_ am: . : Afafit Z a“ s. _ figfi. e r! l .i J 1 i. :33 .itdh . ‘L K , , 4 . , , .. ., ‘ ‘ . $1. a . ‘ I u .A . .. in; ? J «an: arm». z 4%. n a 3.. ii! “14mg. = tax . .5. WK . .3 . QM, minis .w c. 13.0. .4 1 $4...” , v .1»... ..: r: Ll (a! E911 :; .1». it}. . «a fwx. 4... 1.3413”. Jun figmwwp 5.5.21: " s... t 3 Ar... 4.": ., 142 5.. 2 ufif ‘ \ w y . ‘ 5.271.} .1 «:33 1. .3. «in: .V . o: ’5 4 . . . . w . ‘, . «arm Fons-E ‘ '_ .2 2 " CH1 ‘7 l. _‘ LIBRARY a .-; -. t "r 1/0 Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAM IN KASKI DISTRICT OF NEPAL: A LOCAL PERSPECTNE presented by Ridish K. Pokharel has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree in Agricultural and Extension Education Major Professor’s Signature my. /9; 2003 Date MSU '3 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . .—-—-.-n-.--—-.-.-0-.-a-n-O-n-o-O-O- -..-g‘-—o-o—bnu-n-.-o--_.-a-o-a--o’o-mo—-—O— PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15 AN EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAM IN KASKI DISTRICT OF NEPAL: A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE By Ridish K. Pokharel A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems 2003 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAM IN KASKI DISTRICT OF NEPAL: A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE By Ridish K. Pokharel Community forestry program was initiated in 1978 to address the issue of deforestation and self-sufficiency in forest products. There are no commonly agreed upon indicators to measure the success of this program The study investigates the local perspective on indicators to evaluate community forestry programs in the Kaksi district of Nepal. A one-day workshop was organized at the institute of Forestry, Nepal to develop a set ofagreed upon indicators to measure the success ofthe community forestry program The workshop produced 17 agreed upon indicators. An interview schedule was developed to assess the level of agreement of forest user group members on these indicators. 487 members ofthe forest user group members in Kaski district were interviewed. Data wre gathered from the 50 community forests. A separate check list was developed to solicit informtion on the status of each community forests. Factors analysis was performed to identify the clusters of the statements that share variations. Based on the factor analysis, five factors: forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water availability are recommended to use as indicators to study the success of a community forestry program Findings showed that the forest users perceived the improvement of forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water availability after the implementation of community forestry program. The higher caste people perceived the success of the community forestry program more positively than those belonging to other castes. The people who collect forest products from the community forests tend to perceive the community foresz program more positively than those who did not. Overall the community forests in the Kaski, district is improving in terms of natural regeneration, tree canopy and tree shape. No significant relationship was found between community forests’ characteristics such as community type, number of user households, and incidence of forest fire and community forests’ status such as regeneration, tree shape and crown cover. However, a strong relationship was observed between crown cover and FUGs’ income size. The average diameter of community forests indicates the availability of younger trees in the forests. Similarly, the average number of saplings in the forests indicates that the management practices, especially silvicultural operation is lacking in the forest, which is an essential activity of forest management. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During my graduate studies at Michigan State University I received support from many individuals and institutions. It gives me great pleasure to record my appreciation for those who helped me. My profound gratitude and deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Murari Suvedi, my major professor and guidance committee chair, for his constant guidance, strong support, and invaluable suggestions throughout the study period without which it would not have been possible for me to complete this study in three years. I owe a debt of gratitude to the other members of the committee: Dr. Kirk Heinze, Dr. Richard Bemsten, and Dr. John Schwartz and take pleasure in extending a special appreciation and sincere thanks to them for their sincere support, critical comments, and inspiring advice. I am extremely thankful to Dr. Kirk Heinze, Chairperson of the Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems for providing departmental support and personal encouragement during my studies at Michigan State University. A special appreciation is extended to the Graduate School and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources for providing partial support to conduct dissertation research in Nepal. A number of persons in Nepal and at Michigan State University contributed their valuable time in providing information and technical assistance and helped me in one way or other for successful completion of this study. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. Particular mention should be made of Hemant Kafle, Bishnu Pande, Basanta Gautam, Krishna R. Tiwari, Jeeb Nath Paudel, R. A. Khan, C. P. Upadhayaya, Biswombher Pradhan, Sunita Pradhan, A. Gyawali, G. S. Timala, Prabha Pokahrel, iv Pramada Panta, Keral Pokharel, A. K. Singh, Bernardo Lopez-Ariza, Yagartha Pokharel, Nancy Axinn and Santosh Rayamajhi. The cooperation and hospitability of the local people was the key for successful data collection and deserves high appreciation. I would like to thank Ram M. Bhattarai, Puspa R. Tripathi, Gita Kandel, Lok N. Pande, Bhoj B. Adhikari, Shyam K. C., Krishna P. Gautam, Rama Bhujel and Keshar B. Thapa for their generous hospitath extended toward my field team members and me during the filed works. Finally, I am deeply indebted to my wife, Samidha Pokahrel, for her love, encouragement, and patience without which it would have been difficult for me to complete this work on time. Our two children, Garima Pokharel and Sambrid Pokharel equally deserves high appreciation for the many sacrifices they have endured that made completion of this study possible. I am grateful to my beloved parents, Laxmi Prasad Pokharel and Champa Devi Pokharel, for their love and unconditional support of my academic pursuit. This dissertation is dedicated to them. TABALE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables x List of F igures xiii Chapter I. An evaluation ofthe community forestry program in Kaski district of Nepal: A local perspective Introduction 1 Country background I 1 Community forestry concept 3 Community forestry initiatives 4 Problem statement 8 Research objectives 10 Importance of the study 11 Definition of terms 12 Limitation of the study 14 Organization of the dissertation 15 II. Development of indicators to determine community forestry program’ success inKaski district ofNepal Introduction 16 Research procedures 19 Workshop for FU G representatives and forestry technicians 20 Outcomes of the workshop 23 Instrument development 28 Expert panel discussion 29 Field test of reliability 30 Factor analysis 32 Discussions and conclusions References III. An assessment of the community forestry programs in Kaski district of Nepal: Forest User Group members’ perspective Introduction Methodology Design of the study Study population and sampling Workshop for FU G representative and forestry technicians Data collection procedure Data analysis Findings Demographic clmracteristics of the respondents Perceptions of forest user group members about indicators to assess the success of the community forestry program Factor analysis Perceptions of forest user group members on the perceived success factors of community forestry program Successful community forests Relationship between forest products collection and the perceived success factors of community forestry program Relationships between the perceived success factors of community forestry program and the respondents’ demographic socioeconomic characteristics Discussions and conclusions References IV. An assessment of community forests in Kaski district, Nepal Introduction Location of the Kaski district Community foresz program in the Kaski district vii are 47 43 49 so so 52 55 56 58 60 71 76 78 79 81 Study procedure 82 Workshop for FUG representatives and forestry technicians 83 Population and sample Data collection Establishment of study plots Plot size Natural regeneration Crown cover Tree shape Soil cover Data analysis Findings Characteristics of community forests Preferred tree species in community forests Status of community forests Forest structure Association between community forests’ characteristics and regeneration class, crown cover, tree shape and soil cover . Discussions and conclusions References V. Summary, conclusions, implications and recommendations Summary Conclusions and implications Recommendations Future research REFERENCES APPENDICES A. List of the sample FUGs for the workshop viii 83 34 84 85 86 86 88 88 888898 98 101 106 109 109 114 119 119 121 125 126 B. Workshop schedule 127 C. Forest information checklist 128 D. An interview schedule for forest users 131 E. Forest users’ perception on the perceived success factors 135 F. Basic characteristics of sample community forests 138 G. Forest prodtmts use policy of sample community forests 141 H. Respondents collecting forest products 144 I. Congruency score of preferred tree species 145 J. Situation of soil cover, crown cover, tree shape and regeneration 149 K. Mean DBH, height, and trees/saplings per hectare 152 L. List of tree species 155 LIST OF TABLES Tables 1. Evolution of community forest legislation in Nepal 2. List of agreed upon indicators as perceived by local people and ways to measure them 3. List of disagreed upon indicators as perceived by local people and ways to measme them 4. Factors with corresponding statements 5. Demographic and socio characteristics of the respondents 6. Educational background and occupations of the respondents 7. Most agreed-upon indicators for measuring success of community forestry program 8. Agreed-upon indicators for measuring success of community fbrestry program 9. Factors and corresponding statements 10. Status of community forests 11. Community forests’ category 12. Amount and frequency of forest products collection 25 27 33 50 51 53 56 57 58 61 13. Relationship between forest products collection and perceived success factors of community forestry program 14. Relationship between overall opinion on implementation of community forestry program and perceived success factors of community forestry program 15. Relationship between respondents’ characteristics and perceived success factors of community forestry program 16. Differences in the perceived success factors of community foresz prom by gender 17. Differences in perceived success factors of community forestry program with the respondents’ collecting fuel wood from community forests 18. Differences in perceived success factors of community forestry program with the respondents collecting timber fiom community forests 19. Differences in perceived factors of community forestry program by the respondents’ educational level and castes 20. Difi'erences in perceived factors of community forestry program by age group and the respondents’ occupation 21. Crown density (crown separation ratio 12 tree method) 22. Characteristics of sample community forests 23. Basic characteristics of sample community forests 24. Forest user groups’ policy on forest products use xi 62 63 65 67 68 70 87 90 92 93 25. Congruency. score of tree species 26. Status of tree shape, crown cover, regeneration, and soil cover in community forests 27. Community forests’ structure 28. Differences in crown cover by annual income xii 95 96 98 100 Figures LIST OF FIGURES 1. Scheme of the flow of activities to develop indicators 2.Locationofthestudyarea 3.Locationofthestudyarea 20 46 80 Chapter I Introduction Country Background Nepal is a country of 23 million people, bounded on the north by China and on _ the south, west and east by India. It has an area of 147,181 square kilometers and is almost rectangular in shape, extending from east to west. The country is divided into five physiographic zones: High Himal (2,500-8,048 m), High Mountain (2,000-2,500 m), Middle Hills (700-2,000 m), Siwaliks (300-700 m), and Tarai (60-300 m). Less than 20 percent of the total land is cultivated, of which a major portion (56%) is located in the Tarai. The hills and mountain regions account for 37 and 7 percent of the cultivated land, respectively. Administratively, the country is divided into five development regions, fourteen zones, and seventy-five districts. The district is further divided into municipalities and clusters of villages called Village Development Committees (VDC). One-half (38 districts) of the districts fill wholly or partially in the middle hills physiographic zones and 44 percent of the total population live in that area (CBS, 2002). More than 85 percent of the Nepali people live in the rural areas (CBS, 2002), and most depend on forests for such essentials as fuel wood for cooking and fodder for livestock. Fuel wood is the most important source of energy for cooking. It accounts for 85 percent of the total energy consumption by the residential sector in the country (CBS, 2002). Forests are integral parts of upland firming systems. They (forests and shrubs) occupy 39.6 percent of the total land area of Nepal (HMG/FRISP, 1999). Almost halfof the forest area fills in the mid-hills region. Farmers in Nepal use forests to feed livestock and they need livestock to plow and fertilize agricultural fields. Forty-two percent of the fodder demands in the country come the forests (MPF S, 1988), and forests provide 50 percent of the total digestible nutrients for livestock (MOPE, 1998). In addition, forests provide fuel wood, timber, leaf-litter, medicine, and other forest products. Forest protection and management by local people have a long history in the hills of Nepal. In many parts of the hills and mountains of the country, local people have established their own operating rules to manage nearby forest resources. The people gradually lost their interest in managing nearby forests once the government introduced the Private Forest Nationalization Act of 1957 and subsequent cadastral surveys of private land (Kanel, 1997). The increasing loss of citizens’ interest in forest management exacerbated deforestation. In 19708, Nepal was highlighted as one of the countries with the highest rate of deforestation (Eckholm, 1975). The country was blamed for exporting topsoil to India and Bangladesh due to the high rate of deforestation. The World Bank report forecast that all accessible forests in the mid-hills would disappear in 15 years at the current rate of deforestation (World Bank, 1978). An international perception of ecological crisis in the Himalayas and the consequences of deforestation was highlighted in media, especially in the Nepali media. Awareness of the consequences of deforestation forced the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation to look for an alternative approach to forest rmnagement. The intensive search for solutions gave birth to community forestry inthe country. Community forestry concept The concept of community forestry emerged in response partly to the fiilure of the forest industry’s development model to lead to socio-economic development and, partly to the increasing rate of deforestation and forestland degradation in the Third World (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991). The concept took shape in late 19705 when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations (F AO) released the publication “Forestry for local community development” (FAO, 1978). The FAO defined community/social forestry as “. . . any situation, which intimately involves local people in a forestry activity. It 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 firm level to provide cash crops and the processing of forest products at the household, artisan or small-industry level to generate income, to the activities of forest-dwelling communities. It excludes large-scale industrial forestry and any other form of forestry which contributes to community development solely through employment and wages, but it does include activities of forest industry enterprises and public forest services which encourage and assist forestry activities at the community level.” The concept was further supported by the 1978 Eights AWorld Forestry Congress in Jakarta, Indonesia, which was devoted to the theme “Forestry for people” (Gilmour andFisher, 1991; Hausler, 1993). The community forestry concept was not new for Nepal as communities were long practicing forest management in an informal manner (Adhikari, 1990). The practice of forest management was in crude form. There were no written rules or formal mechanisms in protecting and managing forest resources. The decisions regarding forest management were made by local people through consensus. The emergence of the community foresz concept around the world ficilitated formalizing forest management practices in Nepal that were previously informal. By early 1973, it was realized that technical forestry solutions alone could not reverse the severe degradation of the forests where local people were heavily dependent on them (Mahat, 1997). Such realization resulted in the development of the Nepal Forestry Plan of 1976 where the concept of community forestry was formally incorporated (NPF, 1976). Community forestry initiatives By the mid 19705, the government of Nepal had become aware of the cost of deforestation. Such realization brought a significant change in forest management by adopting the concept of community forestry in Nepal’s National Forestry Plan (1976) and Forest Rules and Regulations (1978). The First Amendment of the Forest Act in 1977 made provision for transferring government owned forestland to local communities for development, protection, and utilization purposes (Mahat, 1997). The Act also segmented Nepal’s forest into six categories: Panchayat Forest (PF'), Panchayat Protected Forest (PPF'), Leasehold Forest, Religious Forest, Government Forest, and Private Forest. The regulations specified the provision for transferring a limited area of government - owned, degraded forestland (up to 125 ha) and existing natural forests (up to 500 ha) to the local 1 PF and PPF are now called community forests political body called Panchayatz as PF and PPF for development and management purposes. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMG/N) enacted the rules and regulations by implementing the first national level community forestry project in 1980, covering twenty-nine hill districts with the aim of reducing ecological degradation and increasing the supply of basic forest products for subsistence needs through people’s participation (Manandhar, 1981). The official implementation of the community forestry program in the country, a national community forestry workshop was organized in 1987 to share the field experiences. Identification of forest users under the political boundary was identified as a major problem to implementing of the community forestry program since the political boundary and forest boundary did not usually coincide. The workshop recommended a “use practice” concept to identify the users by traditional use rather than by political boundary “Panchayat The workshop also contributed to prioritize the community forestry as a major program in the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS), which was under way. The MPF S was prepared with the help of His Majesty’s Government, the Asian Development Bank and the Finnish International Development Agency that recognized community forestry as the largest among the six programs. The program is expected to absorb about 47% of the total forestry budget until the year 2010 (MPFS, 1988). The plan emphasizes the Community Forest User Group (CFUG) as the appropriate local institution responsible for the protection, development and sustainable utilimtion of local forests. 2 Parchayat was the lowest tier of local government in Nepal. After democracy in 1990 Pancahayr is replaced by Village Development Committee. Table 1. Evolution of community forest legislation in Nepal Management 1978 1979 1987 Forest Act 1993 & practices Rules Amendment Amendment Regulation 1995 Community Not more than 125 ha as PF No limit for No limit for forestarea 1251masPF& and500haas PFandPPF transferringthe 250 ha as PPF PPF forests as community forest Benefit sharing 40% 75% 100% 100% to community Expenditure Fifty percent in Fifty percent 100% in Forestry activities from forest forestry activity in forestry forestry and any surplus find revenue activities activities may be spent on comm. development activities Pricing of Not less than Not less than Not less than As per Forest User forest products royalty set by royalty set by royalty set by Group's decisions the Forest Dept. Forest Dept. Forest Dept. Forest mgt. District Forest District Community Community plan Office Forest Oflice preparation by Plan approved Conservator Conservator Regional District Forest by Director Oflicer (DFO) Boundary Political Political Political Use practices Management Panchayat Panchayat Forest user Forest User Group units committee (FU G) under Panchayat Chairperson Elected village Elected Selected by Selected by users' leader village leader political assembly through body consensus Adopted from Joshi and Poklmrel (1998, pp. 46) The MPFS provided policy background and a planning strategy for forestry by setting medium-and long-term objectives into the next century (Palit, 1996). The objectives of the plan are to meet people’s basic needs for fuel wood, timber, fodder and other forest products on a sustainable basis, and to promote people’s participation in the development, management, and conservation of forest resources (MPFS, 1988). The plan also facilitated layout of the foundation for the new Forest Act that was introduced in 1993. The Forest Act of 1993 is known as a progressive act (Belbase and Regmi, 2002; Talbot and Khadka, 1994) that is fivorable to community forestry. Through this act Nepal become one of the first countries to introduce a people focused forest policy (Hobley et al., 1996). Table 1 summaries the evolution of community forest legislation in Nepal. The Forest Act of 1993 recognizes the Forest User Group (FU G) as an autonomous corporate body that can have it’s own seal, raise funds and a constitution to guide administration. The Act allows the FUG to fix the price independently, transport and market the forest products from community owned forests. The country has adopted the community forestry program as a rmjor strategy to manage the country’s forests. The program was expanded nationwide following the government’s 1989 endorsement of a twenty-five year master plan for the forestry sector. The program operates from a policy that stresses local participation in developing and mamging accessible forest resources through transferring forest management responsibilities to local communities, if the communities are willing and able to practice forest management. A community forest is an area of national forest transferred to a particular community for management and utilization purposes. As of June 2003, Nepal had already transferred more than 999,000 hectares of forestlands to nearly 12,584 forest user groups (FUGs), involving approximately 1.4 million households (Bhandari, 2003). Community forestry is one of Nepal’s most successfirl community-based development programs (Kattel, 2000) because local people have more control on the program. A well- known Swiss expert on Nepal, Tony Hagen, expressed his view through an interview in Nepal that if the community forestry concept and process were followed in other development sectors, Nepal would soon become a Switzerland in Asia (Pokharel, 2002). Problem Statement Implementing a community forestry program in Nepal has caused a major shift in forest management practices. Under community forestry, a particular area of forest is given to a community (known as Forest User Group, FUG) for development, protection, and utilization purposes. The Forest Department staffs ficilitate the FUG formation process by meeting and discussing with communities, recognizing traditional users of forest, and assessing the size and nature of the forest. Wider discussions with communities are often disrupted due to high targets of FUG formation, insuflicient budgets, lack of trained and motivated government foresters (Smith et al., 2003; Springate-Banginski et al., 1999). However, several studies have shown that in general the community forestry program has been successful in the mid-hills of Nepal in improving the condition of people (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Dongol et al., 2002; Rechlin et al., 2002) and forests (Chakarborty, 2001; Gautam et al., 2002; Tachibana et al., 2001; Webb and Gautam, 2001). Despite the success, there are indications that the poor may have not fired well under community forestry. Leadership is one of the factors that made the community forestry program successfirl (Pokharel et al., 1999). The succession of leadership is seen as a potential problem in Nepal’s community forestry (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001). Initially, the community forestry program was introduced to protect the forest resources and meet the basic forestry needs of the people. In many cases, community forests are generating substantial income that varies fiom one FUG to another. The income is being used in developmental works such as renovating school buildings and constructing roads. Such development work has raised the equity issue of forests as national property among the citizens. Is it fair if some villages are able to develop while others are left behind? At present the program’s success is an issue for debate because the measure of success varies depending on how it has been defined. One can argue about a given definition of success and put forward his/her own definition since success cannot be measured directly. As it stands, success among forest user groups in Nepal is closely related to expressions of user satisfaction with the result (Messerschmidt et al., 1994). User satisfaction is essential where users are invited to work voluntarily in program management. So fir, no studies have reported the perspective of local people in measuring the success of a community forestry program. The study conducted by Messerschmidt et a1. (1994) identified the fictors that foster “success” of forest user group development. There is need to study the indicators of a successful community forestry program from the perspective of FUG or the local people. The use of indicators is common to assess the performance of a program (Conley and Moote, 2003; Smith et al., 2001; Suvedi et al., 2000). It is argued that indicators perceived by scientific communities to measure the success of community forestry programs may vary from forest users. The perspective of success varies fiom one to another, i.e., success, like beauty, depends largely on the eyes of the beholders. Community forestry may be about trees for a forester; it may be about bio-diversity for an environmentalist. However, both of these indicators may be less meaningfirl to local people. Local people’s perspective is the key to community foresz (O’Hara, 2002) because they are the main beneficiaries of the community forestry program. As a main beneficiary, local people’s perspectives for measuring the success of the community forestry program are important. Research in this crucial area is severely lacking. A set of mutually agreed upon indicators is not available to measure the community forestry program’s success. The evaluation of a community forestry program is often used to inform donors and policy makers rather than to empower local people who are the primary beneficiaries of the program This study has been designed to use an empowerment evaluation approach for determining the common indicators of success, as perceived by the direct beneficiaries cf Nepal’s community forestry program. Research objectives The main objective of this study is to evaluate the community forestry program in the mid-hills of Nepal by first identifying suitable indicators of successful community forests as perceived by the local people. Second, this study will use the indicators suggested by the local people to evaluate the community forests of the Kaski district, Nepal. The specific objectives are: 1. To identify locally agreed upon indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program in the Kaski district of Nepal. 2. To pilot test the acceptability of indicators by forest user group members to subsequently assess the community forestry program. 