You are on page 1of 64

1

Status of Governance in Community Forest Users Group (CFUGs) of Nepal: A Case Study from CFUGs of Surkhet District

Submitted by:
Ram Bichari Thakur M.Sc. Natural Resource Management Roll no. 10100MNN

In Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Natural Resource Management

Submitted to:

The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) University Vasant Kunj, Institutional Area- 10 New Delhi, India

Under the guidance of


Dr. N.P. Yadav Forestry Advisor Livelihoods & Forestry Programme, Mid-West Office, Ghorahi, Dang A Bilateral Project of DFID-UK and Nepal

1 August 2011

Livelihoods and Forestry Programme Mid-West Co-ordination Office, Dang Tel: +977 82 560987/562265 Email: lfpmw@lfpmw.org.np

c/o DFID-Nepal, P.O. Box 106 Kathmandu, Nepal Tel: +977 1 4410010 Fax: +977 1 4410469 Email: lfp@lfp.org.np

Certificate

This is to certify that the report entitled Status of Governance in Community Forest Users Group of Nepal: A Case Study from CFUGs of Surkhet District submitted by Mr Ram Bichari Thakur, a student of M.Sc. Natural Resource Management Program at TERI University, New Delhi has accomplished excellent works under my guidance from 25th May to 25th July, 2011 at one of working districts of Livelihoods & Forestry Programme, Mid-West Programme Coordination Office, Dang, Nepal. Please feel free to write any quarries regarding Mr Thakurs minor project field work, report writing and his involvement with us in previous research works.

Regards, Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Ph.D. Forestry Advisor Livelihoods & Forestry Programme Mid-West Programme Co-ordination Office Ghorahi, Dang, Nepal

Declaration

I hereby declare that this research "Assessment of Status of Governance in Community Forest Users Group of Nepal: Multiple Case Studies of CFUGs from Surkhet District " is my own work except otherwise as acknowledged. I have not submitted it or any of its part to any other academic institutions.

Ram Bichari Thakur M.Sc. Natural Resource Management Roll no. 10100MNN The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) University, 10, Institutional Area, Vasantkunj, New Delhi, India

Date: August 1, 2011

Abstract
Community forestry program of Nepal is well-renowned throughout the world. More than 14000 forest users group have been formed, and more than 25% of the national forest handed over to the community forest users group (CFUG), and approximately 35% of the households are directly involved in the community forestry programme of Nepal. Primary objective of the community forestry program as envisioned by the Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1979) is to fulfil the basic needs of forest products, and it is often claimed that it has fulfilled the objective in a large extent. But, CFUG is lagging behind to achieve the second generation issues such as sustainable forest management, good governance and livelihoods upliftment. To identify the gap between desired and existing governance status in the CFUG, five CFUGs were selected on the basis of multiphase random sampling consideration on ethnicity, gender, accessibility and size of households of users group. Field based data were analysed based on matrix ranking of governance. Questionnaire survey was carried out to assess the status of governance. Questionnaire was prepared by taking into account of key elements of governance such as transparency, participation, accountability, rule of law, equity and inclusiveness, and effectiveness and efficiency. The study suggests that status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG, Bhairum CFUG, Ram Janaki CFUG and Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG have good governance condition while Kundali CFUG has fair governance condition. Similarly, status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG is highest and lowest in the Kundali CFUG. In an overall, status of governance in Surkhet district is good. Governance strengthening is prerequisite to advance the status of governance in CFUG. Key words: Participation, accountability, transparency, governance strengthening etc.

Acknowledgement
First and foremost my sincere gratitude and deep respect goes to my research advisor Dr. N.P. Yadav, Forest Advisor of Livelihoods & Forestry Programme, Mid-West Coordination Office, Dang for his continuous guidance, help, encouragement, guidance and practical suggestions extended to complete this research. I would like to express my sincere and profound gratitude to Mr. Shree Prasad Baral, DFO, Surkhet for his constant encouragement and inspiration. Sincere thanks goes to my research assistants Mr. Sher Bahadur Rokaya, ranger of Baddichaur rangepost and Mr. Shiv Narayan Mandal, ranger of Baspani rangepost, Mr. Ichha Bahadur Bhandari, forester of Birendranagar rangepost as invaluable assistance during the period of field study. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Milan Govind Vaidya, assistant forest officer of Surkhet during data analysis & map preparation using geographical information system (GIS). A very special appreciation goes to Mr. Mohan Lal Dhungana, chairperson of Chetana Janjagriti CFUG; Mr. Mani Ram Kandel, chairperson of Bhairum CFUG; Mr. Tilak B.C., deputy chairman of Kundali CFUG; Mrs. Padama Sijapati, chairperson of Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG and Mr. Balaram K.C., chairperson of Ram Janaki CFUG and other CFUG members of study sites for their invaluable assistance during the social survey. A deep appreciation is extended to my wife Mrs. Nirmala Phulara Thakur for her inspiration, patience, understanding and constructive comments shown during field study as well as final report preparation.
Ram Bichari Thakur M.Sc. Natural Resource Management Roll no. 10100MNN The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) University, 10, Institutional Area, Vasantkunj, New Delhi, India

Abbreviations
ADB BS CF CFUC CFUG DFID-UK FY HMGN LFP MPFS NRs. NTFP UNDP VDC Asian Development Bank Bikram Sambat (Nepali calendar) Community forest Community forest users committee Community forest users group Department for International Development-United Kingdom Financial Year His Majestys Government of Nepal Livelihoods for Forestry Programme Master plan for Forestry Sector Nepalese Rupees Non Timber Forest Products United Nations Development Program Village Development Committee

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9 Background ............................................................................................................................... 9 Problem Statement and Justification ....................................................................................... 9 Purpose of the Study: ...............................................................................................................10 General objectives: ...................................................................................................................10 Specific objectives: ...................................................................................................................10 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10 Evolution of Community Forestry in Nepal ............................................................................. 11 Governance and good governance ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Issues of Governance in CFUG............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 3: Research Design and methodology ........................................................................ 14 Chapter 4: Findings of the Study ............................................................................................. 15 Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG ..................................................................................................... 16 Status of Governance in Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG .............................................................. 17 Kundali CFUG ......................................................................................................................... 18 Status of Governance in Kundali CFUG ................................................................................... 19 Chetana Janjagriti CFUG ......................................................................................................... 21 Status of Governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG ................................................................. 23 Ram Janaki CFUG ................................................................................................................... 23 Status of Governance in Ram Janaki CFUG ........................................................................... 24 Chapter 5: Discussion ..............................................................................................................27 Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendation.............................................................................27 Annex I .................................................................................................................................... 32 Questionnaire of Status of Governance in Community Forestry of Nepal ............................. 32 Rule of Law .............................................................................................................................. 44 Annex II ................................................................................................................................... 53 Analysis of Governance in Community Forest Users Group of Surkhet District ................... 53

8
Status of Users Group Participation in Community Forest Management ...............................55 Status of Accountability in Community Forest Users Group................................................... 57 Status of Rule of Law in Community Forest Users Group ...................................................... 58 Status of Social Inclusion and Equity in Community Forest Users Group ............................. 60 Status of Effectiveness & Efficiency of Community Forest Users Group ................................ 61 Annex III ................................................................................................................................. 62 General Characteristics of CFUG ............................................................................................ 62 Annex IV .................................................................................................................................. 64 Comparative Status of Governance in five CFUG of Surkhet District .................................... 64

Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
The introduction of Community Forestry (CF) programme in Nepal is a courageous, innovative and promising step towards participatory forest management and this has been well recognized throughout the world as a successful people centred programme (Gurung 2007). CF was initiated in 1978 with the first amendment in Forest Act of 1961. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the then government reframed this act in 1993 for the sustainable management of forest resources under common property right (Bastakoti 2005). The new Forest Act of 1993 and Forest Regulation of 1995 provide a clear regulation of the CF and the process of handing over forest to the local communities by forming user groups called Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). This act defines community forest as a part of national forest handed over to a CFUG for its development, protection, and utilization for collective benefits. According to the HMGN (2002), the government transfers responsibility to CFUG for managing the national forest and the right to use forest products in a sustainable way with the ultimate objective of improving livelihoods of rural communities. The CFUGs have been recognized as social institutions, legal entities and self-governing autonomous bodies which have legal rights to formulate their constitutions (legal documents based on which they operate) and to take decisions regarding CF management (Adhikari 2001).

Problem Statement and Justification


It is widely discussed that the elected committee members, and rural elites capture most of the benefits from the forests and their funds. Similarly, CFUG have not given proper attention towards achieving the second-generation issues focused on livelihood/equity, good governance, enterprise development and marketing of forest products, and sustainable forest management. One of the major challenges for equity and sustaining livelihoods is to design an inclusive process of decision-making and benefit-sharing so that the poor, women and disadvantaged group members may benefit from the forests and the funds of the CFUGs. Considering such scenario of FUG's activities, researcher tried to investigate the status of governance within CFUG. How about participation of user in forest management?. Problem statement need to address the issues of CF considering different elements of governanace which should be elaborated. The issue of inclusion in community forestry of Nepal has multi-dimensional forms and intensities. This is shaped in the form of historically constructed hierarchical relations defined by caste, class and gender as well as affected in the current form by the resource and institutional attributes. The intensity of inclusion from existing power relationships and community forestry policies and practices is different in different socio-political contexts. To address the issue of inclusion adequately, community forestry processes need to reach beyond the elite within community forest user groups and give due consideration to different sections of the community particularly poor, women and marginalised (Banjade et al., 2004). The lack of due process during handover, a tendency to follow administrative boundaries and not properly identified real users, and domination by elites who

10
understand the system better and can bend CF to their own advantage, and in addition a management focus on timber for revenue generation rather than forest products to support poorer users livelihoods( Bampton et al .2004) Within community forestry, there are questions of governance, equity, gender equality and women's access to decision-making that need further attention. These questions need to be answered to make community forestry more democratic and successful (Gautam, 2004). While there have been many successes in the Community Forestry Programme to date, significant progress remains to be made in achieving the twin goals of sustainable livelihoods and conservation. Trends at the Forest User Group level that hinder the achievement of these goals include blue-print style or top-down planning, lack of transparency, unequal representation in decision-making and inequity in benefit sharing ( McDougall et al. 2004)

Purpose of the Study


General objective: To assess the status of governance in community forest users group of Nepal.

Specific objective:
To assess the status of governance in terms of transparency, participation, accountability, inclusiveness and equity, rule of law and, effectiveness and efficiency in the community forest user groups of Surkhet District.

