assessment of livelihood improvement ...learningportal.wwfnepal.org/dashlib/files/assessment...

ASSESSMENT OF LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT THROUGH

FOREST SERVICES IN SHANTI COMMUNITY FOREST,

DANG, NEPAL

A Dissertation

Submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Master’s Degree in Environmental Science of Tribhuvan University

Submitted By

PINKY GIRI

Symbol No: 18181

Registration No: 5-2-54-630-2007

Submitted To

Department of Environmental Science

GoldenGate International College

Kathmandu, Nepal

2015

i

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation entitled “Assessment of Livelihood Improvement

through Forest Services in Shanti Community Forest, Dang, Nepal” is genuine work

done originally by me and has not been published or submitted elsewhere for the requirement

of any degree program. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been

acknowledged and listed in the reference section.

Copyright © 2015 by Pinky Giri

Contact: [email protected]

………………………….

Pinky Giri

2015

ii

…….. 2015

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Ms. Pinky Giri has carried out and prepared this dissertation entitled

“Assessment of Livelihood Improvement through Forest Services in Shanti Community

Forest, Dang, Nepal” for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of Master's

Degree in Environmental Science and has worked satisfactorily under our supervision. This

dissertation contains her original work and fulfills the requirements of GoldenGate International

College, affiliated to Tribhuvan University, Nepal. To the best of our knowledge, this dissertation

has not been submitted for any other degree, in Nepal.

We recommend this dissertation to be accepted for the partial fulfillment of Master’s Degree in

Environmental Science from Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

…………………………….

Rajeswar Shrestha

Supervisor

Lecturer

Central Department of Environmental Science

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur

………………………………………

Prakash Chandra Aryal

Co-supervisor

Lecturer


Kathmandu, Nepal

iii

……….2015

LETTER OF APPROVAL

This dissertation paper submitted by Pinky Giri entitled “Assessment of Livelihood

Improvement through Forest Services in Shanti Community Forest, Dang, Nepal” has been

accepted for a partial fulfillment of Master Degrees in Environmental Science from Tribhuvan

University, Nepal.

……………………………………

Jagannath Koirala

External Examiner

General Manager

Herbs production and processing co. Ltd

Kathmandu, Nepal

……………………………………

Kiran Bhusal

Internal Examiner

Faculty


Kathmandu, Nepal

…………………………….

Rajeswar Shrestha

Supervisor

Lecturer

Central Department of Environmental Science

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur

…………………………………

Prakash Chandra Aryal

Co-supervisor

Lecturer


Kathmandu, Nepal

……………………………….

Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.

Coordinator

M.Sc. Environmental Science


Kathmandu, Nepal

iv

………. 2015

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

This dissertation work entitled “Assessment of livelihood improvement through forest

services in Shanti Community Forest, Dang, Nepal” submitted by Ms. Pinky Giri has been

accepted for the partial fulfillment of Master’s Degree in Environmental Science from

Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

……………………………….

Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.

Coordinator

M.Sc. Environmental Science


Kathmandu, Nepal

……………………………….

Prof. Bhadra Pokharel, Ph.D.

Principal


Kathmandu, Nepal

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I express my sincere gratitude to my respected supervisor Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha and

co-supervisor Mr. Prakash Chandra Aryal, for their regular guidance, constant support and

encouragement throughout the course of the study. I owe my sincere gratitude to Prof.

Bhadra Pokharel, Ph.D., Principal, GoldenGate International College (GGIC) and Mr. Man

Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D., coordinator of M.Sc environmental science (GGIC), for their

encouragement and suggestions. I would also like to thank all the faculty members of GGIC.

My gratitude goes to Mr. Sanu Raja Maharjan for his help in identifying the plant species. I

would also like to thank Mr. Madhup Dhungana, New ERA for his suggestion and

encouragement. I express my gratitude to Hariyo Ban programme (WWF) and Harka Gurung

fellowship (New ERA) for their financial support. I would like to thank Mr. Yadhav Prashad

Dhital (DFO1 of Dang) and his staff members for their kind cooperation. My thanks are to

Mr. Tek Bhadur Khadka and Mr. Chet Bhadur Thapa for their help during the vegetation

survey. I would also like to thank Mr. Kool Bahadur Khadka and his family for their help and

warm hospitality during the field visit. My special thank goes to Mr. Mohan K.C, vice

president of CF for his support and help throughout the field visits. I would also like to

express my thanks to all the respondents of Ward no 9, Shantinagar VDC for their positive

support during the household survey.

