The use of Community Forests (CFs) to address social equity in forest management, namely in the distribution of benefits from the forest resources, good governance in decision making processes and the inclusion of marginalised groups.
Title
Brief description
Two CFs in Nepal address social equity in forest management. Th CFs distributed land to socially excluded groups and redistributed resources from the community forest to the community. The CFs were a good way to include socially excluded groups in decision making processes and develop a sense of community among those involved, and provided income to its users.
Keywords
community forest, good governance, social equity, social inclusion, transparency
City/Country
Time period
1990s- ongoing
Lever(s)
Culture, civic participation & social innovation
Capacity & capability
Methodologies
World Region
Scale(s) of the case analysed
Target audience and dimension
Domain(s) of application
Context addressed
Solution applied
Challenge addressed/ Problem-led approach
Barriers addressed
Main Practices
Impact
Co benefits
Engagement Journey
Impact to climate neutrality
Chisapani CF:
People have been provided training on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and other emerging issues of CF. The trainings have created awareness about the issues of climate change, carbon trading and sustainable forest management. The management of the forest nursery is run by two local women.
Bandre CF:
Biomass briquette making training was given to the forest users to promote the use of alternative energy sources, and to help minimise the pressure on the forest. Forest users sell the surplus biomass briquette in the local market, which earns them extra income.
Context & Public policy of reference
Innovative approach(es) addressed
The project looked at the degree of social equity in two CFs in Nepal. The report looked at distributive equity, how benefits, costs and risks were allocated among CF community. Procedural equity of how political processes and decision-making processes included individuals. Lastly, it looked at contextual equity of how people’s capabilities and their access to the resources helped them deliver outcomes.
- Local people’s access to fuelwood, timber and other non-timber forest products (NTFPs).
- Local marginalised groups’ and community forestry user groups’ (CFUG) access to CF lands for income generation activities, including distant users.
- Capacity building initiatives undertaken by the Executive Committee (EC), and the process of social inclusion, promoting transparency in financial dealings, and efforts to increase livelihoods opportunities to the local villagers.
Initiator
Chisapani CF: Local people founded the CF in 1997 and in 2009 it was handed to the local communities. The handing over of the CF to the local communities (community forestry used groups (CFUG)) ensured that people from all social groups participated and the costs and benefits of the CF were fairly and equitably shared among the people.
Bandre CF: Before being a CF, it was an open-access resource and prone to forest fires. When it was handed to villagers, they formed a CF.
Stakeholder networks and organisational model
Stakeholder | Role |
Community forestry user groups (CFUG) | Day to day operations of CF |
Chairperson | Day to day operations of CF |
Executive Committee (EC) | Oversee the distribution of timber and come to consensus on decisions. Hold GA and monthly meetings. Sub-committees lease land and decide the amount of timber given to the community. |
Socially and economically marginalized social groups i.e. women and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) | Members of the EC and sub-committees. |
Village Development Committees (VDCs) | Elect a representative to monthly EC meetings |
District Forest Office | Technical support for the CF |
International development Enterprises | Provide 10.000 NPR/month for the CF |
Other organisations | Provide training and support to local villagers e.g. In fish farming, pig rearing and eco-tourism activities, upkeeping the wildlife centre |
Chisapani CF:
1. There is a CF executive committee (EC) that decides the type and distribution of timber to CF member-households. The EC is comprised of 23 members and they are elected every three years. These members contribute their time and efforts voluntarily. The EC is supported by sub-committees: advisory, evaluation, account and of non-timber forest products (NTFP) management. The EC and the sub-committees aim to be socially inclusive by having women and indigenous people, but it still lacks to attain the goal of having 50% of its members as women and other socially and economically excluded groups. 26% of the EC was women.
i. There is a monthly meeting of the EC, on the 17th of every month and a general assembly of the community forestry used groups (CFUG). The EC shares an annual report and audit report at the general assembly meeting in which they have also gathered feedback from the users of the CF.
3. The Village Development Committees (VDCs) that comprise of the Chisapani CF, elect their own representatives to put forward the management and development issues of the CF to the executive committee. Issues are resolved with consensus. The sub-committees help in the decision-making processes.
Bandre CF:
1. Chairperson of the Bandre CF is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the CF.
2. EC acts the same way in Bandre as Chisapani but has: 11 members in the EC who are elected for a three-year term. There are 6 women in the EC (more than the CF guideline 2009).
i. EC holds meetings every month, and a GA once a year. The EC is supported by three sub-committees: Advisory, Account, and Leasehold and Forest Management. It is mandatory that every sub-committee has at least one-woman as a member. Representatives of all social groups in the EC and sub-committees ensure that the decision-making process is democratic and participatory.
ii. The Executive Committee assigns each area of the CF a committee group to execute different tasks such as thinning and pruning of the area. These operations can take one to two days.
3. The CF also has a bank account for financial transactions; the Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer are the signatories that operate the CF bank account. The CF has participation in the general assembly, silvicultural operations and forest management activities, members from all social groups take part equally and actively in these activities.
4. Leasing of land: In 2009, the leasehold sub-committee of the CF allocated 2 hectares of the CF land to socially and economically excluded groups i.e., women, IPs, Dalit and others for income generation activities. The lands are leased for five years. After the five years, the land is handed over to other marginalised groups, and so on. Rules are respected by the CFUG. Thos who violate rules, including EC members, are penalised.
Democratic Purpose
Participant Recruitment
nteraction between participants
Resources
Key enablers
Chisapani CF:
Diverse social groups have been well represented and are active in the EC, other sub-committees and general assembly. To include socially and economically marginal groups into CF management practices:
- 1.5 hectare of land was allocated to each household of the poor and marginalized group, including Indigenous Peoples, Dalit and Madheshi who are economically backward as identified through a wealth ranking exercise conducted prior to the establishment of CF.
- The allocated land has enabled is users to sell the timber and other resources to local traders and some raw materials are used at the distillation plant of the CF to produce essential oil.
Key inhibiting factors
Drawbacks/pros/cons of the solutions (after implementation)
Drawbacks:
1. Still need to further study the implementation aspects of the REDD+.
2. No mention of how the EC comes to consensus and what are the democratic practices that allow all voices to be heard.
Pros:
1. There is a wildlife rehabilitation centre in the CF. The EC is engaged in providing shelter and treatment to the injured wildlife. With the CF user groups, they have rescued numerous animals and rehabilitated back to the wildlife
Scalability
Key lessons
The forest management practices that are adopted, can add value to the implementation of REDD+
Indicators
- The amount of women and other socially and economically marginalized social groups in the EC and sub-committees (has to be at least 50%, Community Forest Guideline of 2009)
- The amount of land allocated to women and other socially and economically marginalized social groups (including the poor)
External link
Ray, R., Silori, C. S., Bhandari, A., & Paudel, N. S. (2014). Social Equity in Community Forests. Two Case Studies from Nepal. ForestAction Nepal. Retrieved from https://www.recoftc.org/sites/default/files/publications/resources/recoftc-0000202-0001-en.pdf
Komentarji ()