland,
water body and natural trials in CF to attract tourists. Bird watching,
elephant safari, natural walk and overnight stay at the machan were
18
activities introduced by CFUGs. It was able to generate about NRs 2.25
million per year (Pokharel, 1997).
Many CFUGs are now attempting to manage non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) such as medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) and
Lokta, resin collection, etc. for income generation. As we move further
up along an altitudinal gradient, the value of community forest
increases in terms of MAPs and other NTFPs. Community forests also
provide an avenue for the generation of revenue to be deposited in
FUG fund, which is used for undertaking various development
activities. Above all, the benefits from the community forests are not
shared with government rather all such incomes are accrued in the
fund of CFUGs (Chapagain et al., 1999).
Commercially harvested and marketed in the Koshi hills are
some of the important NTFPs such as pine resin, Swertia chiraita
(Chiraito), and cardamom Maharjan reported that a net income of NRs
62,450 was generated from one hectare of Chiraito cultivation (Singh,
1998). Establishment of a sawmill through the joint effort of 4 forest
user groups (Chapni Ghadhi, Dharapani Hile, Thagar Khola and
Rachhama) of Kabhre district with the loan and technical assistance of
Nepal Australia Community Forestry Development Project is the first
sawmill installed by the endeavor of FUG in Nepal (Singh, 1998).
2.3 Participation and forest management

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 on ongoing learning process by increasing the awareness
of collective responsibility within the community (Agrawal, 2001)
Participation is the heart of good governance. All men and
women should have a voice, for instance, in decision-making, either
19
directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent
their interests (UNDP, 1997).
The total voluntary participation of user groups in community
activities per year is estimated to be 2.5 million person day, which
worth 164 million rupees (over US$ 2 million) at an opportunity cost of
rupees 65 per person per day. Out of the total voluntary labor spent in
community forestry, 42 percent is spent on community forest
protection, 19 percent is spent on meetings and assemblies, 19
percent is spent on forest product harvesting, and the rest on
miscellaneous activities (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).
Nepal social structure is based on caste 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).
Women’s participation in CFUGs may be classified into two broad
categories i.e. participation in implementation of activities such as in
the conservation and exploitation of resources and participation in
decision-making. Participation in the implementation of activities does
not necessarily mean effective participation in decision-making.
Effective participation requires that people's views are effectively
taken into account and their views influence decision-making. Among
those 10% women who are official members of CFUGs, only a few
participate actually in actual decision-making (Agarwal, 1997).
Poor household do not benefit from community forests as much
as the others and are not very interested in community participation
(Malla et. al., 2003). Poor houses also have high opportunity cost of
participation as the time spent on participation could be used as labor
for cash income. Medium class households benefit the most in
20
comparison to high and lower class households (Pokharel and Nurse,
2004). In spite of problems of elite people's domination at local level,
has widely been accepted, there has been little systematic effort to
reflect the situation and change the scenario (Adhockery et al., 2004).
Though CFUGs and the coverage of CFs has significantly
increased in the last twenty-five years, active participation of the poor,
vulnerable and marginalized households, and their poverty reduction
are still burning issues in community forestry. Several studies have
shown that most of the poorer households could not receive services
and benefits from community forestry on an equity basis. For them the
opportunity and transaction costs to be involved in community forestry
are high (Maharjan, 2001).
2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood

Promotion
Community forestry is contributing to livelihood promotion in
many ways. These include fulfilling the basic needs of local
communities, investing money in supporting income generation
activities of the poor people and providing access to the forestland for
additional income or employment.
Fulfilling subsistence needs from the community forests, 8
million cubic feet of timber, and 336 million kilograms of firewood and
371 million kilograms of grasses were used by the local people for their
internal consumption (Kanel and Niraula 2004). The use of these
products has helped to support the livelihood of local people.
Financial support in livelihood promotion the study shows that
CFUGs earned 416 million rupees annually from the sale of forest
products outside the groups. Earnings are used for different purposes
including 12.6 million rupees for pro-poor community forestry, (Kanel
21
and Niraula 2004) loans to poor families and training in forest based
income generation activities.
Access to forests for income generation As a pilot program, the
users groups Ghorlas of Mayagdi and Jhauri of Parbat are making sub-
user groups of the poorest of the poor, who have no alternative
employment or income opportunities. These sub-user groups are given
access to community forests to produce NTFP or medicinal plants and
are allowed to share the income generated. If this mechanism is
replicated on a large scale, there is a tremendous potential for
community forests to improve the livelihoods of more people in Nepal,(
Kanel and Niraula 2004)
Neupane et al., (2004) state that as an impact of community
forestry on livelihood, the number of households adopting vegetable
cultivation in Dhading district increased from 49% to a significantly
higher 89% between 1993 and 2003. They have concluded that
poverty reduction can be supported by community forestry through
special provisions of incentives made for poor and disadvantaged
people and women to enhance their participation.
Dev et al., (2003) have identified change in levels and security of
forest products and benefit flows (through improvement to the forest
resource and /or improved tenure rights) as a direct impact on
livelihood of local people. Improved and more sustainable flow of forest
products are also due to improved resource condition and changed
entitlements to use it. Regarding the consumption of forest products,
they state that in case of fuel wood there is no significant difference in
the total consumption between households of different categories, but
there are significant differences in the type and source of fuel being
used.
The 4th National Workshop on Community Forestry
recommended to allocate at least 25% of CFUG fund for pro-poor
activities, legal provisions for allocating community forest land to the
22
poor, capacity building program for the poor and disadvantaged,
develop effective forest land use planning which addresses land
allocation to the poor under community forestry and leasehold
forestry, social mobilization to sensitize the elites and others about
pro-poor issues, plan livelihoods improvement programs based on
wealth ranking of CFUG members and promote pro-poor research and
training (DoF, 2004).
Pokheral (2008) has mentioned in his working paper carried out
in 100 CFUGs in three different mid. Hill districts, Lamjung, Tanahu and
Kaski. This studies main objective is, to verify whether CF is indeed
enabling the self financing of local public goods and to measure how
much of the investment made through CF really reach the poor
( through pro-poor programme). That study finds that the income from
community funds increase local development resources by about 25%
and over all 74% of the annual benefits of CF funds accrue to non- poor
while only 26% accrue to the poor.
The strong debate on potential contribution of CFs on poverty
reduction among the actors is started. CF approach is not only creating
employment opportunities for local people but also greatly contributing
to sensitize uses on the economic dimensions of forests to reduce
poverty. Malla (2000) has found that poor are able to get loan (without
interest) for the income generation activities. Several women groups
on agriculture, income generation, saving, non formal education and
kitchen gardening are formed and working properly in addition to
women CFUG. Efforts at forest rehabilitation are anticipating minimum
level of effects on the livelihoods of the poor in the initial period; the
long-term effects may expect to be more beneficial (Brown et al.
2002).
Above mention different research review shows that the

community forest is important programme for reduction rural poverty
23
through the income generating activating. Thus this study try to
identify the different types of income generating activities based on CF
income and participation of User member of CF in forest management
and other activities.
CHAPTER-THREE
STUDY AREA
24
3.1 Jhapa District
Jhapa District is a district of Mechi Zone. The district, with
Chandragadi as its district headquarters, covers an area of 1,606 km².
Jhapa is the easternmost district of Nepal and lies in the fertile Terai
plains .It borders Ilam district in the north, Morong district in the west,
the Indian state of Bihar in the south and east, and the Indian state of
west Bengal in the east. According to CBS (2001), the total population
is 688109, male 349076 and female are 339033, where average family
size is 4.6. Main castes found in the district are Newar, Brahmin,
Chhetri, Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Malla Thakuri ,Limbu, Rai, Lepcha,
Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.
Jhapa is home to many indigenous ethnic nationalities such as
the Limbu, Rai, and Dhimal. Other ethnic groups such as Dhangad,
Koche, Rajbanshi, Satar, Meche, Tamang, Gurung, Magar and many
others came to Jhapa in the late 19th century, so did the Hill/mountain
castes Bahun, Chhetri, and Newar.
3.1.1 Community Forestry in Jhapa