Chapter 2: Literature Review


Community forestry is defined as any situation that intimately involves local people in a forestry activity (FAO, 1978 as cited by Bartlett, 1992). Community forestry embraces a spectrum of situations ranging from woodlots in areas which are short of wood and other forest products for local needs, through the growing of trees at the farm level to provide cash crops and processing of forest products at the household, artisan or small industry level to generate income, to the activities of forest dwelling communities" (FAO, 1978 as cited by Arnold, 1991). The original concept of community forestry comprised of three main components (FAO, 1978 as cited by Arnold, 1991): 1. Fuel and other goods essential to meet basic needs at the rural setting 2. Food and environmental stability for continued food production 3. Income and employment in the rural community In late '70s The World Bank made prediction regarding forest situation of Nepal. On the basis of estimated deforestation trends, The World Bank (1978) predicted that there would be no trees left in the hills of Nepal by 1993 (Bartlett, 1992: The World Bank, 1978 as cited by Griffin, 1988).

11
It was a brink and pedantic forecast regarding a country where the forests are still under indigenous management and are not subjected to the 'Tragedy of Commons' (Gilmour, 1990). Nevertheless, The World Bank report created a wide interest, among the donors and multilateral agencies, to assist in community forestry programs in Nepal. (http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/gurans/Lecture_2.htm) According to Nepal Forest Act(1991), District Forest Officer may handover any part of a National Forest to a Users' Group in the form of a Community Forest As Prescribed entitling to develop, conserve, use and manage the Forest and sell and distribute the Forest Products independently by fixing their prices according to Work Plan. While so handing over a Community Forest, the District Forest Officer shall issue a certificate of alienation of the Community Forest. According to Nepal Forest Act (1991), the Community Forest Users' Group shall be an autonomous and corporate body having perpetual secession, shall have a separate seal of its own, as a person may acquire, possess or transfer or otherwise manage movable and immovable property and as a person may sue or be sued in its own name. Actually, concept of community forest was initiated when Forest Act 1961 was amended in 1978 to incorporate the provisions of Panchayat and Panchayat Protected Forests. However, the Act failed to produce the desired result as the managerial responsibility of the forest lied with the local political entities. Moreover, the forest was handed over on the basis of political boundary without any proper identification of traditional and real use rights. The status of "custodial element" remained the same. However, changes in forest management became gradually evident after the implementation of Forestry Sector Master Plan, 1988. The Plan focused on achieving people's basic needs for various forestry products, increase income at village level and conserve natural ecosystems and genetic resources by maintaining a safe and wholesome environment. Adequate policy measures were taken for achieving the mentioned objectives (see Master Plan for Forestry Sector, 1988). Forest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulation, 1995 which were prepared and enforced after the reinstatement of democracy in 1990, have established community forest user groups as independent and self governing entity with perpetual succession and have given the responsibility for the development, protection, utilization and management of forests. Community forestry in Nepal has a well-documented history of over 25 years. It is now widely perceived as having real capacity for making an effective contribution towards addressing the environmental, socioeconomic and political problems raised by Nepals rapid progression from a feudal and isolated state into the modern, globalised world. (Pokharel et al., 2007) Community Forestry program in Nepal is a global innovation in participatory environmental governance that encompasses well-defined policies, institutions, and practices. The program addresses twin goals of forest conservation and

12
poverty reduction. As over 70% of Nepals population depends on agricultural livelihoods, community management of forests has been critically important for food and overall livelihoods security. (Ojha, 2009) Community forestry in Nepal has a well-documented history of over 25 years. During this time it has become recognised as an example of best practice in participatory forestry, one where local people are genuinely in control of management of forest resources (Taylor 1993). In simplest terms, governance refers to the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented) (UNESCAP, 2004). Governance is the process whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the realisation of human rights (ADB 2002). UNDP (2002) has defined governance as the complex of mechanism, processes, relationships, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interest, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences. According to UNESCAP (2004), the term good governance refers to eight major characteristics of decision-making: participatory; consensus oriented; accountable; transparent; responsive; effective and efficient; equitable and inclusive; and, following the rule of law. The Asian Alliance for Good Forest Governance (2002) identified the following similar set: participation; equity; balanced power relations; recognition/legitimacy of rights; clear roles and responsibilities; transparency; accountability; democracy; and decentralisation. Good governance is aspirational, and is concerned with the distribution of power and authority in a society in ways that best serve the widest cross-section of people (Ribot 1999). Good governance, being a key to managing natural resources and promoting economic growth, is central to poverty reduction (Ireland and Brown 2007). Forest governance comprises of a set of institutions, mechanisms and processes, through which forest users and their groups can articulate their interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations at the local level (Giri, 2007). In this research, variables for good forest governance are primarily determined based on selected extensive literature (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom, 1999; Agrawal, 2001; Asian Alliance for Good Forest Governance 2002). The choice of these variables is based on determinants of effective institutional performance and governance, especially in the context of natural resource use (Giri, 2007) . Based on these theoretical prescriptions, six criteria were selected to assess the status of governance capacity of the CFUGs. The criteria selected were Participation (P), Transparency (T), Accountability (A), Legitimacy of rules (RL), Equity and Inclusiveness (E & I) and Effectiveness and efficiency (EE). These criteria were used to explore the existing governance mechanisms at internal level i.e. within CFUGs.

13
In Nepal, the term 'governance' has been used in economic, social, administrative, and political literature since the mid-nineties (Sharma and Acharya 2004). Following the endorsement of the MPFS (1989) and the enactment of the Forest Act (1993) the issue of governance has become an important agenda in the forestry sector because they provide policy and legal basis to devolve and share power of the state with the forest dependent rural communities. The tenth five-year plan (2002-2007) and poverty reduction strategy paper (2002) have envisioned good governance as one of the four strategic pillars of development objectives.

14

Chapter 3: Methodology
Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda VDC-8,9; Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC-5; Bhairum CFUG, Birendranagar -4; Chetana Janjagriti CFUG, Uttarganga-1 and Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5 of Surkhet district were selected on the basis of ethnicity, gender, accessibility and size of the users group according to multistage random sampling. Participatory governance assessment tool such as spider web matrix ranking was employed. Field observations, in-depth interviews with key personnel and focus group discussions (Krueger 1994 cited in Suvedi & Shawn, 2003) were used. Using multi-stage random sampling (Taylor-Powell, 1996), a total of 150 respondents were selected for the study while 30 respondents, on the basis of ethnicity, gender, and well-being ranking, were interviewed from each selected CFUG. Semi-structured questionnaire of elements of governance such as transparency, accountability, participation, inclusiveness and equity, rule of law and effectiveness and efficiency were used for personal interviews. Three focus group discussions were conducted; one with all ethnically disadvantaged group, second with all women and the third with all executive members. Focus group discussions were held primarily to determine whether any evidence or sentiments of discrimination among different social groups within the user groups existed. Besides, discussions were held with Department of Forest officials, representative of civil society organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Matrix ranking was used to get pre-hand evaluation of existing governance capacity of the CFUGs. Criteria and indicators of governance were developed in agreement with local users. Six criteria with their indicators were scaled on matrix of four-point Likert scale (see Annex 1). These indicators were ranked on a scale 0 to 3 in an increasing order of poor, medium, good and excellent governance condition. A group of local users evaluated the existing level of their CFUGs governance capacity using the same matrix. Secondary data were collected from forest management operational plan and constitution, annual audit reports, minutes, correspondence and other records of CFUGs that provided the baseline information about forest resource settings. Collection of blueprints of these CFUGs minutes regarding meetings, assemblies, correspondence and other records such as funds served as a means to cross check the validity of the respondent responses.

15

16

Chapter 4: Findings of the Study


Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG
Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG lies in Pokharikanda VDC ward no. 4, Surkhet district. The operational plan of CFUG was handed over in B.S.2061/02/10. This CFUG comprises 75 households with 23 poor, 13 medium, 21 rich and 18 ultra-poor households. The executive committee of the CFUG consists of 16 members (Gender wise: no male and 16 females, well-being ranking wise: 4 rich people, 1 medium class members, 7 poor and 4 ultra-poor class members; social stratification wise: Dalit women: 2, women of ethnic group: 12 and others women: 2 ). This CFUG is distributing forest products in a nominal price to the poor and marginalized households. Besides that CFUG provides income generating activities and employment to the daily wage labour of the poor and marginalized households. Furthermore, CFUG empowers poor and vulnerable households through involving them in major vital posts of executive committee, recommends in different types of training, workshop, educational tour and seminar. The area of community forest is 149.50 hectare and the forest is not much accessible from the Surkhet. Some wild animals are increasing well while some wild animals are in stable condition. CFUG has carried out silvicultural operation about 2 ha in community forest. CFUG has provision to collect fuelwood once in a month while poor and marginalized households get free entrance for collecting fuelwood and others have to pay entrance fee to collect fuelwood. CFUG has formed Forest Products Distribution Sub-Committee which recommends providing timber according to the prescribed operational plan and the basis of need within the member of CFUG. Grazing of livestock is totally restricted in the community forest. Major incomes of Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG were not seen in the last year. Bank deposit from last year was NRs. 16559 and cash investment in local debt to users is 112800. So, total income of Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG is 129359 in the last year. Total expenses of the CFUG were NRs. 11250 to the forest watchers, and balance of the CFUG fund is in positive (Saving about NRs. 118109).

17

Status of Governance in Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG


Analysing the status of elements of governance (mentioned in Annex II) from Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG indicates that participation and accountability have good condition (>2.0), while transparency, inclusiveness and equity, and effectiveness and efficiency are in fair condition (<2). Although desired condition of governance is 3, most of elements show fair condition. Thus, it can be concluded that status of governance in Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG is good (Shown in fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Spider Webs showing the existing level of governance in Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG using matrix ranking.

