Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Building on the success of the HLFFDP, the GoN started the
implementation of the Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program in 2005 and undertook a bridging
program during 2003 to 2005 without funding support from international agencies. To create better
economic situations for the mid- and far-western districts of Nepal and contribute to improving
livelihoods of the poor, an agreement was reached between the International Fund for Agriculture
Development and GoN on 5 February 2002 to launch the Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project,
which became effective in January 2003 with a time frame of 11 years.
Community forests
In accordance with the Forest Act of 1993, national forests can be handed over to local communities
for forest development, conservation, and utilization for the collective benefits of the members. Access
rights and management responsibilities are assigned to the responsible community forest users groups.
CFUG members cannot sell their allocated forests nor transfer their rights of use to other people outside
of the group. Any revenue generated from such forests has to be deposited in a CFUG bank account.
The money can be used for various purposes, such as forest management, community drinking water
supply, or income generation projects. The government has fixed the proportions of the total income
to be spent for specific purposes: 25% for forest management, 35% for poverty alleviation, and the
rest for community development works (for example, school repairs, drinking water system and roads
improvement).
Based on the Forest Act of 1993 and Forest Regulations of 1995, the CFUG handover process requires
the formation of a forest users group and submission of the group’s constitution, together with an
operational plan (OP) for a designated area of forest. The OP outlines the management strategies of
forests and use patterns of forest products. CFUGs set clear rules for the collection of forest products
in their OPs. In most cases, forest users prepare the constitution and OPs, in collaboration with the
DFO and NGOs. Forests are handed over to the responsible CFUGs upon approval by the DFO of
the constitution and OP, leading to the transfer of the forest management and use rights from the
government to the CFUGs. The CFUGs also have the right to exclude non-CFUG members from the
use of their designated community forests.
Many studies argued that the benefit-sharing mechanism in CF is not equitable (Kanal and Niraula
2004; Pokhrel 2007; Pandit and Kumar 2009).
Although poverty is given a lot of attention these days, poverty is reduced in few isolated cases where
community groups support targeted pro-poor and locally-planned activities. A study conducted by
Kanel and Niraula (2004) investigated that CFs generated a total of US$ 10 million annually from the
sale of forest products, of which only 3-5% was spent for the poor. The bulk of the money was spent
on various activities including forest conservation, community and local infrastructure development
(hospital building, school building, drinking water and rural road construction). The recent CF guidelines
(2009) set by the DOF provides the allocation of 35% of the CF income to poorer households.
RECOFTC/FAO (2009) revealed that villagers in Nepal benefit directly from community forestry if they
are members of a CFUG, and indirectly through the development and improvement of local infrastructure.
However, it appears that the wealthier members can take more advantage of the infrastructure projects.
This is particularly apparent in the installation of electricity and the construction or improvements of
irrigation canals. Many poor households do not have electrical appliances and either own little land
or have no land at all that will benefit from irrigation systems. RECOFTC/FAO cited in Dev and
Adhikari (2009) indicated that the CFUG contributed to half of the costs for construction of rural trail
in Sindhupalchok District and 35% to the construction of irrigation canal.
The contribution of CF to the household economy varies according to the types of intervention carried
out and local initiatives taken in the respective community forests. Rana and Subedi (2009) confirmed
that the household income of group members increased by 26% in seven Livelihood Forestry Program
(LFP) districts. This change is directly attributed to the support provided for the CFUGs.
216