Community forestry programme was initiated in the district in
the year 2052/02/03 B.S. with major objective of fulfilling the forest
products’ needs of the local people on sustainable basis and to
improve the ecological condition of the area. This programme is
recognized as the first priority programme in the forestry sector in the
district that is in line with the government priority programme. Among
the total potential community forest area in the district, 28 CFs
comprising a total area 7,685 hectare is handed over to the CFUGs till
date from which a total 17,478 users households are benefited from
this district (CF Bulletin 2009/10).
In Jhapa district found that the major forest species are: - Sissoo,
Bamboo , Amala, Harro, Barro Khair, Peak , Mango chilaune, katus,
25
Saal, Karma and Chauree. District forest office is main responsible
government authority for forest monitoring and management.
3.2 Description of Selected CFUG
Shree Jaymire Bhanganj CFUG is selected for study. Study area
lies in Santinagar VDC, 2, 7, 9. Brief description of this CFUG is
presented below.
Table 1: An overview of the CFUG
Particular Shree Jaymire Bhanjang
CFUG
Address Santinagar- 2,7,9
Handover date 2057/9/15
Area (hectare) 49
No. of household 366
User population 1628
User sex Male 825
Female 803
Ethnicity of HH Brahman/ Chhetri 232
Janajati 91
Dalit 43
Wealth Status Rich 42
Middle 126
Poor 198
Size of Executive Committee(EC) 11
Sex wise Male 8
Female 3
Representation
in EC
Caste wise Brah/chhetri 6
Janajati 4
representation
Dalit 1
in EC
Wealth status Rich 2
Middle 5
wise
Poor 5
representation
in EC
Source: Field survey, 2010
26
CHAPTER- FOUR
RESEARCH METHODLOGY
4.1 Selection of the Study Area

The Shree Jyamire Bhanjang Community Forest User Group had
been selected for the study because of the following regions:
• CFUG which is at least five years duration of handover.
• CFUG having different IGAs programs.
27
• CFUGs having the heterogeneous community in respect of
household income status.
• CFUGs having more than 50 households.
• CFUGs representing the average management performance as
per the District Forest Office (DFO) evaluation record.
4.2 Wealth Ranking

Wealth ranking is a set of technique designed to categorize the
local criteria of well being. The wealth ranking was done by CFUGs on
the basis of food sufficiency, No. of cattle, external income sources,
house structure etc. the basic purpose of the wealth ranking was to
categorize the users into different wealth class.
Rank A (Rich)
Those people who can sell their products after the consumption
for a year , people having 2 or more house(Tile roofed).They have
other sources of income like government and non- government job,
pension etc. They employed labor for crop production and harvesting.
Rank B (Middle)
Those people who have just sufficient food for a year but not
enough to sell. They have only one house (tile roofed). And they don’t
have external income from other jobs. They usually do not employ
labors to work on their land.
Rank C (Poor)
Those people who don’t have sufficient food for a year. They
have small thatched house. In some cases, they don’t have any land.
They work as labor for whole year in the others’ farmland.
4.3 Sampling design and sample size determination
28
Stratified random sampling was applied to carry out the research
on the basis of socio economic condition of users. Sampling intensity of
15% from the total households was chosen. The users for household
survey were selected after close consultation with DFO, staff and EC of
the CF. For the size of the sample proportional samples were chosen
from the people of each wealth classes. The User Groups (UG) had
already differentiated HH into different wealth classes and that wealth
ranking was used as a basis for economic differentiation among the
users. The number of HH in each class as follows:
That UG had 366 HHs. Among them 42 HHs were rich, 126 HHs were
medium, 198 HHs were poor. The sample size of each wealth class was
as described in the following table 2.
Table 2: Different wealth class population and sample
population from each wealth class
S.N Wealth Total Percen Sample Percen No. of
. class HH t% HH t% Sample HH
by Sex
Male Femal
e
1 Rich 42 11.47 12 21.42 10 2
2 Middle 126 34.43 20 35.72 16 4
3 Poor 198 54.1 24 42.86 19 5
4 Total 366 100 56 100 45 11
Source, Field Survey 2010
4.4 Data collection

Primary and secondary data were collected but major emphasis
was given to primary data collection.
4.4.1 Primary data
Primary data were collected through different PRA/ RRA tools, which
are as follows:
Questionnaire survey:
29
Structured questionnaire was developed and CFUG members
were interviewed using these questions along with the household
survey. This method was also useful in getting information on the ways
to enhance IGAs, assess forest product distribution system and forest
management practices. Household survey of CFUG members were
done in order to get information on population, economic status,
education level, etc was gathered from household survey.
Focus group discussion:

Several meetings /discussions were held with several committee
members, key informants, IGA group and some active general
members, ethnic groups, women of FUG at different stages of the
research process. Focus group discussion were conducted to discuss
the research issues and to gather information the different IGAs, its
potentials and constraints in implementing different IGA.
Key-informant survey:
Key informant survey was conducted to District Forest Officer,
UG president, Vice President, etc. who was direct and indirect involved
with CFUG.
Direct Observation:
The direct observation of IGAs, forest condition, forest product
distribution system, community development activities etc. was done
during the field survey.
4.4.2 Secondary data:

Secondary data required for this research work were collected
from various sources such as approved Reports of CFUGs, minutings,
published and unpublished reports, research papers, District Forest
Office's publication, IOF library, websites etc.
4.5 Data analysis:
30
Both qualitative and quantitative data collected from various
sources were processed and analyzed to prove the defined objectives.
Quantitative data were analyzed by using simple statistical tools i.e.
mean, bar diagram ratio; pie charts etc. and qualitative data were
presented in descriptive ways so that the basic findings of the research
would be well interpreted and justified.
4.6 Methods for Calculating Household Income

4.6.1 Components of Household Income
As stated in the literature review part, household income is the
sum of income received from the farm, off-farm and non-farm activities
of a single household, generally considered for a period of one year.
For convenience in data collection and analysis, in this study
household income and its fractional income is defined somewhat
differently as follows:
Household Income = f (Agriculture Income + Livestock Income +
Community Forest Income + Other Forest Income + Non-farm Income)
Where,
Agriculture income composed of income from cereal crops,
horticulture crops, vegetables and other cash crops received from all
lands cultivated by a household, considered for a period of one single
year.
Livestock income composed of income received from the sell of
livestock, their products like milk, manure, labour, etc., value of
consumed products by a household during one year period. Livestock
considered in this study are buffalos, cattle, goats and pigs reared by
the household.
Community Forest Income includes the monetary value of the
forest products consumed from the community forests and the income
received from the sell of the forest products by the user household
31
during one year period. Forest products considered in this study are
timber, fuel wood, tree fodder, ground grass, leaf litter/forage
materials.
Non farm income in this study comprise of all the income other
than agriculture income, CF income, other forest income and livestock
income that a household receives in one year period. Non-farm income
activities include government service, non-government service, private
service, foreign employment, business, wage labour, contract works,
rent from house etc.
4.6.2 Methods for Valuing Products
Most of the agriculture products are marketable and therefore,

they have been assigned the local market retail price to calculate
income from such products. Fruits and vegetable price is not fix so
calculated on the basic of local market price. The prices of these
products were as follows:
Rice = NRs 1250/100kg (per quintal)
Wheat = NRs 1970/100kg, Maize = NRs 1750/100kg,
Income from domestic animals and milk production highly varies

on the basis of their breeds, physical sizes and so on. Therefore,
income from the animals was collected from the informants.
Incase of forest products, it was easy to compute income from