3. Using acceptable indicators, assess the status of community forests in the Kaski district. 10 Importance of the study The Forest Act of 1993 has formally created adequate opportunity for involving local people in the protection, management, and development of forest resources in the cormtry. The Forest Act recognizes the Forest User Groups (FUGs) as an independent legal entity that can independently price, sell, and transport forest products. Such significant changes in forest policy have encouraged local people to take responsibility for developing and managing forest resources. New FUGs are being formd at the rate of nearly 2,000 a year, and they are now active in seventy-four of seventy-five districts of Nepal (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001). The increasing trend of FUG formation indicates that there is a need to empower forest users for sustainable forest management. To empower means making the users able to make their own decisions regarding forest management. It is argued that forest users are not empowered unless the majority is capable of making their own decisions. There is always a chance of abusing the users if only a few are capable. This study uses indicators to evaluate the community forestry program — indicators that were developed based on the local people’s perceptions. The majority of the users may feel comfortable using the indicators .to evaluate community forestry because they represent local perceptions. In this context, this study would be beneficial in the following ways: 1. Empowering forest users by providing an evaluation tool that helps the users to independently conduct the community forestry evaluation. 2. Improving community forest management by helping forest users understand where their forest resources are, what is the trend of forest resources, and what needs to be done to improve them. 11 3. Helping policy makers understand the overall impact of the community forestry program. 4. Developing new understandings to improve decision-making by providing a new tool for monitoring the system. 5. Providing a new model to measure the success of the community forestry program. Further, the study would serve as a pioneer study in Nepal to determine the success of the community forestry program Definition of Terms Accgible forest: The forest area where local people go to collect forest products required for their daily use. Commggty' fores_tg: “The control and management of forest resources by the rural people who use them especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their farming system” (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991, pp. 8). Commmty' forest: Forested or degraded forestland owned by the government but formally transferred to a FUG for protection, management and utilization (CPFD, 1991 ). Communm' forem mom: A printed outline developed by the government of Nepal to be followed in managing an area of national forest. Under this program, all accessible hill forests will be transferred to local communities, known as forest user groups for protectiOn, management and utilization purposes if they are able or willing to manage them. 12 Evalgtion: An assessment of a particular program to determine the existing situation where statements are formed placing value judgment. Emwerment: A mechanism by which organizations, people, and communities gain mastery over their affairs. Four variables necessary for the functioning of empowerment are authority, resources, information, and accountability (Fisher, 1993). Forest User Group (EEG): All the members of a community who regularly use a particular area of forest for grazing and collection of forest products and form themselves into a group to protect, manage, and utilize that area of forest (CPFD, 1991). Pom User Group Committee (EUGC): A group of people elected by the users to represent the forest user group (CFDP, 1991). Fgrest m; The state of forest condition that elucidates what and how many forest products can be extracted from the forest. Indicator: “Indicators are an indication of a given situation, or reflection of that situation” (WHO, 1981, pp. 12). Mid-hills: An elevation of the land that ranges fi'om 700 m to 2,000 m in Nepal. Pmtives: A term used to describe the insight of local people on community forestry programs. Prom evaluation: Data collection and analysis for purpose of making decisions relative to program modification or termination. A program here refers to any development project aimed at improving forest resources through community approach. m A satisfaction with the outcome of the forest management. The forest is managed with some objectives that are desired by local people. A desirable outcome from the management gives satisfaction. 13 Successful forests: A forest that provides maximum benefits to local users without deteriorating the forest conditions. Vilme Development Committee: A village development committee (VDC) is the lowest tier of local government in Nepal (Belbase and Regmi, 2002). Limitation of the Study The study was conducted to develop commonly agreed upon indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program in Nepal and also to gain a clearer understanding of what makes differences in the perceived success fictors of the community forestry program The following limitations exist within this study: 1. The study population was limited to one mid-hill district i.e., the Kaski district of Nepal where the local people (FUG) are managing forest resources. 2. The study population for developing a set of indicators was limited to either the chairman or the secretary of the Forest User Group Committee (FUGC), an executive body of FUG. 3. Time series data were not available for crown cover, regeneration, tree slmpe, and soil cover. The study was limited to a one-time measurement of crown cover, regeneration, tree shape, and soil cover for explaining the forest status. 4. The respondents may have been influenced by listening and observing others’ views while conducting the interview in an open space, such as a tea stall. The obtained response was limited to the individual’s own response. 5. The unit of timber in community forests varies from one FUG to another because they distribute timber differently. For example, some FUGs distribute timber by 14 measuring in cubic feet whereas others distribute timber by selecting trees. The unit of timber for this study was limited to the number of logs. Organization of the Dissertation The dissertation has been divided into five chapters. The first chapter discusses briefly the background of the country and the community forestry program that provides the foundation for the study. The second chapter describes the process followed to develop indicators as perceived by local people and the development of research instruments for conducting the study. The third chapter ermlains the second study objectives: (a) To pilot test the acceptability of indicators by forest user group members to assess the community forestry program. Chapter four clarifies the study objective number three, i.e., “T o assess the status of community forests in the Kaski district”. And finally, chapter five illustrates the summary of findings, conclusions, and implications of the study. 15 Chapter II. Development of indicators to determine the community forestry programs’ success in Kaski district of Nepal Introduction This paper discusses the process followed in developing indicators for measuring the success ofthe community forestry program in the mid-hills ofNepal. The main purpose of this paper is to provide guidance for indicator development and a set of indicators to determine the program’s success as perceived by local people. Currently, the success of the community forestry program in Nepal is debatable among the professionals assuccessvariesdependingonhowithasbeendefined. Onecanargueonthe given definition of success and put forward his/her own definition as success cannot be measured directly. Success in forest user groups in Nepal is closely related to the expression of user satisfaction with the result (Messerschmidt et al, 1994). The user satisfiction is essential where users are invited voluntarily to work in the management of the community forestry program. The users satisfaction with the results is believed to be an indication of getting the results they expected. Such satisfaction is emected to encomage users to work in the management. The users involvement in the management is considered to be a key factor for the program success. The user satisfaction is not always considered to be the measure of the program’s success. For example, the rate or percent of loan payment was considered as one indicator for program success in the Small Farmers Development Project (SFDP) (Messerschmidt, 1988). It indicates that there is more than one way of 16 measuring the program’s success. The ways of measuring success depend on the nature of the programs. Schuett et al. (2001) in their study of “Making it work: Keys to successful collaboration in natural resource marmgement” left the term “success” to the respondents for interpretation in order to minimize biased results by the researchers. Keeping this view, this study allows local people to interpret the term “success” for the community forestry program. According to local people, the community forestry program is considered as successful if the program provides maximum benefits of forest products such as fire] wood, fodder and timber among forest users and maintains the forest in good condition as well. The local people feel maintaining forest condition is important as the degradation of forest resources makes their life harder, as many people in Nepal’s rural area depend on them. They consider both socio-economic benefits and the physical condition of the forest as important aspects and emphasize them equally while defining the program success. Their definition of successful a community forestry program seems logical since the community forestry program initially conceived fulfilling basic forestry needs of rural people through improving forest condition. The definition is close to the definition of community-based natural resource management project’s success as defined by Wainwright and Wehrmeyer (1998). According to these authors, “one can only identify community-based natural resource management projects as successful if they improve both the well-being among local people and maintain bio-diversity” (pp. 934). Indicator development is one of the most popular research topics in natural resource numagement and conservation today (Noss, 1999). The use of indicators is common to assess the performance of a program (Conley and Moote, 2003; Smith et al., 17 2001; Suvedi et al., 2000), sustainable forest management (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000a; Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000b; Prabhu et aL, 1998), resource condition (Belnap, 1998), sustainable development (United Nations, 2001), and environmental, social and economic sustainability (Farrell and Hart, 1998). Indicators are an indication of a given situation, or reflection of that situation (WHO, 1981). Indicators are variables: an observable phenomena that points out the actual condition of the situation, or outcomes. They are pieces of information that indicate what is going on although we cannot see the whole picture. The indicators are often used to measure changes if they have been given scientific respectability, particularly when changes cannot be measured directly (WHO, 1981). An indicator is tool that provides usefirl information about a physical, social, or economic system usually in numerical terms (Farrell and Hart, 1998). The perspectives of indicator vary depending on the information being sought. Mendoza and Prabhu (2000a) define an indicator as “any variable or component of the forest or the relevant management systems used to infer attributes of the sustainability of the resource and its utilimtion” (pp. 108). This study defines indicators to assess the performance of the community forestry program based on the outcomes as perceived by local people. Scientific knowledge is necessary for sound natural resource management, but is not suflicient (Schusler et al., 2003). Exploration of local knowledge may contribute to some extent by making the knowledge available for a particular area. The shared local knowledge in combination with the expertise of outside specialists is more accurate, more complex, and more useful than knowledge that is produced and deployed by professionals alone (Jackson and Kassam, 1998). Local knowledge is built up with what local people have experienced in their day-to-day life, which seems to be practical and 18 applicable in the field. It is argued that the success of the community forestry program as perceived by local people may vary with the scientific communities as perspective of success differs very much in the eyes of beholders. O’Hara (2002) stresses that the local perspective is the key to success of community forestry as the local people are the main beneficiaries of the program. As main beneficiaries, their perspective for measuring success of the community forestry program is important. This paper attempts to describe the study objectives, “To identify locally agreed upon indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program in the Kaski district of Nepal.” Research Procedures This study was designed as a descriptive research survey and used both qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches. The study’s main purpose was to develop indicators from the perspective of the local people as no indicators were available as perceived by local people for measuring the success of Nepal’s community forestry program The qualitative approach was used to develop a set of commonly agreed upon indicators as employed by McDufi (2001). The study consists of two parts: a social survey, and a forest survey. The social survey was conducted in three stages: a workshop on evaluation of the community forestry program; survey instrument development and expert panel discussion; and field survey. Forest User Groups (FUGs) representatives and local forestry technicians were invited to participate in a workshop to discuss and develop a set of commonly agreed upon indicators for measuring a community forestry program’s success. The workshop participants brainstormed on indicators and forest users were surveyed to determine their 19 perception on the indicators. A checklist was developed to collect forest information and also to assess the community forests conditions. Workshop to discuss Develop a draft of indicators Of an instrument and community forestry . checklist to discuss program S success with panel of experts ‘1}— , Panel discussion on Data collection and a draft instrument identification of field test the ’ successful community instrument and forests checklist V Recommendation of indicators to evaluate community forestry program Figure 1. Scheme of the flow of activities to develop indicators Workshop for FUG Representatives and Forestry Technicians Workshop-based techniques seek to create a learning atmosphere and safe environment in which all parties feel free to participate (Jackson, 1998). A one-day workshop was organized in September 2002 at the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal allowing participants to participate freely and share ideas from their own perspective. The main purpose of the workshop was to prepare a list of indicators for determining the success of the community forestry program in the mid-hills of Nepal as perceived by 20 local people. Altogether 13 people (four female and nine male) as representation of the Forest User Group (FUG) from the Kaski district and four forestry professionals, including the District Forest Officer of the Kaski district, participated in the workshop. A compilation report of the PU Gs was obtained fiom the District Forest Oflice of the Kaski district, which listed 330 FUGs as registered in the district. The list was further verified with the available FUG database developed by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation/Natural Resource Management Sector Assistance Program (MSFC/NARMSAP). The database showed 384 FUGs as registered in the Kaski district as ofSeptember 13, 2002. The list ofthe FUGs was updated as perthe database that served as the sampling flame for this study. The FUG list was divided into two categories: small FUG (S 5 ha of forest area), and large FUG (> 5 ha of forest area). A list of 50 FUGs (25 FUGs fiom each category) was prepared in alphabetical order of the Village Development Committee (VDC'). A systematic random sampling technique was used to select participating FU Gs in the workshop. A random name of the FUG was chosen to select the first FUG by placing a finger in the list and a systematic random sampling technique that consisted of every three intervals was applied for remainder of the FUGs. The total of 15 FUGs was selected for the workshop. The workshop date was planned after consulting with the District Forest Officer because their role was considered to be important in ficilitating the workshop. After the consultation, the workshop was scheduled on September 23, 2002 at the Institute of Forestry (IOF), Pokhara. The researcher forwarded a request letter to the IOF Pokhara Campus to provide a venue for the workshop and also for a request letter to the District Forest Office (DFO) ' A VDC is the lowest political administrative unit in the Nepali governmartal system, which is composed of nine sub-units called ward. Ward is composed of two or three hamlets with 100-200 households. 21 soliciting their support in forwarding the invitation letter to the attacmd FU Gs list (Appendix A). It was felt that the endorsement made by the DFO would enhance forest users participation in the workshop as forest users continue to think the DFO is the authentic body to conduct any forestry related activities rather than others such as academic institutions and NGOs/INGOs. As per the IOF Pokhara Campus’ request letter, the DFO forwarded the invitation letter to the concerned FUGs. In addition, the researcher made personal efforts to contact the concerned FUGs to confirm their participation in the workshop. The researcher followed the procedures of conducting the workshop as conducted by the Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFI‘C, 1999) and also used personal experiences as he has participated in several national and international workshops. As per the schedule, the workshop program began at 9:30 am (Appendix B). Oneofthe IOF staffwashiredto assistwiththeprogram. Hewasplaced outsidetheIOF conference hall with a banner announcing the workshop to help participants find the workshop registration place. After registration, the participants were invited into the conference lull The first session of the workshop began with the participants’ introduction and was followed by an explanation of the workshop purpose and objectives. Working together in a small group provides the best opportunity for dialogue among participants (Schusler et al., 2003). Using this idea, the participants were divided into two small groups because only eight participants were present during group formation. The participants were asked to count one and two serially; those who counted onewereplacedinGroupAandtwoinGroupB.Thegroupswerebalancedintermsof size (four members in each group), gender and ethnicity. However, the groups were 22 eventually larger (six and seven members, respectively) as five additional FUG representatives gradually arrived while discussion was proceeding. The facilitators asked the latecomers to join the discussion in progress rather than forming a third working group in order to avoid disrupting the discussions. One IOF faculty and one MSc Forestry student were given responsibility to serve as ficilitator in the groups. Each group was given questions to make sure they properly understood the point I of the discussions. The questions included the following: How do you define a successful community forestry program? What are the indicators of a successful community forestry program? How do you measure the indicators? The group brainstormed for three hours. After the brainstorm session, the groups were asked to gather as one large group to present and discuss their findings. First, the group arrived at the definition of success, which was agreed upon by all, without any debate, and presented indicators. Each indicator presented by the group was listed in the flip chart. The listed indicators were read aloud and the participants were asked for their consensus. The indicators that were endorsed by three-fourths of the participants were listed as final indicators for field-testing. Outcomes of the Workshop Each participant was asked to make his/her own assessment as to what constitutes a successfirl community forestry program. To help the participants think about indicators, they were asked to assume that a program was successful They were encouraged to think about indicators as comprehensive, practical, and easy to use. The local term ‘sign’ for indicator (McDufl', 2001) was used to make sure all participants understood the meaning 23 of an indicator in the same way. With this term, it became easier for the participants to identify indicators of a successful community forestry program using their experiences of changes they had seen in their own area after the program had been implemented. Each group discussed what constitutes a successful community forestry program and the indicators. They listed self-sufficiency in forest products, and physical conditions of the forest as basic fictors for considering the program as successful. Based on these ' fictors, they discussed and developed a list of indicators and also suggested how to measure them as shown in Table 2. Consensus building for indicators was the hardest part in the workshOp. They debated on the relevancy of the program’s outcome before reaching consensus. ‘ Table 2 shows the agreed upon indicators that were listed in the workshop for measuring the program’s success. some indicators, such as use of improved stoves and improved users’ facility, were not agreed upon by the group and were not inchrded in the field test (Table 3). The participants debated on the indicators based on the relevancy in their own situations. Consensus was easy to reach on indicators such as accessibility of fuel wood, fodder and timber and how to measure them. The connnunity forestry program in Nepal complies with basic forestry needs such as fuel wood, fodder, and leaf- litter rather than commercial forestry needs. Fuel wood, fodder, and timber are common forest products derived fiom community forests and considered as major benefits by the forest users. Frequent forest fires have resulted in the degradation of vegetation cover (Piussi and Farrell, 2000). The participants perceive fire as the biggest threat to community forests. The participants see fire as an enemy of the forest, however, they believe fire 24 enhancesforestgrowthifthe forestisbmnedinacontrolledway.Theyrecognized women as an important source for the program’s success as they pass on their knowledge toyoungergenerationsandalsotakecareoftheforestinabetterwaythando menThis finding is consistent with those ongrawal (1994) and Shiva (1989). Table 2. List of agreed upon indicators as perceived by local people and ways to measure them Indicators Ways to measure the indicators Access to fire! wood 0 Percentage of users obtaining fuel wood 0 Amount of fuel wood collection in a year Access to fodder 0 Percentage of users obtaining fodder 0 Frequency of fodder collection in a year Access to timber - Percentage of users obtaining timber (cu ft or number of logs) 0 Volume of timber collection in a year (cu it) Use of compost 0 Percentage of users collecting leaf-litter in a year 0 Frequency and amount of compost used in firm land Incidence of forest fires 0 Number of forest fires occurripg in a year Ammount of community 0 Annual income from the community forest ds Women’s participation in 0 Percentage of women in the forest management committee forestry meetings 0 Percentage of women participating in users assembly and committee’s meet'mgs Trees on private land 0 Number of trees on private land Forest’s status a Occurrence of natural regeneration in the forest 0 Tree canopy in the forest 0 Shape of trees in the forest Different plant species 0 Types of plant species available in the forest Availability of wildlife 0 Frequency of wildlife appearance in the area 0 Number of livestock killings/attacks by the wildlife in a year Availability of non-timber Percentage of users collecting non-timber forest products forest products (NTFP) Frequency of collecting NTFP Greenery in the area Percentage of denuded hills and barren area covered by vegetation Occurrence of landslides 0 Frequency of landslides in a year Availability of water 0 Number of springs/volume of water available in the area sources 0 Travel time for fetching water 0 Use of water for irrigation Water availability 0 Duration of water availability in the area Test of drinking water 0 Cleanliness and chilliness of water 25 The participants perceive leaf litter as an important product from the community forest. The leaflitter in the hills is used as fertilizer, which is one ofthe major sources of soil nutrient in the hills of Nepal (Oli and Manandhar, 2002). The workshop participants perceived the trees on private fiarmland as an important reason for making the program successful, in that it reduces the pressure on public forests. Increased fodder trees, increased tree density, and systematic management were debated as to whether to . consider them as indicators. Consensus was not reach consensus as most of the participants had not experienced such changes in their own community forests and did not agreed to include them as indicators for measuring the program success. Improvement in forest status, increased plant species in the forest, increased wildlife in the forest, and availability of non-timber forest products in the forest were experienced by most oftheparticipants so that itwas easyto reach consensusto include themas indicators of program success. The participants strongly felt the forest status in their area had been improved after the implementation of the community forestry program. They have experienced changes in terms ofnatural regeneration, tree shape, and tree canopy in the community forests. Most of the participants recalled their past experiences and shared in the discussions. Many participants expressed that they previously saw people walking in the forest from their houses, now it is almost impossible to see them. They said that it was verydifficult inthepastto findgoodu‘eeshapesintheforestsincethepeopleusedtocut illegally if they saw good tree shapes in the forest. Now, it is possible to see good shape treesintheforests. 26 Table 3. List of disagreed upon indicators as perceived by local people and ways to measure them Indicators Ways to measure the indicators Use of improved stoves Number of improved stoves used by forest users Status of users’ facility Number of public utilities such as road, school constructed through FUG funds Relationship with 0 Number of collaborative works carried out by FUGs NGOs/INGOs Status of awareness about Number of meetings conducted related to forestry in a year foreslzresources and forest Percentage of users participating in the users assembly tions Status of awareness of an 0 Number and types of species used for thakra to support important species climlgg plants. Status of managerial skills Availability of FUG records Number of people aware of the records Application of systematic Number of thinning and pruning activities conducted by management; regular the FUG thinning and pruning 0 Percentage of forest users obtained training on silvicultural activity in forest operations 0 Number of trained people available during thinning and pruningactivities Tree density in the forest 0 Number of trees per hectare Status of soil fertility 0 Change in soil color into black 0 Amount of compost application in a year 0 Amount of grain produced in a year 0 Occurrence of rainfall Frequency and amount of rainfall in a year The study findings suggest greenery development, occurrence of landslides, availability of water source and water availability, and taste in drinking water are agreed- upon indicators for measuring success of the community forestry program. The participantsstronglyfeelthattasteofdrinkingwaterhasimprovedasitiscleanand cooler after the improvement of forest conditions and needs to be considered as an indicator for program success. Their experiences with drinking water show that cleanliness and chilly water has a better taste for drinking than unclean and warm water. Such water gives more satisfaction in drinking when sonwone is thirsty. They believe that 27 improvement in the taste of drinking water means improvement in the water quality that may helptoreducewater-relateddiseasesinthearea. While negotiating indicators, the participants discussed and agreed upon the clnnges made by the community forestry program on people’s perception towards various activities. They cited forest fires, as an example. The people previously went to theforestand setfire init; now ifsomeone sees fires inthe forest,they informeachother and go collectively to control fires. Instrument Development Based on the recommendations of the workshop, two different instruments in the form of interview schedules were developed to measure the success of the community forestryprogram. The firstinstrumentwasdesigmdasachecklistto gathergeneral information from each community forest studied (see Appendix C). A checklist was developed incorporating some commonly agreed indicators to obtain community forests’ information such as forest location, number of households, main vegetation type, and forest conditions as development by Jackson and Ingles (1995). A draft of the checklist was prepared to share with a panel of experts for validity consideration. The information on the checklist was collected through personal interview with the current chairman/secretary of the Forest User Group Committee (FUGCz), an executive body of the Forest User Group (FUG). The second instrument was for forest user group members. A number of studies provided guidelines for developing a questionnaire as a research instrument (Holsman et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2001; Suvedi et al., 2000). The instrument contained three 2Agroupofpeopleelectedbytheuserstorepreserutheforestusergroup. 