My special thanks go to my friends Mr. Nammy Hang Kirat, Mr. Niranjan Pudasaini and Ms.

Rashmi Timilsina for their generous support throughout the field visits and preparation of the

report. I also express my gratitude to all my friends who made suggestions and support

during the research of this dissertation.

Last, but not the least I extend my eternal gratitude to my family members from whose love,

cooperation and encouragement throughout the study has made this work possible to present

in this form.

vi

ABSTRACT

Community forestry is considered as one of the major tools to address biodiversity

conservation and livelihood sustenance. This study was done in Shanti community forest of

Shantinagar VDC, ward no.9 of Dang district Nepal. Both quantitative and qualitative data

were used. For the quantitative data, vegetation and household questionnaire survey were

done and for the qualitative data focus group discussion was done. Systematic sampling

approach was adopted for collecting vegetation data where 40 plots were laid down in the

forest as per Community Forest Inventory Guideline, 2005. Out of 304 forest users’

household numbers, using systematic sampling approach 20% was sampled.i.e.60

households. The VDC was comparatively less developed in terms of physical infrastructure.

Agriculture was the main occupation of majority of the people. Along with agriculture,

foreign employment and livestock rearing were also the mode of livelihood. Firewood was

the major source of energy. However, the use of firewood among household varied

significantly (p<0.001) and only 30% of firewood demand was fulfilled from the CF. For

firewood as well as for fodder people were dependent upon private land.CF programme has

helped the studied area from the revenue collected through the sale of the forest products

specially timber such as in improvement of sanitation of the community, by establishing the

school, by maintaining social harmony and to some extent saving the time of the local people

specially of the women who usually spend their time for firewood and fodder collection.

Mostly they have utilized this saved time in household activities and livestock rearing. The

elite groups mostly dominate decisions of the CFUGs management and have not been able to

address the needs and aspirations of the socially disadvantages groups within the

communities. Altogether 26 species of plants were found in which Shorea robusta was the

dominant plant species followed by Acacia catechu, Dalbergia sissoo, Terminalia alata. The

total IVI value of the trees was 300.01. Tree diversity was 0.48 and the total density of the

trees species was 483.75/ ha whereas density of sapling and seedling was 2600/ha and

36750/ha respectively. The findings of the study indicate that Nepal’s community forestry

programme offers both opportunities and limitations to achieving sustainable livelihoods of

the local people.

Keywords: Community forest, Forest management, Forest services, Livelihood

vii

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... i

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................... ii

LETTER OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................................... iii

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ v

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi

TABLE OF CONTENT...……………………………………………………...…………….vii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATION, SYMBOLS ....................................................................... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 4

1.3. Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 5

1.4. Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.5. Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.6. Overview of the Contents .............................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of Some Terms Related to the Research ....................................................... 7

2.2. Development of Community Forestry Program in Nepal .............................................. 8

2.3. Aim of Community Forestry in Nepal ......................................................................... 10

2.4. Achievements and Challenges in Community Forestry in Nepal ................................ 11

CHAPTER III: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Study Area ................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1. Background of Study Area.................................................................................... 14

3.1.2. Background of Community Forest........................................................................ 14

3.2. Research Design........................................................................................................... 15

3.3. Methods of Data Collection ......................................................................................... 17

3.3.1. Primary Sources .................................................................................................... 17

viii

3.3.2. Secondary Sources ................................................................................................ 21

CHAPTER IV: RESULT

4.1. Socio-economic Status of CFUG ................................................................................. 22

4.1.1. General Demographic Information ....................................................................... 22

4.1.2. HH Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 22

4.1.3. Financial Status ..................................................................................................... 23

4.1.4. Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 25

4.1.5. Livestock Status .................................................................................................... 26

4.1.6. Water Resources and Sanitation ........................................................................... 28

4.2. Forest Product Dependency and Contribution of CF ................................................... 29

4.2.1. Fodder Sources...................................................................................................... 29

4.2.2. Energy ................................................................................................................... 31

4.2.3. Development in Infrastructure .............................................................................. 32

4.2.4. Social Exposure and Harmony.............................................................................. 32

4.3 Diversity, Regeneration and Management of CF ......................................................... 33

4.3.1. Structural Parameter.............................................................................................. 33

4.3.2. Regeneration Status .............................................................................................. 35