timber wood, fuel-wood, fodder and bedding materials, because these
are saleable commodities. The volume of wood-mass in each of these
products makes a difference in its price. For the purpose of this
research, the average market price of average size of each was taken.
Such prices were,
Timber wood = NRs 250(per cft)
32
Fuel-wood = NRs 125 (per quintal)
Fodder/Betting materials = NRs 5 (per Bhari)
CHAPTER- FIVE
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents
33
Socio economic features such as ethnic composition, sex,
occupation, literacy, household size, etc. of the respondents are
presented and analyzed in this heading. Brief description of these
features can be helpful to understand the socio-economic status of the
area under study.
5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents
Truly, Nepal is a garden of various ethnic groups.
Researcher found in the study area where the forest users are
consisted of various ethnic backgrounds. The caste and ethnicity play
important roles for socio-economic development in Nepalese society.
All the caste systems are grouped into three categories. They are
Brahmin/Chhetri, Janajati and Dalit. The major Janajati were Magars,
Tamangs, Newars, Lepcha, Rai, Limbu, Gurung and Dalits were, Damai,
Kami and sarki. The following table shows the ethnic composition of
the sampled household in CFUGs.
Table 3: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households
Ethnicity Number of households Tota Percentag
Brahmin/Chh Janaja Dalit
Wealth l e
etri ti
category
Rich 7 5 - 12 21.42
Middle 9 6 5 20 35.72
Poor 13 3 8 24 42.86
total 29 14 13 56 -
Percentage 51.78 25 23.22 - 100
Source; field survey 2010
Brahmin/ Chhetri comprise 51.78% of sampled HHs; followed by
Janajati 25% of ethnic community and Dalit are 23.22% of the total
sampled households. The researcher has been found a good
relationship and participation among all caste groups in the study area.
Lower castes also have been involving in every social and
developmental work without any discrimination.
5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents
34
The respondents of this research include either male or female from
the households which mostly involve in the CF activities. Among the
respondents male are selected 80.35% and female are 19.65%, which
is shown following table;
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by sex
Percenta
Gender Total ge
Male 45 80.35
Female 11 19.65
Total 56 100
Source; field survey, 2010
5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents
The average household size was 6.5 member in the study area
with minimum 3 and maximum 10 members. Household size of the
surveyed population was found remarkably larger than national
average household size of the country, i.e. 5.4 (CBS, 2003). Also, it was
found larger than districts average household size of 5.9 (CBS, 2001).
The size of the family of the sampled households is presented below.
Table No. 5: Respondent's Family Size
Range of Number of households Tota percenta
Family l ge
etri ti
1-5 9 5 7 21 37.5
6-9 11 7 8 26 46.42
10 -above 2 4 3 9 16.08
Total 22 16 18 56 100
Source: Field Survey, 2010
Table 5, shows that 21 households have less than six members and
their size in percentage is 37.5. Similarly, 26 households having 6 - 9
members which are also 46.42 percentage of the total figure. Only 9
households have member above ten and their percentage is 16.08.
5.1.4 Education Status of the Respondents
35
The education level of respondents were broadly classified in to 4
categories such as Illiterate, Primary level, Secondary Level and
College level.
Table no. 6: Education Status of the Respondents of Sampled

Households
Education No. of household Total
Illiterate Prima Seconda College
Wealth Class
ry ry
Rich 1 5 4 2 12
Middle 4 9 4 3 20
Poor 10 8 5 1 24
Total 15 22 13 6 56
Percentage 26.78 39.28 23.22 10.72 100
Table 6, shows that out of 56 respondents of sampled
households, 26.78% are illiterate. 39.28% of sampled HHs had
completed primary level, 23.22% had completed the secondary level
and only 10.72% had received the college level education. The number
of illiterate people is the highest in the poor. Similarly, most of the
people getting primary and secondary level of education. People
getting college education are very few in number but the overall
literacy rate is 73.22% which is satisfactory.
5.1.5 Occupation Status of the Respondents
Occupation refers to all the activities of earning by people for

their livelihood and fulfillment of daily requirement. The respondents of
study area are involved in a variety of occupation like farming,
business, services etc.
Table No.7: Occupation Status of the Selected Sampled

Household
Occupation Number of households Tota percenta
type l ge
36
etri ti
Agriculture 20 10 9 39 69.64
Business 9 4 4 17 30.36
Total 29 14 13 56 100
Table 7 shows that 69.64% of the households are dependent on the
agriculture, which is their main occupation, whereas 30.36% of
households are only involved in business.
5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents
Livestock holding of the households indicates pressure on the
forest from the livestock in terms of consumption of fodder and ground
grass. Also the number or unit of livestock and type of livestock
determines the wealth status of the household in the rural community.
This is also gives the actual income of sampled households to calculate
the income from livestock.
Table No. 8: Livestock Holding Status of the Sampled
Households
Livestock No. of households
Cow/ox Buffalo Goat Pig Total
Wealth
category
Rich 18 13 32 - 63
Middle 27 15 106 8 156
Poor 23 18 136 17 194
Total 68 46 274 25 413
Table 8 shows that greater size of livestock is kept by middle

class households and then almost equal by rich and poor category.
These sizes are 63, 156 and 194 respectively. Goat and cow are raised
in larger number in comparison to other animals. It is because these
are easy income generating species.
5.1.8 Land Holding Size of the Respondents
37
All the respondents have their own land but there is variation in
its holding pattern. Comparatively, rich and middle class people have
larger areas of land and poor people have smaller areas of land. Table
No. 9 shows the land holding size of the respondents
Table No. 9: Land Holding Size of Sampled Household

Land holding Number of households Tota percenta
size (in Khatta) l ge
etri ti
>40 7 5 - 12 21.42
20-40 9 6 5 20 35.72
<20 13 3 8 24 42.86
Total 29 14 13 56 100
Table 9, shows that the 21.42% of respondents have more than

40 kattha lands. whereas 35.72% have 20 to 40 Kattha land and
42.86% have less than 20 Kattha land.
5.2 Household Income of the Respondents
The household economy in the rural society depends on the

income derived from different source like: Agriculture, livestock, non-
farm (remittance, services, rent etc.) and community forest income.
5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household
Agriculture is one of the most important sources of the

subsistence economy in the study area. Paddy, maize, wheat, mustard,
lentils and fruits and vegetables are cultivated by the households.
38
Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled
Income Household Total Average Minimu Maximu
source types income income m m
Rich 435230 36269.16 32630 48525
Middle 449826 22491.30 15120 43400
Poor 327684 13653.50 8840 17880
Agriculture Total 1212740 72413.96 8840 48525
In the study area average annual income of the households from

agriculture varies from NRs. 8,840 to NRs. 48525. Table 10 shows that
the annual average agriculture income of rich class household has
more than the other groups. Average annual income of rich class
household is NRs. 36269.16; middle class households have NRs.
22491.30 and poor class have NRs 13653.50 annual average income.
This is because the rich have more land than other wealth class HHs.
5.2.2 Livestock income of the respondents
Rich class households have practiced to rear more buffalo than

middle and poor class households. Middle class households have more
goat, cow/ox and pigs than other class households in the study area.
Table 11 indicates the livestock rearing pattern of different wealth
class of households. Middle class households were found to have a
relatively higher number of livestock than the poor and rich class
households. This may be because the middle class households is more
dependent on agriculture farming who rear livestock for manure, and
for earning income from the sale of milk and goat products.
Table No.11: Annual Average Livestock Income per Sampled