18

Kundali CFUG
Kundali CFUG lies in Bijoura VDC ward no. 5, Surkhet district. The operational plan of CFUG was handed over in B.S.2066/2/4. This CFUG comprises 79 households with 54 poor, 5 medium, 15 rich and 5 women headed households. The executive committee of the CFUG consists of 13 members (Gender wise: 9 males and 4 females, well-being ranking wise: 5 rich people, 2 medium class members, 5 poor class members and 1 ultra-poor class member, social stratification wise: 1 Dalit, no ethnic group, 12 others). This CFUG is distributing forest products in a nominal price to the poor and marginalized households. Besides that CFUG has provided solar panels at unit costs of about 12000 to fifty two households within the members of CFUG. Furthermore, CFUG empowers poor and vulnerable households through involving them in major vital posts of executive committee, involves in different types of training, workshop, educational tour and seminar. The area of community forest is 199 hectare and the forest is remote from the Surkhet, regional headquarter of Mid-Western part of Nepal. Some wild animals are increasing well while some wild animals are stable. CFUG has carried out silvicultural operation in community forest about 5 ha. Last year, CFUG planted ten thousand tree seedlings in the open area of community forest. There is no problem for supplying timber, fuelwood and other forest products to the CFUG. Grazing of livestock is totally restricted in the community forest. To control the illicit forest product exploitation, CFUG has hired two forest watchers from the poor and excluded group. Major incomes of Kundali CFUG from timber, fuelwood, grass, membership renewal and others are 748844, 5000, 8500, 16400 and 1500 respectively. Bank deposit in the current year is 20544 and cash is 38800.00. So, total income of the CFUG is 780244 in the last year. Major expenses of Kundali CFUG for forest protection, road construction and maintenance, solar purchasing, administrative expenses, donation and others were 44100, 45000, 624000, 22500 and 9300 respectively. Total expenses of the CFUG was NRs. 744900, and balance of the CFUG fund is in positive (about NRs. 35344).

19

Status of Governance in Kundali CFUG


Analysing the status of elements of governance (mentioned in Annex II) from Kundali CFUG indicates that transparency, participation, accountability, rule of law and inclusiveness and equity have fair condition (<2.0), while effectiveness and efficiency has less satisfactory condition (<1.5). Although desired condition of governance is 3, most of elements of governance show fair condition. Thus, it can be concluded that status of governance in Kundali CFUG has fair condition at a large extent (Shown in fig. 2). Fig. 2: Spider Webs showing the existing level of governance in Kundali CFUG using matrix ranking.

20

Bhairum CFUG
Bhairum CFUG lies in Birendranagar municipality ward no. 4, Surkhet district. The operational plan of CFUG was handed over in B.S.2056/057. Birendranagar rangepost and Babiyachaur Area Forest Office directly administer the CFUG. This CFUG comprises 458 households with 175 poor, 221 medium, 62 rich and 15 women headed households. The executive committee of the CFUG consists of 17 members (Gender wise: 10 males and 7 females, prosperity wise: no rich people, 11 medium class members and 7 poor class members). This CFUG is distributing forest products in a nominal price to the poor and marginalized households. Besides that CFUG provides income generating activities, employment to the daily wage labour, allocating degraded forest land as leasehold forest within community forest to the poor and marginalized households. Furthermore, CFUG empowers poor and vulnerable households through involving them in major vital posts of executive committee, recommends in different types of training, workshop, educational tour and seminar. CFUG has raised NRs. 1500 as membership fee for rich and medium class household while Dalit, women-headed household and poor households can get membership in NRs. 500 only. Moreover, ultra poor and vulnerable households do not have to pay to get membership of CFUG. The area of community forest is 218 hectare and the forest is accessible from the Surkhet, regional headquarter of Mid-Western part of Nepal. Wild animals are increasing well. CFUG has carried out silvicultural operation in 3.5 ha community forest. Last year, CFUG planted different medicinal and aromatic plants (such as Timur, Amala, Kaulo, Kurilo, Khayer, Tejpat, Raktachandan, Shreekhanda etc.) of 9 demonstration plots in 1 ha. CFUG has also plated tree seedlings in the open area of forest. CFUG has fuelwood depot, and collects the fuelwood at NRs. 1.5 per kg and distributes the fuelwood at NRs. 3.0 per kg within CFUG. It has provision to collect fuelwood twice in a month while poor and marginalized households get free entrance for collecting fuelwood and others have to pay entrance fee to collect fuelwood. CFUG has formed Forest Products Distribution SubCommittee which recommends providing timber according to the prescribed operational plan and the basis of need within the member of CFUG. Grazing of livestock is totally restricted in the community forest. Fire Fighting Team has formed to control the uncontrolled fire, and all households reach to extinguish the forest fire. To control the illicit forest product exploitation, CFUG has regulated same entrance and exit gate and other entry and exit points are closed in the community forest. CFUG has made a compulsion to take identity card to enter the forest as well as to receive any forest products. Major incomes of Bhairum CFUG from timber, fuelwood, grass, punishment, membership renewal and others are 711653, 130061, 83881, 1635, 10301 and 70438 respectively. Bank deposit from last year was NRs. 23607 and current year is 144187. So, total income of Bhairum CFUG is 1175763 in the running year.

21
Major expenses of Bhairum CFUG from forest development, training, administrative expenses and donation was 1019504, 40000, 729451 and 15000 respectively. Total expenses of the CFUG were NRs. 1763955, and balance of the CFUG fund is in negative (about NRs. 588192). Figure (3) Income and expenditure of Bhairum CFUG

Status of Governance in Bhairum CFUG Analysing the status of elements of governance (mentioned in Annex II) from Bhairum CFUG indicates that participation, accountability and effectiveness & efficiency are in very good condition (>2.5), while transparency, rule of law and inclusiveness and equity are in good condition (2-2.5). Although desired condition of governance is 3, most of elements show good condition. Thus, it can be concluded that status of governance in Bhairum CFUG is good. Fig. 4: Spider Webs showing the existing level of governance in Bhairum CFUG using matrix ranking.

Chetana Janjagriti CFUG

Chetana Janjagriti CFUG lies in Utarganga VDC ward no. 1, Surkhet district. The operational plan of CFUG was handed over in B.S.2053/054. Renewal of operational plan was done in FY 2061/062. This CFUG comprises 320 households with 122 poor, 75 medium, 103 rich and 20 women headed households. The executive committee of the CFUG consists of 11 members (Gender wise: 5 males and 6 females, well-being ranking wise: 4 rich people, 4 medium class members and 3 poor class members, social stratification wise: 2 Dalit, 3 ethnic group, 6 others). This CFUG has got first prize from District Forest Office in the last financial year (FY). This CFUG is distributing forest products in a nominal price to the poor and marginalized households. Besides that CFUG has provided training of tailoring

22
to eighteen poor and excluded groups women for three months and providing loan to the poor and excluded users in a cheaper interest rate. Such users must have to patrol/guard the forest every once in a month. Furthermore, CFUG empowers poor and vulnerable households through involving them in major vital posts of executive committee, involves in different types of training, workshop, educational tour and seminar. The area of community forest is 412 hectare and the forest is accessible from the Surkhet, regional headquarter of Mid-Western part of Nepal. Some wild animals are increasing well while some wild animals are stable. CFUG has carried out silvicultural operation in 11 ha community forest. Last year, CFUG planted ten thousand tree seedlings in the open area of community forest. CFUG has formed Forest Products Distribution Sub-Committee which recommends providing timber according to the prescribed operational plan and the basis of need within the member of CFUG. Out of 1000 cu. ft. timber, CFUG distributed 400 cu. ft. timber within the member of CFUG. Grazing of livestock is totally restricted in the community forest. Fire Fighting Team has formed to control the uncontrolled fire, and all households reach to extinguish the forest fire. To control the illicit forest product exploitation, CFUG has hired two forest watchers from the poor and excluded group. Major incomes of Chetana Janjagriti CFUG from timber, fuelwood, NTFP, punishment, membership renewal and others are 543615, 16984, 7500, 32671, 10610 and 827 respectively. Bank deposit in the current year is 35970. So, total income of the CFUG is 648464.00 in the running year. Major expenses of Chetana Janjagriti CFUG from forest development, training & workshop and community development were 91700, 35505 and 390807 respectively. Total expenses of the CFUG was NRs. 482507, and balance of the CFUG fund is in positive (about NRs. 165957).

Fig. (5) Annual income and expenditure of Chetana Janjagriti CFUG

23

Status of Governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG


Analysing the status of elements of governance (mentioned in Annex II) from Chetana Janjagriti CFUG indicates that participation, accountability and rule of law are in very good condition (>2.5), while transparency, inclusiveness and equity, and effectiveness and efficiency are in good condition (2-2.5). Although desired condition of governance is 3, most of elements show good condition. Thus, it can be concluded that status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG is good (Shown in fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Spider Webs showing the existing level of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG using matrix ranking.

Ram Janaki CFUG


Ram Janaki CFUG lies in Birendranagar municipality ward no. 5, Surkhet district. The operational plan of CFUG was handed over in B.S.2057/058. Renewal of operational plan was done in FY 2061/062. This CFUG comprises 703 households with 124 poor, 449 medium and 130 rich households. The executive committee of the CFUG consists of 13 members (Gender wise: 5 males and 8 females, well-being ranking wise: no rich people, 10 medium class members and 3 poor class members, social stratification wise: 4 Dalit, 3 ethnic group, 6 others). This CFUG had got first prize from District Forest Office in two years before. This CFUG is distributing forest products in a nominal price to the poor and marginalized households. Besides that CFUG provided NRs. 50,000 for goat farming to ten poor and excluded users and NRs. 50,000 for pig farming to Dalit users for income generating activities in a condition of distributing first kid of goat or pig to the other users. However, poor households reject to distribute kids of goat/ pig later. Furthermore, CFUG empowers poor and vulnerable households through involving them in major vital posts of executive committee, involves in different types of training, workshop, educational tour and seminar. The area of community forest is 322 hectare and the forest is accessible from the Surkhet, regional headquarter of Mid-Western part of Nepal. Some wild animals are increasing well while some wild animals are stable. Due to objection from

24
users to carry out silviculture operation, CFUG has postponed this task. Last year, CFUG planted eight thousand tree seedlings in the open area of community forest. To protect the Surkhet valley from landslide and flooding, northern watershed has been declared as protected area and harvesting of forest product is regulated by municipality, District Development Council, District Forest Office and other line agencies. CFUG has formed Forest Products Distribution Sub-Committee which recommends providing timber according to the prescribed operational plan and the basis of need within the member of CFUG. CFUG has distributed timber only within the member of CFUG, and timber is not adequate to sell outside the users group. Grazing of livestock is totally restricted in the community forest. Six Women Tole (Hammlet) Committee as Fire Fighting Team have formed to control the uncontrolled fire and illegal forest products harvesting and transportation. To control the illicit forest product exploitation, CFUG has hired two forest watchers from the poor and excluded group. Major incomes of Ram Janaki CFUG from timber, fuelwood, grass, pole, punishment, membership renewal and others are 447274, 57208, 8334, 3210, 13005 and 1177 respectively. Bank deposit in the current year is 7142, cash NRs. 30953 and investment in income generating activities NRs. 31150. So, total income of the CFUG is 568941.00 in the running year. Major expense of the CFUG from forest development was NRs. 354305. Total balance of the CFUG fund is in positive (saving about NRs. 214636).

