Ii IL- I

,.'I

.Ill• , FORESTR~{ RESEARCH PAPER SERIES

I ..'1 • ~,' Number 3 December 1986

"

- , =-

ATTITUDE, AWARENESS, AND LEVEL OF PEOPLE'S 'PARTICIPATION

IN THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NEPAL '. ,,I,

Uma Kant Silwal

"I. . , ,f , ..• HMG-USAID-GTZ -IDRC-FORD-WINROCK PROJECT . "" .. ' ~... - '. , . STRENGTHENIN<3 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY IN T.HE.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN NEPAL

, ' II';, .. '

-" ' ~,

\ ' •011 ...

p.

FOREWORD :..

This Forestry Research Paper Series is funded through the project, "Strengthening Institutional Capacity in the Food and Agricultural Sector in Nepal," a cooperative effort by'theMiuistry of Agriculture (MOA) of ·His Majesty's Government of Nepal ~nd the Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. Thi~ project has been made possible by substantial financial support from the u.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),. the German Agency' for Techni~al , Cooperation '(GTZ), the Canadian International Development. Research Centre (IDRC) I and the Ford FOUIldation.

One of the most important activities of this project is funding for .. problem oriented research by young professional staff of . agri~ultural agencies of the MOA and related institutions, as well as for concerned individuals in the private s~ctor. In particular, fundingisprovided by the Ford Foundation t6 support research activities related to the human aspects of natural resource management. This res~arch i~carried

out with. the active professional assistance of the Winrock staff. I . \ • The purpose of this Forestry Research Paper Series is' to make the I results of the research activities related.. to forestry available to a larger audience, and to acquaint younger staff and studeri~s with advanced methods of research and statistical ~nalysis. It is also hoped that publication of the· Series will' stim~late' dis~ussion among policymakers and thereby assist in the formulation of policies which' are suitable to the management of the natural resource systems upon which the development ofN~pal's ~griculture ~epends.

The views expressed in this Forestry Research Paper Series are those of the authors, and do not. necessarily reflect the views of. their' parent institutions.

,. Sarah J. Tisch Michael ·B. Wallace I-:-~--- .' .Seri'es' Edi'tbrs" ," U.' I

=' 'j:"" .",', ...:_;c".... I'j\': -',' ~ _.. '. - FORESTRY RESEk~CH PAPER SERIES

Number 3 December 1986

-= ATTITUDE, AWARENESS, AND LEVEL OF PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NEPAL

Uma Kant Silwal

,:.

HMG-USAID-GTZ-IDRC-FORD-WINROCK PROJECT - STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY IN THE - FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN NEPAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Literature Review 1 Objectives 2 Limitations 3

METHODOLOGY 3 Selection of Study Area 3 Sampling Procedure 3 Data Collection 3 Background on the Panchayats Surveyed 4 Background on the Households Surveyed 6 - ~ FINDINGS 7 Awareness Regarding the Forest 7 Attitude Towar.ds Community Forestry 9 Participation in Community Forestry Development 10 Helpful Factors for Community Forestry 12 Hindering Factors for Community Forestry 12

CONCLUSION 13

14

REFERENCES 15 ------

LIST OF TABLES ~ Table 1. Background on Households Surveyed 6 Table 2. Trees Owned by the Households 7 Table 3. Trees Planted on Private Land in Last Five Years 7 Table 4. Condition of the Forest 8 Table 5. Extent of Forest Change 8 Table 6. Causes of Forest Change 8 Table 7. Disadvantages of Forest Destruction 9 ~ Table 8. Villagers Who Have Seen Community Forestry 9 Table 9. Attitude Toward the Establishment of Community Forest 10 Table 10. Community Forestry Development Activities 11 Table 11. Participation in Community Forestry Development 11 !!' Program Tabla 12. Potantial Participation in the Community Forestry 11 ~ Development Program ATTITUDE, AWARENESS, AND LEVEL OF PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION

IN THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NEPAL

Uma Kant Silwal*

INTRODUCTION Background

The reckless depletion of Nepal's forest has grave consequences for the more than 90 percent of the population who live in the rural areas. ~ccording to some estimates, the accessible forest of the hills may disappear within 15 years. This environmental crisis is closely assoc­ iated with the exploitation of forest resources by a rapidly increasing population. Much of the land has been cleared to meet the growing demand for food and livestock. The forest is being denuded faster than it can regenerate.

The involvement of the local community in the conservation and development of natural resources remains the only effective solution to -...- the present crisis. Taking this in consideration, the government has introduced radically new legislation in 1978, the Panchayat Forest (PF) Rules, and the Panchayat Protected Forest (PPF) Rules, whose objective is returning ownership of forests to villagers living nearby.