Income HH Total Average Minimu Maximu
source type income income m m
39
Livestock Rich 195425 16285.41 3200 24350
(Cattle/Ox, Middl 342840 17142.00 2250 32450
Buffalo, e
Poor 356780 14865.83 1800 25500
Goat, Pig
Total 895045 48293.24 1800 32450
and Milk
selling
In this study, income from livestock includes the monetary value

derived from the sale of livestock and its products in a year. The
monetary value is also given to the products consumed by the
household themselves. The annual average income of the livestock per
household in the study area varies from NRs. 1800 to NRs. 32450. The
average annual livestock income is the highest to the middle class
households (NRs. 17142) and the lowest for poor class household (NRs.
14865.83). This is because the study shows that more middle HHs
have livestock than other wealth class HHs.
5.2.3 Non-farm income of Respondents
In this study, the income other than from agriculture, livestock

and forest are classified as non-farm income of the households. This
includes income from government and non-government services,
remittance from foreign job, business, wage labor, self-employed (non-
agriculture) self-employed (agriculture) etc.
Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled

Household according To Household Categories
Income HH Total Average Minimu maximu
source type income income m m
Non-farm Rich 1432750 119395.83 35000 175000
Middle 1376930 68846.50 25000 150000
Poor 1308550 54522.91 5000 150000
Total 4118230 242765.24 5000 175000
40
Above table 12, shows that the non-farm income of the user
household in the study area is derived minimum NRs. 5000 to NRs.
250000. Non-farm income of the rich class household is more than
other two classes of household because most of the rich class
households are involved in business and foreign job.
5.2.4 Community forest income of the respondents

In this study Community forest (CF) income implies the income
derived from the use and sell of forest product like timber, fuel-wood,
fodder, bedding materials etc. from CF. Income from CF is, therefore,
the monetary value of the products consumed and sold by the users. In
the study area it is found that most of the forest products derived from
the CF are consumed in the household and not sold outside the CFUGs.
So we can convert consumed forest product by HHs level is into local
market price, to find out the HHs income from CF. Annul income from
the CF according to household categories are shown following table.
Table No.13: Annual Average CF Income per Sampled

Household according to Household Categories
Income HH type Total Average Maximu Minimu
source income income m m
Commu Rich 37050 3087.5 4680 1645
Middle 54420 2721 4050 1455
nity
Poor 36755 1531.45 2890 850
forestry Total 128225 7339.95 4680 850
Table 13, shows that the rich class households take more benefit
from CF than the other class household, where rich class household
derives NRs 3087.5, poor class derives NRs. 2721 and a middle class
41
derives NRs. 1531.45 annual average income from the CF. The reason
behind this may the fact that the poor households use very low
quantity of timber because they are not involved in CF product
distribution committee. Rich class households use more timber than
other groups. So they earn more in CF because they are in power as
they are the members of the distribution committee. Middle class
people have more livestock than other. So they consume more
bedding materials.
5.2.5 Total household income of respondents
Total household income means income from various sources

(agriculture, livestock, non-farm) including community forest whose
income directly help to the economy of the sampled households of
three wealth categories from the CFUG. Annual average total incomes
of the selected samples household are shown in table 14.
Table 14: Annual average total income of sampled households

according to household categories.
Income Total income Total income Total income
source of rich class of the middle of the poor
household class class
household household
Agriculture 36269.16 22491.30 13653.50
(20.73) (20.22) (16.14)
Livestock 16285.41 17142.00 14865.83
(9.30) (15.42) (17.58)
Non-farm 119395.83 68846.50 54522.91
(68.21) (61.92) (64.46)
Community 3087.50 2721 1531.45
forestry (1.76) (2.44) (1.82)
Total 175037.90 111200.80 84573.69
42
(100) (100) (100)
Source; Field Survey 2010
Table 14 shows that the non-farm source of the income (mostly

income from in country and foreign services) is the major source of the
sampled households which comprises 68.21% of rich, 61.92% of
middle and 64.46% to poor household's total income. The high share of
income from the non-farm sources is due to the high rate of foreign
employment from most of the households. Community forest
contributes less than other source.
5.3 Contribution of Community Forest Income to Users’

Household Income
Community forest is one of the major sources of fodder, fuel
wood, timber and leaf litter to the users. Besides community forest
provides several indirect benefits to the users’ household such as
water, fertilizers, etc. In the study area it is found that most of the
forest products derived from the community forests are consumed in
the household and not sold outside the CFUGs.
In the study area researcher found that the most of the user are
depend on the CF for their rural livelihood. Before community forest
they spend most of time for collect forest product. After established CF
forest user groups member told become easy for their rural livelihood.
Contribution of community forest average annual income to the
household income of the total sample households is found NRs.
7339.95 where rich households are getting a total of NRs. 3087.5;
middle class households get NRs. 2721 and the poor class households
are getting NRs. 1531.45 (Table 15).
Table 15: annual mean CF income per user household and its
share in total household income according to household
categories (NRs)
43
Share of CF
Household Community Total income in
Type forest household total mean
income income(NRs) household
(NRs) income (%)
Rich 3087.5 175037.90 1.76
Middle 2721 111200.80 2.44
Poor 1531.45 84573.69 1.82
Total 7339.95 370812.39 6.02
Source; field survey, 2010
The finding shows that community forest supports 6.02% in the
total household income. Poor class household is receiving 1.82%,
middle class households 2.44% and rich class households are receiving
1.76% of their total household income from CF (table 15). The finding
also shows that the middle households are more depend on community
forest than other household’s people in the study area. This is because
the middle class household has more livestock income than other class
household.
Result of t-test for sampled household in different classes income of
community forest income (table 16)
Table 16; hypothesis t-test for different economic class of
sampled HH receiving CF income
Description Degree of Level of T value T critical
Freedom significanc value
e
Rich and 18 5% 1.2341 2.10
Middle class
HH
Rich and 13 5% 5.1159 2.160
poor class
HH
Middle and 29 5% 5.3510 2.045
Poor class
44
HH
Above table 16 shows that the critical value of t for 18 degree of

freedom at 5 % level of significance for two tailed test is 2.10. Hence
the calculated value of t is 1.2341. Calculated t value is less than
tabulated t value so there is no significance difference in mean
received from community forest between the rich class household and
middle class household users.
In the case of Rich class household and middle class household
users the critical value of t for 13 degree of freedom at 5 % level of
significance for two tailed test is 2.160. Hence the calculated value of t
is 5.1159. Calculated t value is greater than tabulated t value so there
is significance difference between two user's classes.
The critical value of t for 29 degree of freedom at 5 % level of
significance for two tailed test is 2.045. Hence the calculated value of t
is 5.3510. Calculated t value is greater than tabulated t value so there
is significance difference in mean received from community forest
between the Middle class household and poor class household users.
5.4 Participation of the respondent's different activities
5.4.1 Participation in meetings and assembly
Primarily, EC was the main body for the decision of the CF and
the EC invited the other users concerning about the discussion topics
and the other users only participated in the general assembly.
45
Never Every time
11% 20%
Some time
34%
Most of
time
35%
Every time Most of time Some time Never

Figure 1: Participation in the meetings and
assembly
Out of the 56 respondent 11 (20%) respondents were present in
every meeting of the UG, 20(35%) were present in most of the time, 19
(34%) were present in sometimes and 6 (11%) respondents were never
present in the meeting.
5.4.2 Participation in Plantation

Community Forest Users had planted different types forest and
fruit trees such as Sissoo, bamboo, Amala, Harro, Barro, Khair, Teak,
Mango in the fallow land and around the primary school in the month
of Ashad -Bhadra organized by the different government and non-
government organization and CFUG itself. Users involved in the
plantation activities on the tole basis in each day of plantation.
46
Never
7%
Every times
Sometimes 32%
21%
Most of
Times
40%
Every times Most of Times Sometimes Never

Figure 2: Participation in plantation
Out of the 56 respondent, 18 (32%) respondents attended the
plantation for every times, 22 (40%) were attend for most of the time,
12 (21%) were attend for sometimes and 4 (7%) respondents never
attended in the plantation.
5.4.3 Participation in training

CF Users had taken different types of skill development training
related to forest management, recording keeping, goat keeping, and
nursery management, study tour organized by DSCO, FECOFUN, DFO
and Local NGOs. Participant in the training was selected by EC
meeting.
47
Every times
2%
Most of
Times
7%
Never Sometimes
53% 38%