Fig (7) Annual income of Ram Janaki CFUG

Status of Governance in Ram Janaki CFUG


Analysing the status of elements of governance (mentioned in Annex II) from Ram Janaki CFUG indicates that accountability is in very good condition (>2.5), while rule of law, inclusiveness and equity, and effectiveness and efficiency are in good condition (2-2.5). However, transparency and participation are satisfactory. Three is the desired condition of governance; most of elements show good condition but some elements show only fair condition. Thus, it can be concluded that status of governance in Ram Janaki CFUG is good in some extent (Shown in fig. 8).

25

Fig. 8: Spider Webs showing the existing level of governance in Ram Janaki CFUG using matrix ranking.

26

Comparative Analysis of Status of Governance in CFUGs


By comparing the above graph, it can be inferred that effectiveness and efficiency is highest in the Bhairum CFUG and lowest is in Kundali CFUG. Similarly, status of inclusiveness and equity was highest in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG and lowest in Kundali CFUG. Rule of law is excellent in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG and poor in Kundali CFUG. Furthermore, accountability is seen highest in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG and lowest in Kundali CFUG. Besides that, participation is highest in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG and lowest in Kundali and Ramjanaki CFUG. Apart from that, transparency is highest in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG and Bhairum CFUG, and lowest in Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG. In an overall, status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG is highest and lowest in the Kundali CFUG.

Fig. (9) Comparative analysis of status of governance in five CFUGs

27

Chapter 5: Discussion
Forest act (1993) states that community forest users group must submit annual progress report and financial audit to the concerned District Forest Office, but only a limited no. of community forest users group submit them to the DFO. Similarly, forest act (1993) prohibited for forest encroachment, hut making, growing agricultural crops, wildlife hunting etc., but these incidents were widespread in the studied CFUGs. Community forestry guidelines (amended), 2005 instructs that executive committee of CFUG must be either chairperson or secretary from women, and there must be at least 50% women participation in the executive committee, however, most of the CFUGs have not followed this prescription. Similarly, Community forestry guidelines (amended), 2005 recommends that CFUG must do public auditing after the end of financial year, but only a few users group followed public auditing to approve the income and expenditure incurred by the CFUG. Major portion of users group income expenses on community development activities such as road construction and maintenance, school building, donation for temple construction and worship and other infrastructure development activities, but forest regulation, 1995 has made a compulsion to expense at least 25% in the community forestry management activities, while community forestry guideline, 2005 has recommended to expense at least 35% in poverty reduction activities. So, most CFUGs have not properly followed the provisions of forest legislations.(Evidence based on findings? ). Constitution as a legal document of CFUG is the basis for taking decisions regarding the mobilization of users group, rewards and punishments, roles and responsibilities of users group and executive committee etc., but executive committee, most often, follows its own decision. Forest act, 1993 and forest regulation, 1995 has a mandatory provision to protect, manage and utilize the forest and its products according to operational plan, however, CFUG takes operational plan as only a legal document rather than working plan. CFUG has not adequately carried out forest management activities (silvicultural operation such as thinning, cleaning, weeding, pruning, etc., plantation, preparation of forest fire lines, adoption of silvicultural system, cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants, and other income generating activities) as envisioned by MPFS, 1979 and Forest Act, 1993.

28
Limitations of the Study:

Time was very much limited to carry out in-depth field study as well as properly analysis of data.

Most of the users/farmers were busy in cultivation of agricultural crops, so it was very much difficult to interact with members of executive committee as well as users group.

Scope for further research:

To determine the implementation status of operational plan in CFUG. To assess the role of CFUG in forest management and biodiversity conservation.

To find out the ways of social inclusion, equity and pro-poor welfare in CFUG.

To find out the measures for strengthening governance in CFUG. To identify the ways for improving in the operational plan and constitution so as to understand the OP and constitution of forest by users group properly through avoiding technical jargons.

29

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendation


It can be concluded that status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG, Bhairum CFUG, Ram Janaki CFUG and Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG is good while Kundali CFUG has fair. Similarly, status of governance in Chetana Janjagriti CFUG is good and poor in the Kundali CFUG. In order to strengthen good governance, users should not only be aware of their rights but also obey their responsibilities. Well documentation and record keeping and access of users on it is crucial aspect of governance. A public hearing as well as public auditing should be conducted at least once a year to inform users about group plans, income, expenditure, sale and distribution of forest products, group decisions and implementation status. Users should be informed about income, expenditure, programs and decisions of the group on a regular basis by posting information in public places. The decision making process should include poor, women, disabled, Dalits, indigenous people and ethnic groups, and special consideration should be given to develop leadership of these groups. As governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented, these essences of forest governance should adopt in FUG. In most of the case decisions are made by elite members of FUG and forced to implement by users. A monitoring mechanism and committee should be formed to monitor all the activities performed at the group level in a joint or participatory way.

30

References
ADB, 2002. Governance: Sound development managementThe element of good governance. (http://www.adb.org/default.asp). Accessed on 21st January 2010. Adhikari, J.R., 2001. Community based natural resource management in Nepal with reference to community forest: A gender perspective. Journal of the Environment, Vol. 6 (7): pp, 9-22. Banjade, M.R.; Luintel, H and Neupane, H.R. , 2004. An Action and Learning Process for Social Inclusion in Community Forestry. In: Twenty five years of Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. Kanel, K et al. (eds), Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry, August 4-6, 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp. Bastakoti, R. R. ,2005. Evaluation of collective action in forest user groups in Dhading district, Nepal. Masters thesis, Dresden University, Tharandt, Germany. Common Pool Resources in Nepals Terai. World Development 33 (7), 1101 1114. Gautam, M., 2004. Gender and Equity Issues in Community Forestry: Context and Concerns . In: Twenty five years of Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. Kanel, K et al. (eds), Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry, August 4-6, 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp. Gilmour, D.A. and Fisher, R.J., 1991.Villagers, Forests and Foresters. The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press. Gurung, B. D., 2007. Multi-partnership approach in CF. Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project of Swiss Development Corporation (www.sdc.org.vn/resource). Accessed on 17th July 2011. Gurung, S.B., 2002. Governance and decentralization in achieving sustainable development is essentially a task of transforming governance. Policy Input in Governance Issues. Kathmandu, (December): pp, 1-12. HMGN,1978. Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules of 1978. Kathmandu, Law Books Management Board, FDP/HMGN/USAID. HMGN, 1989. Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of Nepal. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, ADB/FINNIDA/HMGN. HMGN, 1993. Forest Act of 1993. Kathmandu, Law Books Management Board, FDP/HMGN /USAID.71 HMGN, 1995. Forest Regulation of 1995. Kathmandu, Law Books Management Board, FDP/ HMGN/USAID. HMGN, 2002. Tenth five-year Plan (2002-2007): National Planning Commission Kathmandu, McDougall, C.; Paudel, K.P. and Pandit, B.H. 2004. Effective Adaptive Capacity: A Missing Link in Good Governance in Community Forestry User Groups? In:

31
Twenty five years of Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. Kanel, K et al. (eds), Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry, August 4-6, 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp. Nepal. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University. Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., 1999. Coping with tragedy of commons. Annual Review of Political Science Pokharel et al., 2007. Community Forestry: Conserving Forests, Sustaining Livelihoods and Strengthening Democracy. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6(2) September, 2007 Ribot, J.C. , 1999. Framework for environmental governance. Institutions and Governance Program Workshop on Environmental Governance in Central Africa. World Resources Institute, Washington. Sharma, N. and Acharya, B., 2004. Good governance in Nepal's Community Forestry: Translating concepts into action. In: Twenty five years of Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. Kanel, K et al. (eds), Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry, August 4-6, 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp. Suvedi, M. and Shawn, M., 2003. Conducting program and project evaluations (electronic Taylor, George F. 1993. Forests and Forestry in the Nepal Himalaya. Reflections from the Banks of the River Niger, Downstream from Timbuctu. Mimeograph for USAID, Nepal. Taylor-Powell, E. 1996. Program development and evaluation. University of Wisconsin. UNDP, 2002. Nepal Human Development Report: Poverty reduction and governance. UNDP,Nepal. UNESCAP, 2003. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asian and the Pacific. (www.unescap.org/huset). Accessed on 27th May 2010. UNESCAP, 2004. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Wisconsin, USA. World Development 29 (10), 16491672. [online]. Available at :<http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm>. [Accessed on 24th June 2011].

32

Annex I
Questionnaire of Status of Governance in Community Forestry of Nepal

Transparency:
1) Income generation: To what extent has the group succeeded in income generation? 3= group has been very successful in raising member incomes. 2= Group has been fairly successful in raising member incomes. 1= Group has been a bit successful in raising member incomes. 0= Group has been unsuccessful in raising member incomes. 2) Fund Mobilization: To what extent CFUG utilize the fund, does it compatible to Community Forestry Guidelines, Constitution and Operational Plan of the CFUG? 3= CFUG has allocated the fund as provision of OP or guidelines. 2= CFUG has allocated the fund in a large extent FUGC decision. 1= CFUG has allocated the fund in a some extent as prescribed. 0= CFUG has not allocated the fund as prescribed. 3) Access on Fund To what extent CFUG ( poor and excluded group) have access on Fund? 3= CFUG has allocated to the pro poor as provision of OP or guidelines. ( 35% 2= CFUG has allocated the fund in a large extent for community development(20-34%) 1= CFUG has allocated the fund in a some extent as prescribed. .(<20%) 0= CFUG has not allocated the fund for poor 4) Savings: How has the CFUG built up and managed its group fund? 3= Group has rapidly increased its group fund through savings and is using these savings for dramatic group benefit. 2= Group has increased its group fund with savings used for group benefit. 1= Group has made some increase in its group fund but is not using this for much group benefit. 0= Group has not increased its group fund. 5) Expenses: How the CFUG has made expenses of its fund?