4.3.3. CF Management and Perception ........................................................................... 36

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

5.1. Socio-economic Context .............................................................................................. 38

5.2. Forest Product Dependency and Contribution of CF ................................................... 39

5.3. Diversity, Regeneration and Management of CF ........................................................ 40

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 43

6.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 43

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEXES

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: CF’s local division along with its area and major vegetation ................................. 15

Table 2: Various sectors of family income with average amount ........................................... 23

Table 3: Average sector wise family expenditure ................................................................... 24

Table 4: Average annual production of major crops .............................................................. 25

Table 5: Change in livestock status after CF and their reason .............................................. 28

Table 6: Available volume of fodder species in the studied forest and LU sustained ............ 30

Table 7: Energy source and their average quantity of consumption ...................................... 31

Table 8: Change in volume of Sal per ha and its estimated wood price ................................. 33

Table 9: Seedling-sapling-tree ratio ....................................................................................... 35

Table 10: Representation of different ethnic groups and gender in existing CFUC .............. 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map showing the study area with distribution of vegetation sample plots ............. 15

Figure 2: Flow chart of research design ................................................................................. 16

Figure 3: Nested plot design ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4: HH’s physical structure type ................................................................................... 22

Figure 5: Major income source of studied CFUG’s HHs ....................................................... 23

Figure 6: Income sufficiency before and after CF establishment ........................................... 24

Figure 7: Status of land ownership of the HHs ....................................................................... 25

Figure 8: Change in perception on agriculture system after the establishment of CF ........... 26

Figure 9: Histogram of livestock unit...................................................................................... 26

Figure 10: Contribution of livestock in income generation .................................................... 27

Figure 11: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between LU and income amount ............. 27

Figure 12: Change in sanitation before and after the establishment of CF............................ 29

Figure 13: Contribution of sources on available livestock feeding ........................................ 29

Figure 14: Livestock preferred plant species .......................................................................... 30

Figure 15: Trend of fodder, forage and grass availability after CF establishment ................ 31

Figure 16: Social change in community after the establishment of CF .................................. 32

Figure 17: Graphical presentation of tree density and mean DBH with linear trend line ..... 35

Figure 18: Frequency of different tree species among total cut stumps ................................. 35

x

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATION, SYMBOLS

± : Standard Deviation

0C : Degree Celsius

CF : Community Forest

CF1 : Community Forestry

CFUC : Community Forest Users Committee

CFUGs : Community Forest User Groups

cm : Centimeter

CBS : Central Bureau of Statistics

DFO : District Forest Office

DFO1 : District Forest Officer

DFID : Department for International Development

Df : Degree of Freedom

DBH : Diameter at Breast Height

FGD : Focus Group Discussion

FUG : Forest User Group

FAO : Food and Agricultural Organization

GoN : Government of Nepal

GPS : Global Positioning System

HH : Household

Ha : Hectare

xi

ind/ha : Individual per hectare

Kg : Kilogram

LU : Livestock Unit

LPG : Liquid Petroleum Gas

m : Meter

m asl : Meter Above Sea Level

min : Minute

MoFSC : Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

MPFS : Master plan for Forestry Sector

NTFPs : Non Timber Forest Products

VDC : Village Development Committee

yr : Year

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background

Historical evidences have proved that human civilizations are entirely dependent upon the

goods and services provided from natural resources. Without the existence of such

fundamental commodities granted by nature, the existence of human creation on the world is

beyond from imagination. Natural resources are equally important for us and have significant

roles for our well beings. Among them forest resources stood to be the major that have direct

and indirect contribution to humankinds. Forests are a form of common pool resource and

important for rural people, for whom, in some cases, they provide an important part of their

income (Das, 2010). Forest commons are crucial for delivering multiple outcomes such as

livelihoods, carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation (Mikkola, 2002).

A livelihood comprises people, their capabilities and their means of living, including food,

income and assets which could be tangible (natural and physical resources) or intangible

(social resources including claims and access) (Chambers & Conway, 1991). The sustainable

livelihood frame identifies five capital assets i.e. social/institutional capital, human capital,

natural capital, physical capital and financial capital, which people can build up and/or draw

upon. The ability to move out of poverty is critically dependent on access to these assets

(DFID 1999). Resource management, access and utilization process determines the

sustainability of the resource as well as welfare of the people depending on them. Livelihood

strategy, social and cultural factor and resource viability determines dependency of the

people on the various assets around them. Generally, poor and rural people (one quarter of

the worlds’ population) depend upon more natural resources to sustain their livelihood while

urban people are mostly dependent to physical and financial resources (Pokharel, 2001).