Fig 3: Participation in training
Users had taken different training related to forest management, goat
farming, Nursery management, study tour etc. During HH survey, out
of the 56 respondent 21 (38%) were involved in sometimes and 30
(53%) respondents never attended the training, where 4(7%) are
involve most of time and 1(2%) every time involved.
Table 17: Training participants in the year 2065/066
Sex Ethnicity Wealth Class Tota
l
Mal Fema Dali Janta Brahmi Poo Middl Ric
e le t ti n/ r e h
Chhetri
No. 8 9 2 3 12 9 7 1 17
Perce 47.0 52.94 11.7 17.65 70.59 52.9 41.17 5.8 100
nt 6 6 4 8
(Source: Registered, Jaymire Bhanjang CFGU)
Training took by the users in the year 2063/064 were goat
farming, study tour, Kurilo plantation, nursery management training.
On the basis of sex, Out of the 17 trainees 8 (47%) were female and 9
(53%) were male. 1 (6%) trainee were rich, 7 (41%) were medium, 9
48
(54%) were poor. Similarly, 2 (12%) trainee were dalit, 3 (18%) were
Janajati and 12 (70%) were Brahmin and Chhetri.
5.4.4 Participation in forest protection and management
The CF users had been done forest management in the month
from Poush to Falgun. Mainly bush cleaning had been doing for Sal
regeneration in the specific area. For the soil conservation work gabion
check dam and water conservation pond had constructed by the users.
Never
5% Every times
18%
Sometimes
14%
Most of
Times
63%

Figure 4: Participation in Protection and management
Out of the 56 respondent 10 (18%) respondents said that they
involved in the forest protection and management activities for every
time, 35 (63%) were involved in the most of the time, 8 (14%) involved
for sometimes and 3 (5%) respondents were never involved in the
protection activities.
5.4.5 Participation in Income Generating Activities

Mainly IGAs had focused to the poor household but the poor HH
had got benefited or not interested due to high opportunity cost loss
due to involvement in long time taking IGA. The main IGA was Goat
49
farming, Pig farming, Shop keeping, Sewing, Carpenter, Bel (Agel
marmelous) collection etc. The details of IGAs are given in the IGAs
subsection of this chapter.
Every times
0%
Most of
Times
Never
11%
38%
Sometimes
51%

Figure 5: Participation in IGA
Out of the 56 respondent no respondents said that they involve
in IGA for every time, 6(11%) were involving for the most of the time,
29(51%) involving for sometimes and 21 (38%) respondents were
never involved in the IGAs
5.3.6 Participation on decision making
As EC is the main body for decision making participation status

from ethnic groups, wealth class and gender gave users participation
in decision making to some extent. According to the CF president,
women, poor and dalit were not interested in the decision making
process related to forest management and the other affairs not related
to them. Even on their concerned matters they only agreed on the
50
options provided by the other users and members and didn’t take their
own views.
11%
18%
23%
48%
Always Most of time Sometimes Never

Figure 6: Participation in Decision-making
Out of the 56 respondents, 6 (11%) were always involved in the

decision- making, 27(48%) were involved in most of the times,
13(23%) were sometimes involved and 10 (18%) were never involved
in the decision making process.
Participation of dalit in decision making was very poor. Similarly
participation in meeting and plantation was quite low as compared to
overall participation. This was due to fact that dalit were not very
interested in community participation. This result is similar to Malla
(2003). However, participation of dalit in IGA and protection was high
as compared to overall involvement of users. However, participation of
dalit in IGA and protection was high as compared to over all
involvement of users.
51
Participation of female in training also lower in plantation
activities. CF meetings and decision making was low. This finding is
similar to Maharjan (2004). He showed that women's role in decision
making is negligible. This is due to the fact that women can't express
their views frankly in the meeting and decision making process due to
their illiteracy and shyness in presence of male. Even if they express
their views, their suggestions were ignored or given less priority.
Participation of female was higher than male in training and IGA.
Participation of poor group was very low in decision making activities.
But their participation in forest protection and management and
training was higher than other groups.
5.5 Income Generating Activities (IGA)

5.5.1 Description of the existing IGA
Executive Committee(EC) had allocated the fund of NRs.
1,00,000 used in different IGAs like goat farming, pig farming, metal
working, sewing, carpentry work, shop keeping etc. The fund was given
to the users in the interest rate of 1% with the condition that users had
to return the fund within the one year along with the interest.
A) Goat Farming:
Goat farming the EC called the application for the goat farming,
Among the interested applicants, the EC selected 15 then poor,
interested farmers were selected by the EC and the EC provided the
fund of NRs.3,000 per person with 1% interest rate provided that fund
should be returned within 1 years period. The EC had also made
decision that goat farming was taken as annual program from the year
2063/064. The EC distributed the forest area into interested users for
grass planting and cutting for livestock consumption. The users ha d
planted different type of grass like dinanath, napier, stylo etc. The EC
had distributed the seed of the grasses to the users in nominal price.
52
The UG had brought the two improved varieties of male goat for
mating with the female goat and given to the farmers and these two
farmers had to rare these goats and the earned NRs. 25 per female
goat.
B) Shop Keeping
For shop keeping, EC allocated NRs. 5,000 per person to the total
3 poor users.
C) Pig farming
EC allocated NRs. 3,000 per person to the total 5 poor user.
Among them two users had successfully reared the pig.
D) Metalworking
EC gave the fund of NRs. 3,000 to the 1 dalit member for buying
the machine. He collected the 15 - to 20 Man (40Kg) paddy in a year
due to providing his service.
E) Grass planting
The DFO and DSCO had given the seed of different grasses like
Dinanath, Napier, Amlisho Stylo. The EC distributed the seeds of those
grasses into the different. Among them two users had made some
earning from the selling of seeds. The EC brought the seeds of
Dinnaath grass in the rate of NRs. 150/kg.
F) Bel collection
Recently the UG had started the bel collection program. The user
had to collect the bel from the forest in the UG office and the EC sold
53
the collected bel to the collector and gave NRs.3/- per Kg to the
collectors.
G) Tailoring
Three users from the dalit community had been invested by the
UG for the sewing machine purchase. Similarly, the UG had given the
sewing training to the interested 15 users with the coordination from
the local club although none of them had taken tailoring as IGAs.
H) Carpentering:
One dalit user of the CF had been invested NRs. 3,000/- by the
UG for purchasing the equipments required for carpentering and he
had been successfully doing the carpentering works.
I) Leaf Collection of Bhorla

The users collected the leaf of bhorla from the CF and the
collector brought these leaves at the rate of Rs.2/- for 64 leaves and
the collector had to pay Rs. 10/- per sack of the leaves.
5.5.2 Distribution of the IGAs

IGAs were one of the major contributions of CF in the economic
upliftment of rural people. For the distribution of the IGAs had given
major priority for poor people. Although, IGAs mainly directed towards
poor community but some of poor users were not interested due to
lack of knowledge about economic benefits from IGAs. During the HH
survey, only 17 (30.36%) respondents said that they were involved in
IGA activities and 39(69.64%) HH said that they didn’t. Only 35
(62.5%) HH were satisfied with the current IGAs through CF and that
21 (37.5%) weren’t satisfied. Mainly the users form medium and rich
respondents didn't satisfy with the IGA distribution. They didn't get
IGAs program because of being medium and rich class even if they
54
were poor. Some of the dalit and Janajati respondents were also not
satisfied with the IGA because they were out of the main stream of
community forestry and benefit sharing because of dominance of
clever Brahmin and Chhetri.
Table 18: Distribution of the IGAs on the basis of Sex, Wealth,

and Ethnicity
IGA No.of Loan Total Sex Wealth class Ethnicity
HH per Amoun
involve HH t
d
Mal femal Rich Middl Poo Dali Janjat Brahmin/
e e e r t i Chhetri
Goat 15 3,00 45,000 10 5 0 9 6 2 4 9