One of the most important forestry programs in the past decade is the Community Forestry Development and Training Project (CFDP) financed by World Bank IDA credit. This project is designed to relieve the short­ age of fuelwood and fodder by encouraging rural people to manage the production of these resources at the panchayat level. The project began in 1980, and 400 panchayats in 29 hill districts are now actively participating in reforestation and forest management activities In a short time, the project has been successful in meeting objectives of afforestation, protection, and management of forest through local community participation (HMG/UNDP/FAO, 1982, 1984).

Literature Review

7here is a growing awareness among Nepalese hill farmers of the negative effects of deforestation and soil erosion. The degree of this awareness varies considerably from area to area and depends on the extent of deforestation and soil erosion. Desire to improve the situa­ tion is also very strong. In the areas of high awar~ness, the conserva­ tion activities that attract the most interest are planting fruit, fodder, and fuelwood trees, conserving existing forest resources, . and developing better fodder grass (Campbell, 1981). Familiarity with the advantages of the forest, e.g., environmental protection and forest products is prevalent among rural people, especially the literate (New Era, 1980). In participating panchayats, knowledge of the community

*Uma Kant Silwal is Assistant Research Officer at the National Commis­ sion on Population~ His Majesty's Government, Kathmandu, Nepal.

,/ forestry program ha& increased significantly. The awareness is consis­ tently highest ~n the central region, with the with the far-west showing comparatively more knowledge than either the eastern, midwestern or western regions (HMG/UNDP/FAO, 1983) •

. After the nationalization of community forest laqd in 1957, - community motivation to develop methods of protecting and managing . forest resources was reduced. Despite the good intentions and partial

-~ benefits of this act, nationalization resulted in the increased deple­ tion of the forest and negative attitudes toward external enforcement (Campbell, 1981). Villagers mistrusted the intentions of the Forest Department, fearing that if they improved their forests, the government would take them away. This apprehension was based on the effects of the 1962 Forest Nationalization Act (Wormald, 1976). Only after 1978, when the PF and PPF Rules were enacted, did the attitude of communities toward 'owning' and managing their own resources change considerably. The villagers in general are favorably disposed toward establishing private and village woodlots to meet their demand for forest products (New ERA, 1980).

Government programs formulated for community forestry development emphasize community participation and involvement. Villagers provide the necessary voluntary labor for any forestry programs launched in their Village. Many of the households have already participated in similar programs by providing voluntary labor and even contributing to the remuneration of forest guards (New ERA, 1980). In principle, the pan­ chayat leaders have agreed that the people in their respective panchayats are ready to contribute voluntary labor (Forestry Services, 1985). However, a study conducted in the Integrated Hill Development Project (IHDP) in th~ Sindhupalchok and Dolakha Districts reveals that the interest in community forestry is less than desired. In general, however, the awareness, attitudes, and willingness of local people to participate in the development of community forestry is sati3factory.

Objectives

Although there are several studies concerning the conservation and development of natural resources through community participation, very little attention has ~~en paid to the extent and type of participation, the attitudes and awareness created by community forestry' development, and the influencial factors associated with implementation. This study examines these issues and suggests improvements for the Community Forestry Development Program. The objectives of this study are:

1. Compar~ the local awareness of the direct and indirect benefits from the forest in the intervention and control areas.

2. Compare the attitudes and opinions of villagers from two diff­ erent panchayats toward community forestry development.

3. Assess community, participation in the planting, protection, and utilization of the forest.

4. Identify the factors that influence the effective development of the community forest.

2 Limitations

1. This study covers only two villages in the La1itpur District in the southern end of Kathmandu Valley, thus generalizations made may not be applicable to other villages.

2. This study is a foundation for future research, as it only uses descriptive statistics.

3. This study only analyzes villager's attitude toward one aspect of community foresty--panchayst forests.

METHODOLOGY

Selection of the Study Area

The Badikhel and Bungamati Panchayats are located in the Lalitpur District, in the far southern corner of the Kathmandu Valley. The Badikhel Panchayat has successfully launched a community forestry pro­ gram. The Bungamati Panchayat serves as the control panchayat. The~e panchayats were'identified in close consultation with the Lalitpur District Forest Controller (DFC). Geographic location, accessibility, forest area, and socioeconomic characteristics were taken into consider­ ation and used to choose the villages.

Sampling Procedure

Four out of nine wards in the Badikhe1 Panchayat and two out of nine wards 1n the Bungamati Panchayat were selected. The two sets of wards had roughly equal numbers of households: 165 in Badikhel, and 151 in Bungamati. From each study area, 20 percent of the households were randomly selected. The total number of households selected for the study is 63 (33 in Badikhel and 30 in Bungamati). The list of the panchayat households were obtained f~;om the office of the Chief District Officer (CDO), which had recently prepared an up-to-date voters' list for the general election of 1986.

