Top Stories»
Collaborative forestry not going down well
KATHMANDU, DEC 24 - The collaborative management of the vast acreage of government forests has not gone down well with environmental activists associated with the movement of community forestry. Unlike community forestry, collaborative forestry will have dominant role of the government agencies.
There are allegations that the concept undermines the role of the people since the Collaborative Forest Management Committees (CFMCs) have only one representative of the local people.
The bid is being flayed as a ploy on the part of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC) officialdom to seize the authority enjoyed by the local people who form user groups and manage the local forests.
"They (MFSC bureaucracy) expect to usurp the powers wielded by common people as under the concept of community forestry," said founder chairman of the Federation of Community Forest Users’ Group Nepal (FECOFUN), Hari Prasad Neupane. Vice Chairwoman of the Federation , Apsara Chapagain, too, shared the same view and said, "We do everything through consumer groups, which they will not."But Harihar Sigdel of the Biodiversity Sector Support Programme (BISEP) debunked the charge, saying, "The allegations are baseless. In fact, it is about managing the larger blocks of forests."
He shed light on the pilot project currently being implemented in Chitwan, Bara, Rautahat, Parsa, Makwanpur, Sarlahi, Mahottari and Dhanusha, and held that the concept as a whole would cater to the needs of the users’ groups and local people alike.Study as to what kind of income generation schemes could be implemented and how could forests be best managed is currently underway in 4,600 hectares of forests in the five districts.
Stating that the Community Forest Users’ Groups (CFUGs) would be left alone as suggested by the Forest Management Policy 2000 and Forest Act 1992, Sigdel also referred to a provision which says that 25 percent of the resources derived would go to the local people, including the CFUGs, as beneficiaries."The main purpose is to mobilise revenues by managing the forests in optimum ways. Improving the quality of the forests and creating livelihood opportunities are additional agenda," Sigdel further said.
Prakash Sayami, a forest officer, also shares the same view.
While SNV Nepal has promised five million Euro for the next five years to promote collaborative forests and income generation at the local level, the officials concerned expect to bring as much 500,000 hectares under the scheme. This is over and above what has been handed over to the CFUGs over the years.
Although Sigdel avowed the CFMCs to be as democratic as the CFUGs, the fact that there will be only one representative of the local people suggests the contrary. Indeed, there will be representatives of the department of the ministry, District Development Committees (DDCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs).
"The fear that there will not be much democracy is baseless. We have every essential democratic trait in it," said Damodar Prasad Parajuli, a Joint Secretary at the Foreign Aid Coordination Cell of the MFSC.
He also ridiculed the allegation that community forests are facing threats. "No, it is safe," he added, explaining that the extension of collaborative forests would depend on the results.
However, Dr Bharat Pokharel of Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project (NSCFP) was of the view that what need to be clarified are the objectives of the various types of forestry management schemes, including community and collaborative forestry.
"Well, if the objective is to empower the poor local people (of the Terai flatlands), then the debate as to who should run the show is secondary," he said, while questioning the past efforts which have not benefited the poor to the extent it should have.
Collaborative management of the forest is a concept which has been mooted as being guided along by the policy governing forest management drawn up in the year 2000. The policy in turn is based on the Forest Act 1992.
Looked at in this light, there is hardly anything the apologists of community forestry can do even though the movement has attracted the membership of over 13,500 households with organisational spirit running deep into the villages.Posted on: 2003-12-25 05:33
Headlines
Advertisements