28 sections: benefits fiom community forests; perception towards indicators; and general information of the respondents (see Appendix D). The first action of the interview schedule was designed to solicit information about the benefits derived from community forests. Fuel wood was measured. in bhari (approximately 25 kg per bhari). Timber’ was measured in number of logs pieces. Other forest products, such as collection of fodder and leaflitter, were measm’ed on a one to five scale (i.e., 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3p= sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). To understand more clearly, the scale of one to five wasfm'therexplained: nevermeaningnovisit intheforeerarelymeaning onevisit in theforest inaweek, sometimesmeaningtwo visits inaweek, ofienmeaningthree/four visits in a week, and always meaning more than four visits in a week. The second section of the interview schedule consisted of indicators suggested by the workshop participants where the respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a Likert-type scale (i.e., SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, N0 = noopinion, A==agree, and SA=stronglyagree). The final sectionofthe interview schedule was designed to gather information about respondents’ socio-economic characteristics. Expert Panel Discussion Establishing validity and reliability of the instrument is essential to obtain recognition of the study. Validity and reliability are the benchmark criteria for assessing the quality of instruments (Mueller, 1986). Validity refers to the degree to which a sm'vey instrument assesses what it purposes to meastn'e (Fink, 1995; Gay, 1992). 3 The imit of timber collection varies from one FUG to another as they distribute timber difl’ermtly. The study uses number of logs pieces as the measuring unit for timber for uniformity. 29 The draft instruments were prepared based on the workshop results. The accepted indicators were developed into a statement in the questionnaire as developed by Holsman et aL, 2000. The checklist was developed to gather basic community forests’ information and their status. In order to validate the interview schedule and checklist, a half-day meeting ofa panel ofexperts was organized at the Institute ofForestry, Pokhara on September 26, 2002. Members of the panel included the Deputy Regional Director of Forest, District Forest officer, and IOF Faculty. The panel reviewed the questionnaire in terms of their content, format, and audience appropriateness. The experts changed a few wordings in the questions’ statement and agreed with the content and format of the interview schedule. The statement of interview schedule was modified accordingly and finalized for field-testing. The instrumentwasfirstprepared inEnglishandthentranslated into Nepali, the local language. The translated version was reviewed by a linguist at the IOF for translation validity. Afier review by the linguist, the interview schedule was sent for printing. The total of 25 copies of the interview schedule in the local language was printed for field-testing. Field Test of Reliability A team was formed before conducting a field test for reliability. The team composed of the researcher and three undergraduate forestry students. The students were hired as enumerators for conducting both field surveys: the social survey and the forest mynnmsemhafiaimdthestudenmforthreedaysmadmimgrmmgmemterview 30 schedule and rapid vegetation assessment. Upon completion of the training, the team conducted a field test for reliability. The field test is an essential component of instrument development. The field test was conducted to find the suitability, clarity, and reliability of the instrument. Reliability refers to the likelihood that a given measurement procedure will yield the same description of a given phenomenon, if the measurement is repeated (Babbie, 1994). Reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it measures (Gay, 1992). Litwin (1995) defines reliability as a statistical measure of how reproducible the survey instrument’s data are. Reliability looks for consistency, accuracy, and dependability of an instrument. An instrument is considered as reliable if it produces the same information each time with the same group of people under the same conditions. A field test was carried out in Phedipatan Forest User Group (FU G) in the Kaski district, which was not included in the sample for this study. The interview schedule was administrated randomly with a total of 14 members ofthe FUG to determine the instrument’s reliability. The data were entered into the computer and Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software was used to run the reliability test (Norusis, 1998). The cronbach’s alpha reliability of pretest was 0.74 for the interview schedule with 17 items or statements. The instrument was reliable since cronbach’s alpha of .70 or higher is considered satisfactory for preliminary studies (Nunnally, 1978). After applying the reliability test, the instrument was sent for printing. The total of 500 copies of the interview schedule in the local language was printed in order to implement them into 500 households of 50 FUGs, 10 households from each FUG using face-to-face interviews. A total of 50 copies of the checklist was printed to collect 31 information of 50 community forests of the Kaski district, western Nepal. The checklist information was collected consulting the chairman/secretary of the Forest User Group Committee (FUGC) and visiting the respective forests. The data was collected with the total of487 household heads ofthe forest user group members. Afier collecting the data, a factor analysis was performed on the 17 items or statements using the SPSS version 11.0 to reduce them to a more manageable number of factors. Factor Analysis Factor analysis is a method of identifying or verifying data, within a given set of items. Subsets of those items are clustered together by shared variation to form constructs or factors (Gable and Wolf, 1993). In this study, factor analysis was performed to examine the relationships among the variables and also which variables were related to each fictor. SPSS software was used to perform the factor analysis with the principal component factoring and varirnax rotation (Norusis, 1998). The principal component factoring method with varirnax rotation is the most useful for defining the factor structure. The varimax rotation procedures with an Eigen value over 1.0 and correlation coemcient absolute values of 0.3 or higher resulted in five factors by identifying clusters of items. The total amount of variance accounted for by these factors was 41.45 percent. The following criteria were used for selecting the statements under each factor: 1. Only one statement in one factor with the strongest correlation value; 32 2. Use professional judgment to organize the statement under the appropriate factorifthestaternentappearsinmorethanonefactonand 3. Each factor should consist ofat least three statements. Table 4. Factors with corresponding statements Factors/Name Corresponding statements Factor 1 (Forest Forest status such as regeneration, tree quality has improved after condition) community forestry program Greenery has increased in this area after community forestry program Incidence of forest fire has reduced in the forest alter community forestry 1108’ am Trees on private land has increase after community forestry program Use of compost through leaf litter collection has increased after community forestry program Factor 2 (Forest mamgement) Types of plant species has increased in the forest alter community forestry mam Women are actively taking part in forestry meetings alter community forestry program Amount of community funds has increased afier community forestry program Factor 3 (Forest ecology) Number and species of wildlife has increased in the forests afier community formtryprogram Occurrence of landslides/soil erosion has reduced in this area after community forestry program Availability of NTFP (Non-timber forest products) has increased in the forest after community forestry program Factor 4 (Forest products use) Access to fuel wood has increased after community forestry mogram Access to fodder has increased after community forestry program Access to timber has increased after community forestry program Factor 5 (Water availability/quality) Water sources have increased with the inmrovement of forest condition Water availability for longer period has increased with the improvement of forest condition Taste of drinking water has improved as it is cleaned and cold alter the improvement of forest condition This procedm'e resulted in five factors with 3-5 statements within each factor (Table 4). Naming of factors was done after careful review of each statement within each factor.1hefactorwiththehighestnumberofstatementswasfistedasFactor1,andthe 33 factor with least number of statements was listed as Factor 5. Table 4 shows the names of each factor and corresponding statements. Discussions and conclusions The workshop results revealed common indicators as perceived by the local mph and the data collection tool for 50 FUGs of the Kaski district, western Nepal A commonly agreed upon indicator as perceived by local people was essential to evaluate the community forestry program since the program considers local people as the min beneficiaries. Access to fuel wood, fodder and timber, amormt of community funds, greenery in the area and availability ofwater sources are commonly agreed upon indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program. Many studies reported access to fuel wood, fodder and timber in local communities (Baral, 1998; Mahapatra, 2000; Paudel, 2002; Pokahrel, 2000; Pokharel et al., 1999; Upadhayaya, 1999), greenery development (Pokharel, 1999; Upadhayaya, 1999), increased community fund and safer from forest fire (Dongol et al., 2002), and increased water sources (Updhayaya, 1999) for the program’s success. There appears to be a congruency between the local people and the scientific communities on the listed indicators. Local people also commonly agreed to consider improvement in forest status, use of compost, women’s participation in forestry meetings, trees on private lands, plants and availability of wildlife, occurrence of landslides and taste of drinking water as indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program. Improvement of the forest condition is an indication of the community forestry program’s success (Webb and Gautam, 2001). Some indicators, such as taste of drinking water, women’s participation 34 in forestry meetings, trees on private land and use of compost are new indicators for measuring the success ofthe community forestry program. Increased trees onprivate land and women’s participation in forestry meetings are often reflected in the studies; however, they are not used as indicators to measure the program’s success. Local people’s experience indicates that there are a lot of changes in the effectiveness of forest management with and without women’s involvement. The forest management becomes relatively efi‘ective with the involvement of women as they are seen at efi’ective in minimizing illegal forest products collection fiom the forest. Women were rarely consulted before decision-making regarding forest management although they are the main collectors of fuel wood, fodder, and leaf-litter in the hills. Localpeople feelthatthetreesonprivate landare animportantreasonformaking theprogramsuccessful astheyreduce pressure onthe forest andmedto be considered whilemeasuringthesuccess. Theystrongly feelthatthetasteofdrinkingwaterhas improved since the water is clean and chilly after the improvement of forest conditions. Their experiences with drinking water show that cleanliness and chilly water has a better taste than unclean and warm water. Such improvement in water indicates the quality of water has improved that may help to reduce water-related diseases in the area. The study findings suggest that there is a congruency between the local people’s perspectives and the views of scientific communities on many indicators to measure the successofthe communityforestryprogram. There arealso new indicatorsthatarenot reported by the scientific communities to measure the success of the community forestry program The new indicators could be the long-term impact of the community forestry program that is experienced by the local people. It is an opportunity for the scientific 35 communities to work on the indicators that are new for them, especially to verify them as additioml indicators evaluating the community forestry program. Factor analysis assisted to identify the clusters of the statements that share variations. Based on the factor analysis, five factors: forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water availability/quality are recommended to use as variables to study the success of the community forestry program in the mid-hills of Nepal. Thestatementsunder each firetorareimportant sincetherehasbeenasignificant change in the area as perceived by local people, particularly forest fires, use of compost, availability of wildlife, and water availability and change in water taste after the community forestry program The local people feel that the impact of the community forestry program has extended into many areas such as socio-economic status rather than being limited only to forest condition. Such areas need to be captured by individuals who wish to study the success of the community forestry program. The perceived success factors have accommodated the area that are related to the community forestry program so that anyone can use these factors as variables to measme the success ofcommunity forestry programs- The study recommends conducting an evaluation of the community forestry programinotherpartsofthe countryusingthese indicatorstohelp testthe instrument W and also to achieve wider acceptance, with modification, if necessary. The study recommends the amount of fuel wood and timber received fi'om community forests and the percentage ofusers benefiting from the fuel wood and timber as measuring techniques for the access to fuel wood and timber. The percentage of women in executive posts and the number of women participating in users’ assembly meetings is the 36 procedure to measure the women’s participation in forestry meetings. Future study can use yearly frequency, as a measuring technique for incidence of forest fire and occurrence oflandslidesinthearea. Similarly,the studycanusetrce shape, crowncover, andnatural regeneration as measuring variables for assessing community forests’ status. 37 References Agrawal, B. (1994). The gender and environment debate: Lessons fiom India. In L. Arizpe, M. P. Stone, and D. C. Major (eds.). Population and Environment: Rethinking the Debate (51-84). Boulder: West-view Press. Belnap, Jayne (1998). Choosing indicators of natural resource condition: A case study in Arches National Park, Utah, USA. Environmental Management, Vol. 22 (4): 63 5- 642. . Baral, N. R. (1998). huegrating community forestry into community development: An experience fiom Sindhupalchowk, Nepal. In P. Mathema,1. C. Dutta, M. K. Balls and S. N. Adhikary (eds.). Proceeding of an International seminar on Sustainable Forest Management (pp. 18-25). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry/ International Tropical Timber Organization Project. Babbie, Earl (1994). The practice of social research (seventh edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Conley, A. and Moote, M. A (2003). Evaluating collaborative mtural resource management, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 16 (5): 371-386. DoIIgOl, C. M., Hughey, K. F. D., Bigsby, Hugh R (2002). Capital formation and sustainable community forestry in Nepal, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 22 (1): 70-77. Farrell, A., and Hart, M. (1998). What does sustainability really mean?: The search for useful indicators, Environment, Vol. 40 (9): 4-9, 26-31. Fink, Arlene (1995). The Survey Handbook. California: SAGE Publication. Gable, Robert K. and Wolf, Marian B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings (second edition). Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (Fourth edition). New Yorlc Macmillan Publishing Company. Holsman, R. H., Linderman, K., Krueger, D., and Suvedi, M. (2000). Michigan citizens’ knowledge, attitudes, and groundwater stewardship practices: A longitudinal study 1996-2000. Center for Evaluation Studies, Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 38 Jackson, E. T. (1998). Indicators of change: Results-based management and participatory evaluation. In E. T. Jackson and Y. Kassam (eds.). Knowledge shared: Participatory evaluation in development cooperation (pp. 50-63). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Jackson, E. T., and Kassam, Y. (1998). Knowledge shared equals results shared, In E. T. Jackson and Y. Kassam (eds.). Knowledge shared: Participatory evaluation in development cooperation (pp. 1-20). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Jackson, Bill and Ingles, Andrew (1995). Participatory Techniques for Community Forestry; A Field Manual (Technical Notes 5/95). Kathmandu/Nepal: Nepal- Australia Community Forestry Project. Litwin, Mark S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. California: SAGE Publication. Mahapatra, Richard (2000). Community forest management: The Nepalese experience. Down To Earth, Vol. 8 (19), Retrieved on January 7, 2001 http://www.oneworld.org/cse/html/dte/dte20000229/dte_analy.htrn McDufi‘, Mallory D. (2001). Building the capacity of grass roots conservation organizations to conduct participatory evaluation. Environmental Management, Vol. 27 (5): 715-727. Mendoza, G. A., and Prabhu, R. (2000a). Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management: A case study on participatory assessment. Environmental Management, Vol. 26 (6): 659-673. Mendoza, G. A., and Prabhu, R. (2000b). Multiple criteria decision-nuking approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: A case study. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 131 (1-3): 107-126. Messerschmidt, D., Richard, C., Shrestha, K. M., Rayamajhi, S., and Gautam, M. (1994). User Groups in Community Forestry: Lessons learned and case studies fiom Nepal (Technical paper TP 94/2). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry Project. Metz, J. (1991). Rapid diagnostic vegetation description methods for community forestry in Nepal (Technical Paper TP 91/1). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry Project. Messerschmidt, D. (1988). Success in small farmer development: Paper making at Pang and Nanglibang, Nepal World Development, Vol. 16(6): 733-750. Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring Social Attitudes. New York: Teacher College Press. 39 Noss, Reed F. (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 115 (2-3): 135- 146. Norusis, Marija J. (1998). SPSS Guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Nunmlly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Thory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. O’Hara, Peter (2002). Community forestry - Liberation through scaling down our failures. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 46:46-53. Oli, K. P. and Manandhar, M. S. (2002). The role of forest in supplying soil nutrients in agricultural production system in the mid-hills of Nepal. Banko Jankari, Vol. 12 (1): 27-34. Poudel, Keshab (2002). Mature model of resource management. Spotlight, Vol. 21 (48). Retrieved on August 3, 2003, http://www.nepalnews.comnp/contents/englishweeklylspotlightlZOOZ/jun/jtm14/c overstory.htm Piussi, P. and Farrell, E. P. (2000). Interactions between society and forest ecosystems: Challenges for the near future. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 132 (1): 21- 28. Pokharel, Ridish K. 2000. An initiation of urban forestry through community forestry. Asia - Pacific Community Forestry Newsletter, Vol. 13 (1): 18-19. Pokharel, Ridish K. (1999). An overview of participatory forestry in Nepal’s Tarai. Banko Jankari, Vol. 9(1): 15-19. Pokharel, R., Adhikari, S., and Tlnpa, Y. 1999. Sankarnagar Forest User Group: Learning fiom a successful FUG in the Tarai. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 38: 25-32. Prabhu, R., Colfer, C., and Shepherd, G. (1998). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: New findings from CIFOR’s forest management unit level research (Network paper 23a). Rural Development Forestry Network RECOFTC, (1999). RECOFTC training and workshop report series: Regional Community Forestry Training Center (1999/8). Bangkok, Thailand. Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resomce management. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 16 (4): 309- 326. 40 Schuett, M. A., Selin, S. W., and Carr, D. S. (2001). Making it work: Keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. Environmental Management, Vol. 27 (4): 587-593. Smith, P. D., Khanal Chhetri, B. B. and Regmi, B. R. (2001). Developing local criteria and indicators of sustainable community forestry in Nepal: A pilot study in Tanahu district. Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Program (NARMSAP), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, HMG-N/DANIDA. Suvedi, Murari, Biggelaar, Christofi‘el den, and Snnlley, Susan (2000). Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the North-Central Region SARE Program Center for Evaluation Studies, Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Shiva, Vandana (1989). Women in Forestry. Staying Alive. India: Zed Books. United Nations (2001). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies (second edition). New York: United Nations. Upadhayaya, Madhukar (1999). Green Hills: Seeing the lbrest and the trees (Chapter one). Retrieved on January 16, 2001 http://www.icimod.org.sg/publications/special/tterrain/tterrain3.htm Webb, B. L., and Gautam, A. P. 2001. Efl'ects of community forest management on the structure and diversity of a successional broadleaf forest in Nepal. International Forestry Review, Vol. 3 (2): 146157. Wainwright, .C. and Wehrmeyer, W. (1998). Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Development, Vol. 26 (6): 93 3-944. WHO, (1981). Development of indicators for monitoring progress towards health for all by the year 2000. Geneva: World Health Organization 41 Chapter III An assessment of the community forestry program in Kaski district of Nepal: Forest User Group members’ perspectives Introduction Community forestry is a major program adopted by the government of Nepal to manage the cormtry’s forests. The program was formally introduced in 1978 with the objective of reducing ecological degradation and increasing the supply of basic forest products for subsistence needs (Kanel, 1997). The current policy considers community forestry interventions as a process, which essentially involves transferring use rights of the government-owned forest to the indigenous group of people, who customily hold the defacto use rights of such forests (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991). As of June 2003, Nepal had already transferred more than 999,000 hectares of forestlands to nearly 12,584 forest user groups (FUGs), involving approximately 1.4 million households (Bhandari, 2003). Community forest isanareaofnational foresttransferredto aparticular community for mamgement and utilization purposes. The users, or members of the community forests, are identified based on the forest accessibility and their traditional use, irrespective of administrative boundary. An operational plan and constitution are prerequisites for the program, which is developed by local people with the help of forest technicians. The operational plan specifies the activities to be carried out in the forests and the constitution determines who is allowed to use forest products and who is given the respomibilities for running the institution, which is known as Forest User Group 42 (FUG). Any member of the household is eligible to receive the benefits fi'om the forest as long as the household remains in the FUG. The forest management is considered oficially assigned to the community for management once the District Forest Oflice approves the operational plan and constitution. By transferring the forest management, the FUG receives use rights only; the ownership still remains with the government. Several authors argue that community forestry program has been successful in the mid-hills of Nepal in improving the condition of the people (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001; Dongol et al., 2002; Recth et al., 2002) and the forest (Chakraborty, 2001; Gautam et a1 2002; Tachibana et al., 2001; Webb and Gautam, 2001). O’Hara (2002) stresses that local perspective is key to the success ofthe community forestry program as the local people are the main beneficiaries of the program As main beneficiaries, their perspective is important, and it is lacking. In 2002, representatives of the forest user group members and local forestry techniciansmettodiscussandagreeuponasetofindicatorsformeasmingthesuccessof the community forestry program. These indicators were further tested with forest user group members to understand how they perceive the indicators and the community foresz program as well. This paper describes how the perceived indicators were further tested at the field level. Basically, this paper describes the study objective number two i.e., “To pilot test the acceptability of indicators by forest user group members to assess the community forestry program”. Methodology This study was designed to develop commonly agreed upon indicators as perceived by local people for measuring the success of the community forestry program 43 in the mid-hills of Nepal. The secondary purpose of the study was to develop a baseline datafiirmeasuringthesuccessofthe community forestryprogramoftheKaskidistfict. This section describes the design, study population, selection of sample, instrument development procedure, and data collection approach followed in this study. Design of the study . This is a descriptive study based on sample survey. The descriptive study is grounded in observations or experiences of that which exists without attempting to influence. Ary et al. (1996) defines a survey as a research technique in which data are gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals called respondents. The study was designed to develop commonly agreed upon indicators as perceived by local people and abothemeanstomeasurethem. Themainpurposeofthe studywastoexploreand describe the existing situation of the community forestry program by analyzing the community forests status and the perceived success factors of the community forestry program. One of the goals of this study was to provide indicators as perceived by local people for measuring the success of the community forestry program Study population and sampling Thetarget population forthis studywasthehouseholds ofthe Kaski district who are listed as members of a forest user group. As of September 13, 2002, 30,377 households were listed as members of a forest user group. The sample population was ' 500 households, 10 households hour each sample FUG. A pm'posive sample was used to select the district, as it was one of the hill districts where the community forestry program is being implemented. This study utilized a random sampling to understand the agreement or disagreement on the indicators and also understand the perceived success factors of the community forestry program. A compilation report of the FUGs was obtained fiom the District Forest Ofice of theKaskidistrict, which listed 330 registered FUGs inthedistrict. The listwasfurther verified with the available FUG database developed by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Comervation/Natural Resource Management Sector Assistance Program (MSFC/NARMSAP). The database showed 384 registered FUGs in the Kaski district as ofSeptember13, 2002. The list ofthe FUGs was updated asperthe databasethat served as the sampling frame for this study. TheFUGs listwasstratified intotwo groupsbasedontheforestareaandSO FUGs were selected for the study (Figure 2). A forest area with five hectares or fewer wasclassifiedasasmallFUGandwithmorethanfivehectaresasalarge FUG. The benefits derived from the small forests are relatively fewer than the large forests that may lead the users to perceive the program difiemmly. According to the database, there were 66smallFUGsand318 largeFUGs. Aseparatelistwiththenameofsmalland large FUGswasprepared. Toobtain25 samplesofasmallFUG, anumber ofl to66was written on a piece of paper separately and placed on a table. Twenty-five pieces of paper were drawn randomly fiom the table and matched with the number of the small FUG list to record the name ofFUG. A similar process was followed to select 25 samples for the large FUGs. 45 Kaski District Forest Range Ofi'ice 1. Dhikur Pokhari 2. Hemja 3. Lamachaur 4. Pumdi Bhumdi 5. Nirmal Pokhari 6. Arba Bijaya 7. Shishwa 8. Hanspur ' Study Site Annapurna Conservation Area Project Kaski District India Figure 2. Location of the study area 46 The constitution of each FUG included in the sample was obtained fi'om the District Forest Oflice where the name of the household was listed. Generally, it is behevedflmmeomceretaimanupdmedhstofthehouseholdsbecausethechanges in the households, if any, must be informed by the Forest User Group Committee (FUGC') to the forest ofice. The list of the households served as a sampling frame for selecting the respondents to administer the interview schedule. With the available sampling fi'ame, 10 households were selected randomly fiom each FUG for this study. Three additional samples were taken to replace the households if the selected household could not be reached due to various reasons such as migration, death, and absence during the data collection period of this study. Workshop for FUG representatives and forestry technicians A one-day workshop was organized in September 2002 at the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal for FUG representatives and local forestry technicians of the Kaski district. Altogether 13 (four female and nine male) Forest User Group Committee (FUGC) representatives and three local forestry professionals participated in the workshop. The workshop recommended various indicators (see Appendix D, second part) tomeasm'ethe successofthe community forestryprogram Based on the recommendation of the workshop, an interview schedule was developed for forest user group members. The interview schedule consisted of three lAgroripofpeople elected by forest usergroup membastorepresent the FUG. The members inthe group mgefrcm7t015,depaidinganUGsize. 