Data Collection

Information and data were collected through four channels: a house­ hold survey questionnaire, key respondents, participant observatio~, and secondary data. The household survey questionnaire was the main tool for data collection. Structured interviews with the selected household covered household information, awarenes~ regarding the f.orest, attitudes and opinions towards community forest, participatiun in community . forestry development, and contributing factors in the community forestry development. The key respondents were Pradhan Pancha, schoolteachers, the Ward Chairpersons, nursery naike~ and Ban Heralu (forest ~atchcr) as well as several intellectuals. Participant observation was pri~ari1y used to observe deforestation, ecological problems such as erosion, landslides, and the condition of common lands, forests, and panchayat nurseries. Secondary sources include information from the Community Forestry Development Project Office, the District Forest Office, the village panchayat secretariat, and various publications. •

3 Background on Panchayats Surveyed

Badikhel. Badikhel is approximately 16 km. south of Kathmandu, varying in altitude from 1100 to 1600 meters above sea level. The panchayat is accessible by car, although during the monsoon, the dirt road is often unpassable. It is bordered by the Godavari Panchayat to the east, the Chapa Gaun Panchayat to the west, and Jharuwarasi Panchayat to the South•

. The panchayat is inhabited by Brahmins, Chhetris, Paharis, and a few lower caste households. The majority (60 percent) are Pahari, with Brahmins and Chhetris about 35 percent. The total population is estim­ ated at 3195, consisting of 450 households with an average family size of seven.

According to local leaders, 65 percent of the land is cultivated, 15 percent forest, ten percent open grazing land, and ten percent waste­ land. Most of the irrigated cultivated land is located in river valleys (38 percent) and is suitabl~ for intensive agriculture, while n~n­ irrigated terraced land on steep slopes (27 percent) has lower pro­ ductivity.

Agriculture is the main occupation of Badikhel villagers. The major CTOPS of the panchayat are paddy, maize, and wheat. Other crops, including oilseedc, legumes, and potato, are produced in small quantities. Agriculture does not satisfy the basic subsistence require­ ments and is supplemented with other sourC€G of income, such as service employment, bamboo goods production, and fruit sales.

An extreme local conflict exsists between the Brahmins, Chhetris, and Paharis. As the majority of the population are Pahari, the Pradhan Pancha has been elected from their ethnic group for four years. This group is supported by the present Rastriya Panchayat member. As the panchayat and government forests are located near the Pahari settlement, the Paharis are receiving more benefits from the forest. The Brahmins and Chhetris resent the Paharis for this and do not want to cooperate with PahaTis in the forestry development activities within the village.

Forest and Vegetation. The natural vegetation around Badikhel village belongs to the government and is under the control of the Godavari Forest Range Office. According to local leaders, it is frequently brought under the axe to meet the fodder and fuelwood demands of the farmers, and to make charcoal which is illegally supplied to Patan and Kathmandu. The people cannot cut down green trees. The exploitation reduced thet original forest to small depleted bushes and it is now virtually denuded. About 150 ha. of Pinus roxburghii Sarge and Pinus wallichiana ~~ tacks. were planted on the upper slopes 10 to 15 years ago. To implement community forestry activities, the Badikhel Panchayat 1 applied to the government.for the ownership of a piece of degraded b&re land· of 110 ha. A nursery, with a capacity of 25,000 seedlings, was establisbp.d in 1980. Planting of trees began in 1981. As of 1986, the panchayat forest had been entirely planted, covering about 110 ha., in Kaphal Ban (Ward No.6). In addition to the new p1antation,there was natural growth of trees in this forest after its protection. 4 According to the villagers, deer and leopards have come back to the forest whele there were only scattered bushes four years ago.

A forest committee was formed in 1983, consisting of 107 members, all of whcm are from the Pahari community. As of September 1986, three meetings had been held. The first tending operation was in 1984 and 3600 loads (1 load = about 30 kgs.) of cut branches and leaves were'collected by the villagers for fodder, fuelwood and litters. This was done mainly by the Pahari because of their easy access to the forest. Presently, grass-cuttfng and collecting dried branches for fuelwood is open to all villagers. Six forest watchers (Ban Heralu) protect the forest.

Bungamati. The Bungamati Panchayat is located about 10 km. south of Kathmandu, varying in altitude from 1100 to 1300 meters above sea leve~. Mini-bus service is available to Bungamati Bazaar from Jawalakhel, Lalitpur. The panchayat is bordered by Techo Panchayat to the east, Sokel P&nchayat of the Kathmandu District to the west~ Sainbu and Khokana Panchayats to the north, and Chhampi Panchayat to the south.