Farming 0
Shop 3 5,00 15,000 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2
keeping 0
Pig 5 3,00 15,000 5 0 0 0 5 1 4 0
Farming 0
Tailoring 3 3,00 9,000 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0
0
Metal 1 3000 3,000 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
working
Carpente 1 3000 3,000 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
-
ring
Total 28 90,000 21 7 0 10 18 7 10 11
(Source: Records, Shree Jymare Bhanjang CFUG)
Out of the total IGAs allocated to 28 HHs, 21 were allocated to

male and 7 to female. Similarly, 10 IGAs were given to the meddle
55
class and 18 were to the poor class and there were no IGAs to the rich
HH. Likewise, 7 IGAs were given to dalit, 10 were to the Janajati and 11
were given to the Brahmin and Chhetri.
5.5.3 Annual income through different IGAs

Most of the IGAs program were started from one year so that
user's were hadn't got distinct economic earnings from some of the
programs like Kurilo cultivation, bel collection and some of the users
couldn't continue their IGA program like shop keeping , tailoring and
Kurilo cultivation. During the household survey some of the respondent
couldn't express their exact income form the IGA activities.
Table 19: Income from different types of IGA
S.N IGA No. of Total Average
. Respondents money Annual
earned by income Per
HH in a HH
year
1 Goat farming 4 12,000 3,000
2 Pig farming 2 22,000 11,000
3 Shop Keeping 2 36,000 18,000
4 Tailoring 1 5,000 5,000
5 Metal working 1 12,000 12,000
Above table 19 shows that 4 HH had goat farming and the
average annual income was NRs. 3,000 per HH. 2 HH had pig farming
and the average annual income was NRs 11,000 per HH. 2 HH had
shop keeping and average annual income was NRs 18,000.Similarly
average annual income was NRs. 5,000 and NRs. 12,000 per HH from
Tailoring and Metal working respectively. Shop keeping and metal
workings were IGAs having highest annual income
5.6 Forest product distribution system
56
The forest products were distributed on the basis of provision
made in the Operation Plan (OP). During the distribution, first priority
was given to the own users of the CF .But the users had to use the
forest product for their HH use not for the commercial purpose. The
distribution system of the UG was on the requirement basis. Any users
could get the forest products on their requirements by following the
rules in their OP.
5.6.1 Timber distribution system

The distribution of the timber was on the sale basis .The UG
make the rate is per cu.ft NRs 100 of the timber. Due to the high price
of the timber poor people were unable to afford for money for timber.
Only rich and medium wealth class were mainly benefited .According
to the OP, Second priority of the timber distribution would be given to
the adjacent users after the use of the timber by the users. During the
HH survey, most of the users were satisfied with the distribution
system except timber distribution system.
5.6.2 Fuel wood distribution system

The distribution of the firewood is free for those who collected
firewood on the bhari basis but for the collection of firewood on tractor
they had to pay Rs.150 per tractor. Nevertheless, there was no price
for the fuel wood from the tractor for those who are affected by the
natural calamities.
5.6.3 Grass and fodder distribution system

There was no pricing system for the grass collection. Users CF
were gone to the forest for grass collection. For the grass distribution
of the grass, forest areas were given to the interested users. For the
distribution of the forest areas to the users, EC called for the
57
application from the users. Then, EC allocated the certain forest area
to the forest users for grass planting and cutting for the own domestic
consumption.
5.6.4 Sample Users' perception about forest product
distribution system
S.N. Forest Product Satisfied Non Satisfied
1 Timber 30.65 69.35
2 Fuel Wood 78.64 19.36
3 Fodder/ Grass 88.71 11.29
Source: Field survey, 2010
Mainly users got timber, fuel wood and grass. But 69.35% of
respondents were not satisfied with the timber distribution of CFUG.
Mainly respondents were not satisfied with price rate of timber. All of
the dalit and most of the Janajati respondents were not satisfied with
the price rate. All of the poor respondents and most of the medium
class respondents were not satisfied with the current system of timber
distribution. But respondents were satisfied with fuel wood (78.65%)
and fodder and grass (88.71%).
The researcher found in the study area there are strictly follow
the rule of Forest Act 2001. In this Act 2001 there are clearly mention
that the CF must have plant five trees if they cut one tree. So there is
no any affect timber distribution system.
58
Chapter -Six
Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1 Conclusion
Agriculture is the major profession of the people in the study
area but the share of total household income is the highest from non-
farm activities (mostly from in-country and foreign employments)
which covers 58.21% of total income. Agriculture is the second largest
source of the household income. Main cereal crops grown in the area
are rice, maize; wheat, mustard and lentils, and cash crops are
Tomato, Mango and banana. Livestock consists of cow, ox, buffalo,
goat, pig. Income from livestock contributes 6.4 percent to the total
income.
The consumption pattern of forest products in three categories of
households is also different. Rich class households use large quantity
of timber, middle class use more fodder & ground grass and poor class
59
use more fuel wood. Forest products from the private land/private
forest have remarkable share in total household income of poor and
middle class households' .Community forestry contributes only 6.02%
of the household income. In the study area, most of the forest products
collected from CF are consumed for household purpose and not sold in
the market or outside their CFUGs. Mean absolute income from
agriculture, livestock, non-farm activities and use of forest products is
higher in rich class households and the lowest in poor class
households. By the statistical t-test found that the community forest
income there is no significance difference in received from community
forest between the rich class household and middle class household
users and Rich and middle class users so there is significance
difference between two user's classes in CF income. There is also
significance difference in received from community forest between the
Middle class household and poor class household users.
6.1.1 Participation
1) Overall participation level of UG was only 50% according to the
governance status developed by FECOFUN.
2) Participation level of dalit and poor was very low and attendance
and active participation of dalit and female in EC meeting was low.
EC was the main forum for decision-making. Therefore, they had low
approach in decision-making process.
3) Participation of women, Poor and dalit in general meetings and
assembly was low and mostly they express their views and only
present for clapping at the time of decision.
4) Participation of women was less due to male dominance, illiterate
and their engagement in kitchen work. Poor and dalit were mostly
had to do work f or daily food so they didn’t have time to go to the
meeting.
60
5) Participation of female and poor was high in the training but low
participation of dalit out of the total participation in the year
2065/2066.
6) Very few respondents were participated in IGAs and training
6.1.2 Income Generation Activities
1) Main IGA are goat farming, shop keeping, pig farming metal
working, grass planting, bel collection, tailoring, carpentering,
bhorla’s leaf collection.
2) Out of the 28 HH involving in the IGAs, few number of female and
dalit users were engaged where as large number of poor were
involved.
3) Large proportion of money allocated to poor. Women and Janajati
were given low amount of money funded for IGAs
4) Shop keeping, metal workings, Pig farming were the main IGAs in
terms of annual income.
5) Goat farming was the best IGA among the existing IGA on the basis
of users perception.
6) Goat keeping, vegetable farming, carpentry were the main potential
IGAs.
7) There were very few IGAs in comparison to the number of total HH.
The number of HHs involved in IGAs was only 9.83%.
6.2 Recommendation
1) CFUG should have to abolish the traditional and old-dated benefit
distribution system of first-come-first basis. At this traditional
system, people who are in distribution committee of forest user
group, they are more benefited. If CFUG committee follows equal
61
distribution system then, there is no any inequality forest
product distribution.
2) For greater benefit of the poor households dependent on forest

resources, alternative income generation programmes should
formulated, for which skill development trainings and seed
money for income generation activities should be provided by
CFUG from the group fund. The percentage of income of CFUG
that should be spent on pro-poor programmes as provisioned on
three years interim plan (2008-2010) should strictly be followed.
This can narrow down the income inequality gap between poor
and rich household.
3) CFUG should implement equal distribution system and more

inclusive basis distribution system/mechanism which can help to
access the poor in more benefit sharing. Community forest
Committee can adopt the rule of equal distribution of forest
products to all CFUG members.
4) Participation of women, poor dalit in meetings and assemblies

should be promoted.
5) Exposure of women and dalit should be emphasized through
study tour, training and field observation.
6) IGA and poverty reduction program should be constructed
focusing dalit and poor so that they will actively involve in CF
management.
7) Improving literacy rate of the users specially women, dalit and
poor through emphasizing their child to enroll in the school and
adult education for the adult people.
8) Training should be given to the whole process of cultivation, goat
farming, pig farming etc.
62
9) Regular support (technical, managerial and financial) and
monitoring should be given for the success and encouragement
in IGA.
10) Exposure to reluctant users about IGAs by study tour.
11) Replication of IGAs for the same users should be avoided. Equal
chances should be given to the all users as possible.
REFERENCES
Acharya, B. and Oli, B.N. (2004). Impacts of Community Forestry in