Globally, approximately 10% of the total forest area is governed by local communities

(Sunderlin et al., 2008). Community land is either land owned by the state and designated for

use by communities and indigenous peoples or private land owned by communities or

indigenous peoples (Sunderlin et al., 2008). Other management types include state forests

(production forests, plantations and reserves) and privately owned forests. Forest resources

are of utmost importance for livestock farming, inputs for agriculture and supply for timber

2

and non-timber products to the people. However, the contribution of forests and trees to

livelihoods is difficult to quantify ( Anglesen &Wunder, 2003)

About 26,494,504 people are residing in Nepal and more than 90% of them live in rural areas

(CBS, 2011). They rely heavily upon forests and associated natural resources for various

basic needs such as firewood, fodder, timber, medicinal plants etc. In fact, these are needed

to human welfare (CBS, 2011).The case is rather pronounced for poor, women and

marginalized people. The economy of country is based on subsistence farming with its strong

links to forestry. People utilize forest resources for meeting their needs for energy, livestock

feed, construction material, agricultural implements, raw materials for wood-based industries

and leaf litter used as compost fertilizer in agricultural fields (Malla, 2000; Acharya, 2002).

Besides, the pattern of use of forest resources has been changing and its value is increasing

due to the development of a market economy and contribution to the rural economy. Diverse

options have been executed in different period of time for the better protection and

management of the forests in Nepal (Niraula &Pokharel, 2004; Chaulagain, 2005).

The traditional forest management policies and practices failed to improve the deterioration

situation of the forests. The poorer situation forced to formulate a new approach and policy to

address the problem. In order to reduce the deterioration and degradation of forests, the

concept of community forestry (CF1) began by the endorsement of National Forestry Plan

(1976) and promulgating “Panchyat forest” and “Panchayat protected forest” legislation of

participatory approach in 1978, which became the basis for implementing CF1 programme (

Shrestha & Nepal, 2003).

Nepal, as one of the pioneer country to practice with CF1, has now come to be widely

recognized as being at the forefront of its development and has perhaps made greater

progress than many other countries in establishing it as the cornerstone of its forest sector

policy (Anon, 2004). Forest Act 1993 and Forest Regulation 1995 enacted two decades ago

have been encouraging the CF1 programme till to date in Nepal. The focus of the Act and

regulation was on institutionalizing community forest user group (CFUG) as legal,

autonomous and corporate body having full power, authority and responsibility to protect,

3

manage and utilize forest and its products as per the decisions made by their self prepared

constitutions and operational plans.

Generally, CFUGs include those households utilizing a specified patch of forest to meet their

basic needs of forest products. Although all benefits from community forest (CF) would go

to the CFUGs concerned but the land legally remains part of the state (Anon, 2010). CFUGs

are expected to participate in all CF1 activities such as tree planting, thinning and pruning and

share forest benefits among the user households (HHs). There are altogether 17,685 CFUGs

involving 2.17 million HHs which had been handed over with 1.65 million ha of forest area

in Nepal (MoFSC, 2009). With the growth in numerous numbers of forest user groups

(FUGs), the Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN) was established in

1996 which has become a significant lobbying force for FUG interests. Now it has a

membership of over 7500 FUGs. It has played a key role in representing user group interests

and pressing for legislative and institutional reform in relation to the management of forest

resources (Bhattarai & Khanal, 2005).

CF1 is increasingly recognized as a means for promoting sustainable forest management and

restoring degraded forests for enhancing the forest condition as well as livelihood of low

income people and forest dependent communities worldwide. The programme is intended to

enhance the livelihood of poor, women and marginalized people maintaining the social

empowerment, gender equity, social justice and good governance of the CF (Pokharel et al.,

2004). CF is a vital source of income generation and is seen as an opportunity to reduce

poverty. There are a variety of activities for income generation in CF1 such as non timber

forest products (NTFPs), cash crop production as an intercropping, eco-tourism activities,

cottage industry related to the forests and so on (Pokharel, 2008).

The participatory management of forest by the people leads toward the sustainability. Users

of the CF basically marginal, livestock farming integrated agrarian communities are getting

their basic needs related to the forest products by their own decision and management.