This panchayat is inhabited by Brahmins, Chhetris, Nt~ar~, Tamangs, and other lower caste groups. According to panchayat leaders, the total panchayat population is about 6274, consisting of 996 households and with an average family size of 6.3.

The panchayat leaders estimate that 75 percent of the land is cultivated, of which 65 percent is i,rrigated land, and 35 percent is non-irrigated land. The communal op,en grazing land occupies 20 percent and the remaining five percent is waste land.

Agriculture is als0 the main occupation of Bungamati villagers. As with the Badikhel Panchayat, paddy, maize and wheat are the major crops. Millet, potato, legumes, pulses, and oilseeds also are produced in small quantities. Agricultural income is supplemented with carpet weaving, woodcarving, poultry, and working as low level serviceholders in Patan and Kathmandu. Industry is the another important source of income of some households. Some Tamang people sell fuelwood, even though col­ lecting 'fuelwood and makin~ charcoal by cutting green trees is pro­ hibited by forest rules.

Forest and Vegetation. The natural forest in Bungamati Panchayat is limited. There is a small five ha. forest in Karyavinayak Ban protected by the villagers as a sacred area, where the Karyavinayak temple is situated. Most of the big trees of this forest have been cut down for the public and religious buildings. There are several communal open grazing lands. The~e are not any young trees in the communal lands. People use the Tinpane forest, lvcated across the Chhampi Panchayat to the south~ for timber and fuelwood. This forest is now depleted, reduced to a few trees and scattered bushes. Some people have grow~ a few trees on their private land for fuelwood, timber, and farm fencing. . These include utis (Alnus nepalensis D.Don.), bakaino (Melia azedarach Linn.), and had bayar (Zizyphus incurva).

Livestock are mainly grazed in communal grazing land and very few &re stall-fed, while in Badikhel most of the livestock are stall-fed. This is because there is limited communal land in Badikhel.

5 Local people of Bungamati meet their fuelwood requirements from their own land, using corn stalk, maize-cob, dried wheat stem, hay, husk, and dungcakes. Although, electricity is available in some vil­ lages, the households cannot use it or kerosene for they are too poor. Background on Households Surveyed

The literacy rate of the household heads interviewed is very high and almost equal in both panchayats (Table 1). In Badikhel, the Paharis are less literate than the Brahmins.

Family size and landholding size are about equal in both pallcha­ yats. While the average number of livestock is greater in Bungamati than in Badikhel, very few livestock are exclusively stall-fed in Bungamati while most of the livestock are stall~fed in Badikhel. Simi­ larly, 76.7 percent of the total household surveyed in Bungamati graze their livestock on open communal land. while only 30.3 percent of the household grazed livestock on such land in Badikhel.

Table 1. Background on Households Surveyed

Badikhel BungamaUo

Literate respondents (percent) 81.8 83.3 Average family size 6.8 6.7 Average size of landholding (ha.) 0.5 0.5 Average number of livestock 3.7 4.6 Average number of livestock 21.1 0.3 exclusively stall-fed Stall-fed livestock as a percent of 56.9 6.7 total livestock Percent of total households who 30.3 76.7 graze the livestock on public land

Despite the similarity in average landholding size, the average number of trees on private land is higher in Badikhel than in Bungamati. The existence of a forestry program in Badikhel may be the reason behind this difference. The utis trees are mainly for fuel and· timber (Table 2). This species 1s grown on private land along the border, slopes, rivulets, and landslide areas. Lapsi (Chaerospondias axillaris Roxb.) is the preferred tree in both panchayats. Villagers prefer this species, as it provides fruit, as well as fuelwood and timber.

. I The expansion of private tree plantation in the last five years is very encouraging in Badikhel as compared to Bungamati. (Table 3). In Badikhel, the households separate a small unit of land for tree planting where good cropping is not possible. ~his is not found in Bungamati.

Private planting ha~ undoubtedly been encouraged by the establish­ ment of th~ nursery in Badikhe1. Most of the lapsi seedlings which the households have planted on private land are obtained from the nursery~ as are most of the other species, In Bungamati, three of the sampled households have planted lapsi trees obtained from the Chhampi nursery in the neighboring panchayat.