Rural Livelihood Nepali Mid-hill: A Case Study from Bharkhore
Community Forest, Parbat District. Banko Jankari, 14 (1) pp 46-50.
Department of Forest Research and Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal.
63
Adhikari, B. (2002). ‘Community Forestry and Livelihoods, Household
characteristics and common property forest use: complementarities
and contradictions’, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2, 1 3-61.
Adhikari, B. (2003). Household characteristics and common property
forest
Use: complementarities and contradictions. Journal of Forestry and
Livelihoods
Vol.2 (1): 3-14.
Adhockery, B., S.D. Falco and J.C. Lovett (2004). Household
characteristic and forest dependence; evidence from common property
forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economic 48, pp: 245- 257.
Agrawal, B. (1997). "Environmental Action, Gender Equity and
women's participation." Development and change 28(1) 1-44
Agrawal, B. (2001). Participation exclusion, community forest and
gender: an analysis for south Asia and a conceptual framework. World
Development 29(10), PP: 1623-1648.
Aryal, J.P. and Gautam, A. (2003). Quantitative technique. New
Hira Books Kirtipur, kathmandu,Nepal
Bartlett, A.G. (1992). A review of community forestry advances in
Nepal. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 71(2):95-100.
Brown, D. et al. (2002) Forestry as an Entry Point for Governance
Reform, Odi Forestry Briefing Number 1, DFID UK.
CBS (2001). Population Census Report, Central Bureau of Statistics,
Katmandu
CBS, (2002). Statistical pocket book, Central Berau of Statistics.
National Planning Commission, Secretariat, HMG, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Chapagain P.D, Kanel K.R. and Regmi D.C. (1999). Current Policy
and Legal Context of the Forestry Sector with Reference to the
Community Forestry Program in Nepal, PRO PUBLIC, Katmandu, Nepal.
64
Community Forest Department (2008). Bulletin of forest,
Community Forest Department Babarmahal Kathmandu Nepal
Department of Forest (2008). Annual progress report- 2008,
Department of forest Kathmandu
Department of forest. Ban dairy- 2008, Kathmandu
Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O. and Soussan, J.
(2003), Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle
Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1): 64-77.
Ellis, F. (2000). “Rural livelihood and diversity in developing
countries”. Oxford University Press, UK.
Fisher, R.J. (1989). Indigenous System of Common Property Forest
Management in Nepal. Working Paper No 18. Honolulu, Hawaii:
Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Centre.
Fomete T, Vermaat J. (2001). Community Forestry and Poverty
Alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network.
Network Paper 25h. London,
United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute.
Gautam et al (2004). A review of forest policies, institutions, and
changes in the resource condition in Nepal, International Forestry
Review, 6 (2), pp. 136-148.
Ghimire, K. (2001). The effects of differing access for forest resource
on the livelihood and capital assets of poor women in Makawanpur
district, Nepal. Banko Jankari, Vol. 12, No.1
Gilmour, D.A., and Fisher, R.J. (1991). Villagers, Forest and
Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry
in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.
Hamro Kalpabriksha (2008). Department of Forest, Babarmahal,
Kathmandu
HMGN (1988). "Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal: Main
Report". Kathmandu: MOFSC.
65
HMGN (1995). "The Forest Act 1993 and the Forest Regulations 1995:
An Official Translation by the Law Books Management Board".
Kathmandu: FDP/USAID/HMGN.
HMGN, (1998). His Majesty Government, Environmental Strategies
and Policies for Industry, Forest and Water Resource Sectors Vol 1,
Sector Strategies. His Majesty Government, Ministry of Population and
Environment Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMG/N, (2002). The tenth Plan, National planning Commission
(unofficial translation), Kathmandu
Joshi, A., (2003). Gender, women and participation in Buffer zone
Management: A case study form Chitwan National Park. A thesis
submitted to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Master of Science, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal
Kanel, K.R. (2004). Twenty five years of Community forestry:
Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry,
(pg. 4-18). Kathmandu: Community Forestry Division, Department of
Forest, Livelihood, 1(1): 16-18.
Kanel, K.R. and Niraula D.R. (2004). Can rural livelihood be
improved in Nepal
through Community forestry? Banko Jankari, Vol. 14, No.1.
Kandel et. al (2004) .Pro-poor community forestry: Some initiatives
from the field. Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, 4–6
August 2004. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests, pp 229–237.
Kanel, K.R. (2006). Current status of community forestry in Nepal. A
Report Submitted to Regional Community Forestry Training Center for
Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, Thailand
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.
66
Lachapelle, P. R., Smith P.D. and MCcool S.F. (2004). Access to
power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community
forest user groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review 11(21), PP: 1-12.
Maharjan M. (1995). Income Generation through Community
Forestry: Case Studies from the Koshi Hills of Nepal. Income
Generation through Community Forestry, Proceedings of Seminar,
1995, RECOFTC, Bankok, Thailand.
Maharjan, R. (2004). Tenth five year plan, Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper, National Planning Commission, HMG/Nepal,
Kathmandu.
Malla, Y. B. (2003). Changing Policies and the Persistence of Patron-
Client Relations in Nepal: Stakeholders' Response to Change in Forest
Policies. Environmental History, 8(2).
Malla, Y.B. (2000) Impact of community forestry policy on rural
livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unasylva 51(3), 37–45.
Niraula, D.R. (2004). Integrating Total Economic Value for Enhancing
Sustainable Management of Community Forests: A Forward Looking
Approach. In K.R. Kanel et al. (eds.), Twenty Five Years of Community
Forestry, Proceeding of Fourth National Community Forestry Workshop,
Department of Forest ( DoF), Community Forestry Division ( CFD) ,
Kathmandu.
Nepal United Kingdom Community Forest Project (2000). Trend
and Impact of Community Forestry in Nepal's Dhaulagiri Hills. Nepal UK
Community Forestry Project, Baglung, Nepal.
NPC (2007). The Three year Interim plan, National Planning
Commission (NPC), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
Ojha, H. & Bhattarai, B. (2001). Distributional Impact of Community
Forestry: who is benefiting from Nepal’s community forests? Forest
action research series 00/01 kathmandu, Nepal
Pokharel, B.K. (2001b). Community forestry and people's
livelihoods. Journal of forestry and livelihoods No. 1(1): 16-18.
67
Pokharel, B.K. (1997). Foresters and Villagers in Contention and
Compact: the Case of Community Forestry in Nepal. Thesis (PH.D.) in
University of East Anglia: School of Development Studies.
Pokharel, R. K. (2003). An Evaluation of the Community Forestry
Program in Kaski District of Nepal: A Local Perspective. Dissertation for
the degree of Ph. D. Michigan State University.
Pokheral, R. K. (2008). Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds; Do They
Benefit the Poor? working paper of SANDEE, Kathmandu Nepal
Pokharel, B. K. and Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and Peoples’
Livelihoods: Benefitting the Poor from Community Forestry. Journal of
Forest and Livelihoods 4(1): 19-29.
Poudel Bharat (2010). Distributional Inequality Between Community
Forest User Groups of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur District.
Dissertation for Degree of Master. Central department Of Economics
T.U. Nepal
Sharma, A. R. (2000). Glamour and grips of Community forestry:
Impact on Income Distribution. Banko Jankari (10) 2: 27-31.
Shrestha, N and Kansakar D.R. (2003). Quantitative technique. A
reading book for M.A. Economics
Singh B.K. (1998). Community Forestry in Nepal: Gradual move from
subsistence to monetize sector of economy, Banko Janakari, A Journal
of Forestry Information for Nepal
Timsina, N. P.; Luintel, H.; Bhandari, K. and Thapalia, A. (2004).
Action and Learning: An Approach for Facilitating a Change in
Knowledge and Power Relationship in Community Forestry. Forest and
Livelihood, 4 (1): 5-12.
UNDP, (1997). Annual review, 1997. UNDP, Katmandu, Nepal
68
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Household Survey
I am a student of MA Economics at TU Central department of