33
3= CFUC makes decision about expenses as prescribed in operational plan and constitution of CFUG and later it verifies with the general assembly of CFUG. 2= CFUC makes decision about expenses according to committee decision and later it verifies with CFUG. 1= CFUC makes decision about expenses according to committee decision and it does not verify with CFUG. 0= CFUC chairperson makes decision about expenses as he/she desires. 6) Financial Audit: Has CFUG carried out financial audit and included all bills, vouchers and minute records to the registered financial auditor and submit to DFO? 3= CFUG has carried out financial audit and included all bills, vouchers and minute records to the registered financial auditor and submit to DFO 2= CFUG carried out financial audit and included most bills, vouchers and minute records to the registered financial auditor submit to DFO 1= CFUG carried out financial audit not annually and submit when completed. 0= CFUG has not carried out financial audit on last and this running year. 7) Public Audit: Has CFUG carried out public audit and participated all members of CFUG actively on the public audit? 3= CFUG has carried out public audit and all members of CFUG participated actively on the public audit. 2= CFUG has carried out public audit and most members of CFUG participated actively on the public audit. 1= CFUG has carried out public audit and only few members participated actively on the public audit. 0= CFUG has not carried out public audit yet. 8) Annual Progress Report: Has CFUG prepared and verified annual progress report from the committee, and submitted to the District Forest Office? 3= CFUC has prepared and verified annual progress report from the CFUG, and submitted to the District Forest Office. 2= CFUC has prepared and verified annual progress report from the committee, and submitted to the District Forest Office. 1= CFUC has prepared annual progress report, and submitted to the District Forest Office. 0= CFUC has not prepared annual progress report. 9) Flow of Information:

34
To what extent the information disseminated to the members of CFUG from the general assembly and decision of committee, circular of Department of Forests and other stakeholders? 3= Flow of information is excellent (through tole group and participation of all user). 2= Flow of information is good.( Notice board at each tole and tole representative) 1= Flow of information is satisfactory (through tole representative) 0= Flow of information is poor. No any system 10) Forest Product Auction and Selling:

To what extent the openness and competitiveness found in forest products auction and selling for outside the CFUG? 3= CFUG has fully adopted the procedures of its operational plan and Community Forestry Products Selling & Distribution Guidelines 2= CFUG has well adopted the procedures of its operational plan and followed Community Forestry Products Selling & Distribution Guidelines satisfactorily. 1= CFUG has adopted the procedures of its operational plan and Community Forestry Products Selling & Distribution Guidelines fairly. 0= CFUG has not adopted the procedures of its operational plan and Community Forestry Products Selling & Distribution Guidelines. 11) Accounting system: How has the CFUG made its accounting system reliable, systematic and community oriented? CFUG has adopted banking system, initiated saving and credit scheme, maintained forest products distribution and selling register and documented bills & vouchers of procurement. 3= CFUG has adopted above mentioned works in an excellent way. 2= CFUG has adopted above mentioned works well. 1= CFUG has adopted above mentioned works satisfactorily 0= CFUG has adopted above mentioned works in a poor way. 12) Financial Affairs: How is the business of the CFUG managed? 3= All members are informed and involved in financial decisions. 2= Most members are informed and involved in financial decisions. 1= Some members are informed and involved in financial decisions. 0= Members are not informed and involved in financial decisions. 13) Financial Records:

35
How are accounts and other records maintained in CFUG? 3= CFUG keeps thorough and detailed written records of its production activities and all financial transactions. 2= CFUG keeps some written records of its production activities and financial transactions. 1= Group keeps a few written production and financial records. 0= CFUG keeps no written production and financial records. 14) Profits: How does the CFUG handle the profits from its economic activities? 3= CFUG saves and reinvests all profits for expansion of activities. 2= Group saves and reinvests some profits. 1= Group saves and reinvests few profits. 0= Group saves and reinvests no profits. 15) Repayment of Loans: How promptly and fully repay loans by members of CFUG? 3= All members repay their loans promptly and fully. 2= Most members repay their loans promptly and fully. 1= Some members repay their loans on time and sufficiently. 0= Few or no members repay their loans as expected. 16) Information on community forest management practices: At what extent, members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG fund management, operational plan, constitution and annual program implementation and forest management? 3= All members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG management. 2= Most members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG management. 1= Some members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG management. 0= Few members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG management. 17) Are there existing forestry sector specific laws/rules/statements that provide for transparency? To what extent, existing forest-specific written laws and regulations, circulars, key announcements or speeches that develop the right to access public information on the sector? 3= Existing forest related legislations provide transparency in an excellent way.

36
2= Existing forest related legislations provide transparency in a better way. 1= Existing forest related legislations provide transparency in a fair way. 0= Existing forest related legislations do not provide transparency in any way.

18)Transparent access to decision-making Are there legal mechanisms for NGOs, civil society and private sectors participation in decision-making of CFUG on issues relevant for the management of forest resources? If so, to what extent are these actually implemented? 3= Existing legal mechanisms are enough for NGOs, civil society and private sector in decision making and the decisions are effectively implemented. 2= Existing legal mechanisms sufficient and . are well implemented. 1= Existing legal mechanisms less sufficientand . are fairly implemented. 0= Existing legal mechanisms not sufficient and .poorly implemented. 19) Is the ownership of different forest products clear? Is it codified and understood who has the rights to timber, minerals, non-timber forest products, wildlife, water, carbon etc. in forest legislation, constitution and operational plan of CFUG? Are all these types of product available to CFUG, or is there some form of differentiation? 3= Ownership of different forest products are clearly written in constitution and OP, as well as users rights on these forest products are properly recognized. 2= Ownership well documented and users rights are well recognized. 1= Ownership somewhat documented and users rights are fairly recognized. 0= Ownership poorly documented and users rights are poorly recognized. 20) Are forest products assigned for each round of permit allocation advertised? When forest product is identified for allocation to any sort of concessionaire, is this publicly advertised so that the opportunity for new permits is open to anyone? 3= New permit is publicly advertised through national daily newspaper and electronic media. 2= New permit is publicly advertised through national daily newspaper and but not through electronic media. 1= New permit is publicly advertised through local daily newspaper.

37
0= New permit is not publicly advertised through newspaper and electronic media. 21) Is there transparent independent verification (due diligence) of the eligibility of any applications for the forest products auction? Prior to the final allocation of any area of community forest to logging, mining, carbon, ecotourism or other concessions are there due diligence checks on the eligibility, suitability, or (technical and/or financial) capability of applicants, and is this analysis made public? 3= There is selection of rightful Transparent Independent Verification Committee for assessing the eligibility of applicants for the auction of forest products. 2= There is selection of well Transparent Independent Verification Committee.. 1= There is selection of fair Transparent Independent Verification Committee.. 0= There is not selection of Transparent Independent Verification Committee.. 22) Is the transparent? final permit allocation decision-making process

Is the final decision to allocate any permit made in way which allows member of CFUG to assure themselves that the correct process has been followed? Is the process documented and published? 3= Final permit allocation decision-making process is entirely transparent. 2= Final permit allocation decision-making process is most transparent. 1= Final permit allocation decision-making process is somewhat transparent. 0= Final permit allocation decision-making process is not transparent. 23) Are the final permit/contract documents made public?

Are all contracts/ concession agreements/ permits in the public domain? 3= All contracts/ concession agreements/ permits are presented and published in the public domain. 2= All contracts/ concession agreements/ permits are published in the public domain. 1= All contracts/ concession agreements/ permits are written for the public domain. 0= All contracts/ concession agreements/ permits are not shown in the public domain. 24) Extraction of other forest products

Are members of CFUG informed about the extraction of other forest products? What rules apply to collection of non-timber forest products and other tangible forest products?

38
3= All members of CFUG are informed properly about the extraction of NTFPs. 2= All members of CFUG are well informed about the extraction of NTFPs. 1= All members of CFUG are somewhat informed about the extraction of NTFPs. 0= All members of CFUG are not informed about the extraction of NTFPs. 25) Are all forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. available to the CFUG? Are all lower level norms (regulations, procedures, decrees, technical directives etc.) that make the forest laws operative available to the CFUG? 3= All forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. are available to the CFUG. 2= Most forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. are available to the CFUG. 1= Some forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. are available to the CFUG. 0= No forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. are available to the CFUG.

Participation
1) Style of CFUG Management: How are CFUG activities managed? 3= Decisions are always made with all members knowledge and participation. 2= Decisions are usually made with all members knowledge and participation. 1= Decisions are sometimes made with all members knowledge and participation. 0= Decisions are never made with all members knowledge and participation. 2) Demarcating Roles & Responsibility: How widely are roles and responsibilities within CFUG members demarcated? (Executive committee, advisory committee, conflict management committee, forest watchers, enterprise development committee, social mobilization committee, leasehold forest user group within community forest, forest product collection, distribution and selling committee etc.) 3= Most or all members have allocated roles and responsibilities. 2= Many members have allocated roles and responsibilities. 1= Some members have allocated roles and responsibilities. 0= Only a few members have allocated roles and responsibilities. 3) Meeting & Participation:

39
Information about the executive committee and general assembly meeting that has happened within a year: Total no. of committee meeting to be held: Total no. of committee meeting actually held: Total no. of general assembly to be held: Total no. of general assembly actually held: 4) Decision making method: How are decisions made within CFUG? 3= By consensus with agreement reached by all. 2= By majority vote 1= By users committee 0= Not made in any regular way. 5) Speed and effectiveness of decision making: How quickly are decisions made and with what likelihood that they will be implemented? 3= Decisions as a rule are made quickly and effectively implemented. 2= Decisions are made quickly but not always followed up. 1= Decisions are only sometimes made quickly or effectively. 0= Decisions take a long time and are seldom effective. 6) Member Participation: How fully do members participate in the decision-making and work of the CFUG? 3= All members participate actively in meetings and group activities. Everyone feels free to speak up and play an active role. 2= Most members participate actively in meetings and group activities. Most feel free to speak and play an active role. 1= Some members participate actively in meetings and group activities. Some feel free to speak up and play a role. 0= Few members participate actively in meetings and group activities. Few feel free to speak up and play a role. 7) Womens Participation: How fully and actively do women participate in the operation and management of the CFUG? 3= Women participate as fully as men or even more fully in running the CFUG. 2= Women participate almost as fully in running the CFUG.

40
1= Women participate somewhat in running the CFUG. 0= Women do not participate in running the CFUG. 8) Productivity /Effectiveness of General assembly meetings: How productive are the general assembly of CFUG? 3=General assembly are always very productive; full participation of user including women, time is well spent; decisions clearly made and followed up. 2= General assembly meetings just to reach quorum and mainly discussed by elite. Are usually reasonably productive. 1= General assembly meetings mainly users are disappeared after attendance . 0= General assembly meetings are never productive. Decision made by some users and signature later in their house 9) Attendance of General Assembly Meetings: 3= Almost all members usually come; average attendance over 90% 2= Most members usually come; average attendance 70-90% 1= A majority of members usually come; average attendance 50-70% 0= Less than a majority usually come; average attendance under less than 50% 10) Communication within CFUG: How good is communication within the CFUG? 3= All members are always kept informed about plans, programs, etc. 2= Most members are usually kept informed. 1= Some members are generally kept informed. 0= No members are as a rule kept informed. 11) Degree of implementation of decisions that is in Assembly and FUGC: How do members communicate with one another? 3= All most all decisions implemented. There is always frank and constructive discussion. 2= More than 50% decisions implemented 1=less than 50 % decisions are implemented. 0= There is seldom frank and constructive discussion. 12) Conflict Management: How able is CFUG to resolve conflicts? 3= Group is always able to resolve conflicts among members and with any external bodies.