6 Tal~le 2. Trees Owned by the Houaeholds

Average number of trees owned by ~ouseholds

Trl~e types Badikhel Bung,amati

Ff)dder 1.5 2.0 Fuelwood/timber 65.6 17.9 Flcuit 14.7 5.3 Bamboo clumps 3.6 2.9 AU types 74.9 21.9

Table 3. Trees Planted on Private Land in Last Five Years

Type of trees (per household) Badikhel Bungamati

Fodder 5.0 2.0 Fuelwood/tiIUber 46.5 12.4 Fruit 11.5 5.1 Bamboo 2.7 1.8 Total average 50.9 11. 7

Ou~ of the 30 sampled households in Bungamati, only 20 (66.7 percent) said they have grown trees in last five years. In Badikhel, however, 30 respondents (90.9 percent) of the households surveyed had grown trees on their private land.

FINDINGS

Awareness Regarding the Forest

To compare the awareness of the forest between two panchayats, households were asked various questions concerning the condition of the panchayat forest, knowledge about deforestati~n, and benefits ga~ned from the forest.

Most of the respondents in Badikhel said their forest had increased considerably, while none of the respondents in Bungamati said their forest had increased (Table 4). All of the local leaders in Badikhel said that the panchayat forest in their village has increased during the last five years. Conversely, 50 percent of the local leaders inter­ viewed in Bungamati said the forest declined by 26 to 50 percent in the same period (Table 5).

However, except for the panchayat forest in Badikhel, the govern­ ment forest in both panchayats has decreased is the last five years. The rate of decline in Badikhel is slightly less than in Bungamati because of the introduction of the Community Forestry Development Program and the supervision from the Godavari Forest Range Office.

7 Table 4. Condition of the Forest (percent)

Perceived change in Badikhel(N-33) Bungamati(N=30) forest condition

~I Forest has increased 29 (87.9) Forest has decreased 2 (6.1) 27 (90.0) Forest is the same 2 (6.1) 2 (6.7) Do not know 1 (3.3)

Table 5. Extent of Forest Change

Panchayat No. Extent of increase Extent of decrease leaders of Res- Two Three Four Five Up 26 51 76 pon- times times times times to to to to dents (percent) 25% 50% 75% 100%

Badikhel 7 14.3 14.3 42.9 28.5 57.1 28.6 14.3 Bungamati 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 ------• The respondents were asked about possible reasons for change in the size o~ their forest (Table 6). In Badikhel, the.most common reason given for the increase was "the establishment of new plantation" as Panchayat Forest. The second most common reason was the forest being "protected by the government". In contrast, the majority of the house­ holds in Bungamati said the cau~es of the disappearing forest are uncon­ trolled cutting of trees, increased cultivation, and p~pu1ation growth.

Table 6. Causes of Forest Change (percent)

Causes of increased forest Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N=30)

Protected 'by villagers 22 (66.7) 1 (3.0) Protected by government 20 (60.6) No population increase New plantation established 26 (78.8)

Causes of decreased forest

Population incres6e 1 (3.0) 13 (43.3) Cultivation incr~as~ 18 (60.0) Uncontrolled ~uttinb 2 (6.1) 24 (80.0) Too much grazing 6 (20.0) .Other 1 (3.0)

Note: Percentages do not equal 100.0 because of multiple answers .

The majority of the respondents in both panchayats were familiar with the disadvantages of forest destr~ction (Table 7). They had exper­ ~ ienced the long term consequences of deforestation in terms of declining soil fertility, decreased animal popu~ation, and shortages of fuelwood, fodder, and litters, all which contribute to greater poverty.

8 Nonetheless, the villagers do not protect the forest. There are several reasons behind this behavior. First, there is lack of unity among the villagers because of village politics, accessibility to the forest, and ethnic conflicts. S~cond, people suspect that the Pradhan Panchas and government are not fair and honest regarding forest use. Lastly, it takes long time to se~ the benefits of forest conservation.

Table 7. Disadvantages of Forest Destruction (percent)

Disadvantages Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N-30)

Causes land erosion 28 (84.8) 21 (70 .0) .. Reduces spring water 32 (97.0) 20 (66.7) Increases walking distance to 33 (100.0) 29 (97.7) collect fodder, fuelwood Destroys the forest wealth 26 (78.8) 18 (60.0) Other 8 (24.2) 8 (26.7)

Similarly, the degree of awareneSE about the long term benefits of the forest is higher in Badikhel than in Bungamati. In Badikhel, people. are fully satisfied now that tPd newly established panchayat forest in their village has begun to give returns. To some extent, the fuelwood and grass requirement of the households of surveyed wards is met by freely collecting dried branches and cutting grass in the panchayat forest. Kaphal fruit is also collected here in small quantities. Ac­ cording to the respondents in Badikhel, the source of spring water has now increased in the panchayat forest area. People of Bungamati said that the productivity of the land is decreasing as a result of deforest­ ation in their area.