Economics Kirtipur. I am carrying out research entitled, “INCOME
GENERATION ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY USER
GROUP” for partial fulfillment of the requirement for my MA degree.
All information maintained in this questionnaire will be confidential. So,
I humbly request you to mention your own reality in this questionnaire
with full confidence. Please feel to express your personal opinion. The
information that you will provide and your personal identification will
be kept confidential while using the information for research activities.
Krishna Raj Bhandari
Household Survey Form

Date; ………………..
1. General information of the respondent:
a. Name: -------------------- b. Age: -------- c. Gender: Male [ ] Female [

]
d. Marital status: Married [ ] Unmarried [ ] widower [ ]
e. Wellbeing class: Rich [ ] Medium [ ] Poor [ ]
69
b. Education of respondents: Illiterate: [ ] Primary: [ ]
Secondary: [ ] College: [ ]
2. Household information of Respondents
Sex Age Group Education Status Remark

s
< 6- 21- >4 Prim Secon SLC Intermedi Diplom
5 20 40 0 ary dary ate a
Male
Femal
e
3. Agriculture Income of households

Please mention the quantity of land owned in your household, total
annual production and their prices during past one year.
Type of Crop Cropping area Qty. of annual Price (NRs)
(Ropani) production(unit)
Rice
Maize
Wheat
Vegetable
Fruits
Other(please
specify)
4. Income from Livestock

Mention the number, type and production of your livestock and the
prices earn during past one year
Product Type Number Total cash earned (Rs)
70
Cattle
Buffalo
Goat
Pig
Milk production
Other
5. Cash Income of household (non farm income)

Mention the number of your household member engaged in different
off farm activities and the amount of income earned from each sources
during the past one year.
Types of employment Number of person income Cash earn
Male Female
Services
Employment abroad
Business
Labor wages
Rent / Interest
Other (please specify)
6. Which one is your main source of forest product supply?
a. Community Forest [ ] b. Private forest: [ ] c. Other: [ ]
7. Income of the household from Community Forest

Please mention the amount of product and their prices during last
twelve month.
Product type Unit Prices(Rs)
Timber
Fuel wood
Fodder
Ground grass
Leaf litter
Bedding materials
Other( please Specify)
71
8. Participation
a. Have you involved in the user’s meeting?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
b. Who made the final decision regarding different activities

such as: implementation of different activities; distribution of
forest product, incentives?
Vital member [ ] EC [ ] general assembly [ ]
c. To what extend your participation in the following activities?
S.N Activities Every Most of Sometime Never

. times times s
1 Assembly, discussion,
meeting
2 Plantation
3 Skill development
training
4 Protection
5 Income generating
Activities
6 Others
72
If not, why?
You were not informed [ ] you were busy [ ]
You were not interested others [ ]

9. Income generation activities ( IGAs)
a. Have you involved in any IGAs activities?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
If yes,
IGAs Activities Annual Income Problem Types
Encounter assistance
needed
b. Further, do you want to conduct any other types of IGAs?

Yes [ ] No [ ]
If yes, what type?
…………………………………………………………………
c. Do you think that your economic status is improving through
IGAs?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
If no, what are the causes?
………………………………………………………………………………….
10. Has the total income generated from the sale of forest
product, increased over the year?
Increase [ ] decrease [ ] No change [ ]
11. Do you get total demand of your forest product from

community forest?
73
Yes [ ] No [ ]
12. Do you feel that Forest Benefit distribution pattern is fair
and equitable?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
13. How for poor people are benefited in distribution of forest
product?
Fair [ ] Moderate [ ] low [ ]
14. Mention your View on benefit distribution forest product;

a)--------------------------------------------------------------------
b) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
c) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
d) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix II: Questionnaire for Key Informant Survey
Date: ---------
3. List of key person.
SN Name Position Age Qualification
1
2
3
4
5
4. CFUG hand over date: ------------
74
5. Total population of Users: ---------- Male: ------- Female: -----
6. Number of Household: ------------------
7. Number of household by well being classes:
a) Rich classes: -----
b) Middle classes: ------
c) Poor classes: --------
8. How much money do your CFUG utilize Income generation

activities?
………………………………
9. Involvement in the training and other programme based on
the last year record;
S.N. Activities Rich class Middle class Poor class
1 Seminar
2 Training
3 Tour
4 Study
5 Other (please
specify)
10. If anything to say, please?

1 ………………………………………………………………………………………..
1 …………………………………………………………………………………………
2 …………………………………………………………………………………………
3 …………………………………………………………………………………………
4 …………………………………………………………………………………………
75
76

Income Generating Activities of Community Forest User Group in Nepal

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Income Generating Activities of Community Forest User Group in Nepal

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNITY

FORESTRY USERS GROUP

(A CASE STUDY OF SHREE JAYMIRE BHANJANG COMMUNITY

Submitted to Central department of Economics

Faculty of Humanities and social Science

Tribhuvan University, kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Central Department of Economics

The successful completion of this paper was made possible only

CBO : Community Based Organization

2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal

2.3 Participation and forest management

2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood

4.4.2 Secondary data:

4.5 Data analysis:

4.6 Methods for Calculating Household Income

4.6.1 Components of Household Income

4.6.2 Methods for Valuing Products

5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents

5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents

5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents

5.1.4 Education Status of the Respondents

5.1.5 Occupation Status of the Respondents

5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents

5.1.8 Land Holding Size of the Respondents

5.2 Household Income of the Respondents

5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household

5.2.2 Livestock income of the respondents

5.2.4 Community forest income of the respondents

5.2.5 Total household income of respondents

5.3 Contribution of Community Forest Income to Users’

5.4.3 Participation in training

5.4.4 Participation in forest protection and management

5.4.5 Participation in Income Generating Activities

5.4.6 Participation on decision making

Table 2: Different wealth class population and sample population

from each wealth class

Table 3: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by sex

Table No. 5: Respondent's Family Size

Table no. 6: Education Status of the Respondents of Sampled

Table No. 8: Livestock Holding Status of the Sampled Households

Table No. 9: Land Holding Size of Sampled Household

Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Table No.11: Annual Average Livestock Income per Sampled

Household According To Household Categories

Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled

Household according To Household Categories

Table No.13: Annual Average CF Income per Sampled Household

according to Household Categories

Table 14: Annual average total income of sampled households

according to household categories.

share in total household income according to household

Table 16; hypothesis t-test for different economic class of

sampled HH receiving CF income

Table 17: Training participants in the year 2065/066

1.2 Problem statement and justification

1.3 Research objectives

1.4 Importance of the Study

Forest resource is the main parts of natural resources many more

There have been so many researches and studies regarding

Therefore, the present study is focused on virgin area to explore