47 sections: (a) benefits fi'om community forest; (b) perception toward indicators; and (c) general information on the survey population. The first section of the interview schedule was designed to solicit information about the benefits derived fiom community forests. Fuel wood was measured in bhari (approximately 25 kg per bhari). Timber was measured in log pieces. Other forest products suchascollectionoffodderand leaflitterweremeasm'edonaoneto fivescale (i.e., l = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 == always). The second section ofthe interview schedule consisted of indicators suggested by the workshop participants where the respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a Likert-type scale (i.e., SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, N0 = no opinion, A = agree, and SA = strongly agree). The final section of the interview schedule was designed to gather information about the respondents’ socio-economic characteristics. Data Collection Procedure A team was formed to conduct a field survey. The team was composed ofthe researcher and three undergraduate forestry students. The students were hired as enumerators for conducting the field survey. The researcher trained them for three days in administrating the interview schedule and measuring crown cover, regeneration, tree shape and soil cover. Upon completion of the training, the team conducted the field survey. The researchteamfirst approachedthe chairman, ifthe chairmanwasnot available, then the secretary of FUGC to identify the sample households and the forest. Alter identifying the households, the team visited the respective households and administered the interview schedule with the household heads, which typically lasted 20 minutes. The team also 48 administrated the interview schedule to the members of the household who were 18 years old or older if the household head was not available (Mehta and Heinen, 2001; Rao et al., 2003). The team paid more attention to involving women as respondents since they are the main collectors of the forest products. The team encouraged women to participate while conducting the interview schedule. The interview schedule was administrated by the enumerators and the researcher as well. The data was collected fi'om early October to mid-December 2002. On an average, one day was spent in each FU Gs. Data Analysis Data collected from the respondents were coded for processing and analysis. The SPSS software version 11 was used to perform the data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data pertaining to personal characteristics of the respondents. Frequency counts and percentages as well as means and standard deviations were calculated for the descriptive data. A Likert-type of scale was used to measure agreement of the respondent on the developed indicators. Such data of agreement were presented describing means and percentages. T-tests and analysis of variance (AN OVA) were used to determine whether a significant difference existed in scores of perceived success factors by respondents’ characteristics, and forest products collection. The Pearson Correlation coeflicient was also run to determine the relationship between forest products collection and perceived success factors of the community forestry program. 49 Findings Demographic characteristics of the respondents A total of 487 respondents from 50 forest user groups were interviewed by visiting house-to-house. The gender breakdown of the survey population sample was 204 (42%) female and 283 (58%) male. The survey population ranged in age hour 18 years old to 79 years; the average age was 44.8 years. For analysis purpose, the age of the respondents was classified as described by Mehta and Heinen (2001): young (18-35 years old), middle-aged (36-55 years old), and old (56 years old and older). Table 5. Demographic and socio characteristics of the respondents Characteristies Number Percent Sex Female 204 41.9 Male 283 58.1 18 - 35 years 160 32.9 Age gm” 36 - 55 years 196 40.2 56 years and above 131 26.9 Brahmin 252 51.7 meg/Ethnic gm” Chhetriflhakuri 94 19.3 Gurung/Newar 104 21.4 Others“ 37 7.6 ’ Other includes Darnai, Kami, and Sarkee 50 As shown in Table 5, middle-aged represents 40 percent of the surveyed population, followed by young (33%), and old (27%). Over half of the respondents were Brahmin, followed by Gurung/Magar (21%), Chhetri/Thakw'i (19%), and others (Table 5). The respondents ranged in family size fi'om one to 21 members; the average family size was six with the standard deviation of 2.56. Table 6. Educational background and occupations of the respondents Characteristics Number Percentage Illiterate 177 37.0 Up to high school 245 51.3 Educational level Some college 40 8.4 College degree f 16 3.3 Farming 451 92.8 Small business owner 18 3.7 Occupations Government services 11 2.3 Self-employed 6 1.2 Table 6 shows the classification of the survey population according to educational background and occupations. As shown in Table 6, over one-half (5 1%) of the survey population was literate who attended formal education up to high school. More than one- third (37%) of the respondents were illiterate, with either no formal or informal educational backgrormd; whereas 3.3 percent were highly educated luving college degrees. 51 The overwhelming majority (93%) of the survey population was engaged in farming. The firm size ofthe survey population ranged fiom one to 60 ropanizwith the meanand standard deviation of 13.9 ropani and 10.76, respectively. When farm size was analyzed by caste/ethnic groups, Brahmins were found to own a larger than average farm size than other castes/ethnic groups. Perceptions of forest user group members about the indicators to assess the success of the community forestry program Forest user group members were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a Likert-type of scale (i.e., SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, N0 = no opinion, A = agree, and SA = strongly agree) on all indicator statements. The respondents indicated agreement with all the indicator statements as the average value was greater 3.0 on 1 to 5 scale (Table 7). Of the 17 statements, respondents rated eight statements very high i.e., they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with theses indicators (Table 7). ’Ropani is a local unit for measuring land in the mid-hills of Nepal. (he ropani = 0.052 heaare. 52 Table 7. Most agreed-upon indicators for measuring success of community forestry prosnm (N = 487) Statements Percent of responding Mean (std. Disagree/stro- No Agree/stron dev.) ugly disagree opinion -eg agree Access to fuel wood has increased 4.9 3.9 91.2 4.08 alter community forestry program (0.66) Access to timber has increased 8.2 6.6 85.2 3.90 alter community forestry program (0.70) Incidence of forest fire has 2.7 2.7 94.6 4.43 reduced in the forest alter (0.67) community forestry program Women are actively taking part in 3.3 6.6 90.1 4.11 forestry meetings alter (0.66) community forestry program Forest status such as regeneration 0.4 1.4 98.1 4.40 has improved after community (0.54) forestry program Number of wildlife has increased 6.6 15.0 78.5 3.90 in the forest alter community (0.73) forestry program Greenery has increased in the area 0 0 100 4.68 after community forestry program (0.46) Occurrence of landslides has 6.4 8.4 85.2 3.94 reduced in this area after (0.71) community forestry program As shown in Table 7, the overwhelming majority (over 75%) of the respondents indicated that they either “agree” or “strongly agree” with statements pertaining to greenery development, reduction in forest fire occurrence, forest condition improvement, 53 women’s participation in forestry meetings, access to fuel wood, reduction in landslides, and access to timber, and increased wildlife. Table 8. Agreed-upon indicators for measuring success of community forestry program (N = 487) Statement Percent of responding Mean Disagree/stro No Agree/stron SStd' . . . ev.) ngly dlsagree opinion gly agree Access to fodder has increased 28.7 16.2 55.0 3.31 alter community forestry program (0.93) Amount of community funds has 2.1 30.6 67.4 3.69 increased after community (0.57) forestry program Use of compost through leaf litter 17.4 20.9 61.6 3.48 collection has increased alter (0.83) community forestry program Tree on private land has increased 17.9 20.1 62.0 3.48 after community forestry program (0.84) Types of plant species have 6.5 18.5 75.0 3.74 increased in the forest after (0.65) community forestry program Availability of NTFP has 10.1 63.4 26.5 3.17 increased in the forest after (0.60) community forestry program Water sources have increased 11.5 23.2 65.3 3.65 with the improvement of forest (0.82) condition Water availability for longer 10.7 26.7 62.6 3.59 period has increased with the (0.77) improvement of forest condition Taste of drinking water has 7.4 34.7 57.9 3.56 improved as it is clean and cold (0.71) alter the improvement of forest condition 54 Over half of the survey population either “agree” or “strongly agree” on the eight indicator statements (Table 8). Only over one-quarter (26.5 %) of the survey population either “agree” or “strongly agree” on the statement i.e., availability ofNTFP (non-timber forest products) has increased after the community forestry program It was noticed during data collection that may respondents were not aware of the NTFP. Factor analysis A factor analysis was used to reduce the number of locally agreed-upon indicators or factors to measure the success of the community forestry program The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software was used to perform the factor analysis with the principal component factoring and varirnax rotation (Norusis, 1998). The varirnax rotation procedtues with an Eigen value over 1.0 and correlation coefficient absolute values of0.3 or higher was used to identify the clusters ofitems. This procedure resulted in five factors with 3-5 statements within each factor. These factors were used to examine the relationship among the variables. Naming of factors was done after careful review of each statement within each factor. Table 9 shows the names of each factor and corresponding statements. The following criteria were used for selecting the statements under each flictor: 1. Only one statement in one factor having the strongest correlation value; 2. Use professional judgment to organize the statement under the 55 appropriatefactorifthe statementappearsinmorethanone factor;and 3. Each factor should consist of at least three statements. Table 9. Factors and corresponding statements Factors/Name Corresponding statements Factor 1 (Forest condition) Forest status such as regeneration, tree quality has improved afier community forestry program Greenery has increased in this area afier community forestry program Incidence of forest fire has reduced in the forest alter community forestry progr_am Trees on private land have increased alter community forestry program Use of compost through leaf litter collection has increased after community forestry pLogram Factor 2 (Forest management) Types of plant species have increased in the forest alter community forestry ,JLosmm Women are actively taking part in forestry meetings aller community forestry .1198” am Amount of community funds has increased alter community forestry program Factor 3 (Forest ecology) Number and species of wildlife has increased in the forests alter community forestry program Occurrence of landslides/soil erosion has reduced in this area after community forestry program Availability of NTFP (Non-timber forest products) has increased in the forest after community forestry program Factor 4 (Forest products use) Access to fuel wood has increased alter community foresz program Access to fodder has increased alter community forestry proggam Access to timber has increased alter community forestry program Factor 5 (Water availability Water sources have increased with the improvement of forest condition Water availability for longer period has increased with the improvement of forest condition Taste of drinking water has improved as it is clean and cold alter the irrmrovement of forest condition Perception of forest user group members on the perceived success factors of community forestry program Perceived success factors for the community forestry program were identified as forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water 56 availability/quality. Several statements related to these factors were asked to forest user group members to understand their perception regarding their respective community forests. The statements were developed in a Likert-type scale. Each statement was read to the respondents, the respondents expressed their agreement or disagreement based on the experience of their own community forests. Table 10. Status of community forests (N a 50) Factors Community forests Indicating improvement Indicating no improvement Number Percentage Number Percentage Forest conditions 50 100 0 0 Forest management 49 98 l 2 Forest ecology 39 78 11 22 Forest products use 39 78 ll 22 Water availability/quality 31 62 19 38 Note: Scale mean is calculated based on a scale of l to 5, with 1 meaning strongly disagree, 2 meaning disagree, 3 meaning no opinion, 4 meaning agree, and 5 meaning strongly agree. Mean value of 3.5 or above considered as improvement and below of 3.5 as no improvement. Forest user group members indicated their “agreement” or “disagreement” on the statements under each factor on a scale of 1 to 5. The average score of each factor was calculated. The community forests receiving a score of 3.5 or above in the forest user group members’ rating were classified as improvement. The overwhelming majority of the forests were improved in terms of forest condition (100%) and forest management 57 practices (98%) after the implementation of community forestry program (Table 10). Over three-quarters of the forests were improved in terms of forest ecology (78%) and forest products use (78%) alter the implementation of the community forestry programs. Similarly, over 60 percent of the forests were improved in terms of water sources available, wateravailability fora longerperiodandthe taste indrinking water inthe area alter the community forestry program (Appendix E). Successful community forests Sample forest user group members indicated their “agreement” or “disagreement” on all 17 indicator statements on a 1 to 5 scale. The responses were identified through factor analysis procedures. Community forests receiving a score of 4.0 or higher, 3.50 - 3.99, and less than 3.50 in three of five factors in the forest user group members rating were classified as highly successful, successful and less successful community forests, respectively. Findings are shown in Table 11. Table 11. Community forssts’ category (N = 50) , Community forest category Number of community forests Percentage Highly successful 11 22 Successful 34 68 Less successful 5 10 TOTAL 50 100 58 Table 11 shows that about one-quarter (22%) of the community forests had received a 4.0 or higher mean score in three of five factors. More than two-thirds (68%) and one-tenth (10%) had received a mean score between 3.50 - 3.99 and less than 3.50 in tluee of five factors, respectively (see Appendix E). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the differences on number of user households, number of female members in the forest user group committee, annual income and travel time to market and the forest range office by forest category. The results of ANOVA show no significant difi‘erence. However, the results showed almost significant difl'erenceswiththenumberoffemale members intheforestusergroupcommitteeG= 3.035 at P = .058). The results indicate that highly successful community forests tend to lnve more female members in the forest user group committee than successful and less successful community forests. An analysis of these community forests indicated that the highly successful forests had the following characteristics (see Appendix F and G): 1. Broadlcaf forests (91%) - Katus (Castenopsis spp.) and Chilaune (Schima wallichi) were the dominant species; . 2. No forest fire occurred dining the past five years (100%); 3. No grazing is being practiced in the forest at present (73%); 4. Managed by homogeneous community (73%) 5. Primarily dominated by higher caste liimilies (Brahmin - 80%, and Chhetri- 15%); 59 6. Generating incomethroughthesalesofforestproductsandotherssuchas fines for violating rules (82%); 7. Allowing forest products collection fi'om the forest such as grass (100%), leaf litter (73%), fire wood (82%), and timber (64%); and 8. Higher number of women in the Forest User Group Committee (100 percent,thenumberinthecommitteerangesfiomlto7). Relationship between forest products collection and perceived success factors of community forestry program Fuel wood and timber are common forest products collected from community forests (see Appendix H). Locally, fuel wood is known as daura, which itself is divisible into two: sukeko (deadwood and fallen branches) and kacho (greenwood i.e., trimks or major branches of a living tree which after cutting or felling are dried for use as fuel wood). Generally, community forests are open once a year to collect green fuel wood, depending on forest condition. The lurvested of green fuel wood is distributed equally to thosewhoparticipateinharvesting.1nmanycasesitwasobscrvedinthestudyareathat. theforestusergroupallowstheusertovisittheforestanytimeforcollecting grasses/fodder, leaf-litter, and sukeko daura, whereas some put restrictions and specify the days for collecting them. Timberisharvestcdonlywhentheusersneeditforrenovatinghousesor constructing new houses. Generally, the user makes a request for timber when they need it.Themmmhteeverifiesthenwdandaflowsthemtohmemumberwhhacertainfeeif 60 their request is genuine. Fodder is a major feed for livestock, particularly during winter montlo when ground grass is lacking. The users collect leaf litter to make compost. Leaf- litter is mixed with animal excreta to produce compost which is the major fertilizer used on agricultural fields. Table 12 shows the average amount of fuel wood and timber collected fi'om the community forests and also the fiequency of fodder and leaf litter collection. Table 12. Amount and frequency of forest products collection (N = 487) Forest products it Mean (std. dev.) Fuel wood (bhart') 328 14.85 (12.64) Timber (logs pieces) 50 7.25 (10.46) Fodder 487 1.52 (.96) Leaflitter 487 1.46 (.90) Note: Bhari is a local unit to measure fuel wood and fodder. One bhari = approximately 25 kg Scale mean of fodder and leaf litter was calculated on a scale of l to 5 where 1 meaning never, 2 meaning rarely, 3 meaning sometimes, 4 meaning often, and 5 meaning always. An attempt was made to determine the relationship between forest products collection and the perceived success fiictors of the community forestry program The respondents were asked how much fuel wood and timber was collected. Similarly, they were asked to indicate how ofien they visited the community forest to collect fodder and leaf-litter. A Pearson Correlation coemcient was run to determine the relationship between the level of fuel wood and timber collection and perceived success factors (forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, water availability/quality, and forest 61 products use). Similarly, Kendall’s tau-b was run to test the relationship between fodder and leaf-litter collection and perceived success factors. Table 13. Relationship between forest products collection and perceived success factors of community forestry program (N - 487) Forest Perceived success factors (r-value) products Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition management ecology products use availability Fuel wood .044 .022 .269" -.079 .194" Timber -.292* .164 .379" .322“ .327“ Fodder .051 .125" .029 .126" .011 Leaflitter .154" .101"‘ .098“ .147" .052 Pole -.029 .066 .148" .095“ .137" " Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) " Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 13 shows that there is a low but positive relationship between the perceived success such as forest ecology, water availability and fuel wood, timber, and pole collection. Similarly, there is a low but positive relationship between the perceived success of forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, and forest products use and leaf-litter collection The r-values indicate that the strength of relationship between the perceived success factors and forest products collection is low except for timber collection (Miller 1998). The relationship between perceived success of forest ecology, water availability, and forest products use and timber collection was found to be 62 moderate. It should be notedthat inmany cases, the timberwasnot available inthe community forests, as the forests were not yet matured. The forests with timber availability were larger in size and also had been well protected for the last few decades. Table 14. Relationship between overall opinion on implementation of community forestry program and perceived success factors of community forestry program (N I: 487) Perceived success factors (r-value) Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition management ecology product use availability Overall opinion on .063 .107 .063 .067 .142“ implementation of CF program Overall evaluation .206” .173" .244" .220" .216" of the forest " Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) " Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) The relationship between the perceived success factors and overall opinion on implementation of the community forestry program and overall evaluation of community forests were tested by running Kendall’s tau-b test. Findings in Table 14 show that there is a low but positive relationship between the overall evaluation of community forests and the perceived success factors. The Kendall’s tau-b test shows that there is no relationship between the overall opinion about the implementation of the community forestry program and forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, and forest products use. 63 Relationships between perceived success factors of community forestry programs and the respondents’ demographic socio-economic characteristics The Pearson Correlation coeflicient was computed to determine the correlation between perceived success factors and age, family size, and firm size. An independent t- testwasperformedtodeterminethesignificant difference betweentheperceivedsuccess factors and the. respondents’ demographic characteristics, such as gender and collection of ibrest products. Furthermore, the one-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) was used to determine differences in perceived success factors by respondents’ educational level, and caste/ethnic groups. Table 15. Relationship between respondents’ characteristics and perceived success factors of community forestry program (N - 487) Characteristics Perceived success factors (r-value) Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition management ecology product use availability Age -.102"‘ -.087 .077 -.106"' .153" Family size .018 .083 .079 .085 -.023 Farm size .037 .081 .159" .085 .013 ‘ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) “ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) A Pearson Correlation coefficient was run to test the relationship between the perceived success factors and age, family size, and ihrm size. The Pearson’s r-values indicate that the strength of relationship between the perceived success of forest condition, water availability, and forest products use and age is low (Table 15). The Pearson’s r-value of the perceived success of forest ecology and farm size indicates a significant but low degree of relationship. Similarly, the Pearson’s r-value of perceived success iiictors of forest ecology and farm size indicates a significant but low degree of relationship. One probable explanation for negative relationship between forest condition, forest products use and age could be that forests are not in the same condition as elderly people observed them before and also the forest products are not available as easily as theywereinthepast. Table 16. Differences in the perceived success factors of community forestry program by gender Perceived success It Mean score (std. dev.) t-value Sig. (2- factors _ ‘ tailed) Male Female Forest condition 487 4.10 (0.47) 4.08 (0.43) .309 .758 Forest management 487 3.83 (0.46) 3.85 (0.40) .474 .635 Forest ecology 487 3.70 (0.49) 3.59 (0.46) 2.485 .013 Forest products use 487 3.76 (0.60) 3.74 (0.54) .243 .808 Water availability 487 3.59 (0.74) 3.60 (0.62) .171 .864 An independent t-test was performed to determine the differences in the perceived success factors by gender, and collecting fuel wood and timber from the community forest. The results of the independent sample t-test show that the mean scores for male 65 were not significantly different from those for female except in one factor, i.e., forest ecology (Table 16). The results of the t-test showed that male members of the FUGs tend to rate higher for forest ecology than female members. Do respondents collecting fuel wood differ fiom those not collecting fuel wood in their ratings of the perceived success factors of community forestry? An independent t- test was used to determine the differences. Findings showed that respondents Who indicated collecting fuel wood from the forest rated higher on forest ecology, water availability factors than those who reported not collecting fuel wood. The difi'erence in their rating was found to be statistically significant (Table 17). Table 17. Differences in perceived success factors of community forestry program with the respondents’ collecting fuel wood from community forest Perceived success it Mean score (std. dev.) of t-value Sig. (2- factors collecting fuel tailed) No Yes Forest condition 487 4.04 (0.45) 4.12 (0.46) 1.822 . '.069 Forest management 487 3.85 (0.42) 3.84 (0.45) .302 .763 Forest ecology 487 3.57 (0.50) 3.70 (0.47) 2.740 .006 Forest products use 487 3.75 (0.62) 3.75 (0.56) .063 .94 Water availability 487 3.51 (0.72) 3.64 (0.67) 1.941 .053 66 Table 18. Difl’erences in perceived success factors of community forestry program with the respondents’ collecting timber from community forest Perceived success it Mean score (std. dev.) of t-value Sig. (2- factors collecting timber tailed) No Yes Forest condition 487 4.09 (0.46) 4.11 (0.45) .372 .710 Forest nmnagement 487 3.84 (0.43) 3.85 (0.45) .163 .871 Forest ecology 487 3.63 (0.48) 3.83 (0.46) 2.754 .006 Forest products use 487 3.75 (0.56) 3.75 (0.69) .034 .973 Water availability 487 3.58 (0.70) 3.78 (0.62) 1.982 .048 Similarly, the t-test was used to determine if respondents differ in their perceptions as to whether or not they have collected timber from the forest. Results of the t-test in Table 18 demonstrate that the mean score of perceived success of forest ecology and water availability and timber collection is significantly different. Those who collected timber fiom the forest rated their community forests higher on factors such as forest ecology and water availability than those who did not collect timber. 