Attitude Towards Community Forestry

Sample households were asked questions regarding their knowledge of • community ~orestry, the availability of common barren land in the vil­ lage, necessity, and the possibility of developing community forest in their village (Table 8). All of the respondents in Badikhel panchayat said that they have seen community forestry. In cQntrast, only about one third of the households of Bungamati have seen community forestry.

Table 8. Villagers Who Have Seen Commun~ty Forestry (percent)

Knowledge Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N=30)

Seen community forestry 33 (100.0) 11 (36.7) - No~ seen commun1~yforest 19 (63.3) ·-~I Kind of community forestry seen

Forest nursery 33 (100.0) 10 (33.3) Panchayat forest 33 ·(l00. 0) 5 (16.7) Panchayat protected forest 3 (9.0) 5 (16.7)

9 The villagers were asked whether common barren land existing around their village should be used to develop a community forest to meet their fuel and fodder other requirements. Those who replied positively to the question were asked to gi.ve their opinion on its practicality (Table 9).

Table 9. Attitude Toward the Establishment of Community Forest

Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N~30) Barren land is available 14 (42.4) 30 (100.0) Barren land is not available 19 (57.6)

Plantation practicality (N=14) (N=3U)

Very practical 5 (35.7) 12 (40.0) Practical 3 (21.4) 13 (43.3) Impractical 6 (42.9) 5 (16.7)

The reason that Badikhel has no common barren land it is that most of the common land aree, (formerly grazing land), was converted into community forest. The panchayat forest will not be used for grazing until the newly planted trees have grown. The situation is different in Bungamati, as there are several common barren lands in the village and most of the respondents want to establish plantations on those lands.

The interest in planting fodder trees is low in both panchayats, but more so in Bungamati. Traditionally, people in Badikhel and Bungamati use much less fodder grass for their livestock. Unlike most rural areas, they use straw and husks of grain during the dry season. In addition, fodder trees seedlings are not produced in the nursery in Badikhel.

Participation in Community Forestry Development

The success of any program promoting community participation de­ pends on community acceptance and cooperation. To examine this factor, all households were asked if there has been any initiative to plant and protect the trees in their village or panchayat, what community forestry activities have taken place, whether they participated or not, and how they participated.

Most of the Badikhel respondents participated in the program through voluntary labor, land for the panchayat nursery. However, there is no initiative for the community forestry development in Bungamati.

Although all the costs of establishing the nursery, planting trees, and forest protection have been born by the CFDP; local people partici­ pate in site identification, seedling species selection, assisting the forest watcher, tending planted trees, and using the forest products, as shown in Tables 10, 11 and 12.

10 Table 10. Community Forestry Development Activities (percent)

Past record of activities Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati 0'''30)

Those who said an initiat:f.ve 30 (90.9) 2 (6.7) had been taken Those who said an initiative 3 (9.1) 28 (93.3) had not been taken

Types of activities

Discussions/meetings on the 24 (72.7) 2 (6.7) forest problem Establishment of nursery 33 (100.0) Tree plantation 33 (100.0) Prc~ection of newly planted trees 29 (87.9) Protection of natural forest 9 (27.3) 2 (6./')

Table 11. Participation in Community Forestry Development ProgrElm

Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N""30)

- L Those who participated 26 (78.8) 2 (6.7) ~:: Tllose did not participate 7 (21.2) 28 (93.3) I~ j Provided voluntary labor 26 (78.8) Provided cash contribution 3 (9.1) Provided land for nursery Called people to participate 15 (45.5)

Table 12. Potential Participation in Community Forestry Development Program

Type of participation Badikhel (N=33) Bungamati (N-30)

Providing yoluntary' labor 29 (87.9) 30 (100.0) Providing cash contribution 9 (27.3) 25 (83.3) Call the people to participate 21 (63.3) 25 (83.3) Providing land for nursery 14 (42.4) 8 (26.7) Only plant trees on own land 4 (12.1)

The major contribution in both pan~hayats is voluntary labor. It is interesting to note that 83.3 percent of the households surveyed would contribute cash in Bungamati, while only 27.3 percent are willing to do I?oin Badikhel. The reason is that they know all expellses for community forestry development in Badikhel are born by the Project budget. Most of the respondents on Bungamat1 said that they. have insufficient land for agriculture and are less willing to provide land to establish a nursery. In Badikhel, the respondents who are willing to plant trees only on their own land are Brahmins who do not want to cooperate with Paharis. =

11 - ~,

Helpful Factors for Community Forestry

1. The rap~ddisappearance of the forest products, reduction of spring water, and imbalanced w~~ther are the primary factors the rural households are concerne~ with the conservation and development of the forest in and around their village. Households in both panchayats believe that as collection of fuelwood and fodder takes u~ more time they have less time for agricultural activities. It has particularly been a great burden for the rural housewives who are responsible for colle~ting fuelwood and water and performing all the household chores.

