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

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


CBO : CF: CFUG: DDC: DSCO: FECOFUN: FOP : HH: IGA: INGO: IOF: MDG: MFSC; NPC: NTFP: PRA: RHH: TU: UG : UNDP: VDC : Community Based Organization Community Forest Community Forest User Group District Development Committee District Soil Conservation Office Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal Forest Operational Plan House holds Income Generation Activities International Non-Governmental Organization Institute of Forestry Millennium Development Goal Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation National Planning Commission Non- timber Forest Products Participatory Rural Appraisal Respondent House Hold Tribhuvan University User Group United Nation Development Project Village Development Committee


Page no. i ii v vi ix

LETER OF RECOMMENDATION LETER OF APPROVAL ACKNOWLWDGEMENT iv ACRONYMS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 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 2.1Community forestry in the context of Nepal



2.2 Income Generation from Community Forestry 2.3 Participation and forest management 2.4 Contribution of Community Forest for Livelihood Promotion

3.1 Jhapa District 3.1.1 Community Forestry in Jhapa 3.2 Description of Selected CFUG

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


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


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


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


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 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. 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




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


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.


2. 3.

The study has focused on income aspect of the households only. 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.


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


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 cooperation 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 twothirds of the fuel wood supplies come from forest and the rest comes


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


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


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 subuser 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.


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,


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 Address Handover date Area (hectare) No. of household User population User sex Male Female Ethnicity of HH Brahman/ Chhetri Janajati Dalit Wealth Status Rich Middle Poor Size of Executive Committee(EC) Sex wise Male Female Representation in EC Caste wise Brah/chhetri Janajati representation Dalit in EC Wealth status Rich Middle wise Poor representation in EC Source: Field survey, 2010 Shree Jaymire Bhanjang CFUG Santinagar- 2,7,9 2057/9/15 49 366 1628 825 803 232 91 43 42 126 198 11 8 3 6 4 1 2 5 5


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.


• • •

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


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 Total HH wealth Percen t% class population Percen t% and No. Sample sample of HH population from each wealth class S.N Wealth . class Sample HH

by Sex Male Femal 1 Rich 42 11.47 2 Middle 126 34.43 3 Poor 198 54.1 4 Total 366 100 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: 12 20 24 56 21.42 35.72 42.86 100 10 16 19 45 e 2 4 5 11


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


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)

5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents


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 Wealth Number of households Brahmin/Chh Janaja Dalit etri ti 5 6 3 14 25 5 8 13 23.22 12 20 24 56 21.42 35.72 42.86 100 Tota l Percentag e

category Rich 7 Middle 9 Poor 13 total 29 Percentage 51.78 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 Lower households. also The have researcher been has been in found a good and relationship and participation among all caste groups in the study area. castes involving every social 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 80.35 19.65 100 Male 45 Female 11 Total 56 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 Family Brahmin/Chh etri 1-5 9 6-9 11 10 -above 2 Total 22 Source: Field Survey, 2010 Janaja Dalit ti 5 7 4 16 7 8 3 18 21 26 9 56 37.5 46.42 16.08 100 of Number of households Tota l percenta ge

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 Wealth Class No. of household Illiterate Prima ry 5 9 8 22 39.28 Total Seconda College ry 4 4 5 13 23.22 2 3 1 6 10.72 12 20 24 56 100

Rich 1 Middle 4 Poor 10 Total 15 Percentage 26.78 Source: Field Survey, 2010

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 Tota l Sampled

Household Occupation type Number of households percenta ge


Brahmin/Chh etri Agriculture 20 Business 9 Total 29 Source: Field Survey, 2010

Janaja Dalit ti 10 4 14 9 4 13 39 17 56 69.64 30.36 100

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 Wealth No. of households Cow/ox Buffalo Goat 32 106 136 274 Pig 8 17 25 Total 63 156 194 413

category Rich 18 13 Middle 27 15 Poor 23 18 Total 68 46 Source: Field Survey, 2010

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


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 Brahmin/Chh >40 etri 7 Janaja Dalit ti 5 6 3 14 5 8 13 12 20 24 56 21.42 35.72 42.86 100 Tota l percenta ge size (in Khatta)

20-40 9 <20 13 Total 29 Source: Field Survey, 2010

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, nonfarm (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.


Table No. 10: Annual average Agriculture Income per Sampled Household According To Household Categories Income source Household Total income 435230 449826 327684 1212740 Average income 36269.16 22491.30 13653.50 72413.96 Minimu m 32630 15120 8840 8840 Maximu m 48525 43400 17880 48525 types Rich Middle Poor Agriculture Total Source: Field Survey, 2010

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. 22491.30 Average annual income of rich class household is NRs. 36269.16; middle class households have NRs. 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 Household According To Household Categories Income source HH type Total income Average income Minimu m Maximu m


Livestock (Cattle/Ox, Buffalo, Goat, and

Rich Middl

195425 342840 356780 895045

16285.41 17142.00 14865.83 48293.24

3200 2250 1800 1800

24350 32450 25500 32450

e Poor Pig Total Milk

selling Source: Field Survey, 2010 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 (nonagriculture) self-employed (agriculture) etc. Table No.12 Annual Average Non farm Income per Sampled Household according To Household Categories Income source Non-farm HH Total Average income 119395.83 68846.50 54522.91 242765.24 Minimu m 35000 25000 5000 5000 maximu m 175000 150000 150000 175000 type income Rich 1432750 Middle 1376930 Poor 1308550 Total 4118230 Source: Field Survey, 2010


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.