Depending upon their social and cultural values, forest resources and vegetations have

diverse importance in people’s livelihood. Considering preferences and utilization also,

different forest species have different levels of harvesting mode and methods. Major

4

vegetations which have wider use in community’s livelihood or have more economic values

are mostly threatened by over harvesting and unsustainable use so may be protected at large

range. Forest species that fulfill day to day needs of the community like forages, fodder, and

firewood exert heavy pressures and high vulnerability on forest. Forest regeneration,

nourishment and harvesting are greatly dependent on the community’s requirements,

governance and livelihood assets. The study focuses to explore the relation between socio-

economic context and participatory forest management system of Shanti CF, a case from

Dang district, mid-western region of Nepal.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

CF1 was evolved to achieve multidimensional objectives like on institutional strengthening,

greenery maintenance, protection of forest areas, fulfilling subsistence needs of forest

products to the local people. Mostly, they have been addressed successfully. The concept

behind is that people’s access to the forest and their involvement in decision making directly

affects distribution of goods and benefits and so are their livelihood. Weak benefit

partnership between government, private sector and civil society resulting into marginal

benefits are the major issues of CF1 programme in Nepal (Sharma & Acharya, 2004). Lack of

proper resource mobilization and conservation practice knowledge will make CFUGs less

effective on income generation activities, biodiversity maintenance and sustainable forest

management.

Although the CF1 approach has improved forest condition and livelihood in many cases, it

still has several shortcomings. Some studies (Malla, 2000; Adhikari et al, 2003; ICIMOD,

2004) have found that the improvement in forest condition has not led to concomitant

improvement in local communities’ access to forest products such as firewood, timber and

other NTFPs. Depending upon the social-economic and cultural aspects, forest resource

utilization methods and modes are different. Existing livelihood of the concerned community

and lifestyle determines the pressure in the forest and might have strong preference on

consumption of certain type of species in their livelihood process. Similarly, giving

preference to certain species of plants to achieve high benefit in terms of monetary value

could have negative impacts on forest ecological balance by neglecting undesired species

affecting the bio-diversity of the forest.

5

Sustainability of the forest has always been a key issue. Forest’s service sustainability is

complicated depending on the species availability, utilization, preference, available stock and

regeneration of those species under the community uses. Only an integrated study of forest

users’ livelihood strategy, perception and management practice along with ecological status

of the forest could describe this multidimensional relationship of the CF1.

1.3. Research Questions

What is the socioeconomic status of the studied CFUG?

How does the CFUC address the subsistence of the CFUG?

What is the ecological status of the forest?

What is users’ perception towards CF management and access to the forest products?

1.4. Objectives

General Objective

The general objective of the research is to assess the contribution of CF1 to the livelihood of

concerned CFUG through forest services and estimate the tree species status to study the

sustainability of the forest service and management.

Specific Objectives

To assess the socioeconomic status of the concerned CFUGs

To assess the forest product dependency of the concerned communities

To assess the tree diversity and regeneration status of the concerned CF

To study people’s perception regarding forest management and effectiveness of the

CF1 to achieve forest sustainability

1.5. Limitations

Since the research was conducted on only one CF, the findings cannot be generalized

or replicated.

Since in the secondary data only volume of Sal was calculated, wood price of Sal

could not be analysed with other timber producing tree species.

6

1.6. Overview of the Contents

The first chapter of the report outlines the introduction of the study. It covers the background,

statement of problem, research questions, objective, limitations of the study and overview of

the contents.

The second chapter presents the literature review. This chapter deals with review of relevant

literatures and definition of some terms with concept and emergences of CF1. Some

provisions and challenges in CF are also described in this section.

The third chapter is about the research methodology which also describes about the study

area and concerned CF. This chapter is composed of detail information on approaches of the

research and clear description of methods used in data calculation.

Chapter four consists of all the findings of the research presented through various figures and

tables. In chapter five, results are analyzed, compared and discussed with global and national

perspectives.

Ultimately, the sixth chapter presents the conclusions of the research with some precise and

relevant recommendations.