67 Table 19. Differences in perceived success factors of community forestry program by the respondents’ educational level and castes (n = 487) Characteristics Mean and standard deviation of perceived success factors Forest Forest Forest Water Forest condition manageme ecology availabi product nt lity Use Illiterate (n 4.00 3.76 3.62 3.69 3.65 = 177) (0.45) (0.45) (0.45) (0.65) (0.61) High school 4.13 3.88 3.65 3.53 3.80 Educational and-belgw (0.46) (0.43) (0.50) (0.71) (0.56) level (n — 24 ) Some years 4.28 4.04 3.85 3.68 3.92 in college (n (0.45) (0.34) (0.48) (0.74) (0.48) = 40) College 4.21 3.89 3.72 3.68 3.68 degree (n = (0.29) (0.31) (0.40) (0.66) (0.55) 16) F value 5.636 5.525 2.498 1.914 3.500 Sig. (2—tailed) .001 .001 .059 .126 .015 Brahmin (n 4.21 3.91 3.70 3.61 3.81 = 252) (0.42) (0.41) (0.45) (0.69) (0.53) Caste/ Chhetri/Tha 4.05 3.87 3.64 3.66 3.82 Ethnic kuri (n = 94) (0.50) (0.38) (0.47) (0.70) (0.58) group Gurung/Ne 3.95 3.72 3.58 3.54 3.61 war (ii = (0.40) (0.48) (0.56) (0.66) (0.67) 104) Others (11 = 3.75 3.66 3.57 3.48 3.56 37) (0.49) (0.49) (0.45) (0.78) (0.49) F value 17.010 6.963 2.051 .850 4.791 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .106 .467 .003 The one-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) test was performed to determine if significant differences existed in the score of perceived success factors by respondents’ educational level, castes/ethnic groups, afliliating occupation and age group. Findings are showninTable l9and20. Theresultsshowthatthereisasignificant difference inthe mean score on forest condition, forest management, and forest products use by education level and caste/ethnic group. It seems that there is a high correlation between caste status andeducationallevelinthestudyarea. Itwasobservedthatinmanycaseslocalelite were involved in the management and the majority ofthem were fi-om higher caste families. The college educated respondents rated higher on factors such as forest condition and forest ecology than those with no education. Similarly, higher caste (Brahmin/Chhetri) rated these success factors more positively than those belonging to other castes/ethnic groups (Table 19). One probable explanation for the insignificant results could be that the perceived success of forest ecology and water availability are visible as forest ecology and water availability includes availability of wildlife, availability of non-timber forest products, and occurrence of landslides and increment in water sources and availability and also change in the test of drinking water, respectively. Such visible results can be seen by anyone whether they are educated or lmeducated or whether they belong to Brahmin or other castes. 69 Table 20. Diflerences in perceived success factors of community forestry program by age group and the respondents’ occupation Characteristics Mean and standard deviation of perceived success factors Forest Forest Forest Water Forest condition management ecology availability product Use Farming 4.11 3.85 3.66 3.61 3.75 (n = 451) (0.44) (0.44) (0.47) (0.69) (0.58) Business 3.91 3.83 3.77 3.51 3.61 Occupation (n = 18) (0.38) (0.32) (0.34) (0.74) (0.46) Service 3.52 3.63 3.51 3.27 3.78 (n = 1 1) (0.57) (0.43) (0.58) (0.46) (0.63) Self- 3.76 3.72 3.00 3.00 3.77 employee (0.51) (0.32) ‘ (0.84) (0.89) (0.54) (n = 6) F value 8.287 1.027 4.493 2.506 .382 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .380 .004 .058 .766 Young (n 4.17 3.93 3.65 3.49 3.84 = 160) (0.42) (0.38) (0.46) (0.69) (0.50) Age group Middle- 4.09 3.85 3.65 3.67 3.75 aged (n = (0.45) (0.43) (0.52) (0.69) (0.58) 196) Old (n = 3.99 3.72 3.67 3.63 3.64 131) (0.49) (0.48) (0.45) (0.70) (0.64) F value 5.455 8.242 .110 2.997 4.314 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000 .896 .051 .014 70 Table 20 showsthatthereisasignificant difl‘erence inthe meanvalue ofthe perceived success of forest condition, forest ecology, and water availability (almost significant, F=2.506atP=.058) byoccupation. Farmerstendto ratefactorsofforest condition and forest ecology significantly higher than those with other occupations. It couldbeduetothe factthatpeoplewithfarmingoccupationsvisittheforest frequently for various pmposes. Nepalese farming systems tend to have close links with local forests. For example, there is a tendency to have a walking stick, which comes fi'om the forest, while visiting the agricultural fields. Similarly, people go to forest for collecting grassesfortheircattleandareaware ofthe forest situation. Thepeoplewithother occupations such as government services are less aware of the forest situation since they rarely visit the forest to obtain such products. The ANOVA results in Table 20 show significant difi‘erences in the mean rating or scores of perceived success on forest condition, forest magement, and forest products use by age group. In factors such as forest condition, forest management and forest products use, younger respondents reported the success of community forests more positively than did the older respondents. One probable explanation could be that older peoplewereusedtoseeingmuchbeflerforestsintheirareeandthelatest improvement of the forest condition might not have yet been met. Discussions and conclusions Overall, the agreed-upon indicators for measuring the success of the community forestry program are acceptable to forest user group members. Among the 17 statements, 71 the eight statements are extremely acceptable as indicators to determine the program’s success. Theywere highlyratedandalso acceptedby morethanthree-fom'thsofthe surveypopuhtion. It seemsthatmostofthe people intheareahave experiencedthe changes in such activities. Therefore, this study highly recommends using eight statementsasindictorsformeasuringthe successofthecommtmity forestryprogramin themid-hills ofNepal. Including those statementsare important sincethere hasbeena major change in such activities. Active participation of women in forest management is an example. It was interesting to note that an overwhelming majority of the FUGs are represented by women in the management committee. Women were often ignored by their counterparts while making decisions regarding forest management. Now, they are consulted and also encouraged to hold a post in the executive body of forest management, whichisamajorchange inthismaledominated society, especially inasocietywherethe literacy rate is low. The forest user group members perceived the improvement in forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, water availability/quality, and forest products use after the implementation of the community forestry program They have experienced the changes in the activities such as incidence of forest fire and availability of water sources. Almostallagreethattheincidence offorestfirehasdecreasedafierthecommunity forestry program. This finding is consisted with Dongol et al. (2002). The increase of water sources is debatable among the forest user group members as their experiences difl‘er. Itwasnotedthatthe FUG members whose settlement was locatedbelowthe communityforesttendtoagreeintheincreaseofwatersom'cesandthewateravailability for a long period, and changes in water taste afler the improvement in forest condition, 72 whereas the users whose settlement was located above the community forest tend to disagree. It indicatesthattheperceptionofthe usersonthe increaseofwater sourcesand the water availability for a long period may vary depending on the location oftheir settlement fiom the forest. Studies (Messerschmidt etal., 1994; Upadhayaya, 1999) also reported the increase in water sources and water availability for a long period after the community forestry program as perceived by local peOple. In the study area, higher caste people perceive the success factors ofcommunity forestry program more positively than those belonging to the other castes/ethnic groups In nnny cases, local elites are involved in managing forest resources and the majority of them are from higher caste filmilies. The key posts of the executive committee in many cases are held by higher caste families. The same individuals are holding the key posts, especially chairman/secretary for many years. It is observed tint there is a tendency to . reselect the same individuals in the key posts for the following term. Such tendencies may create agap ofleadership inthe future. Inorderto bridge suchagap, there isaneed to rmke people literate and aware about community forestry rules and regulations through literacy program. Such program may encourage the people to take part in the leadership. Leadership plays an important role in making the program successful. Leadership is an art that depends on individual leadership style and personal characteristics. However, individuals’ family background can play a vital role in the leadership in a country like Nepal where hierarchy systems exist in the society. In nu'al areas of Nepal, economic background is somehow related to caste/ethnic group. Lower castes tend to have low socio-economic status. The individuals belonging to low economic 73 backgrounds may not play an active role in the leadership as they depend on others for work, loansandsoon. Thereisalsoatendencyintheruralareathatwealthypeopledo not listen well or obey poor people. Therefore, there is a need to design a skill-oriented training program for the low economic background people that leads them in becoming independent economically. Lack of such training makes the people with low economic backgrounds dependent on others. In many cases, the key post of the executive body (i.e., Forest User Group Committee) such as the chairman of a highly successfill community forest was found to be dominated by higher caste people. The higher caste people are relatively educated and wealthy which could be the reason the community forests under the leadership of higher caste people were found to be highly successful. Community forestry involves collective action through mobilizing people that requires good leadership. In this context, retaining the leadership, especially the key posts with the higher caste families would help to manage forest resources more effectively. This finding may be considered to be biased, however, it was found to be the reality and an appropriate step to rmnage the forests more effectively in the present context. There is a need to incorporate the voice of disadvantaged groups such as the lower caste in forest management. Listening to their voices and incorporating their views into management decision is essential as they are dependent on either national or community forests; they rarely own private forest. The future study of community forestry should focus in that direction. Forest products collection practices vary from one FU G to another depending on the forest condition. The people who collect‘forest products from the community forest tend to perceive the community forestry program more positively than those who did not 74 collect. In many cases, FUGs are restricting access to the forest in order to promote natural regeneration. Such restriction made the people travel farther to find the forest products. Itisnotedthattheforestusergroupmemberswho donothaveaccesstoprivate forests go to the nearest national forest for the forest products. They have to walk long distances to obtain the products, which they consider as an extra burden for them. This could be the reason they perceive the community forestry program less positively. It seemsthattheFUGsareprotecting their-own forestatthe expense ofadjacent natioml forest. It would be an interesting issue for fixture research in community forestry. 75 References Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society, Vol. 29 (4): 485-514. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., and Razavieh, A. 1996. Introduction to research in education. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bhandari, D. L. (2003, June 23). Why community forestry alone can’t bail out the poor. Kathmandu Post (June 23), A national daily newspaper. Kathmandu/Nepal. Chakraborty, R. N. (2001). Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: Evidence from the Tarai of Nepal. Ecological Economics, Vol. 36 (2): 341-353. Dongol, C. M., Hughey, K F. D., Bigsby, Hugh R. (2002). Capital formation and sustainable community forestry in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 22(1): 7077. Gautam, A. P., Webb, B. L., and Eiumnoh, A. (2002). 618 assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 22 (1): 63-69. Gilmour, D. A. and Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests and foresters: The philosophy, processand practice ofcommunity forestry inNepal. Kathamndu/Nepal: Sahayogi Press. Kanel, K. R. (1997). Community forestry: Implications for watershed management. In C. Khenmark, B. Thaiuts, L. Puangchit and S. Thammincha (eds.). Proceedings of the FORTROP ‘1996: Tropical Forestry in let century. Bangkokfl'hailand: Kasetsart University. MSFC/NARMSAP (2002). FUG database. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation/ Natln'al Resource Management Sector Assistance Program, Kathmandu. Mehta, J. N. and Heinen, J. T. (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study fi'om Nepal. Environmental Management, Vol. 28(2): 165-177. Miller, Larry E. (1998). Appropriate analysis. Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 39 (2): 1-10. 76 Messerschmidt, D., Richard, C., Shrestha, K. M., Rayamajhi, S., and Gautam, M. (1994). User Groups in Community Forestry: Lessons learned and case studies from Nepal (Technical paper 'I'P 94/2). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry Project. Norusis, Marija J. (1998). SPSS Guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. O’Hara, Peter (2002). Community forestry — Liberation through scaling down our failures. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter. No. 46: 46-53. Rao, K. S., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R. K., and Saxena, K G. (2003). Local peoples’ knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of planning and management issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management, Vol. 31 (2): 168-181. ” Rechlin, M. A., Hammett, A. L., Burch, W. R., and Song, Y. (2002). Sharing the wealth: A comparative study of the distribution of benefits fi'om community forestry management in southern China and Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 15(2): 1-23. Tachiwana, T., Upadhaya, H. K., Pokharel, R., Rayamajhi, S., and Otsuka, K. (2001). Common property forest management in the Hills region of Nepal. In K. Otsuka and F. Place (eds.). Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Afiica (pp. 273-314). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Upadhayaya, Madhukar (1999). Green Hills: Seeing the forest and the trees (Chapter one). Retrieved on January 16, 2001 http://www.icimod.org.sg/publications/special/tterrain/tten'ainB.htm Webb, B. L., and Gautam, A. P. (2001). Effects of community forest management on the structure and diversity of a successional broadlcaf forest in Nepal. International Forestry Review, Vol. 3 (2): 146157. 77 Chapter IV An assessment of the community forests in Kaski district, Nepal Introduction This study, a forest assessment of Kaski district, describes the techniques used to assessthe statusofcommunity forests. Thepurpose ofthispaper istoexplainthe community forests’ status of the Kaski district using the variables recommended by local people and measuring them accordingly. The local people recommended crown cover, regeneration, and tree shape as important variables to assess forest status. Two variables, i.e., crown cover and regeneration are similar to the measuring variables used in Rapid Vegetation Assessment (RVA) to assess forest conditions. RVA is one method used for gathering quick information about forest resources which provides a broad overview of the forest, but insuflicient information for planning its management (Ingles et al., 1996). Rapid Vegetation Assessment helps to predict forest conditions using an estimate of the extent of natural regeneration, crown cover, and soil cover. This study includes soil cover, an additional variable, suggested by Jackson and Ingles (1995). It should be noted, however, that the local people did not mention soil cover as an important variable for assessing the forest status. Natural regeneration is important because regeneration through propagated seedlings is not commonly practiced in Nepal’s community forests. Regeneration indicates the species composition and stability of future forests. Stability of forests is dependent on regeneration (Piussi and Farrell, 2000). Natural regeneration is high for species such as sal (Sharia robusta) in many areas where forests are protected fi'om grazing livestock (Pardo, 1995). Grazing is a major threat to regeneration, as cattle, goats 78 and sheep eat and trample on seedlings and coppices. Occurrence of natural regeneration in the forest is an indication of effective user group management (Tachibana et al., 2001). Crown density is commonly used to assess the forest condition (Solberg and Moshaug, 1999; USDA, 2003). Crown density indicates the amount of plant materials, suchas leavesandbranchesthatblocksrmlight fromreachingthe grormd.1tismeasured by indicating the percentage of total light that is blocked by tree canopy. Crown density difl‘ers among the tree species and is afl‘ected by tree shape and growing conditions. Tree crown is one component of net primary production and its dimensions reflect general tree health (USDA, 2003). Treeshapeisvery importantinthequalityofwoodproductsbecausethevalueof timber varies depending on tree shape. A good tree shape can provide high timber value in terns of quantity and quality as well as in other products such as fuel wood and fodder, which provide additional benefits to forest users. These reasons could be the local people perceive tree shape as indicator to assess the improvement in forest status. A study conducted by Hull et al. (2001, in the US.) observed tree shape as indicators of forest health as perceived by the public. Location of the Kaski district Kaski is one of the hill districts that falls in the mid-hills physiographic zones of Nepal. The district lies in the Gandaki zone of the western development region (Figure 2). It is located in the center part ofthe country between 28° 06' —28° 36' north latitude and 83° 40' - 84° 12' east longitude. The district is surrounded by the Lamjung and Tanahudistrictsintheeast,theParbatdistrictinthewest,theManangandLamjung 79 disfiictsinthemflhandtheTanahuandSyanjadistrictsinthesomh. Thedistrictcapital is Pokhara, 200 km west fi'om Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital. There are one sub- metropolitan city, one municipality, and 43 village development committees in this Forest Range Office Kaski Distnct l. Dhikur Pokhari 2. Hemja 3. Lamachaur 4. Pumdi Bhumdi 5. Nirmal Pokhari 6. Arba Bijaya 7. Shishwa 8. Hanspur Annapurna Conservation Area Project ' Study Site J... 0 10 Figure 3. Location of study areas 80 The total population of the district is 380,527 consisting 195,532 females and 184,995 males (CBS, 2002). There were 85,075 households with an average fhmily size of4.47. The literacy rate ofthe district was 71 percent, higher thanthe national literacy rate (54%). i The district experiences a sub-tropical, temperate, tundra, and alpine type of climate as its altitude varies from 450 meters to 7,939 meters. The absolute maximum temperatmeatPokharais37.4degreeCelsiusandtheminimumi32.4degreeCelsius with mean annual precipitation of 3,710 mm (Jackson, 1994). The district has a total area of2,017 square kilometers with42 percent is covered by forests. The majority ofthe forestsinthedistrictarestateowned. Community forestry program in Kaski district Community forestry is a major program adopted by the government of Nepal to manage the country’s forests. Community forest is an area of national forest transferred to a particular community for protection, management, and utilization purposes. The program started in the late 19703 with the aim of controlling on-going deforestation by regenerating forest resources in the denuded hills, fulfilling the people’s basic forestry requirements such as fuel wood, fodder and timber and also to make them self-suflicient in meeting basic forestry requirements. Under this program, a local community known as a Forest User Group (FUG) is responsible for promoting, managing and utilizing the forest resources. All operational plan and constitution are prerequisites of the program, which is developed by local people with the help of forest technicians. The operational 81 plan specifies the activities to be carried out in the forest and the constitution determines whoisallowedto useforestproductsandwho isgivenresponsible fornmningthe institution. In community forestry, the management and use rights over forested land are legally transferred from the government to FUG. Kaski district is comidered a pioneer district in initiating community forestry in Nepal. The community forestry program in this district began in 1980. Since its inception and until September 2002, 12,796.96 hectares of forest (13.23 % of potential community forest) has been transferred to 384 FUGs involving 30,377 households; 41 percent of the total households in the district (MSFC/NARMSAP, 2002). Currently, the community forestryprograminthedistrict is being supportedbyNatmalResource Mamgement Sector Assistance Program (NARMSAP). NARMSAP is a DANIDA, Denmark funded sector program begun from January 1998 under the fi'amework ofthe Ministry ofForest and Soil Conservation. Thepurposeofthisprogram isto strengthenthenatm‘alresource management sector inle The durationperiodofthe program is expectedto be 15 to 20 years. Study Procedure Thisstudywasdesignedasadescriptiveresearch surveyandusedbotha qualitative and quantitative data collection approach. The main purpose of the study was to pilot test the variables as perceived by local people to assess the community forests’ status and measure them accordingly. 82 Workshop for FUG representatives and forestry technicians A one-day workshop was organized in September 2002, at the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal for FUG representatives and local forestry technicians of the Kaski district. Altogether 13 (four female and nine male) of FUG representatives and three local forestry professionals participated the workshop. The workshop recommended crown cover, natural regeneration, and tree shape as physical and biological variables for assessing the community forests status. A checklist was developed during the workshop to gather basic information about the community forests. Popuhtion and sample Forest assessment was conducted in the Kaski district. The target population for this studywas forest patches oftheKaskidistrict thatwere managed ascommunity forests. As of September 13, 2002, 384 forest patches were rmnaged as community forests in the Kaski district that were considered as the population for this study. Apurposive sample wasusedto selectthe district, as it was one ofthehill districts where the community forestry program is being implemented. This study utilized a stratified random sampling to understand the community forests’ status. The forests were stratified into two categories (large and small) based on the forest area. The forest withrnorethanfive hectareswasconsideredasalarge forestandfivehectareor feweras a small forest. A total of 50 forests (24 snmll and 26 large) was selected for this study. The use and management offorest products differs from one FUG to another according to the size of forest and the number of households (Dahal, 1994). 83 Data collection A team was formed to conduct the field survey. The team was composed of a researcher and three undergraduate forestry students. The students were hired as emrmerators for conducting the field survey. The researcher trained them for three days in administering the interview schedule and measuring crown cover, regeneration, tree shape and soil cover. Upon completion of the training, the team conducted a field survey. Theteamfirstapproacbdthechairmanorthe secretaryoftheForest UserGroup Committee (FUGC') to collect basic forest information such as forest area, and number of households (Appendix C). After talking with them, the team visited the respective forests to assess (a) natural regeneration, (b) crown cover, (c) tree shape, and (d) soil cover. Inmanycases, the clnirman/secretary accompaniedtheteamto visit the forest area, which provided an opportunity to gather additional information about the forest resources through informal talk and conversation. Establishment of study plots The total of three survey plots were laid out on each forest. The survey plots were selected randomly bywalkingonthetrail inthe forest asatransect lineandestablishing plots at the distance of five meters inside either left or right, depending on the accessibility. Each plot was established at 50 meter intervals along the transect line. The transect linewitharandomstartwasplaced 10 metersdistance fiomthe forest’s entrance to avoid any settlement efi‘ect, as suggested by Rayamajhi and Pokharel (1998). The vegetation on each plot was stratified by size, as suggested by Henning and Dickmann lAgroupofpeopleelectedbyforestuser-groupmernber'storepreserittheFUG. 84 (1996): ground vegetation (tree species < 1.4 m tall), under-story (tree species > 1.4 m tall and <10 cm in diameter at breast height), and over-story (tree species with 210 cm diameter at breast height). Plotsize Plot sizes of two types were laid down separately for ground vegetation (1 m2) and under-story/over-story vegetation (100 m2), following the methodology used by Baral et al., 2000; Rayamajhi and Pokharel, 1998; Dahal, 1994; Burton et al., 1989. A square plot ofa hundred square meters, 10 mX 10 mwas established for each plot to measumfieeshape,fieediamaer,andueeheigm.1hepbtwasestabhshedbyplmmg thefirstpegatarandompoint. Tenmeterswasmeasureddirectlyuptheslope fromthe I firstpegandasecondpegwasplacedasonesideoftheplot.Afiertmningacrossthe slopeandmeasuring lOmfiomthesecondpnglEthirdpegwasplacedmsthesecond side oftheplot. Another straight lineoflOmdowntheslope fromthethirdpegwas measmedandthefomthpegwasplace¢asthethirdsideoftheplotThefourthpegwas joinedtothefirstpeg,whichservedasthesurveyplotwithanareaoflOOmz.Inthe survey plot, the diameter and height of woody over-story (Z 10 cm diameter) and diameter of under-story (< 10 cm diameter) was measured. Treeswithadiameteroflo cmormore were markedwithchalktoensmethe ueesweremtmissedormeasmedtwice.1heueediameteratbreastheigMandnee height of tally trees were measured using a diameter tape and sunto clinometer, respectively. At least two to three different variable-sized trees were measured on each 85 plot for their accurate height and the reminder were estimated based on the difl‘erence in height of the measured trees. Natural regeneration Regeneration was measured following a nested plot of one square ureter as described by Metz (1991) and Henning and Dickmann (1996). A nested plot ofone square ureter was laid out on the left lower corner ofthe larger plots (100 ml). The nested plot was established in each larger plot where natural regeneration of tree species was counted. The average available plants in one square meter were converted into plants available per hectare and ranked the regeneration class accordingly. The obtained mlmbersoftreeseedlingswereusedtocategorizethe forestasverysparse, sparse, moderate, and high as described by Jackson and Ingles (1995). Very sparse meaning < 500 plantsperhectare, sparsemeaning 500- 1,499 perhectare, moderate l,500-5,000 perhectare, andhighmeaning> S,000perhectare.Natma1regenerationwasmeasuredon ascaleofl to4with1meaningverysparse,2meaningsparse,3 meaningmoderate,and 4meaninshigh Crown cover (Tree canopy) Treecampywasmeasmedusingthecmwnseparationrafiomethodasdescribed by Metz (1991). Crown separation ratio was converted into crown cover percernage. Crown cover percentage helps to determine forest stocking where stocking describes the density of the forest. Crown density also gives an indication of the forest’s stock. 