41
2= Group is usually able to resolve such conflicts. 1= Group is sometimes able to resolve such conflicts. 0= Group is never able to resolve such conflicts. 13) Objectives of CFUG: How well are FUG objectices understood by all members of CFUG? That is concept of CF and role and responsible of FUG. 3= understood by all members including women 2= understood by most members FUG. 1= Goals are understood by FUGC only 0= Goals are understood by no members. 14) Participation CFUG in CF Work: How much CFUG participates in community forest development activities? ( plantation and silviculture operation, protection, forest fire etc) 3= All most all members involve in. 2= participated by most members ( more than 50 %). 1= Group work is done by some members.( less than 50%) 0= Group work is not clearly or fairly shared.( no user participation, paid by FUGC) 15) Status of internal democracy: At what level of democratic exercise found in executive committee formation and leadership change? 3= Through general consensus 2= General consensus at tole level and then chair person among representatives 1= Through voting system 0= Disputing with previous committee and forced to expel from the committee 16) Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decision-making and benefit sharing mechanism: 3= Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decisionmaking and benefit sharing mechanism are excellent. 2= Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decisionmaking and benefit sharing mechanism are good. 1= Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decisionmaking and benefit sharing mechanism are satisfactory. 0= Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decisionmaking and benefit sharing mechanism are poor.

42
17) Bottom up planning and coordination Does CFUG follow bottom up planning approach and make coordination with different stakeholders effectively? 3= CFUG follows bottom up planning approach and makes coordination with different stakeholders effectively. 2= CFUG follows bottom up planning approach and makes coordination with different stakeholders well. 1= CFUG follows bottom up planning approach and makes coordination with different stakeholders satisfactory. 0= CFUG does not follow bottom up planning approach and makes coordination with different stakeholders poorly.

Accountability
1) Accountability of CFUC towards CFUG: At what extent, this CFUC is accountable towards CFUG? 3= CFUC is largely accountable towards CFUG 2= CFUC is most accountable towards CFUG 1= CFUC is somewhat accountable towards CFUG 0= CFUC is not accountable towards CFUG 2) Accountability of CFUG towards poor users: At what extent CFUG is accountable towards poor users? 3= CFUG is entirely accountable towards poor users. 2= CFUG is most accountable towards poor users. 1= CFUG is somewhat accountable towards poor users. 0= CFUG is not accountable towards poor users. 3) Existing system of rewards/ penalties: How could you evaluate the existing system of rewards/penalties done by CFUG? 3= Excellent and without biasness 2= Good and without biasness 1= Satisfactory and may have some degree of biasness 0= Poor and biased

43
Do you think you are perfectly accountable regarding your CF related roles and responsibilities? Yes [ ] No [ ] x If yes, how? If no, why? 4) Roles and responsibilities of CFUC: Do you think.. CFUC is perfectly accountable in its roles and responsibilities as mentioned in its constitution and operational plan? 3= Strongly agree 2= Agree 1= Somewhat agree 0= Disagree 5) plan? 3= Strongly agree 2= Agree 1= Somewhat agree 0= Disagree 6) Accountable to all affected person and institution: To what extent, CFUG is accountable towards all affected persons and institutions, both externally and internally? 3= CFUG is totally accountable towards all affected persons and institutions. 2= CFUG is the most accountable towards all affected persons and institutions. 1= CFUG is less accountable towards all affected persons and institutions. 0= CFUG is not accountable towards all affected persons and institutions. 7) Self, participatory and transparent monitoring To what extent, CFUG has adopted self, participatory and transparent monitoring? 3= CFUG has effectively implemented self, participatory and transparent monitoring. Do you think, CFUG is perfectly accountable in its roles and responsibilities as mentioned in its constitution and operational

44
2= CFUG has implemented self, participatory and transparent monitoring well. 1= CFUG has implemented self, participatory and transparent monitoring satisfactorily. 0= CFUG has not implemented self, participatory and transparent monitoring.

Rule of Law
1) Explicitly stated, mandated and adopted roles, rights and responsibilities executive committee as well as members of CFUG mentioned in constitution and operational plan 3= Explicitly stated, mandated and adopted roles, rights and responsibilities 2= Clearly stated and mandated but fairly followed roles, rights and responsibilities 1= Fairly stated and mandated but somewhat followed roles, rights and responsibilities 0= Not well stated and mandated as well as not strictly followed roles, rights and responsibilities 2) Compatibility of objectives of CFUG (Constitution) and plan of action (activities)etc. 3= entirely compatible with objectives 2= annual activities mostly compatible with constitution 1= some what compatible with implementation 0= objectives of CFUG are not compatible with implementation 3) Compatibility of management objectives of CF with operational plan etc. 3= CF operations are entirely compatible with management objectives as per block 2= CF operations are mostly compatible with operational plan 1= CF operations are just link with OP but as per decision of FUGC 0= CFU operations are not linked with OP or not specified 4) Implementation of OP as per provision made in OP 3= entirely implemented as per provision of OP 2= FUG implemented some annual activities as per plan 1= very few activities implementation 0= CFUG are not implemented CF activities 5) Proper enforcement of rules and norms of CFUG: 3= Forest land encroachment, illegal forest products harvesting, wildlife hunting, mismanagement of fund etc. are totally controlled. 2= Forest land encroachment, illegal forest products harvesting, wildlife hunting, mismanagement of fund etc. are mostly controlled. 1= Forest land encroachment, illegal forest products harvesting, wildlife hunting, mismanagement of fund etc. are somewhat controlled. 0= Forest land encroachment, illegal forest products harvesting, wildlife hunting, mismanagement of fund etc. are not controlled.

45
6) Ownership and use right of resources are clearly written in constitution and operational plan as well as CFUG has exercised this authority/ power: 3= Ownership and use right of resources are totally compatible with exercising authority 2= Ownership and use right of resources are mostly compatible with exercising authority 1= Ownership and use right of resources are somewhat compatible with exercising authority 0= Ownership and use right of resources are not compatible with exercising authority 7) Proper and timely amendments in operational plan and constitution, and keeping institutional sustainability of CFUG: 3= Properly and timely amendments in operational plan and constitution. 2= Properly and not so much timely amendments in operational plan and constitution. 1= Fairly and not so much timely amendments in operational plan and constitution. 0= Poorly and not timely amendments in operational plan and constitution. 8) Hand over all the properties and documents to the successor after turn over the period of responsibility from CFUC 3 = Handover all the properties and documents during general assembly to the new executive committee. 2= Handover all the properties and documents within one week. 1= Handover all the properties and documents within one month.. 0= Do not handover all the properties and documents 9) Does CFUG receive timely information about rejection or approval of the decision made by the general assembly in the constitution or operational plan from District Forest Office as per Forest Regulation, 1995 and implement the activities subsequently? 3= CFUG receives timely information .. and implement the activities accordingly. 2= CFUG receives most timely information .. and implement the activities accordingly. 1= CFUG receives somewhat timely information .. and implement the activities accordingly. 0= CFUG implements the decision made by the general assembly without approval from DFO. 10) Procedures followed for giving punishment or reward to the

member of CFUG 3= CFUG has formed Punishment and Reward Sub-Committee and decision has been taken by the executive committee on the recommendation of the committee following constitution and OP strictly.

46
2= Decision about punishment or reward has been taken by the executive committee following constitution and OP strictly. 1= Decision about punishment or reward has been taken by some elite members of executive committee following constitution and OP. 0= Decision about punishment or reward has been taken by chairperson of executive committee without following constitution and OP properly. 11) Existing system of community forest users group for recovery of funds in case of financial abuse done by former executive committee member 3= CFUG is capable for recovery of funds . 2= CFUG is most capable for recovery of funds 1= CFUG is somewhat capable for recovery of funds .. 0 = CFUG is unable to recover funds . 12) Perception of community forest users group towards the role of District Forest Office (DFO) in enforcement of the rules of constitution and operational plan: 3= Role of DFO is entirely supportive in enforcement of 2= Role of DFO is most supportive in enforcement of .. 1= Role of DFO is somewhat supportive in enforcement of .. 0= Role of DFO is not supportive in enforcement of .. 13) Implementation status of guidelines of Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), circular of Department of Forests (DoF) and order of District Forest Office (DFO) by community forest users group 3= strictly followed and implemented . 2= Mostly followed and implemented . 1= Somewhat followed and implemented . 0= Never followed and implemented . 14) Are there regular monitoring system of forest boundary, forest encroachment, wildlife poaching, and illicit exploitation of forest products? 3= There are regular and properly monitoring system .. by executive committee member as well as member of CFUG.

47
2= There are regular and well monitoring system .. by executive committee member. 1= There are fair monitoring system .. by forest watchers/forest guards. 0= 3= There are not regular and properly monitoring system. 15) Do bidders, collectors and traders of forest products such as resin and turpentine extractors, NTFP collectors, timber selling etc. follow the rules and regulation of forest legislation as well as constitution and operational plan in a prescribed way during collecting, storing, converting and transportation? 3= They follow the forest legislation, constitution and OP properly. 2= They follow the forest legislation, constitution and OP well. 1= They follow the forest legislation, constitution and OP satisfactory. 0= They do not follow the forest legislation, constitution and OP . 16) Tax collection and redistribution To what extent does the forest legislation, constitution and operational plan provide for taxes, royalties, or other benefits to be collected from permit holders and given to affected communities? 3= Forest legislation, constitution and operational plan provide clear and effective provision .. and given to the affected communities. 2= Forest legislation, constitution and operational plan provide good provision .. and given to the affected communities. 1= Forest legislation provides good provision but constitution and operational plan of CFUG does not provide good provision .. and given to the affected communities. 0= Forest legislation provides provision but constitution and operational plan of CFUG do not provide provision .. and .. given to the affected communities. 17) Are members of CFUG encouraged to assist in forest law enforcement? Are there any formal or semi-formal ways for member of CFUG to help in forest law enforcement? 3= There are clear provisions in constitution and OP about strict punishment and good rewarding system and CFUG has effectively adopted the reward and punishment system. 2= There are clear provisions in constitution and OP about strict punishment and good rewarding system and CFUG has well adopted the reward and punishment system. 1= There are clear provisions in constitution and OP about strict punishment and good rewarding system and CFUG has fairly adopted the reward and punishment system.