Annual Total





Sampled Minimu m 1645 1455 850 850

Household according Income HH type source Commu

to Household Categories Average income 3087.5 2721 1531.45 7339.95 Maximu m 4680 4050 2890 4680

income Rich 37050 Middle 54420 nity Poor 36755 forestry Total 128225 Source: Field Survey, 2010

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


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 source Total income Total class household 22491.30 (20.22) 17142.00 (15.42) 68846.50 (61.92) 2721 (2.44) 111200.80 income Total class household 13653.50 (16.14) 14865.83 (17.58) 54522.91 (64.46) 1531.45 (1.82) 84573.69 income poor of rich class of the middle of household Agriculture Livestock Non-farm Community forestry Total 36269.16 (20.73) 16285.41 (9.30) 119395.83 (68.21) 3087.50 (1.76) 175037.90 the


(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)


Share of CF Household Community Type forest income (NRs) Rich 3087.5 Middle 2721 Poor 1531.45 Total 7339.95 Source; field survey, 2010 Total household income total in mean

income(NRs) household 175037.90 111200.80 84573.69 370812.39 income (%) 1.76 2.44 1.82 6.02

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 Freedom Rich HH Rich poor HH Middle Poor and 18 of Level e 5% of T value T critical significanc 1.2341 value 2.10

Middle class and 13 class and 29 class 5% 5.3510 2.045 5% 5.1159 2.160


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.


Never 11% Some time 34%

Every time 20%

Most of time 35%

Every time

Most of time

Some time


Source; Field Survey 2010 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 nongovernment organization and CFUG itself. Users involved in the plantation activities on the tole basis in each day of plantation.


Never 7% Sometimes 21%

Every times 32%

Most of Times 40%

Every times

Most of Times



Source; Field Survey 2010 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.


Every times 2% Most of Times 7% Never 53% Sometimes 38%

Every times

Most of Times



Source; Field Survey 2010 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 Mal e No. Perce 8 47.0 Fema le 9 52.94 Ethnicity Dali t 2 11.7 Janta ti 3 17.65 Brahmi n/ Chhetri 12 70.59 Wealth Class Poo r 9 Middl e 7 Ric h 1 5.8 8 17 100 Tota l

52.9 41.17 4

nt 6 6 (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% Sometimes 14%

Every times 18%

Most of Times 63%

Every times

Most of Times



Source; Field Survey 2010 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


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 11%

Never 38%

Sometimes 51%

Every times

Most of Times



Source; Field Survey 2010
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


options provided by the other users and members and didn’t take their own views.



23% 48%


Most of time



Source; Field Survey 2010
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.


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


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 HH involve d Mal e femal e Rich Middl e Poo r Dali t Janjat i Brahmin/ Chhetri Loan per HH Total Amoun t Sex Wealth class Ethnicity

Goat Farming Shop keeping

15 3 5 3 1 1

3,00 0 5,00 0 3,00 0 3,00 0 3000 3000

45,000 15,000 15,000 9,000 3,000 3,000

10 2 5 2 1 1

5 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

9 1 0 0 0 0

6 2 5 3 1 1

2 0 1 2 1 1

4 1 4 1 0 0

9 2 0 0 0 0

Pig Farming
Tailoring Metal working Carpente ring












(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. Respondents of Total money earned HH 1 Goat farming 4 2 Pig farming 2 3 Shop Keeping 2 4 Tailoring 1 5 Metal working 1 Source: Field Survey, 2010 in year 12,000 22,000 36,000 5,000 12,000 Average Annual by income Per a HH 3,000 11,000 18,000 5,000 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


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 Satisfied 30.65 78.64 88.71 about forest product distribution system S.N. Forest Product 1 Timber 2 Fuel Wood 3 Fodder/ Grass Source: Field survey, 2010 Non Satisfied 69.35 19.36 11.29

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.


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 nonfarm 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


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. Middle class household and poor class household users. There is also significance difference in received from community forest between the

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


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.


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.

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.


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.









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.


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.


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 PatronClient 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


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: -------------------] d. Marital status: Married [ e. Wellbeing class: Rich [ ] ] Unmarried [ Medium [ ] ] widower [ ] Poor [ ] b. Age: -------- c. Gender: Male [ ] Female [


b. Education of respondents: Illiterate: [ Secondary: [ ] College: [ ]





2. Household information of Respondents Sex Age Group < 5 Male Femal e 620 2140 >4 0 Education Status Prim ary Secon dary SLC Intermedi ate Diplom a Remark s

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 Rice Maize Wheat Vegetable Fruits Other(please specify) Cropping (Ropani) area Qty. of annual Price (NRs) production(unit)

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)


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 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: [ ] Number of person income Male Female Cash earn

7. Income of the household from Community Forest Please mention the amount of product and their prices during last twelve month. Product type Timber Fuel wood Fodder Ground grass Leaf litter Bedding materials Other( please Specify) Unit Prices(Rs)


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 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activities Assembly, discussion, meeting Plantation Skill development training Protection Income Activities Others generating Every times Most times of Sometime Never s


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 [ If yes, IGAs Activities Annual Income Problem Encounter Types assistance needed ] No [ ]

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 [ ] and equitable? Yes [ product? Fair [ ] ]

No [ ]

12. Do you feel that Forest Benefit distribution pattern is fair

No [


13. How for poor people are benefited in distribution of forest 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 1 2 3 4 5 Name Position Age Qualification

4. CFUG hand over date: ------------


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. 1 2 3 4 5 Activities Seminar Training Tour Study Other specify) 10. If anything to say, please? 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 ………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 ………………………………………………………………………………………… Rich class Middle class Poor class