86 Crown width and gap width of 12 trees in each survey plot was carried out. On each designated plot, a reference tree was randomly selected and the crown width and gap width ofthe 12 nearest trees were measured systematically (Metz, 1991). Tree crown width and tree crown gap were recorded using the format listed in Table 21. Table 21. Crown density: (crown separation ratio 12 tree method) Tree observation 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 Crown width Gap width“ " If crown overlaps, the reading is negative Average crown separation ratios were converted into percentages using the following chart. The obtained percentage was used to categorize the forest as very sparse, sparse, moderate, and high as described by Jackson and Ingles (1995). Very sparse meaning less than 20% of the ground is covered by crown, sparse meaning 20 — 39% of thegroundiscovered bycrown, moderatemeaning40—70%ofthe groundiscoveredby cmwmandhighmeaninggreaterthan70%ofthegroundiscovered bycrown. Overlap g) Crownseparate g l— o ~o %ESQS on n in n an one: Utt'thQ”'1”””‘Z“‘°"———vaee——Nm O a .58 0 that common h —o U—aseofihbommfivggmmgggamm_9¢o~— Note: CSR == Crown separation ratio, CC = Crown cover 87 Thetreecanopywasmeasmedonascaleoflto4with1meaningverysparse,2 meaningsparse,3meaningmoderate,and4meaninghigh. Tree shape Local people refer to tree shape to indicate tree quality. Tree quality is based on the present or prospective form, roughness, and soundness of a tree regardless of species (HMG/N, 1993). The tree quality is a subjective judgment based on the tree’s present condition. The research team made the judgment on tree quality based on the present or perspective form, roughness and soundness of a tree regardless of tree species and measured accordingly. Treeshapewasmeasuredonascaleofl t03 with 1 meaningpoor(about80%of the trees are crooked or diseased and dying state), 2 meaning moderate (partly twisted tree and about 60% of its parts are usable for timber), and 3 meaning good (about 80% or more is straight inshape and good fortimber). The study measuredtree qualityonly for woody over-story vegetation as measured by Rayamajhi and Pokharel (1998). Tree quality of each plot was calculated by averaging the tree shape score. The average tree quality of the forest was obtained by averaging the mean score of each plot. Soil cover Soil cover was recorded for each community forest based on field observation. The research team estimated the percentage ofsoil covered by grasses or leaflitter in the plot of 100 m2. The soil coverage of the plot was listed as low, moderate, and high based on the estimated percentage in the plot as described by Jackson and Ingles (1995). Low 88 meaning<25%ofthesoilsarecoveredintheground,moderatemeaning25—50%ofthe soilsarecoveredintheground,andhighmeaning>50%ofthesoilsarecoveredinthe ground. Soilcoverwasmeasuredonascaleoflto3with1meaninglow,2meaning moderate,and3meaninghigh.Theaveragesoilcoveroftheforestwascalculatedby averaging the soil cover score. Data Analysis The collected data of regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover were entered into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsmet. The average number of seedlings in a plot was converted into plants per hectare and rated the regeneration class ofthe forest accordingly. Similarly, the average crown separation ratio of a plot was calculated and converted into crown percentage and then crown percentage of the forest was measured accordingly. The average tree shape score of a plot was calculated and the mean score of l to 1.49 was classified as poor tree shape, 1.5 to 2.49 as moderate, and 2.5 and higher as good for the forest. Similarly, the average soil cover score of a plot was calculated and the mean score ofl to 1.49 was classified as low soil cover, 1.5 to 2.49 as moderate, and 2.5 and above as high for the forest. The data of forests’ regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover were transferredtoa SPSS datasmet. Thedatafiomthe checklist werecodedandanalyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 11.0. Frequencies, and percentages were generated to report the status of the forests. Chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed to determine the relationship between 89 community forests’ characteristics and regeneration class, crown cover class, tree shape, and soil cover. Findings Characteristics of the community forests Some characteristics such as vegetation type, community type, income generation, forest area, and number of households were identified as cbmacteristics of the community forests. Such characteristics were documented by visiting the field and also reviewing the community records. Table 22. Characteristics of sample community forests (N = 50) Characteristics of community forests Number of Percentage community forest Vegetation type Broad leaf 40 80 Broad leaf and 10 20 conifer species Community type Homogeneous 31 62 Heterogeneous 19 38 Generating income floor the No 16 32 forest Yes 34 68 Was community forest damaged No 45 90 byfire inthe last five years? Yes 5 10 Is grazing allowed in the forest? No 36 72 Yes 14 28 Table 22 shows that 80 percent of the sample community forests contain broadlcaf species and 20 percent have mixed species of broadlcaf and conifer species. Broadleaf species are trees with broadlcaf, not needle. Many forest users in the study area preferred broadlcaf species as they use them for fodder, and leaf litter (broadlcaf is good for compost as compared to conifer species). Over 60 percent of the community forests were managed by a homogenous community (more than two-thirds of the users are from either the same caste or ethnic group). More than two-thirds of the community forests were generating income from the forest via various sources such as sales offorest products, especially timber, penalty, and membership fees. Fires did not damage the overwhelmingly majority ofthe forest in the last five years which indicates that the users are efl‘ective in controlling the forest fires. Almost three-quarters (72%) of the community forests do not allow grazing in the forest (Table 22). However, it was observed during field data collection tint the cattle were grazing fieely in the forest although their rules do not allow grazing practices. The forest area ranged fi'om 1.02 ha to 134 ha; the average area was 17.7 hectares. The number of households ranged from 14 to 315 households; the average number of households in each community forest was 82.9. Similarly, the annual income fiom the community forest ranged from Nepalese Rupees (NR3) 450 to 30,000; the average income was NRs 4,139. For analysis purpose, the data on variables such as number of households, forest area, forest area per household, and annual income were divided into 5, 4, 3, and 3 categories, respectively (Table 23). 91 Table 23. Basic characteristics of sample community forests (N -= 50) Basic characteristics of community forest Number of Percentage community forests < 2.5 8 16 Forest area in l 2.5 — 5.0 16 32 5.1 — 10.0 5 10 10.1 and above 21 42 Number of user 5 30 households 11 22 households 31 — 60 households 12 24 61 - 90 households 8 16 91 — 120 households 7 14 121 households and above 12 24 Forest area per <05 43 86 household (ha) 0.51 — 1.0 5 10 1.1 and above 2 4 Annual income < 2,000 16 47.1 fiom the forest in NR3 2,100 -4,000 12 35.3 4,100 and above 6 17.6 Note: Avaage annual income and standard deviation is NR5. 4,139 and 6,189 respectively. As shown in Table 23, the largest portion (42%) of the forests was more than ten hectares in size whereas 16 percent was less than 2.5 hectares. The number of households with 31 to 60 andmore than 120 each, composed almost one quarter(24%) ofthe sample forest. Almost one-half (47%) of the FUGs were earning less than NRs. 2,000 annually whereas over one-half (53%) earning in between Rs.2,100 to 4,000 and over. Table 24. Forest user groups’ policy on forest products use (N = 50) Forest products collection from Number of community Percentage community forest forests Grass/fodder No 4 8 (n = 50) Yes 46 92 Leaflitter No 18 36 (n = 50) Yes 32 64 Fuel wood No 10 20 (n = 50) Yes 40 80 Timber No 25 50 (n = 50) Yes 25 50 Pole No 38 77.6 (n = 49) Yes 1 1 22.4 Non-timber forest No 10 55.6 products (11 = 18) Yes 8 44.4 Findings fi'om studies conducted by Dahal (1994) indicated that land holding size, and the number of livestock raised by a FUG member greatly influences the pattern of forest use. It was observed tint the FUG members were not fully depending on the community forests to meet their forage and fodder needs. They relied on altermtive sources suchasprivate forestandnational forest. Theusers inthe studyareaused more than one community forest as one household could become a FUG member in any number of community forests in the village provided they complied with their rules. Table 24 shows the forest products collection policy for the sample community forests. An overwhelming majority of the community forests allow grass/fodder and fuel 93 wood collection. One-half (50%) and almost one quarter (22%) of the sample community forests allow timber and pole collection, respectively. In many cases, the FUG had not developed a policy for collecting non-timber forest products from the forest. They thought there was no need to develop the collection policy for non-timber forest products (N'I'FP)asNI'FParerarely found intheirforests. Preferred tree species in community forests TheavailabilityofpreferredUeespeciesinthecommunityforestwasalso listed as one of the characteristics of community forests. The preferred tree species was measured on a congruency score. Commonly available tree species were listed while assessing the forest’s status. The listed species were matched with the preferred species tint were recoded during the interview schedule. The weightage value of five preferred tree species was established by placing the valueof5, 4, 3, 2,and 1 forfirst, seeond,third, fomthandfifihpreferredspecies, respectively. The preferred species reported by the number of respondents was multiplied bytheestablishedweightage valueandaddedtogetthcscore. Thehighest scorewas rankedasfirstpreferredspecies, secondhighestassecondpreferredspecies,andsoon. In some cases, the preferred species were randomly drawn when two or more species had the same score. Thecongruency scoreofthe forestwascalculatedbasedonascaleofl to 5,1 meaningonepreferredtreespecies matcheswiththeavailabletreespecies inthe forest, 2 meaning two preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest, 3 Wheepmfaredneespeciesmatcheswhhmeavaflabkneespwiesmthefomsu 4 meaning four preferred trees species matches with the available tree species in the forest, and 5 meaning five preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest. The congruency score of each forest is shown in Appendix I. Table 25. Coggruency score of tree flecies (N 8 50) Congruency of preferred tree species Number of Percentage community forests Forest with all five preferred tree species 0 0 Forest with 4 out of 5 preferred tree species 4 8 Forest with 3 out of 5 preferred tree species 15 30 Forest with 2 out of 5 preferred tree species 24 48 Forest with 1 out of 5 preferred tree species 7 14 TOTAL 50 100 Table 25 shows the congruency score of preferred tree species in the community forests. Almost one-half (48%) of the community forests contain two preferred tree species, followed by three preferred tree species (30%), one preferred tree species (14%), and four preferred tree species (8%). Status of community forests Local people recommended tree shape, crown cover, and regeneration as variables for assessing forests’ status. The recommended variables (tree shape, crown cover, and regeneration) and soil cover2 were measured to understand the community forests’ status. In addition, the description of the respective community forests was obtained through informaltalkwiththeusers, especiallywiththechairman/secretaryofthe forest user group committee. In many cases, FUG members mentioned that there has been a change in tree species in their community forests, especially where pine plantations were 2Soilcover-isusedasvariableforassessingforesteonditioninrapidrtu'alappraisal 95 replaced by broadlcaf species such as chilaune and kants. The broadlcaf species are the tree species with broadlcaf, not needle, whereas conifer species contain needle such as pine. FUG members also mentioned that trees with broadleaves provide more benefits in terms of fodder and leaf-litter than conifer species and local people are in favor of developing broadlcaf forests. Table 26. Status of tree shape, crown cover, regeneration, and soil cover in community forests (N - 50) Elements of community forest Number of Percentage community forests Poor ‘ 4 8 Tree Shape Medium 27 54 Good 19 38 Very sparse/sparse 1 2 cm“ °°"e’ Moderate 12 24 High 37 74 Very sparse/sparse 6 12 Regeneration Moderate 3 6 High 41 82 Low 0 0 3°“ W“ Moderate 18 36 High 32 64 Community forests’ status were assessed using the natural regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover as measru'ing variables. Natural regeneration and crown coverweremeasuredonascaleoflto4andtreeshapeandsoi1coveronascaleofl to 3. Tree shape meanscoreof1t01.49wasclassified aspoortree slnpe,1.5 to 2.49as moderatetree shape,and 2.5 andabove asgoodtree shape. Similarly, asoilcovermean score of 1 to 1.49 was classified as low soil cover, 1.5 to 2.49 as moderate soil cover, and 2.5 and above as high soil cover. The status of natural regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover of sample community forests is presented in Appendix J. The findings are presented in Table 26. Table 26 shows the status of tree drape, crown cover, regeneration, and soil cover of the sample community forests. Over one-half (54%) of the forests studied had medium shape of trees, followed by good shape of trees (38%), and poor shape of trees (8%). The forests’ crown cover ranged fi'om 26 percent to 95 percent; the average crown cover was 76 percent. The number of seedlings in the sample plots ranged fi'om 0 to 8; the average number of plants was 2.69. For analysis purposes, crown cover and mutual regeneration were divided into three categories (Table 26). Almost three-quarters (74%) of the forests had high crown cover whereas only 2 percent had very sparse/sparse crown cover. Almost one-quarter (24%) of the forest had moderate crown cover. The overwhelming majority (82%) of the forest had high natural regeneration, followed by very sparse/sparse (12%), and moderate (6%). Almost two-thirds (64%) of the forest had high soil cover; none had low soil cover , (Table 26). The majority of the forests contain high crown cover, high regeneration class, and moderate/goodnee shape. InNepal, there isan informalpractice inthe Forest Deparnnemmmsferdegradedfomsttocomnnmityformamgememandutifizafion 97 purposes. The presence of high regeneration, high crown cover, and good/moderate shape oftreesinthe forests indicatesthatthestatusofcommunityforests isimproving. A number ofstudies supportthis finding(Bird, 2001; Grosen, 2001; Shrestha, 2001; SpringsteBaginski et al., 1999; Varughese, 2000). Forest structure Tree diameter, tree height, and trees/saplings density are the most common variables used to measure forest structure (Gautam, 2002). Saplings have the capacity to growinto trees in future. Therefore, the density ofsaplings could betakenas arough indicatorofthe future forest status. Acommonwaytomeasuretrees'mtorecord “diameteratbreastheight”or “DBH” (Brokaw and Thompson, 2000). The DBH of trees with 10 cmor above was measuredtounderstandthesize oftreesincommunityforests. Saplings (> 1.4mtalland <10cmindianieteratbreastheight)werealsorecordedtounderstandforeststructure. ThestandstructmeofcommunityforestsisshowninAppendixK. Table 27. Community forests’ structure (N - 50) Mean Standard deviation Diameter at breast height (cm) 17.15 5.19 Height (meter) 9.60 2.54 Number oftreesperhectare 511 264 Number of saplings per hectare 4,966 1,731 Thetreediameterandtreeheight forthcsample communityforestsranged fi'om 10.00 to 34.81 centimeters and 5.00 to 16.38 meters, respectively. The number of trees perhectare inthe studyareamnged from33 to 1,166. Similarly, thenumber ofsaplings 98 per hectare ranged from 66 to 4,966. For the analysis purposes, DBH, tree height, trees/saplings per Metare were calculated (Table 27). As shown in Table 27, the mean tree diameter and tree height of the community forest is 17. 15 centimeters and 9.60 meters, respectively. The average diameter indicates that there are younger trees available in the forest, rather than mature trees. The average numberoftreesperhectareinthe studyareawas 511, which isslightly higherthanthe average number oftrees per hectare (449 trees per ha) in the hilly area (HMG/FRISP, 1999). Similarly, the average number of saplings per hectare in the study area was found to be 4,966, which is higher than the average number ofsaplings recorded in the hilly area. The average number ofsaplings (stems with the height ofmore than 1.3 and less than 10 cm DBH) in the hilly area was 1,690 saplings per hectare (HMG/FRISP, 1999). Association between the community forests characteristics and regeneration chss, crown cover class, tree shape, and soil cover An appropriate statistical test such as chi-square, an independent t-test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to determine the association between community forests’ characteristics such as community type, and number of user households and regeneration class, crown cover class, trees shape, and soil cover. The chi-square test was performed to determine the association between forest status such as regeneration and crown cover and community forests’ characteristics such as community type, vegetation type, forest products collection policy, occurrence of forest fires, and generated income. The chi-square test was run separately for crown cover, regeneration, tree shape, and soil cover with community forests’ characteristics. The chi-square test showed no association between regeneration class, crown cover, tree shape and soil cover and community type, vegetation type, forest products collection policy, occurrence of forest fires, and income generation. Table 28. Difl'erenees in crown cover by annual income Crown n Mean Analysis of Variance cover income (NR3) Variance df Sum of Mean F Sig. square square (2- tailed) Sparse 1 20000 Between 2 428057452 214028726 7.936 .002 group Moderate 7 8018 Within 31 836024735 26968539 group High 26 2485 Total 33 1264082188 Total 34 ' The one-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) was performed to determine the . significant difference of mean value of forest status such as regeneration class and crown cover and community forests’ characteristics: forest area, number of user households, preferred tree species score, and annual income from the forest The ANOVA results showed no significant difference. However, the results showed significant difference in crown cover and annual income. Table 28 exhibits that there was significant difi‘erence in the mean value of annual income. Sparse crown cover shows greater income and high crowncovershowslowerincome.OnecanarguethatmoreincomeintheFUGmeans 100 poor forest stock. Poor forest stock means fewer number of trees are available at present. It indicates that trees are being harvested to generate income. The ANOVA test was performed to determine the significant difference ofmean value of preferred tree species and regeneration class, crown cover, tree slaps and soil cover. TheANOVAtestresults showedthat preferredtree speciesscoresdonotplaya significant role inthe forest status. Oneprobable reasoncould bethatthe forest products arestillnothighenoughtomeettherequiredneedsandthepeoplewanttheforesttobe developed and managed irrespective of species. Discussions and conclusions Improvement in forest status requires quantifying changes in forest status that involves comparison of prior data. The prior data of the community forests status were not available in the study area. However, the database developed by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation/Natmal Resource Management Sector Assistance Program (MSFC/NARMSAP) indicates the forest status of some community forests in the study area. 'l'heavailabledatadonotspecifythetimeandthemeastnedvariables fortheforest status. Sothedatawerenotusedforcomparingthe findings. Thedescriptionsofthe community forests are based on a one-time measurement of the forest resources. Regeneration class, crown caver class, and tree shape are reliable enough variables to provide an accurate picture of the forests in terms of species composition and stability of future forest, growing stock and extent of tree quality. Such information would help to facilitate developing a management strategy of the forest. Therefore, the study 101 recommendsnaturalregeneration, crowncover,andtreeshapeasmeasmingvariablesto assess the community forest status. Overall, thestatusofcomrmmity forestsintheKaskidistrictofNepalis improving as an overwhelmingly majority of the community forests contain good forest stocking, high natru'al regeneration, moderate/good tree shape, and high/moderate soil cover. Forest stocking is an important aspect for developing a management strategy because it provides information about the availability of the forest stock. Similarly, mturalregenerationisanindicationofhowwellthe forestareaisbeing managed. High regeneration means the forests are being managed efl‘ectively. The availability of trees andsaplingsperhectmeisalsohighermtbestudymeathantheavaagemmberof tree/saplingsperhectarcinthehillyarea. Thedensityofsaplingscouldbetakenasa rough indicatorofthe future forest conditionasthe saplings havethecapacityto growas treesinfuture. ThereisaninformalpracticeintheForestDepartmenttotransfer degraded forest to community for management and utilization purpose. The presence of highnaturalregeneration, good forest stocking, moderate/goodtrec shapeandalsothe availability of a higher number of trees and saplings in the forest indicates improvement in the status ofcommunity forests. These findings are consistent with those ofVarughcse (2000) and Springate-Baginski et a1. (1999). Varughese (2000) conducted forest stock assessment in various mid-hills districts and owerved average and above average forest stock for 14 out of 18 community forests. Similarly, he observed the forest condition improving and stable for 6 and 5 community forests, respectively. Springate-Baginski et a1. (1999) also observed a significant improvement in community forest condition. They 102 observed the improvement in community forest condition for 10 out of 11 community forests. Spfingate—Baginski et al. (1999) also observed an increase in natural regeneration in the community forests. A study conducted by Tachibana et al. (2001) in the mid-hills of Nepal indicated that natural regeneration performed well in the forests that were formally managed by communities compared to informal management. These studies support the findings of occmrence of natural regeneration in community forests. Dining field visits, it was observed that many community forests contain young treeswithhighdensitywhichisalsoverifybytheaveragetreediameterandnumberof tree/saplingperhecatre. It wasnoticed thatthe average numberoftreesperhectare inthe study area was higher, which indicates that the FUGs are not performing magement practices in terms of silvicultural operations. The silvicultural operation is an essential activity in forest management, which is lacking in the community forests. The people in the area are aware that their forests are dense and require silvicultural operations. However, they want to continue with their own practices, i.e., protection—oriented management practices rather than the silvicultural operation. Under the protection- oriented management practices, the cutting of green trees is prohibited and extraction of dead trees alone is allowed in order to meet subsistence needs. The reason for choosing such management practices is the result of the past experienced of consequences of deforestation. They fear that if they allow silvicultural operation that may lead the forest into the deforestation. Such views need to be changed by making local people aware of the importance of silvicultural operations and also to provide silviculture related training for managing the forests in a better way. 103 It is important to know that the protection-oriented management Ins many negative efl'ects. First, protection—oriented management (passive management) results in growth and productivity below their potential. Second, the protection and underutilization of community forests results in the overutilization of government managed forests. Third, local people have to walk farther in order to reach government managed forests to collect basic forestry needs, which is an additional labor burden. Theshapeoftreewasnotedasimportant fortheuseofforestproductaAgood treeshapecanprovideahightimbervalueaswellasotherforest products. Grazing, illegaltree felling, and forest fireswere commonpractices inthe forestswhenthe management of forest was under the District Forest Office. These problems were virtually under control once the management responsibility shifled fiom the District ForestOfiicetothelocalcommunity. Insomecases,therearestillsomeFUGsthatare not efi‘ective in implementing the rules and‘regulations. For example, the policy of controlling grazing practices in some community forests was found to be ineffective. The reason could be that the rules were not developed with a consensus. There is a tendency of poor/low caste people to not argue with higher caste or relatively wealthy people, because they are dependent on wealthy people for work, loans and so on. Development of an efl'ective rule for community forestry requires consensus, which is a main thrust of the community forestry program It appears that the rule for restriction of grazing practice in the forest was not developed with the consensus of the FU G members. Therefore, it becomes important to consider the needs of poor people while crafting rules for the community forests. The community forests rmy not succeed if the poor people’s voices are ignored. As we see it, there are considerable differences between accepting ideas 104 and putting them into practice. In fact, the community forestry program persuades the elites to discuss with disadvantaged groups of people in order to recognize their needs. Such things are rarely happening in the field. Putting into practice requires sharing power,whichisadifiiculttask. Sharingpowerisacrucialissuethatrequirestimefor acceptance. Many forest user groups have initiated development of community fimds through communityforests, whichisagoodstartformanagingtheinstitutionandmaintaining its sustainability. The fund size ofibrest user groups varies depending on forest stocking becausethe income size isfoundtobe associatedwithcrowncover. TheFUGremoved moretrees inorderto generate more income. Therefore, there isaneedto assessthe forest stocking before allowing harvesting in the forest. 105 References Baral, S. R., Malla, M. B., and Howell, J. (2000). Vegetation analysis for the relmbilitation of red clay soils at Panchkhal, Kabrepalanchok District. Bonito Jankari, Vol. 10(1): 20—27. Bird, Pippa (2001). Livelihoods, equity and gender issues in community forestry: Gaining perspective on poverty. In Community Forestry in Nepal: Proceedings of the Workshop on Community Based Forest Resource Management (pp. 139-164). Kathmandu/Nepal: Joint Technical Review Committee, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. Brokaw, Nicholas and Thompson, Jill (2000). The H for DBH. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 129 (1-3): 89-91. Burton, S., Shah, P. B., and Schreier, H. (1989). Soil degradation from converting forest- land into agriculture in the Chitwan District of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 9(4): 393-404. CBS (2002). Statistical yearbook of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics. Kathmandu/ Nepal: His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. Dahal, DilliR. (1994). Areview offorest usergroups: Case studies fi‘omeasternNepal. Katlnmndu/Nepal: International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Gautam, A. P. (2002). Forestland use dymmics and community based institutiom in a mountain watershed in Nepal: Implications for forest govermnce and management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Grosen, Jakob (2001). Basic needs and commercialization, In Community Forestry in Nepal: Proceedings of the Workhop on Community Based Forest Resource Management (pp. 21 -37). Kathmandu/Nepal: Joint Technical Review Committee, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. ' HMG/FRISP (1999). Forest resources of the hilly area of Nepal 1994-1998 (Publication # 73). Kathmandu/Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation/Forest resource information system project. HMG/N (1993). Forest Resources of Nawalparasi District -— 2049, Forest Research and Survey Center (Publication No. 59). Kathmandu/Nepal: Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. 