48
0= There are provisions in constitution and OP about strict punishment and good rewarding system and CFUG has not adopted the reward and punishment system. 18)Are extra-sectoral operations consistent with forest laws? Do mining, road building, large-scale agriculture, hydropower or other infrastructure development have automatic veto over forest laws as well as constitution and OP, thereby eliminating transparent access to decision-making of CFUG? 3= There are no overruling of forest legislation, as well as constitution and operational plan of CFUG and other sector operations. 2= .. less overruling, 1=.. more overruling 0= significantly overruling.

Social Inclusion and Equity


1) Composition of executive committee and representation of all strata in it. 3= Member of executive committee belongs good proportionally from all gender, well-being status, occupation and social category (Strictly follows Guidelines for community forestry development programme, 2009) i.e 33% women and others 2= Member of executive committee belongs most proportionally from all gender, well-being status, occupation and social category (Mostly follows Guidelines for community forestry development programme, 2009) i.e 20 - 33% women1= Member of executive committee belongs somewhat proportionally from all gender, well-being status, occupation and social category (Somewhat follows Guidelines for community forestry development programme, 2009) i.e less than 20 % 0= Member of executive committee does not belong proportionally from all gender, well-being status, occupation and social category (Poorly follows Guidelines for community forestry development programme, 2009) 2) Mechanism of access to forest resources and use. 3= According to need of users considering occupation castes, ethnicity and wellbeing status 2= According to the family size and somewhat consideration of occupation castes, ethnicity and well-being status 1= According to household basis and no consideration of occupation castes, ethnicity and well-being status 0= According to instruction of elites 3) Who gets what? is FUG has forest products harvesting and distribution list of each house hold and forest products extracted from forest? 3= Record of each Hh for each product and outside sell 2 =Record of each Hh for only timber and outside sell 1= Lump sum distribution of forest product as number of tree or linear .... hath 0= There is no recording system in the CFUG. 4) Existing system of benefit sharing mechanisms. 3= Benefit sharing within all members of CFUG prioritizing on the basis of need, interest, expertise etc.

49
2= Benefit sharing within all members of executive committee 1= Benefit sharing within only vital posts of executive committee 0= Chairperson of the executive uses most of the benefit 5) Employment generation through forest management 3= Forest managed to its full potential and generate income and employment 2= limited forest operations, less than potential generate income and employment 1= Restricted forest operation only full fill partial forest product needs 0= protection only collection of dead wood, no forest operation and income. 6) Supplementary programs to promote participation from disadvantaged Groups (DAG). 3= Involvement of DAG effectively in social mobilization activities, capacity build-up activities such as trainings, workshops, advocacy class, literacy class etc., representation in vital posts of executive committee, providing jobs in NGOs etc. 2= Involvement of DAG mostly in social mobilization activities, capacity buildup activities, representation in vital posts of executive committee, providing jobs in NGOs etc. 1= Involvement of DAG somewhat in social mobilization activities, capacity build-up activities, representation in vital posts of executive committee, providing jobs in NGOs etc. 0= Involvement of DAG not in social mobilization activities, capacity build-up activities, representation in vital posts of executive committee, providing jobs in NGOs etc. 7) Supplementary programs to promote income generating activities for disadvantaged groups mainly of poor ones. 3= CFUG highly promote poor users for enterprise development, seedling production, NTFP cultivation, harvesting, processing and marketing, forest watcher, forest management activities, leasehold forestry within community forest, resin tapping etc. 2= CFUG mostly promote poor users for enterprise development, seedling production, NTFP cultivation, harvesting, processing and marketing, forest watcher, forest management activities, leasehold forestry within community forest, resin tapping etc. 1= CFUG somewhat promote poor users for enterprise development, seedling production, NTFP cultivation, harvesting, processing and marketing, forest watcher, forest management activities, leasehold forestry within community forest, resin tapping etc. 0=CFUG not promote poor users for enterprise development, seedling production, NTFP cultivation, harvesting, processing and marketing, forest watcher, forest management activities, leasehold forestry within community forest, resin tapping etc.

50
8) Equitable distribution of resources and materials primarily to the marginalized groups and among users group 3= CFUG are efficient in equitable distribution of resources and materials primarily to the marginalized groups and among users group. 2= CFUG are good in equitable distribution of resources and materials 1= CFUG are fair in equitable distribution of resources and materials 0 = CFUG are poor in equitable distribution of resources and materials

51

Efficiency and Effectiveness:


1) Improvements in forest cover and resource availability. 3= Trend of forest cover (i.e., regeneration, poles and trees ) is increasing with implementation of silvisultural operations as per plan. 2= Trend of forest cover is increasing with forest protection and limited harvesting of AAC 1= Trend of forest cover is stable and consequently annual allowable harvest is more or equal to AI 0= Trend of forest cover is depleting due to over harvesting and lack of management 2) Improvements in biodiversity and wildlife in community forest (CF). 3= Trend in improving status of biodiversity and wildlife is significantly higher in CF. 2= Trend in improving status of biodiversity and wildlife is higher in CF. 1= Trend in improving status of biodiversity and wildlife is lower in CF. 0= Trend of biodiversity and wildlife in CF is decreasing. 3) Satisfaction of people towards the community forestry in fulfilling their basic needs. 3= Community forest is entirely capable of fulfilling the basic forest product needs such as timber, fuelwood, fodder, leaf-bedding, NTFP etc.of user group 2= Community forest is most capable of fulfilling the basic forest product needs of user group 1= Community forest is somewhat capable of fulfilling the basic forest product needs of user group 0= Community forest is not capable of fulfilling the basic forest product needs of user group 4) Participation of member of CFUG in community development activities. 3= Participation of CFUG in community development activities such as education, drinking water, road construction and maintenance, electrification, building construction, health and sanitation and other are increasing significantly. 2= Participation of CFUG in community development activities are increasing most. 1= Participation of CFUG in community development activities are increasing somewhat. 0= Participation of CFUG in community development activities are not increasing or stable. 5) Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies. 3= Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies is significantly higher. 2= Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies is higher. 1= Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies is satisfactory.

52
0= Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies is poor. 6) Forest plantation and Establishment: 3= forest plantation carried out based on OP and survival is good 2= forest plantation carried out not based on OP and survival is medium or satisfactory. 1= plantation carried out survival is very less less > 20 %. 0= forest plantation not carried out . 7) Effective delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way 3= CFUG has effective delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way 2= CFUG has good delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way 1= CFUG has fair delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way 0= CFUG has poor delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way 8) Optimum use of resources: 3= CFUG has done optimal use of resources of community forest effectively. 2= CFUG has done optimal use of resources of community forest well. 1= CFUG has done optimal use of resources of community forest satisfactorily. 0= CFUG has not done optimal use of resources of community forest. 9) Efficient forest management: To what extent CFUG is capable for efficient forest management? 3= CFUG is highly efficient for forest management. 2= CFUG is good in forest management. 1= CFUG is fairly efficient for forest management. 0= CFUG is poor in forest management. 10) Efficient resource management: To what extent CFUG is capable for efficient resource management? 3= CFUG is highly efficient for resource management. 2= CFUG is good in resource management 1= CFUG is fairly efficient for forest management. 0= CFUG is poor in forest management. 11) Preparation of annual plan for implementing the operational plan Has the CFUG prepared annual plan for implementing the operational plan? 3= CFUG has prepared annual plan & its effectively implementation the operational plan. 2= CFUG has prepared annual plan & its well implementation the operational plan. 1= CFUG has prepared annual plan & its fair implementation the operational plan. 0= CFUG has not prepared annual plan.

53

Annex II
Analysis of Governance in Community Forest Users Group of Surkhet District
Community forest users group of Surkhet District Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC S. N. Measurements of Elements of Transparency

Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda VDC-8,9

CFUG, Uttarganga-1

Chetana Janjagriti

1 2

To what extent has the group succeeded in income generation? To what extent CFUG utilize the fund, does it compatible to Community Forestry Guidelines, Constitution and Operational Plan of the CFUG? To what extent CFUG ( poor and excluded group) have access on fund? How has the CFUG built up and managed its group fund? How the CFUG has made expenses of its fund? Has CFUG carried out financial audit and included all bills, vouchers and minute records to the registered financial auditor and submit to DFO? Has CFUG carried out public audit and participated all members of CFUG actively on the public audit? Has CFUG prepared and verified annual progress report from the committee, and submitted to the District Forest Office? To what extent the information disseminated to the members of CFUG from the general assembly and decision of committee, circular of Department of Forests and other stakeholders? To what extent the openness and competitiveness found in forest products auction and selling for outside the CFUG?

1 0

3 2

3 2

3 3

1 1

4 5 6

2 2 0

3 2 3

3 3 3

3 3 3

1 3 3

10

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Bhairma CFUG, Birendranagar -4

54
11 How has the CFUG made its accounting system reliable, systematic and community oriented? How is the business of the CFUG managed? How are accounts and other records maintained in CFUG? How does the CFUG handle the profits from its economic activities? How promptly and fully repay loans by members of CFUG? At what extent, members of CFUG have informed about the status of CFUG fund management, operational plan, constitution and annual program implementation and forest management? To what extent, existing forestspecific written laws and regulations, circulars, key announcements or speeches that develop the right to access public information on the sector? Are there legal mechanisms for NGOs, civil society and private sectors participation in decisionmaking of CFUG on issues relevant for the management of forest resources? If so, to what extent are these actually implemented? Is it codified and understood who has the rights to timber, minerals, nontimber forest products, wildlife, water, carbon etc. in forest legislation, constitution and operational plan of CFUG? Are all these types of product available to CFUG, or is there some form of differentiation? When forest product is identified for allocation to any sort of concessionaire, is this publicly advertised so that the opportunity for new permits is open to anyone? Is there transparent independent verification (due diligence) of the eligibility of any applications for the forest products auction? Is the final permit allocation decision-making process transparent? 2 1 3 3 2

12 13 14 15 16

3 2 2 2 2

3 2 3 1 1

3 3 2 1 2

3 3 3 2 2

2 2 1 0 1

17

18

19

20

21

22

55
23 24 Are the final permit/contract documents made public? Are members of CFUG informed about the extraction of other forest products? What rules apply to collection of non-timber forest products and other tangible forest products? Are all forest regulations, procedures, decrees, etc. available to the CFUG? Sum of values Average value 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2

25

1 40 1.6

1 46 1.84

2 61 2.44

2 62 2.44

2 47 1.88

Status of Users Group Participation in Community Forest Management


Community forest users group of Surkhet District CFUG, Pokharikanda -8,9 S. N. Measurements of Elements of users group participation Thulo Danda Mahila

Kundali CFUG, Bijoura

CFUG, Uttarganga-1

Chetana Janjagriti

1 2

How are CFUG activities managed? How widely are roles and responsibilities within CFUG members demarcated? Information about the executive committee and general assembly meeting that has happened within a year. How are decisions made within CFUG? How quickly are decisions made and with what likelihood that they will be implemented? How fully do members participate in the decision-making and work of the CFUG? How fully and actively do women participate in the operation and management of the CFUG? How productive are the general assembly of CFUG?