2. In Dadikhel, before the introduction of the panchayat forest, a few househ01ds had planted trees on their farm land from the Godavari nursery. These trees have partially helped them meet their hCTJsehold requirements. In addition, the government planted pinus trees near their village 10 to 15 years ago, which have been growing successfully. This experience has prompted villagers to take initiative in esta­ blishing of a new plantation on degraded communal land.

3. Information, education, and communication activities (lEC) concerning deforestation have proved useful in fostering knowledge, attitude, and involvement of villagers in developing community forestry. Radio programs, distribution of printed materials, orientation programs for local leaders through the CFDP, communication of information by Community Forestry Assistants (CFAs), and Forest Rangers are helpful.

4. The establishment of a nursery is effective in encouraging private planting in both Badikhel and Bungamati panchayats. According to respondents, local leaders, and nursery naike in Badikhel, the vil­ lage demand for seedlings, especially fruits, has increased considerably.

5. The negative at~itude of villagers towards forest conservation caused by the 1956 and 1962 Forest Acts has reversed since the 1977 amendments and the introduction of 1978 Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules which return the ownership of community forest to villagers at the panchayat level.

Hindering Factors for Community Forestry

1. The major constraint to the equal participation of all hou~e­ holds in the conservation and development of the natural resources is the mistrust of the panchayat leaders. Most of the respondents of both panchayats believe nothing can be dOl'l.e through the panchayat until there is government intervention and support for the program. They pointed I out thatpancha~'at leaders do not extend equal opportunity to all in the utilization of the forest. Local people also complain that the panchayat leaders' decisions are based more on self-interest than on the interests of the community as a whole. and that a large proportion of the budget for these projects is corrupted.

2~ Local conflict between Paharis and Brahmin-Chhetris in Badikhel hampers active participation by all· villagers in developing community forestry. This conflict may also arise in Bungamati Panchayat also if community forestry projects are initiated..•

12 .~

3. Some people fear high-ranking officials will cut down the community forest as they have been cutting down government timber. Villagers believe government rules and reguletions are too flexible ond are subject to change.

4. According to villagers and local leaders, the fore~t staff does not fulfill their duties. Forest field staff ar~ "01 supervised and are corrupt. Although the staff claims to have c~hieved all its tar- geta, in reality they have achieved less than 50 percent.

5. The growing demand for fruit seedlings for private planting is not being met by the CFDP.

6. There is a lack of motorable all-weather roads and fire lines in Badikhel.

7. The villagers of Dadikhel sRid that the project staff have distributed few printed materials on community forestry. In Bungamati, people had not seen any material about community forestry development. Nonetheless, a lot of distributional material was still piled up in the CFDP Office; it would be more effective if it is distributed in all the panchayats of the district.

CONCLUSION

Although the socioeconomic conditions are about equal in Badikhel and Bungamati, there are great differences in livestock owriership and rearing style. The number of livestock per household is larger in Bungamati but most households graze their livestock on public land. Ownership of self-planted trees in private land is very high in Badikhel in comparison with Bungamati. The types of trees which the people own are mainly for fuelwood and timber.

The development of community forest in Badikhel appears successful. The forest has increased since its establishment in 1981. The reason for the increased forest in Badikhel is the establishment of new planta­ tions and· protection by the united effort of local villagers and ·the government. The cause of the decreased forest in Bungamati as well as in Badikhel is uncontrolled cutting.

The level of awareness regarding various forest benefits and the disadvantages of deforestation is slightly higher in Badikhel than in of Bungamati. The level of knowledge about the community forestry program is very high in Badikhel, while very fe~ people know about the community forestry program in Bungamati Panchayat. Availability of common barren land is limited in Badikhel since a large percentage of common land is already under community rorest plantation. There are several plots of common barren la~d available in Bungamati Panchayat.

Most of the people in Bungamati have a positive attitude toward establishing a community forest on common lands, while about 50 percent of the households in Badikhel feel this way. Regarding the possibility of proper protection and utilizatio~ of community forest by the vil­ lagers themselves, roughly 50 percent of the households in Bungamati accept the possibility of protection by themselves, while only one-third of the households believe this in Badikhel. The attitude toward plant-

13 ing new trees, especially fruit trees, on private land appears equal in both panchayats, as long as seedlings are readily available. Most of the households in Badikhel have already participated in the community forestry development program providing voluntary labor, and are willing to cooperate in any future program launched in their village. The households in Bungamati are even willing to contribute cash for the development of forest in their village.