106 Henning, Sandra J. and Dickmann, Donald 1. (1996). Vegetative responses to prescribed burning in a nature red pine stand. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 13 (3): 140-146. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., and Kendra, A. (2001). Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about “Natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 14 (4): 325-340. Ingles, A., Jackson, 3., Singh, H. B., Dev, 0. P., and Branney, P. (1996). Resource assessment for forest management by user groups: Two case studies from Nepal. In Jane Carter (ed). Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment (Rural development forestry guide 2, pp. 135-165). London: Overseas Development Institute. Jackson, Bill and Ingles, Andrew (1995). Participatory Techniques for Community Forestry: A Field Manual (Technical Note 5/95). Kathmandu/Nepal: Nepal- Australia Community Forestry Project. Jackson, J. K. (1994). Manual of afforestation in Nepal (Volume 1). Kathamndu/Nepal: Forest Research and Survey Center. MSFC/NARMSAP (2002). FUG database, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation/ Natural Resource Management Sector Assistance Program, Kathmandu. Metz, J. (1991). Rapid diagnostic vegetation description methods for community forestry in Nepal (Technical paper TP 91/1). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry Project. Pardo, Richard (1995). Community Forestry: Comes of age. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 93 (11): 20-24. Piussi, P. and Farrell, E. P. (2000). Interactions between society and forest ecosystems: Challenges for the near future. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 132(1): 21- 28. Rayamath Santosh and Pokharel, Ridish (1998). Discussion paper, prepared for implementing extensive forest survey, funded by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington D. C., USA. Shrestha, K. (2001). Issues of partnership and autonomy, In Community Forestry in Nepal: Proceedings of the Workshop on Community Based Forest Resource Management (pp. 103-119). Kathmandu/Nepal: Joint Technical Review Committee, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. Solberg, S. and Moshaug, E. (1999). Crown condition of Norway spruce: Within-stand relationships and competition. Forestry, Vol. 72(4): 329-336. 107 Springatc—Baginski, 0., Soussan, J. G., Dev, 0. P., Yadav, N. P., and Kifl‘, E. (1999). Community forestry in Nepal: Impacts on common property resource mamgement (Environmental and developmental series No. 3). Working Paper, Department for International Development. Tachibana, T., Upadhaya, H K., Pokharel, R., Rayamajhi, S., and Otsuka, K. (2001). Common property forest rmmgement in the Hills region ofNepal, In K. Otsuka and F. Place (eds.). Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Afiica (pp. 273-314). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. USDA (2003). Tree crown condition indicator: Forest inventory and analysis, FIA fact sheet series, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. Varughese, George (2000). Population and forest dynamics in the hills of Nepal: Institutional remedies by rural communities. In Clark C. Gibson, Margaret A. McKean, and Elinor Ostrom (eds.). People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance (pp. 193-226). Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 108 Chapter V Summary, conclusions, implications and recommendations Summary Nepal’s community forestry program is about 25 years old. The government considered the program as a major strategy to develop and manage the country’s forests. The program operates flour a policy that stresses local participation in developing and managing all accessible forest through transferring managing responsibility to the local community if they are willing and able to assume this responsibility. A 25-year Master Plan for Forestry Sector (MPFS) was developed to guide the country’s forest management. The plan emphasizes community forestry as a major program where about 47 percentofthe total forestrybudget isexpectedtobeabsorbed inthecommunity forestry program until the year 2010. The program was expanded nationwide following the government’s 1989 endorsement of a 25-year master plan for the forestry sector. Acommunity forest isdefinedasanareaofnational forest transferredtoa particular community for unnagement and utilization purposes. An operational plan and constitution are prerequisites for a community forest, which is developed by local people with the help of forest technicians. As ofJune 2003, Nepal had already transferred more than 999,000 hectares of forestlands to nearly 12,584 forest user groups, involving approximately 1.4 million households. The program has adopted a community approach, which is considered a pioneer strategy in the country. The community approach in the forestry sector is appreciated all over the world. A workshop was organized for FUG representatives to develop an instrument for 109 thisstudy. Theparticipantswere divided intosmallgroups forthe discussiom. The local termswereusedto maketheparticipantsunderstandthepointofthediscussions. The workshop resulted in two sets of instruments: (a) a checklist to gather general information about community forests; and (b) an interview schedule for forest user group members. The interview schedule contained three sections: benefits fiom community forests; perception towards indicators; and general information about the respondents. The first section of the interview schedule was designed to solicit information about the benefits derived from community forests. The second section of the interview schedule consisted of indicators suggested by the workshop participants whereby the respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a Likert-type scale (i.e., SD = strongly disagree,D=disagree,NO=noopinion,A=agree,andSA=stronglyagree). Thefinal section of the interview schedule was designed to gather information about respondents’ socio-economic characteristics. The studyconsisted oftwo sections: the social surveyandthe forest survey. The social survey was conducted in three stages: workshop on evaluation of the community forestry program; survey instrument development and expert panel discussion; and field survey. The forest survey included an inventory of the community forest including measm'ementofregeneration, crowncover,tree shape, and soil cover. This studyuses both qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches. Aninterviewschedulewasadministeredto487forestusergroupmembers. They were asked to express their opinion on the perceived success factors on a five-point scale (SD=Strong1ydisagree,D=disagree,N0=n00pinion,A=agree,andSA-=strongly agree). Similarly, basic inforrmtion on community forests was collected with the 110 chairman/secretary of FUGC. A total of 50 forests were visited to measure natural regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover. Three sample plots were laid out for each forest to measure regeneration, crown cover, tree shape, and soil cover. The workshop results revealed common indicators as perceived by local people for measuringthe success ofa community forestry program. A total of17 indicators in the formofstatementswere listedasthe finalsetofindicators. The statementswere analyzed using factor analysis to identify the cluster of the statements that share variations. Based on the filctor amlysis, five factors were recommended to use as variables to study the success of the community forestry program: forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water availability/quality. The statements under each factor were important asthere has beenasignificant change inthe area as perceived by local pe0ple, particularly in regards to the incidence of forest fires, women’s participation in forestry meetings, use of compost, availability of wildlife, and the increment in water source, water availability and change in water taste atter implementation ofthe community forestry program. Local people felt that the impact of the community forestry program has extended to many areas beyond that of forest condition. Such areas need to be captured by individuals who want to study the success of the community forestry program. The perceived success factors have accommodated the area related to the community forestry program so that anyone can use these factors as variablestomeasurethesuccessoftheprogram OveralLtheagreeduponindicatorsformeasmmgthesuccessofthecommunity forestry program were acceptable to forest user group members. Of 17 indicator statements, respondents rated eight statements very high, i.e., they “ ” or “strongly 111 agreed” with these indicators. The statements were also accepted by more than three- fourths of the survey population: greenery development (100%), forest status (98%), incidence of forest fire (95%), access to fuel wood (91%), women’s participation in forestry meetings (90%), access to timber (85%), occurrence of landslides (85%), and wildlife available (7 8%). The forest user group members perceived the improvement in forest condition, forest management, forest ecology, forest products use, and water availability/quality alter the implementation of the community forestry program. They have experienced changes in activities such as active involvement of women in the forest management committee and availability of water in the area. In the study area, higher caste people perceived the success of the community forestry program more positively than those belonging to other castes/ethnic groups. Similarly, the people who collect forest products fiom the community forest tended to perceive the community forestry program more positively than those who did not collect these products. In many cases, the key post of the executive body of the highly successfiil community forests found to be dominated by higher caste people. Local people recommended natural regeneration, crown cover, and tree shape as variables for assessing forest status. These variables are considered sufficient to provide a broad picture of community forest in terms of species composition and stability of future forest, growing stock, and the extent of tree quality. Overall, the status of community forests in the Kaski district is improving as community forests contain good stocking, natural regeneration, and moderate/good shape of trees. Similarly, the availability of trees/samplings in the community forest is also higher than the average number of 112 trees/samplings per hectare in the hilly areas. Saplings have the capacity to grow as trees in future. Therefore, the density of saplings could be considered as a rough indicator of thefutureforest status. Theforests’ statusintheKaskidistricthasimprovedsince management responsibility shifted from the government to the local community. Grazing, illegal felling, and forest fires were common practices in the forests when the management was under the District Forest Oflice. Such activities are virtually under control once the management responsibility shifted fiom the Forest Ofice to the local community. Insomecases,therearestillsome FUGsthatarenotefi‘ectivc in implementing the rules and regulations. For example, the policy of controlling grazing practicesinsomecommunity forestswasfoundtobe inefl‘ectiveand infactthis, insome cases, thiswasobservedto betrue. Itappearsthattherule fortherestrictionofgrazing practices inthe forestwasnot developedwiththeconsensusofforestusergroup members. Therefore, it becomes important to consider the need of the forest user group members while crafiing rules for community forests. The community forests may not succeed if the members’ voices are ignored. Many forest user groups have initiated the development of community fundsithrough the sale of forest products and fines for violating community forest management rules, which is a good start to run an institution independently. The FUG fund size varies depending on crown cover of the forest since theincomeinthisstudywas foundto beassociatedwithcrowncover. Therefore,there is a need to assess the forest stocking before allowing harvesting in the forest. 113 Conclusions and implications Snnll group discussion is an effective way to involve local people in the discussion, especially in generating indicators. The small group discussion is an appropriate forum forthose who hesitateto speak infiont ofa large group. Inmany cases, a few individuals tend to dominate the discussions in a large group. Such domination creates an environment in which those who speak little will participate less thanthosewho dominate. There isatendencytobelievethatthepeoplewho speakmore are more knowledgeable. Such a tendency makes those who speak less feel inferior, ‘ discom'aging them from sharing ideas in the discussions. Therefore, thestudy findings suggest that holding small group discussions is necessary to understand local people’s perspective, whereas large group discussions may inhibit innovative and interesting ideas. The use of local terms is important for generating discussions. Given the proper environment, local people will share their ideas as everyone has some kind of experiences. Local terms play an important role in bringing the people to a common understanding which is essential for collective effort. The collective efi‘ort may not succeed ifmeaningsvaryfiomoneparticipanttoanother. Thisstudyfinding impliesthat common understanding makes communication efi‘ective and ultimately facilitates the achievement of the community-based programs’ objective. The community forestry program has brought a significant change in many areas, such as people’s attitude and behavior, and ecological and environmental change. Womentakingthe lead inforest managementisamajorchange inNepali society. Ina male dominated society, men feel proud to introduce their wives by the husband’s 114 surname. They would feel insulted if the women were introduced by the wives’ surnames. In many cases, after implementation of the community forestry program, males areintroducedintheruralareabytheirwives’ surnamesastheyserve inthe forest management committee and would be known to most of people in the area. Involvement of women in forestry related activities has facilitated a change in males’ attitudes towards fennles and to gain power in the society as well. Holding posts in the forest management committee encourages women to become organized for their welfare, especially to nuke their voices strong. This finding implies that the community forestry program should continue to involve women by increasing their number in forestry-related activities, especially within the decision-making process. Inthe studyarea, members ofthe higher castesperceivedthe success of community forestry program more positively than those belonging to other castes/ethnic groups. In many cases, local elites are involved in managing forest resources and the majority of them are from higher caste families. The key posts of the executive committee in many cases are held by higher caste families. The same individuals are holding the key posts, especially those of chairman/secretary for many years. There is a tendency to reselect the same individuals in the key posts for the following term. Such tendency may create a gap of leadership in the future. In order to bridge such a gap, there is a need to make people literate and aware of community forestry rules and regulations through literacy programs. Such program may encourage the people to take part in the leadership. Leadership plays an important role in making the program successful. Leadership is an art that depends on an individual’s leadership style and personal characteristics. 115 However, the individuals’ family background can play a vital role in the leadership in a country like Nepal where hierarchy systems exist in the society. In rural areas ofNepal, the economic background tends to be related to castes/ethnic groups. Lower castes tend to have a lower socio-economic status. The individuals belonging to a low caste may not play an active role in local leadership as they depend on others for work, loans and so on. Thereisalsoatendencyintheruralareaforwealthypeopleto notlistenwellorobey poor people. Therefore, there is a need to design a skill-oriented training program including leadership to the economically weak people that leads them in becoming independent economically. Lack of such training makes the economically weak people 5 dependent on others. In many cases, the key post of executive body (i.e., Forest User Group Committee) such as the chairman of a highly successful community forest was found to be dominated by higher caste people. The higher caste people are relatively educated and wealthy which could be the reason that the community forests under the leadership of members of higher castes were found to be highly successful. The finding implies that the key post of the forest user group committee needs to be held by relatively economic well-ofi’ people in order to mobilize people effectively in the program This findingmaybeconsideredtobebiased, however; itwasfoundtobetherealityandan appropriate step to manage the community forests more effectively in the present context. Themajofityofforestusergroupmembersagreedthatthecommunityforestry program brought changes in the environment by improving the local forest status. The useofwater forinigationindicatesthatthewatersorucehasincreased. Theavailability of water lessens the need for people to walk in the hills to fetch water, saving time for other work. It was observed that the FUG members whose settlement was located below 116 thecommunhyfomsttendedwagreeontheimreaseofwatersomcesandthewater availability for a longer period, and changes in water taste after the improvement in forest condition, whereas the members whose settlement was located above the forest tended to disagree. Thefinding impliesthattheperceptionofthemembersonincrease inwater somees and the water availability for a longer period may vary depending on the location of their settlement relative to the forest. Inthe studyarea, manyFUGsarerestrictingaccesstothe forestinorderto improve the forest condition. Such restriction requires people to walk farther in order to find forest products. It is noted that the user group members who do not have access to a private forest go to the adjoining national forest for forest products. The finding implies that the community forests are protected at the cost of the adjoining national forest. Community forests intheKaskidistrict ofNepalareimproving instatusasthey contain good stocking, species diversity, and a moderate/good shape of trees. Similarly, theaverage numberoftrees/saplingsperhectarewasfoundto behigherthanthenumber oftrees/saplingsperhectare inthehillyarea. Densityofsaplingscouldbetakenasa rough indicator of the future forest status. Tree canopy, natural regeneration, and tree shape provides a broad picture of community forests, especially the forests’ situation. Anyone can explain the broad picture of community forests by measuring these variables. The findings suggest that the variables (natural regeneration, tree canopy, and tree shape) recommended by local people are sufiicient to provide a broad picture of community forests that would facilitate the development of an efl‘ective forest management strategy. Atthe sametime, the high density ofthe saplings inthe forest implies thatthe silvicultural operation which is an essential activity of forest management is lacking, It 117 should be noted that not having silvicultural operations in the forest have many negative effects. First, it results inthe growthoftrees and productivity offorest below its potential Second, theprotectionandundemtilizationofthe community forests leadsthe peopletooverutilizetheadjoining national forests. Third, it isa laborburdentothe people, as they have to walk farther to get the forest products. In the study area, rmny FUGs have initiated the development of a community fund throughthe sale offorest products and the imposition offines for violating rules of thecommunhyforestJtisobservedthmlargefimdswemfoundwherecommunhy forest’s canopy cover was sparse. The finding implies that the FUG removed more trees in order to generate more income. Inthestudyareasomerulessuchastheresuictionofgrazingpmcficesinthe forest implemented by some FUGs were found to be inefi'ective. One probable reason could bethattherulesweredevelopedwithouttheconsensusofforest usergroup members. There is a tendency for members of poor/low castes to not argue with members ofhigher castes orwithpeople ofgreaterwealthsincethey are ckpendent onthemtbr manythings suchaswork, loansandsoonThepeoplewhodonotrequiretheforest for grazing proposed the idea ofbanning grazing in the forest while developing the rules and adopted it as a rule without knowing the feelings of poor or lower caste members. Consensus building is the main thrust of community forestry and pe0ple should not forget that factwhile crafiingtherules forcommunity forests. Theignorance ofthe poororlow caste members’ voice may lead community forestry program towards firiltue rather than success. The finding irnpliesaneedto assesstheprocessofcrafiing rules for community forests.Asmaeethemaremanydifi‘erencesbeMeenacceptingideasandpuflhgsuch 118 ideas intopractice.1nfact,thecommunity forestryprogrammrsuadestheelitesto discuss issues with disadvantaged groups of people by recognizing their needs. Such things rarely happen in the field. Putting the community forestry program into practice requires sharing power, which is a difficult task. Sharing power is a crucial issue that requires time for acceptance. Recommendations The study recommends conducting an evaluation of community forestry programs inotherparts ofNepal using these variables inorderto testthe instrument fiutherand also to gain wider acceptance, with modification, if necessary. The checklist should be usedasastandardformatto developadatabaseofcommunity forestsandtoassess community forest status. The future policy of the government should direct establishing of a more homogeneous community for managing community forests and providing silvicultural operation trainings to forest users. The policy also should focus on assessing forest status in terms of natural regeneration, crown cover, and tree shape before allowing tree harvesting in community forests. Future research There are some issues raised by this study in community forest management. For example, why do community forests managed by higher castes tend to be more successful than others? Why do community forests tend to be more successful where the number of female members is greater in the forest user group committee? Why are community forests managed by heterogeneous groups relatively less successful? Is there any 119 relationship between family background and leadership? What is the impact on the adjoining national forest? The future research of community forestry should be focused in these directions. 120 References Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society, Vol. 29 (4): 485-514. Adhikari, J. (1990). Is community forestry a new concept? An analysis of the past and present policies afi‘ecting forest management in Nepal. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 3: 257-265. Bhandari, D. L. (2003, June 23). Why community forestry alone can’t bail out the poor. Kathmandu Post (June 23): A national daily newspaper. Kathmandu/Nepal. Belbase, N. and Regmi, D. C. (2002). Potential for conflicts: Community forestry and decentralimtion legislation in Nepal. Kathmandu/Nepal: International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. CBS (2002). Statistical yearbook of Nepal, Central Blueau of Statistics. Kathamndu/ Nepal: His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. Chakraborty, R. N. (2001). Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: Evidence fiom the Tarai of Nepal. Ecological Economics, Vol. 36(2): 341-353. Conley, A. and Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 16 (5): 371-386. CPFD, (1991). The community and private forestry program inNepaL Kathmandu/ Nepal: Community and Private Forestry Division, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. Dongol, C. M., Hughey, K F. D., Bigsby, Hugh R (2002). Capital formation and sustainable community forestry in NepaL Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 22(1): 70-77. Eckholm, E. P. (1975). The Deterioration of Mountain Environments. Science, Vol. 189 (4205): 764-770. ‘ Fisher, K. (1993). Leading self-directed work teams. New York: McGraw-Hill. FAO (1978). Forestry for Local Community Development (FAO Forestry Paper # 7). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Gautam, A. P., Webb, B. L., and Eiumnoh, A. (2002). GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 22 (1): 63-69. 121 Gilmour, D. A. and Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests and foresters: The philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu/Nepal: Sahayogi Press. HMG/FRISP (1999). Forest and shrub cover of Nepal 1996 (Publication # 72). Kathmandu/Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation/Forest resom'ce information system project. Hausler, Sabine (1993). Community forestry: A critical assessment (The case of Nepal). The Ecologist, Vol. 23(3): 84-90. Hobley, M., Campbell, J. Y., and Bhatia, A. (1996). Community forestry in India and Nepal: Learning from each other (Discussion Paper Series No. MNR 96/3). International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Joshi, A. L. and Pokharel, K. P. (1998). Participatory approach in Nepal’s forestry sector: Apolicyevaluation. InP. Mathema, I. C. Dutta, M. K. Ballaand S. N. Adhikary (eds.). Proceedings of an International Seminar on Sustainable Forest Management (pp. 45-50). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry/International Tropical Timber Organization. Kanel, K. R. (1997). Community forestry: Implications for watershed management. In C. Khenmark, B. Thaiuts, L. Puangchit and S. Thammincha, (eds.). Proceeding of the F ORT ROP ‘1996: Tropical Forestry in 21 " century. Bangkok/Thailand: Kasetsart University. Kattel, Giri R (2000, March 20). Community Based Development. Sunday Post (March 20). Retrieved March 20,2001, http.//www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/sundaypostlZOOO/sep/sep1 7/recollection.htm Mahat, T. B. S. (1997). Development of community forestry in Nepal: All over view (Working paper). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry/Internatioml Tropical Timber Organization Project. Manandhar, P. K. (1981). Introduction to policy, legislation, and program of community forestry development in Nepal (NEP/80/03, Field Document # 1a). Kathmandu/ Nepal: HMG/UNDP/FAO community forestry development project. Messerschmidt, D., Richard, C., Shrestha, K. M., Rayamajhi, S., and Gautam, M. (1994). User Groups in Community Forestry: Lessons learned and case studies fiom Nepal (IOF Project technical paper TP 94/2). Pokhara/Nepal: Institute of Forestry Project. 122 MOPE (1998). State of Environment of Nepal Kathmandu/Nepal: His Majesty’s Government/Ministry of Population and Environment. MPFS (1988). Master plan for forestry sector of Nepal, Main report. Kathmandu/Nepal: His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. NFP (1976). Nepal’s National Forestry Plan. Kathamndu/Nepal: Wonder Printing Press. O’Hara, Peter (2002). Community forestry — Liberation through scaling down our failtues. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 46: 46-53. Palit, S. (1996). Comparative analysis of policy and institutional dimensions of community forestry in India and Nepal (Discussion Paper Series No. MNR 96/4). International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Pokharel, Ridish 2000. Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project. A term paper for the class of RD 876, Michigan State University, East Lansing: pp. 16. Pokharel, R., Adhikari, S., and Thapa, Y. (1999). Sankarnagar Forest User Group: Learning fi'om a successful FU G in the Tarai. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 38:25-32. Rechlin, M. A., Hammett, A. L., Burch, W. R., and Song, Y. (2002). Sharing the wealth: A comparative study of the distribution of benefits fiom community forestry management in southern China and Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 15 (2): 1-23. Smith, P. 1)., Khanal-Chhetri, 13., and Regmi, B. (2003). Meeting the needs ofNepal’s poor: Creating local criteria and indicators of community forestry. