Naya  Sharma  Paudel  ForestAc4on,  Nepal    

Nepal's  community  forestry  (CF)  and  lessons  on  equity  

Expert  Workshop  on  Equity,  Jus@ce  and  Well-­‐being  in  Ecosystem  Governance      

26-­‐27  March  2015,  London    

Outline    

•  Introduc4on  to  Nepal's  CF  

•  Understanding  and  applica4on  of  equity  within    CF      

•  Diverse  forms  of  inequity  in  the  context  of  CF    

•  Policy  and  ins4tu4onal  responses    

•  Con4nued  challenges  and  some  lessons  

Nepal's  CF:  A  unique  modality  of  ecosystem  management  

•  Government’s  major  programme  •  35%    popula4on  directly  involved  •  Over  25%  forest  area  under  CF  •  Over  18633    community  groups  •  Substan4al  environmental  and  

livelihoods  benefits  

Group  forma4on    

Forest  handover  

community  empowerment    

Ins4tu4onal  strengthening    

Suppor4ve  policy,  ins4tu4ons  and  service  provisioning  

security  of  forest  tenure  

Increased  ownership    

strong  collec4ve  ac4on    

Environment  became  conducive  for  collec4ve  ac4on  

Forests  recovered  

Availability  of  forest  products    

ecosystem  improved  

CF  revenue  and  investment    

Improved  ecosystem  and  associated  benefits  

Early  interven@ons:  Focus  on  protec@on  

The  interven@on      •  Protec4on  oriented    •  Feudal  mindset  of  foresters    •  Techno-­‐bureaucra4c  

dominance    

CF  interven@ons  and  socio-­‐ins@tu@onal  contexts  

Socio-­‐ins@tu@onal  context      •  Differen4ated  society    •  Hierarchical  ins4tu4ons  •  Differen4al  forest-­‐people  

interac4ons    

Inequitable  CF  outcomes  (especially  during  early  phase)      •  Forest  dependent  poor  suffered    •  Widespread  elite  capture    •  Disadvantaged  groups  further  marginalised    

 The  major  challenges  of  equity  in  CF  

6  

Diverse  forms  of  inequity  within  communi@es      Forms     Descrip@on    

Decision  making   Poor  cannot  afford  4me,  cannot  ar4culate  well,  their  voice  is  oZen  ignored  

Resource  use  restric4ons    

Rich  manage  from  their  private  land,  afford  alterna4ve  fuel;  but  poor  have  no  alterna4ve  

Benefits  from  4mber     Rich  benefit  from  cheap  4mber  –  hidden  subsidy    

Employment     Poor  are  paid  for  their  labour  contribu4on,  rich  are  paid  for  their  4me  in  monitoring  

Symbolic  capital     Influen4al  people  capitalise  on  their  posi4on  as  CF  leaders    

Investment  in  infrastructure    

CF  investment  on  roads,  electrifica4on,  temples  and  community  buildings  hardly  benefit  ultra  poor  

Opportuni4es     Be`er  off  people  dominate  workshops,  trainings,  and  visits  

Equity  challenges  emerged  as  a  major  concern  

•  Maoist  conflict,  people's  movement  and  discourses  of  inclusive  state    

 •  Migra4on  [male]  and  increased  role  

of  women  in  CF  management    

•  Emerging  market  opportuni4es  induced  new  challenges      

Larger  forces  influencing  equity  in  CF    

Changing  understanding  of  equity  in  CF  

It  is  government's  resource;  we  divide  it  equally  

wider  poli4cal  discourse  (Women,  Janaja4,  Dalit,  Madhesi)    

forgone  loss  (directly  affected  by  conserva4on)    

poverty,  dependency  (forest  dependent    poor)  

tradi4onal  use  (charcoal  makers)  

Equality   Equity  

Policies  and  ins@tu@onal  responses  

Meso-­‐forums  capacity    

Ac4ons  at    CFUG  level    

Ini4a4ves  at  different  levels      

•  3rd  Na4onal  CF  WS  •  Gender  and  social  inclusion  strategy  

of  GON  (2007)  •  CF  Guidelines  (2009)  •  FECOFUN  norms  (50%  women)  

•  DFO  encouraging  inclusive  structure  •  Quotas  for  women  and  minorites      •  development  agencies'  affirma4ve  

ac4ons      •  Capacity  building    

•  Well-­‐being  ranking    •  Pro-­‐poor  IGA  •  Inclusive  ECs  •  free  membership  •  free  products    •  Differen4al  pricing  

Na4onal  level  policy  reform    

Equity  provisions  in  group  cons@tu@on  and  forest  plan  (Based  on  recent  CF  impat  study  2012)    

Provisions     Groups  (%)  (Total  18633)  

Representa4on  of  women,  poor  and  excluded  (DAG)  households  in  major  posts  of  execu4ve  commi`ees    

63  

Fund  mobilisa4on  for  welfare  of  women,  poor  and  excluded  

63  

Provision  for  employment  crea4on  for  women,  poor  and  excluded  households    

18  

Provisions  to  give  priority  to  women,  poor  and  excluded  households  for  training,  workshop  and  study  visits    

56  

Provision  of  subsidy;  forest  products  free  of  cost  for  DAG   53  

Ini@a@ves  for  procedural  equity  have  not  translated  into  distribu@ve  equity    

•   Well  being  ranking    •  50%  women  representa4on  •  Quotas  for  Dalits,  IP,  distant  users    •  35%  pro-­‐poor  investment    •  Priority  in  training,  exposure  visits   Distribu@ve  equity

Procedural  equity

Posi4on  becomes  a  burden Struggling  to  establish  

leadership-­‐  weak  rela4on  with  officials,  outsiders   Cannot  benefit  from  pro-­‐

poor  schemes;  dependent  on  wage  labour  

Patron-­‐  client  rela4ons   No  use  of  subsidised  4mber  

Cannot  afford  volunteer  4me  for  capacity  building  

and  networking  

DAG  

Posi4ve  discrimina4on  of  aid  is  fine,  but  less  so  forest  

products    

Lessons  from  Nepal's  CF    

•  Successful  conserva4on  can  be  achieved  even  without  equity;  therefore  instrumental  reason  provides  a  week  ra4onale  for  improving  equity  

 •  Research  can  make  important  contribu4on  to  understand  the  

problem;  but  larger  drivers  (e.g.  poli4cal  movement  and  migra4on)  lead  to  major  policy  and  ins4tu4onal  responses  in  addressing  equity  ques4on  

•  Procedural  equity  does  not  always  lead  to  distribu4ve  equity