2 2

2 1

3 3

3 3

2 2

4 5

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

6 7

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 3

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Birendranagar -4

Bhairma CFUG,

VDC

56
9 10 11 12 13 Attendance of General Assembly Meetings How good is communication within the CFUG? How do members of CFUG communicate with each other? How able is CFUG to resolve conflicts? How well are FUG objectives understood by all members of CFUG? That is concept of CF and role and responsible of FUG. How much CFUG participates in community forest development activities? At what level of democratic exercise found in executive committee formation and leadership change? Participation of men, women and all stakeholders in planning, decisionmaking and benefit sharing mechanism Does CFUG follow bottom up planning approach and make coordination with different stakeholders effectively? Sum of values Average values 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 2

14

15

16

17

43 2.53

33 1.94

46 2.7

46 2.7

33 1.94

57

Status of Accountability in Community Forest Users Group


S. N. Measurements of Elements of Accountability Community forest users group of Surkhet District, Nepal Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda 8,9

CFUG, Uttarganga-1

Chetana Janjagriti

1 2 3

At what extent, CFUC is accountable towards CFUG? At what extent CFUG is accountable towards poor users? How could you evaluate the existing system of rewards / penalties done by CFUG? Do you think CFUC is perfectly accountable in its roles and responsibilities as mentioned in its constitution and operational plan? Do you think, CFUG is perfectly accountable in its roles and responsibilities as mentioned in its constitution and operational plan? To what extent, CFUG is accountable towards all affected persons and institutions, both externally and internally? To what extent, CFUG has adopted self, participatory and transparent monitoring? Sum of values Average value

3 2 3

2 1 2

3 1 3

3 2 3

3 3 3

16 2.286

13 1.857

18 2.57

19 2.71

18 2.57

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Bhairma CFUG, Birendranagar -4

58

Status of Rule of Law in Community Forest Users Group


Community forest users group of Surkhet District Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda 8,9 S. N. Measurements of Elements of Rule of Law

CFUG, Uttarganga-1

Chetana Janjagriti

2 3 4 5 6

Explicitly stated, mandated and adopted roles, rights and responsibilities executive committee as well as members of CFUG mentioned in constitution and operational plan Compatibility of objectives of CFUG (Constitution) and plan of action (activities) etc. Compatibility of management objectives of CF with operational plan etc. Implementation of OP as per provision made in OP Proper enforcement of rules and norms of CFUG Ownership and use right of resources are clearly written in constitution and operational plan as well as CFUG has exercised this authority/ power Proper and timely amendments in operational plan and constitution, and keeping institutional sustainability of CFUG Hand over all the properties and documents to the successor after turn over the period of responsibility from CFUC

1 1 1 3 2

0 1 1 2 2

3 2 2 2 2

3 2 2 3 3

2 2 1 2 2

10

Does CFUG receive timely information about rejection or approval of the decision made by the general assembly in the constitution or operational plan from District Forest Office as per Forest Regulation, 1995 and implement the activities subsequently? Procedures followed for giving punishment or reward to the member of CFUG

11

Existing system of community forest users group for recovery of funds in case of financial abuse done by former executive committee member

12

Perception of community forest users group towards the role of District Forest

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Bhairma CFUG, Birendranagar -4

59
Office (DFO) in enforcement of the rules of constitution and operational plan Implementation status of guidelines of Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), circular of Department of Forests (DoF) and order of District Forest Office (DFO) by community forest users group Are there regular inspection of forest boundary and agriculture land, forest patrolling, and illicit exploitation of forest products? Do bidders, collectors and traders of forest products such as resin and turpentine extractors, NTFP collectors, timber selling etc. follow the rules and regulation of forest legislation as well as constitution and operational plan during collecting, storing, converting and transportation? To what extent does the forest legislation, constitution and operational plan provide for taxes, royalties, or other benefits to be collected from permit holders and given to affected communities? Are members of CFUG encouraged to assist in forest law enforcement? Are there any formal or semi-formal ways for member of CFUG to help in forest law enforcement? Do mining, road building, large-scale agriculture, hydropower or other infrastructure development have automatic veto over forest laws as well as constitution and OP, thereby eliminating transparent access to decision-making of CFUG? Sum of values Average value

13

14

15

16

17

18

35 1.94

31 1.72

44 2.44

48 2.67

44 2.44

60

Status of Social Inclusion and Equity in Community Forest Users Group


Community forest users group of Surkhet District Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda 8,9 S. N. Measurements of Elements of social inclusion and equity

CFUG, Uttarganga-1

Chetana Janjagriti

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

Composition of executive committee and representation of all strata in it. Mechanism of access to forest resources and use Who gets what? Does FUG have forest products harvesting and distribution list of each house hold and forest products extracted from forest? Existing system of benefit sharing mechanisms Employment generation through forest management Supplementary programs to promote participation from disadvantaged groups (DAG) Supplementary programs to promote income generating activities for disadvantaged groups mainly of poor ones Equitable distribution of resources and materials primarily to the marginalized groups and among users group Sum of values Average value

3 3 1

2 3 1

2 2 3

2 2 2

3 2 2

3 3 0 1 1

3 3 0 0 1

2 3 2 2 1

3 3 3 2 2

2 2 1 2 3

15 1.87

13 1.62

17 2.12

19 2.37

17 2.12

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Bhairma CFUG, Birendranagar -4

61

Status of Effectiveness & Efficiency of Community Forest Users Group


S. N. Measurements of Elements of Effectiveness and Efficiency Community forest users group of Surkhet District Kundali CFUG, Bijoura VDC Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG, Pokharikanda 8,9

CFUG, Uttarganga-1 22 2

Chetana Janjagriti

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Improvements in forest cover and resource availability Improvements in biodiversity and wildlife in community forest (CF) Satisfaction of people towards the community forestry in fulfilling their basic needs. Participation of member of CFUG in community development activities Networking and co-ordination with different stakeholders and line agencies Forest plantation and Establishment Effective delivery of services to the needy people on time in a simple way

3 2 3 2 1 1 1

1 1 3 2 1 0 2

3 3 2 3 3 3 2

3 0 1 2 2 3 2

3 3 1 1 2 2 3

8 9 10 11

Optimum use of resources Efficient forest management Efficient resource management Preparation of annual plan for

3 3 2 0

2 1 2 0

2 2 2 3

2 3 2 2

2 2 2 2

implementing the operational plan Sum of values Average value 21 1.91 15 1.36 28 2.54 23 2.09

Ramjanaki CFUG, Birendra nagar municipality-5

Bhairma CFUG, Birendranagar -4

62

Annex III
General Characteristics of CFUG
Community forest users group of Surkhet District S. N. 1 Location Characteristics Thulo Danda Mahila CFUG Pokharikanda -8,9 Kundali CFUG Bijoura VDC-5 Bhairu m CFUG Birendr anagar 4 Chetana Janjagriti CFUG Uttargang a VDC -1 Ramjanaki CFUG Birendra nagar municipalit y-5 F.Y. 2057/058 2061/11/20

Date of hand over (Bikram Sambat, Nepali Calender) Operational plan renewal (B.S.)

2061/2/10

2066/2/ 4 *

2056/05 7 2060

F.Y. 2053/054 F.Y. 2061/062 10 320 Others Others Accessible

2065/12/6

4 5 6 7 8

Period of operational plan (Year) Total households as reported in forest constitution Dominant ethnic composition in CFUG Dominant ethnic composition in CFUC Accessibility

5 75 Tribes

5 79 Others Others

8 473 Others Others Accessib le 218 Sal Pine mixed forest * Good Sal, Asana, Jamun, Salla Own LPG, Kerosen e, Fuelwoo d SUR/BI

7 1406 Others Others Accessible

Medium

Remote

Forest

area, ha. Natural

149.50 Mixed SalPine forest

199 Sal forest

412 Sal forest

322 Mixed SalPine forest

Plantation 10 11 Forest Condition Main species

* Good Sal, Sandan, Kaulo

* Good Sal, KhayerA sana, Sissoo * Fuelwoo d

* Good Sal, Khayer, Asana

* Good Sal, Pine

12 13

Office building Major energy source for cooking

* Fuelwood

Own LPG, Kerosene, Fuelwood

Own LPG, Kerosene, Fuelwood

14

CFUG code

SUR/BD/11/0

SUR/BS

SUR/BI/2

SUR/BI/13

63
4 15 Wild animals /05/07 Deer, Ghoral, Monkey /19/08 Wild boar, deer, fox 1/02 Tiger, Deer, Rabbit, Bandel /07 Bandel, fox, jackal, Kalij

16

Annual Financial transactions

Income, NRs. Expenditure, NRs.

129359 11250

780244 669000

1175763 1019504

599459 354305

17

Institutional Development CFUG (Planned/Progre ss) of

No. of General Assembly meeting No. executive committee meeting Submission report to DFO Submission report to DFO of of of

2/1

12/15

1/1

annual progress

1/1

financial audit

64

Annex IV
Comparative Status of Governance in five CFUG of Surkhet District
Inclusion & equity 3 1.87 5 1.62 5 2.12 2.37 2.12 10.1 1 2.02 Effectiveness & Efficiency 3 1.91 1.36 2.5 4 2 2.0 9 9.9 1.9 8 Accountability 3 2.286 1.857 2.57 2.71 2.57 11.99 3 2.40 Transparency

Participation

Studied CFUGs Thulodanda Mahila CFUG Kundali CFUG Bhairum CFUG, Chetana Janjagriti CFUG Ramjanaki CFUG Total Average Desired Governance Perceived governance Perceived governance Perceived governance Perceived governance Perceived governance

3 1.6 1.8 4 2.4 4 2.4 4 1.8 8 10. 2 2.0 4

3 2.53 1.94 2.7 2.7 1.94 11.8 1 2.36

1.94 1.72 2.4 4 2.67 2.4 4 11.2 1 2.2 4

Rule of law 3