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 101 (5): 24-30. Smith, P. D., Khanal Chhetri, B. B. and Regmi, B. R. (2001). Developing local criteria and indicators of sustainable community forestry in Nepal: A pilot study in Tanahu district, Natural Resources Management Sector Assistance Program (NARMSAP), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, HMG-N/DANIDA. Springate-Baginski, 0., Soussan, J. 6., Dev, 0. P., Yadav, N. P., and Kifi‘, E. (1999). Community forestry in Nepal: Impacts on common property resom'ce management (Environmental and development series No. 3). Working Paper. Department for Internatioml Development. Suvedi, Mlu'ari, Biggelaar, Christofi‘el den, and Smalley, Susan (2000). Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the North-Central Region SARE Program, Center for Evaluation Studies, Department of ANR Education and Communication System, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 123 Tachlhana, T., Upadhaya, H. K., Pokharel, R., Rayamajhi, S., and Otsuka, K. (2001). Common property forest management in the Hills region of Nepal. In K. Otsuka and F. Place (eds), Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A Comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Afiica (pp. 273-314). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Talbot, K., and Khadka, S. (1994). Handing it over: An analysis of the legal and policy framework of community forestry in Nepal, World Resource Institute, Washington DC. Webb, B. L., and Gautam, A. P. (2001). Efi'ects of community forest management on the structure and diversity of a successional broadlcaf forest in Nepal. International Forestry Review, Vol. 3(2): 146157. WHO (1981). Development of indicators for monitoring progress towards health for all by the year 2000. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Bank (1978). Nepal staff project report and appraisal of the community forestry development and training project, World Bank Document, Washington DC. 124 APPENDICES 125 Appendix A List of participating FUGs in research workshop 1. Gahderi Chyandanda FUG—Armala-S 2. Naudanda FUG — Dhikurpokhari 3. DeuraliKoileniFUG-Hanspur1&2 4. Akalo Gairo FUG—Hemja—6 5. Ghatako Pakhho Kandel FUG -— Lekhanath 6. Jaljali Kalimati FUG — Lekhanath 7. Mandraedhunga Bhirpani FUG - Lannchaur 8. Kharchang Aginghare FUG - Nirmalpokhari 9. Dhadyan Khadarko Gaudamuni FUG - Pumdibhumdi - 2 10. Patale Banjhaphera FUG - Puranclmur -— 5 11. GairipatalFUG—Purunchaur- 7 12. Angtara kharabote FUG - Rupakot — 4 l3. Chisapani FUG — Rupakot - 3 14. Chandikodil FUG - Sarangkot -— 1 15.HaritarFUG-Thumki-7 126 Appendix B Research Workshop Schedule 09:30 — 10:00 am Registration 10:00 - 10:30 am Workshop purpose and its objectives — formation of small working groups 10:30 am - 13:30 pm Small working group discussions 13:30 — 14:30 pm Working group presentation 14:30 — 15:00 pm Snacks/1‘ ea 15:00 - 16:00 pm Workshop conclusions 127 Appendix C Forest Information Checklist 1. Name of community forest: 2. Name of VDC and ward Number: ---........- 3. Forest area (ha): —-—....... 4. Slope: 5. Altitude (meter): 6. Aspect: ----..-... 7. Forest handed over year: --------- 8. Main Vegetation type: a. ( ) Conifer forest b. ( ) Broadlcaf forest c. ( ) Mixed forest (broadlcaf and conifer) d. ( ) Shrub land 9. Specify five common species: 10.Soilcover a. ( )Low-<25%ofthesoilsarecoveredintheground b. ( )Moderate-25-50% of the soilsarecovered inthe ground c. ( )High->50°/oofthesoilsarecoveredintheground 11.Regenerationclass a. ( )Verysparse-<500plants/ha b. ( )Sparse—500-1,499plants/ha c. ( )Moderate—1,500-5,000plants/ha 128 d. ( )High->5,000plants/ha 12.Crowncover a. ( )Verysparse'-<20°/oofthegroundiscoveredbycrown b. ( )Sparse—20-39%ofthegroundiscoveredbycrown c. ( )Moderate—40-70°/oofthegroundiscoveredbycrown d. ( )High->70%ofthegroundiscoveredbycrown 13.Treequality a. ( )Poor-most(about80°/o)oftreeiscrookedordiseasedanddying state b. ( )Moderate—partlytwistedueeandnnst(about60%)ofitspartis usablefortimber c. ( )Good—mostoftree(about80%ormore)isstraightinshapeand goodfortimber 14.Forestisdamagedbyfireinthelastfiveyear: a. ( )No b. ( )Yes 15. If yes, does it occur annually? a. ( )Yes b. ( )No 16.Grazingallowed: a. ( )No b. ( )Yes 17. If yes, how many times in a year forest is open for grazing: ----------- 129 18. Number of households using the forest: -----—- 19. Number of households using the forest in five years ago: --------- 20. Ethnic/caste composition: a. ( )Homogenous,two-third ormoreuserswiththesamecaste b. ( ) Heterogeneous 21. Dominant caste/ethnic group: 22. Travel time to nearest market (hr): 23. Travel time to nearest range post (hr): --------- 24. Forest products availability and collection in the forest Availabilitx Sanguine m a. ( )Grass/fodder ( )ch ( )No b.( )Leaflitter ( )Yes ( )No c. ( )fuelwood ( )Yes ( )No d.( )Timber ( )Yes ( )No e. ( )Pole ( )Yes ( )No 11 ( )NTFP ( )Yes ( )No s- ( ) Other (please specify): 25. Income earning fiom the forest a. ( )No b. ( ) Yes 26. If yes, mention the earning of last two years (Rs): --------- 130 Appendix D An evaluation of community forestry program in Kaski district of Nepal Interview Schedule Name of the enumerator: Survey ID: Name of the F UG: . Date (m/d/yr): Name of the Village and Ward Number: Name of the district: Part I. 1. What tree species would you like to see in future in the commrmity forest? (Specify five preferred species): 2. Did you collect fuel wood from the community forest in the last two years? a. ( )No b. ( ) Yes, if yes please specify the amount of fuel wood (bhari) ~----------------- 3. Did you make any request to the Forest User Group Committee for timber in the last five- year? a. ( )No b. ( ) Yes, if yes please specify the amount of timber you got -~-—-—---------- 4. Pleaseindicate howoftendoyoneollectbrest products orobaervetheaetivity inthe community forests? (N - Never, R = Rarely, S 8 Sometimes, 0 = often, A = Always) I Leaflitterformakingcompost N R S 0 A II Fodder N R S O A III Thain-a (small size pole - in between sapling and pole) N R S 0 A A III Occurrenceofforestfireinthelasttwoyears N R S O 131 5. Overall, how do you categorize your community forests? a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. V. good e. Excellent 6. Overall, what is your opinion on the implementation of community forestry program? a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. V. good e. Excellent 7. Do you have tree on your own land? a. ( )No b- ( ) Y6. if yes please specify the number of trees (approximately) --.-- Part II 8. The following statements are to be considered as indicators for measuring success of community forestry program in Nepal. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the statements. (SD 8 strongly disagee, D - disagree, NO I: no opinion, A -= Agree, SA = strongly agree). I Access to fuel wood has increased after community SD D NO A SA forestry program 11 Access to fodder has increased after community SD D NC A SA forests program 111 Access to timber has increased after community SD D NC A SA form program IV Incidence of forest fire has reduced in the forest SD D NO A SA after community forestry program V Amount of community funds has increased after SD D N0 A SA community forestry program VI Women are actively taking part in forestry meetings SD D NO A SA after community forestry program 132 ‘VII VIII XI XII XV XVI XVII Use of compost has increased through leaf litter collection after community forestry program Trees on private land has increased after community forestry program Forest status such as regeneration, tree quality has improved after community forestry program Types of plant species has increased in the forest after community forestry program Number and species of wildlife has increased in the forests after community forestry program Availability of NTFP (Non-timber forest products) has increased in the forest afier community forestry program Greenery has increased in this area after community forestry program Occurrence of landslides/soil erosion has reduced in this area after community forestry program Water sources has increased with the improvement of forest condition Water availability for longer period has increased with the improvement of forest condition Test of drinking water has improved as it is cleaned and cold alter the improvement of forest condition 133 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA PartIII 9. What is your age? (Yr) - 10. Indicate your sex: a. ( ) Male b. ( ) Female 11. What is your farm size? (ropam) 12. Indicate your education level a. ( )Illiterate b. ( )literate/high school c. ( ) Some college d. ( ) College degree 13. What is your caste/ethnic group? a. ( )Brahmin b. ( )ChhetrifI‘hakuri c. ( )Gurung/Newar/Magar d. ( )Others (Kami/Damai/Sarki) 14. How many people eat in your kitchen in this month? (Total number -----—--— --—- (Male number) . --- (Female number) 15. Your occupation: a. ( ) Farming b. ( ) Business c. ( ) Service (1. ( ) Self-employed such as carpenter, home-maker etc. Please make comments if any: 134 Appendix E Forest users’ perception on the perceived success factors of the community forestry program FUG name Average score on perceived success factors Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition Management ecology products availability use PM“ Kabm 4.30 3.60 3.53 3.40 2.93 Ghaderi Chyandanda 4.12 3.90 3.40 3.70 3.23 Simle Kuna 3.62 3.63 3.63 3.46 3.60 Bashari Bhedikharka 3.92 3.63 3.50 3.16 3.46 Dhaitari 3.70 2.93 3.26 3.73 3.40 Raniban 3.94 3.53 3.66 3.20 3.46 Chandidevi 3.68 3.90 3.93 4.00 3.93 Bamdibhir 4.64 4.23 4.26 4.13 4.03 Majhuwa Lausi 4.17 3.74 3.88 3.85 3.25 Naudanda 4.10 3.70 4.00 3.83 4.16 Kanda Pairho 4.02 3.70 3.93 3.96 3.70 Kauchheko Pakho 3.77 3.85 3.40 3.96 3.44 Mohabhir 4.14 3.70 3.53 3.53 3.83 Akle Glmira 4.24 3.80 3.43 3.70 4.03 Deurali Koileni 4.28 3.90 3.80 3.90 4.04 Khalyani Salghari 3.72 3.76 3.80 4.03 3:53 Bhirpani 4.48 3.96 3.90 3.83 4.13 Bimirapani 4.38 3.90 3.66 3.83 3.50 Dandapari 4.30 4.00 4.13 3.93 4.06 135 FUG name Average score on perceived success factors Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition management ecology products availability use Baisari 4.34 4.20 3.83 3.80 4.16 Jaljale Kalimati 3.80 3.56 3.30 2.96 3.93 Samkhoriya 4.05 3.70 3.66 3.58 2.75 Simalpata 4.37 3.75 3.66 3.91 3.70 Gampani Bhirpani 4.26 3.74 3.62 3.77 3.25 Ghatako Pakho 4.16 3.86 3.70 3.40 3.40 Vhirbari 4.27 4.00 3.83 4.08 3.58 Machhapuchre 4.02 4.10 3.26 3.33 3.20 Sharako Pakho 4.42 3.90 4.00 3.86 3.96 Kharchang 4.04 3.96 4.10 3.93 4.26 Gurdum 3.70 3.83 3.80 3.26 4.10 Patale Banjhaphera 4.54 4.43 3.73 4.20 3.53 Syakhori 4.60 4.10 3.60 4.10 3.50 Tintaro Baikrmtha 4.34 4.06 3.73 4.20- 4.00 Gairipatal 4.20 4.18 3.74 3.96 3.40 Dhadanko 4.24 3.93 3.76 3.76 3.86 Bhusetar 4.34 4.10 3.76 3.73 4.13 Panchphohate 4.14 3.70 3.40 3.93 3.60 Bhedikharka 4.14 3.53 3.63 3.53 3.90 Ambika 3.74 4.06 3.13 4.23 3.16 Sajibanghari 3.78 3.70 3.03 3.46 2.70 136 FUG name Average score on perceived success factors Forest Forest Forest Forest Water condition management ecology products availability use Kusanda 3.48 3.73 . 3.40 3.33 2.90 Angtara 3.44 3.70 3.10 3.46 3.30 Lampata 3.70 3.90 3.63 3.76 2.53 Banspani 3.88 4.00 3.66 4.03 3.53 Kasyani Pakho 4.08 3.90 3.66 3.80 4.03 Maiko Khor 4.24 3.86 3.76 3.63 2.86 Chandikodil 4.26 4.00 3.63 3.83 3.86 Turung 4.40 4.06 3.80 4.10 3.93 Bajatipakha 4.22 3.80 3.63 3.80 3.73 Eaklekhet 4.14 3.53 3.76 3.90 3.33 137 Appendix F ' Basie characteristics of sample community brests FUG name Forest # of Forest fire Comm. Dominant # of members Annual area hhs in past 5 type group in the FUGC income (III) yrs (NR9) Male Female Paharamuni . Kabare 2.25 31 No H Brahmin 8 3 0 Ghaderi 3.50. 35 No H Gurung 10 l 700 Chyandanda Simle Kuna 28.00 196 No Hetero Gurung 9 0 3,000 Bashari 38.70 26 Yes H Gurung 9 2 630 Bhedikharka Dhaitari 4.12 99 No H Gurung 8 1 0 Raniban 14.19 120 No Hetero Gurung 10 3 4,000 Chandidevi 134.00 105 Yes Hetero Brahmin 7 2 4,300 Bamdibhir 48.80 133 No Hetero Brahmin 7 4 2,500 Majhuwa 66.50 65 No Hetero Gurung 8 3 0 Lausi Naudanda 1.40 165 No Hetero Brahmin 8 3 3,000 Kanda Pairho 3.70 140 No Hetero Brahmin 8 4 600 Kauchheko 12.18 34 No H Brahmin 4 3 1,700 Pakho Mohabhir 1 .02 29 No H Brahmin 9 2 0 Akle Ghaira 4.16 16 No H Brahmin 7 0 2,000 Deurali 7.30 252 No Hetero Brahmin 1 1 2 30,000 Koileni Khalyani 60.50 1 12 Yes H Brahmin 7 2 3,500 Salghari Bhirpani 4.80 63 No Hetero Brahmin 7 2 0 Bimirapani 3.32 29 No H Brahmin 8 5 0 138 FUG name Forest # of Forest fire Comm. Dominant # of members Annual area hhs in last 5 type group in FUGC income (in) Yrs (NR3) Male Female Dandapari 35.00 56 No H Brahmin 12 1 4,000 Baisari 3.56 15 No H Brahmin 2 7 1,500 Jaljale 12.75 126 No Hetero Gurung 9 2 20,000 Kalimati Samkhoriya 7.71 56 No Hetero Brahmin 7 2 4,000 Simalpata 9.75 133 No H Brahmin 10 1 0 Gampani 11.60 37 Yes H Brahmin 7 2 0 Bhirpani Ghatako 21 .43 3 15 No Hetero Brahmin 9 2 15,000 Pakho Vhirbari 5.00 28 No H Brahmin 5 2 560 Machhapuchre 2.21 23 No H ‘ Brahmin 0 7 1,000 Sharako 21 .42 1 88 No H Brahmin 9 2 800 pakho Kharchang 44.00 65 No H Brahmin 9 2 8,000 Gurdum 35.50 93 No Hetero Nepali 6 3 2,300 Patale 2.50 23 No H Brahmin 8 3 3,000 Banjhaphera Syakhori 3.08 29 No H Brahmin 4 7 0 Tintaro 2.00 17 No H Chhetri 3 2 0 Baikuntha Gairipatal 2.36 33 No H Brahmin 10 1 0 Dhadanko 28.30 125 No H Brahmin 10 1 1,500 Bhusetar 12.50 48 No H Brahmin 6 3 10,000 Panchphohate 3.25 40 No H Brahmin 9 2 0 Bhedikharka 37.99 180 No Hetero Gurung 9 2 0 139 FUG name Forest # of Forest fire Comm. Dominant # of members Annual area hhs in past 5 type group in FUGC income (ha) in (NR3) Male Female Ambika 5.00 70 No Hetero Chhetri 9 2 1,000 Sajibanghari 9.50 55 No H Brahmin 7 2 3,000 Kusanda 4.95 70 No H Musalman 7 0 500 Angtara 3.00 63 No H Chheui 8 1 0 Lampata 53.01 60 Yes H Brahmin 8 3 2,500 Banspani 1.96 71 No H Gurung 4 3 450 Kasyanipakho 1.15 61 No H Chhetri 6 3 0 Maiko Khor 3.43 ‘ 14 No Hetero Brahmin 6 3 2,200 Chandikodil 2.88 109 No Hetero Chhetri 8 1 1,000 Turung 30.00 165 No Hetero Chhetri s 3 1,500 Bajatipakha 12.96 95 No Hetero Brahmin 6 1 0 Eaklekhet 8.72 34 No H Brahmin 5 I 1,000 Note: H meaning homogeneous and Hetero mening heterogeneous 140 Appendix G Forest product use policy and grazing practices of sample community forest FUG name Allowing forest products collection and grazing practices Fodder Leaf Fuel Timber Pole NTFP Grazing litter wood practices PM“ “we Yes Yes Yes No No No rules No Ghaderi Chyandanda Yes Yes Yes No No No rules Yes Simle Kuna No No Yes No No No rules No Bashari Bhedikharka Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Dhaitari Yes No Yes No No No rules Yes Raniban Yes Yes Yes No No No rules No Chandidevi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bamdibhir Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Majhuwa Lausi Yes Yes Yes Yes No No rules No Naudanda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No rules No Kanda Pairho Yes Yes No No No No No Kauchheko Pakho Yes No Yes Yes No No No Mohabhir Yes Yes Yes Yes No No rules No Akle Ghaira Yes No Yes Yes No No rules No Deurali Koileni Yes Yes Yes Yes No No rules Yes Khalyani Salghari Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Bhirpani Yes Yes Yes Yes No No rules Yes Bimirapani Yes No No No No No rules No Dandapari Yes No Yes Yes No No rules No Baisari Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Jaljale Kalimati Yes Yes Yes No No No rules No 141 FUG name Allowing forest product collection and grazing practices Fodder Leaf Fuel Timber Pole NTFP Grazing litter wood practices Samkhoriya ' No No Yes . No No No rules No Simalpata Yes No Yes No No No rules No Gampani Bhirpani Yes Yes Yes Yes No No rules No Ghatako Pakho No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Vhirbari Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Machhapuchre Yes No No Yes No No rules No Sharako pakho Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No rules No Kharchang Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Gurdum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Patale Banjhaphera Yes No No No No No rules No Syakhori Yes Yes Yes No No No rules No Tintaro Baikuntha Yes Yes No No No No rules No Gairipatal Yes No No No No No rules No Dhadanko Yes No Yes Yes No No No Bhusetar Yes No Yes Yes No No rules Yes Panchphohate Yes Yes No No No No rules No Bhedikharka Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Ambika Yes No No No No No No Sajibanghari Yes No Yes No No No Yes Kusanda Yes No Yes No No No rules Yes Angtara No Yes Yes No No No rules No Lampata Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No rules Yes Banspani Yes No Yes No No No No 142 FUG name Allowing forest product collection and grazing practices Fodder Leaf Fuel Timber Pole NTFP Grazing litter wood - practices Kasyanipakho Yes Yes No No No No No Maiko Khor Yes Yes Yes No No No mics No Chandikodil Yes Yes No No No No rules Yes Tlu'ung Yes Yes Yes No No No rules No Bajatipakha Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No rules No Eakiekhet Yes No Yes No Yes No rules Yes 143 Appendix H Respondent collecting forest product from sample community forest Forest products a Number of respondents collecting Percentage Fuel wood 487 328 67.4 Timber 487 51 10.5 Fodder 487 125 25.7 Leaf litter 487 1 1 1 22.8 144 Appendix I Congruency score of preferred tree species in sample community forest FUG name Commonly available Five preferred tree Congruency tree species species score Paharamuni Kabare Katus, chilaune, Chilaune, katus, chap, 3 rakchan, and kafal sai, and rakchan, Ghaderi Chyandanda Utis, chilaune, malato, Utis, katus, chilaune, 3 chap, and siitimur chap, and sai Simle Kuna Utis, salio, chilaune, Katus, chilaune, utis, sai, 3 katus, and tiju and sissoo Bashari Bhedikharka Chilaune, katus, Sal, katus, chilaune, 2 angeri, jamun, and siris badahar, and chap Dhaitari Katus, chilaune, and Chilaune, chap. 581. salio, 1 simal, and dar Raniban Utis, rakchan, gurans, Katus, chilaune, utis, 3 chilaune, and kafal rakchan, and dar, Chandidevi Sal, katus, chilaune, Sal, chilaune, katus, 3 angeri, and tiju sailo, and chap Bamdibhir Mauwa, chilaune, utis, Chilaune, katus, sai, utis, 3 chap, and lakuri and chap Majhuwa Lausi Chilaune, katus, kafal, Katus, sai, chilaune, 2 mauwa, and bhakimlo sissoo, and chap Naudanda Chilaune, utis, mauwa, Sallo, chilaune, katus, 2 rakchan, and painyu utis, and sai Kanda Pairho Utis, rakchan, malato, Katus, chilaune, lapsi, 3 kafal, lapsi, and salio salio, rakchan, and sai Kauchheko Pakho Katus, chilaune, utis, Katus, chilaune, utis, 4 malato, and siris siris, and gurans Mohabhir Chilaune, katus, utis, Chilaune, katus, sai, and 2 mauwa, and lakuri chap Akle Ghaira Utis, chilaune, katus, Chilaune, katus, utis, 4 lakurLandsallo salio, and sai I45 FUG name Commonly available Five preferred tree Congruency tree species species score Deurali Koileni Sal, chilaune, jamun, Sal, chap, chilaune, 2 and camuno. katus, and sisoo Khalyani Chautara Sal, chilaune, kafal, Sal, chilalme, sissoo, 3 Salghari gurans, and katus, chap, and katus Bhirpani Katus, chilaune, kafal, Chilaune, salio, katus, 2 and angeri sai, and chap Bimirapani Krishiban Chilaune, mauwa, Chilaune, chap, katus, 2 chap, and sissoo badahar, and sai Dandapari Sisneghari Mauwa, gurans, angeri, Katus, chilaune, chap, 2 chilaune, and katus sai, and utis Baisari , Katus, chilaune, tiju, Chilaune, katus, sai, 2 bilaune, and bedulo chap, and utis Jaljale kalimati Khayar, sissoo, and Sissoo, khayar, chap, 2 Khahare simal utis, and lakuri Samkhoriya Katus, chilaune, kafal, Sal, chilaune, katus, 2 Bagdhunga bakle,and jhyanu chap, and sissoo Simalpata Golthepani Utis, sailo, chilaune, Sal, chap, chilaune, utis, 3 siltimur, and katus and salio Gampani Bhirpani Chilaune, katus, Sal, chilaune, katus, 2 jamun, tiju, and ratpate chap, and sisso Ghatako Pakho Katus, chilaune, sal, Sal, katus, chilaune, 3 akhatari, and ratpate chap, and salio Vhirbari Chilaune, katus, tiju, Sal, katus, chilaune, 2 ankhetari, and bhati chap, and salio Machhapuchre Chap, pakhuri, lakuri, Chap, sai, salio, sissoo, 1 kabro, and painyu and chilaune Sharako Pakho Katus, chilaune, utis, Chilaune, katus, sai, utis, 4 salio, and chap and salio Kharchang Aginghara Katus, chilaune, tiju, Sal, khayar, sissoo, sailo, 1 jamun, and akhitare and katus Gurdum Gidmara Chilaune, katus, tiju, Sal, chilaune, chap, 2 camun, and bhakimlo katus, and salio 146 FUG name Commonly available Five preferred tree Congruency tree species species score Patale Banjhaphera Utis, chilaune, lapsi, Chilaune, katus, khanyu, 2 khanyu, and painyu chap, and salio Syakhori Rakchan, chilaune, Chilaune, katus, sissoo, 3 katus, utis, and simal sai, and utis Tintaro Baikuntha Utis, chap, painyu, and Chap, chilaune, katus, l salio khayar, and sissoo Gairipatal Utis, salio, and chap Chilaune, katus, sai, 1 chap, and khanyu Dhadanko Khadarko Katus, chilaune, Katus, chilaune, chap, 2 Gaudamuni mauwa, camuno, and sissoo, and utis tiju Bhusetar Chilaune, katus, tiju, Sal, chilaune, katus, 2 and jamun, sissoo, and salio Panchphohate Sissoo, and utis Sissoo, chap, chilaune, 1 katus, and badahar Bhedikharka Tallo Katus, chilaune, Chilaune, katus, sai, 2 Kharka mauwa, siris, and chap, and utis malato Ambika Khanyu, chap, bedulo, Sissoo, chilaune, salio, 3 malato, and chilaune chap, and khanyu Sajibanghari Jaruwa Sissoo, painyu, lakuri, Sissoo, sai, katus, 1 and utis chilaune, and pakhuri Kusanda Sisneri Sailo, utis, chap, and Sal, chilaune, chap, sailo, 4 Pandhari chilaune and utis Angtara Khaharebote Sailo, chilaune, utis, Sal, chilaune, salio, 3 chap, and lakuri, katus, and chap Lampata Chilaune, katus, tiju, Sal, chap, katus, sailo, 2 jamun, and mauwa and chilaune Banspani Katus, salio, utis, siris, Sal, katus, chilaune, 3 and chilaune sailo, and chap Kasyani Pakho Chilaune, chap uits, Chap, sai, chilaune, utis, 3 . siltimur, and okhar and katus Dharapam 147 FUG name Commonly available Five preferred tree Congruency tree species species score Maiko Khor Painyu, Mauwa, kafal, Katus, sai, chilaune, 2 katus, and chilaune sissoo, and chap Chandikodil Katus, tiju, chilaune, Katus, chilaune, utis, sal, 2 kutmiro, and bedulo and sissoo Turung Katus, chilaune, Chilaune, katus, sai, tiju, 2 jamun, mauwa, and and salio akhetari Bajatipakha Chilaune, katus, and Chilaune, katus, chap, 2 angeri badahar, and sai Eakiekhet Katus, chilaune, Katus, chilaune, sai, 2 angeri, phaledo, and sissoo, and salio siris Note: congruency score is calculated based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning one prefared tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest, 2 meaning two preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest, 3 meaning three preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest, 4 meaning four preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest, and 5 meaning five preferred tree species matches with the available tree species in the forest. 148 Appendix J Status of soil cover, regeneration, crown cover, and tree shape of the sample community forest Name of Forest User Average score of Groups Soil cover Regeneration Crown cover Tree shape Paharamuni Kabare 2.67 4.00 3.00 2.08 Ghaderi Chyandanda 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.63 Simle Kuna 3.00 4.00 3.00 ' 1.98 Bashari Bhedikharka 2.00 4.00 3.00 1.11 Dhaitari 2.33 4.00 4.00 2.38 Raniban 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.74 Chandidevi 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.50 Bamdibhir 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.50 Majhuwa Lausi 2.67 4.00 3.00 2.54 Naudanda 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.33 Kanda Pairho 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.46 Kauchheko Pakho 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.73 Mohabhir 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.56 Akle Ghaira 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.60 Deurali Koileni 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.53 Khalyani Salghari 2.33 4.00 3.00 1.44 Bhirpani 1.67 4.00 4.00 1.78 Bimirapani Krishiban 2.67 3.00 4.00 2.22 Dandapari Sisneghari 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.00 149 Name of FUG Average score of Soil cover Regeneration Crown cover Tree shape Baisari 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.80 Jaljale kalimati 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Samkhoriya 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.33 Simalpata Golthepani 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.70 Gampani Bhirpani 2.33 4.00 4.00 1.73 Ghatako Pakho 2.33 4.00 3.00 1.99 Vhirbari 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.25 Machhapuchre 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.67 Sharako Pakho 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.38 Kharchang 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 Gurdum Gidmara 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.47 Patale Banjhaphera 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 Syakhori 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.72 Tintaro Baikuntha 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 Gairipatal 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 Dhadanko Khadarko 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.47 Bhusetar 2.67 4.00 4.00 1.72 Panchphohate 3.00 1.00 4.00 2.84 Bhedikharka 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.39 Ambika 2.33 4.00 4.00 2.67 Sajibanghari Jaruwa 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 Kusanda 2.33 1.00 4.00 2.33 150 Name of FUG Average score of Soil cover Regeneration Crown cover Tree shape Angtara 2.33 1.00 4.00 2.54 Lampata 1.67 4.00 4.00 1.37 Banspani 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.57 Kasyani Pakho 1.67 4.00 4.00 2.37 Maiko Khor 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.92 Chandikodil 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.83 Turung 2.67 4.00 4.00 2.21 Bajatipakha 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.62 Eakiekhet 2.33 4.00 4.00 2.13 Note: Soil cover score and tree shape score is calculated based on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 meaning low soil cover/poor tree quality, 2 meaning moderate soil cover/moderate tree quality, and 3 meaning high soil cover/high tree quality. Similarly, regeneration score and crown cover score is calculated based on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 meaning very sparse, 2 meaning sparse, 3 meaning moderate, and 4 meaning high. 151 Appendix K Mean DBH, tree height, number of trees/samplings per ha in sample community forests FUG name Mean Average number of DBH (cm) Height (cm) Trees/ha Saplings/ha Paharamuni Kabare 31.61 10.76 300 467 Ghaderi Chyandanda 15.74 12.72 600 967 Simle Kuna 14.02 9.78 433 800 Bashari Bhedikharka 13.46 6.41 533 3233 Dhaitari 14.90 11.13 1133 1233 Raniban 14.96 8.88 533 2200 Chandidevi 29.44 16.38 267 3867 Bamdibhir 19.81 11.70 600 1067 Majhuwa Lausi 12.55 9.13 500 867 Naudanda 14.75 11.50 400 333 Kanda Pairho 15.30 9.30 467 2033 Kauchheko Pakho 16.19 12.74 567 633 Mohabhir 16.11 ' 9.35 900 933 Akle Ghaira 17.88 12.70 767 867 Deurali Koileni 34.81 14.56 467 2733 Khalyani Salghari 17.92 10.71 800 533 Bhirpani 13.63 6.40 500 4967 Bimirapani Krishiban 11.00 7.11 300 3167 Dandapari Sisneghari 10.00 5.00 33 1700 Baisari 15.31 10.56 733 1200 152 FUG name Mean Average number of DBH (cm) Height (m) Trees/ha Saplings/ha Jaljale kalimati 22.50 11.00 67 100 Samkhoriya 1 1.54 6.25 300 4400 Simalpata Golthepani 16.63 9.62 633 1100 Gampani Bhirpani 27.90 9.10 500 1667 Ghatako Pakho 27.01 8.75 500 3733 Vhirbari 19.86 7.35 467 2567 Machhapuchre 16.27 7.33 167 1200 Sharako Pakho 14.78 8.96 500 733 Kharchang 16.87 15.08 133 733 Gurdum Gidmara 14.86 10.87 600 2800 Patale Banjhaphera 12.80 7.75 67 2133 Syakhori 20.03 12.02 833 1633 Tintaro Bailcuntha 20.13 11.88 133 467 Gairipatal 20.13 11.88 A 133 467 Dhadanko Khadarko 16.40 9.52 567 1500 Bhusetar 14.54 7.23 600 2633 Panchphohate 19.10 10.36 500 367 Bhedikharka 13.73 5.84 600 1400 Ambika 15.98 12.56 233 2000 Sajibanghari Jaruwa 11.42 10.21 v 500 400 Kusanda 16.30 7.38 400 67 Angtara 12.72 8.09 967 1533 153 FUG name Mean Average number of DBH (cm) Height (m) Trees/ha Saplings/ha Lampata 19.15 8.91 567 3867 Banspani 13.63 9.21 600 2533 Kasyani Pakho 17.00 11.74 1100 1200 Maiko Khor . 13.87 7.72 1 167 2067 Chandikodil 13.82 6.06 333 1633 Turung 13.48 6.98 533 4433 Bajatipakha 16.97 6.28 600 1 133 Eakiekhet 18.07 7.52 433 2300 154 Appendix L List of preferred and available tree species Local name Scientific name Ageri Pieris ovalifolia Akhetari Trichilia connaroides Badahar Artocarpus lakoocha Bhakimio Rhus javanica Bilaune Maesa chisia Bedulo Ficus subincisa Bakle Cieyera ochnacea Bhati Desmodium cephalotes Camuno Syzigium opurculata Chilaune Schima wallichii Champ Michelia champaca Dar Boehmeria rugulosa Gurans Rhododendron arboreum Jamun Syzygium cumini Jhyanu Eurya acuminata 155 Local name Katus Khayar Kaphal Kabro Khanyu Kutmiro Malato Mauwa Okhar Painyu Phaledo Rakchan Ratpate Sal Sissoo 156 Scientific name Castanopsis spp. Acacia catechu Myrica esculenta Ficus lacor Ficus semicordata Litsea monopetala F raxinus floribunda Macaranga indica Engelharditia spicata Juglans regia Prunus cerasoides Daphniphyllum himalense ?? Shores robusta Dalbergia sissoo Local name Salio Siltimur Simal Siris Tiju Utis 157 Scientific name Pinus roxburghii Litsea cubeba Bombax ceiba Albizia spp. Diospyros nnlabarica Alnus nepalensis VE 111111111111111 111111 3 1293 0 504 762 1111 I