Several factors have helped increase forest awareness and interest in forest conservation. These include: the increasing shortage of forest products, . previous experiences of private planting in Badikhel, IEC activities through CFDP, and promulgation of Panchayat Forest Rules and Panchayat rrotected Forest Rules in 1978.

Factors which have obstructed the development of community forest include: mistrust of the panchayat leaders, local political conflict, rapj~ change in guv~~~~cnt legislation, dishonesty of forest staff, lack of distribution of IEC materials, and lack of roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Extension service activities should be more effective so that more people will get involved. Seminars, training programs, and obser- . vation tours should be conducted for local people who are interested and active in community as well as private forestry. Follow-up programs are also essential.

2. Production of fodder seedlings should be increased in the local nursery. This will improve livestock quality, ultimately improving agricultural productivity, and reduce dependency on the forest for grazing and fodder.

3. The Forest Committee should be represented by all village ethnic groups to reduce complaints regarding the management and use of the forest. Forest Committee meetings should be regular receiving direction from the CFD project.

4. An all-weather motorable road should be constructed to improve accessibility to the panchayat forest in Badikhel. A fireline is neces­ sary to protect forest from fire. The building of a guest house in the forest would increase the forest's attraction. The panchayat and the local people are willing to conttibute voluntary labor and locally available material for these activities.

5. The limit of panrhayat forest per panchayat should be increased to 500 ha. or eliminated. The ceiling has been already been exceeded in Badikhel by 6 ha. to 131 ha.

14 REFERENCES

Campbell J. Gabriel. Community Involvement in Conservation: Social and Organisational Aspect~ of the Proposed Resource Conservation and Utilization Pro ect in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Office of Agri­ culture, USAID Nepal. 1981.

Forestry Services. "Study on the Evaluation of Community Forestry Pro­ gram of Integrated Hill Development Project." Kathmandu, Nepal: Integrated Hill Development Project (IHDP). 1985.

His Majesty's Government of Nepal (HMG), United Nations Development Program, Food and Agriculture Organization. Introdu~tion1£ Policy Legislation and Program of Community Forestry Development Project in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: CDFP. 1982.

------. Plantation Survival Private Planting, I~proved St~ Use, and Knowledge Increase in Community Forestry. Kathmandu, Nepal: CFDP. 1983.

------. Community Forestry Development Project. Kathmandu, Nepal: CFDP. 1984.

HMG, Ministry of Law and Justice, Law Books Management Board. Panchayat Forest Rules and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules. Kathmandu, Nepal. 1978.

New ERA. "Community and Forestry Development." Kathmandu, Nepal: New ERA. 1980.

Wormald T. J. A Report ~ Village Forestry Gorkha Reintegration Scheme. Kathmandu, Nepal: British Embassy. 1976.

-. -I

15 - -. Papers in this Series:

1. K. H. Gautau, "Private Planting: Forestry Practices Outside the Forest by Rur.!l1 People," December 1986.

2. Govinda Prasad Devkota, "A Viable Energy Alternative for Rural Nepalese Villages: A Case Study of Gobar Gas,lI De~ember 1986.

3. Uma Kant Silwal, "Attitude, Awareness, and Level of People's Parti­ cipation itl the Community Forestry Development Program, Nepal," December 1986.

4. Kam~l Raj Paudyal, "Noncommercial Cooking Energy in Urban Areas of Nepal," December 1986.

5. Laya Prasad Uprety, "Fodder Situation: An Ecological-Anthropological Study of Machhegaon, Nepal," December 1986.

6. Ram Kumar Sharma, "Nonformal Forestry Development Cooperatives: A Case Study of Bhokraha Village, Nepal," December 1986.

7. Bharat Raj Joshee, "Improved Stoves in Minimization of Fuelwood Consumption in Nepal," December 1986.

~LI '" ~~ •. ·"1.•,. 1,~.r

1 It··.. ··· I I, B

Winrock International Institote for Agricultural Developnent y"is established in 1985 through the merging of the Agricultural Developnent Council (A/D/C) ,the International Agricultural' Development Service (lADS), and the Winrock International Livestock Research and· Training Center·. Winrock International's mission is to improve agriculture for the benefit of people--to'help increase the productivity, improve the nutrition, and advance the well-being of men, wanen, and children throughout the world. Winrock International's main areas of clmphasis are human resources, renewable resources, furl policy, animal' agricul­ tureand farming systems, and agricultural research and extension. .

, :~

- II aIIIB --1.. -"III ~

,j ,

Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development

Route j, petit JeanMtrt. Morrilton, AR 72110-9537

U.S.A. "

P.O. Box 1312 Kathmandu Nepal