7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of Some Terms Related to the Research

Livelihood

The term ‘livelihood’ comprises the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of

living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks

and maintains or enhances its capabilities and assets both now and in the future without

undermining the natural resource base (Chambers & Conway 1991).Livelihood analysis is

supportive in allowing us to compare between different households and to understand

different livelihood strategies of different wealth ranks and helps us to understand impact of

interventions on poverty. The sustainable livelihoods frame identifies five capital assets i.e.

social/institutional capital, human capital, natural capital, physical capital and financial

capital (DIFID, 1999). A human capital asset is, for instance, the amount and quality of labor

available. The natural capital asset comprises the natural resources, from which a livelihood

can be derived. The physical capital asset contains the basic infrastructures and means of

production, and the financial capital asset comprises the financial resources needed to

support a livelihood. Social capital asset indicates the involvement of household in social

activities and networks for both political and economic purposes. These assets constitute

livelihood building blocks. A range of assets is needed to achieve positive livelihood

outcomes: no single category of assets sufficiently provides many and varied livelihood

outcomes that people seek. An access of poor people to any of category of assets tends to be

limited. The ability to move out of poverty is critically dependent on access to assets (DFID,

1999). Different households within the same local level have diverse level. The poorest may

have to relay simply on their own human capital and entitlement to their common property.

Forest services

Forests are vital to our survival and well being. The ecosystem services that forest provides

make life on this planet possible. Ecosystem services as defined in Nature’s Services:

Societal dependence on Natural ecosystem are “the conditions and the processes through

which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life.”

8

According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services are mainly

categorized into four parts which are described below.

Provisioning ecosystem services are the products derived from the ecosystem. Examples

from forests are timber, fuel, water, non-timber forest products, medicinal plant and

genetic resources.

Regulatory ecosystem services maintain a livable world. Forests smooth put and extend

stream flow, prevent erosion, diminish the impact from floods and maintain water quality.

Forests also help to mitigate climate change, purify air, sequester carbon and shade stream

for lower stream temperature that help to survive wildlife.

Cultural ecosystem services are the non material benefits people obtain from the

ecosystem. Examples are: aesthetic enjoyment, spiritual enrichment and fulfillment,

recreational activities, and ecotourism opportunities. Forests and trees in particular are

symbolically and spiritually a part of the world’s major religions.

Supporting ecosystem services are the one that are necessary in production of the other

provisioning, regulatory and cultural ecosystem services. Their impact on people may not

be as explicit as the other services but are the foundation for the production of the other

ecosystem services. Examples of supporting ecosystem services from forest include soil

formation, erosion control, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, habitat for flora and fauna and

watershed protection.

Everyone is dependent on ecosystem services for their quality of life as well as their survival.

As forests continue to disappear the value of their remaining services become even more

significant. Understanding and awareness of not only the apparent ecosystem services forests

provide but also their complex interaction is crucial to their management and understanding.

2.2. Development of Community Forestry Program in Nepal

Globally, concept of CF1 emerged and became popular partly due to the failure of industrial

development model to address socio-economic development and partly, due to the increasing

deforestation and degradation (Gilmour & Fisher 1991). The concept, came in vogue after

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) published a report on ‘Forestry for Local

Community Development’ (FAO,1978), and was further consolidated by the theme of 1978

9

Eighth World Forestry Congress, “Forestry for People”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia (Gilmour

& Fisher, 1991).

In Nepal, forest policy has been developed and practiced primarily in response to the

negative consequences of preceding policies (Pokharel et al., 2005). Therefore, there are

different stages with varying modes of the forest ownership and management schemes.

Hobley & Malla (1996) have classified Nepal’s forest management history into three

important periods, namely privatization (1768-1951A.D); nationalization (1951-1978 A.D)

and populism (1978 A.D onward).

In the context of forest resource management, because of its common nature of ownership

and the subtractive nature of goods and services, people-centered participatory approach has

been raising interest in developing countries like Nepal (Gibson et al., 2004). The Ninth

Forestry Conference held in 1978, government officials, project staff and donor agencies

evaluated the progress and shortcomings of Panchyat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest

and decided user group model of forest management. The outcome of the workshop became

a valuable input to the Master Plan for Forestry Sector (MPFS) which was developed in

1989.

The major policy of forestry sector prepared for 21 years (yr) is to encourage community

participation for forest management by giving the responsibility on it. Guided by MPFS,

along with the establishment of multi-party democracy in 1990, Nepal promulgated Forest

Act, 1993 (HMG, 1993) and Forest Regulation, 1995 (HMG, 1995).Through the series of

restructuring and reformulating policies, Forest Act 1993 and Regulation 1995, being

supported by MPFS, legally commenced a provision that a group of people forming the

CFUG can get a part or parts of the national forest as CF to manage, protect and utilize after

approving the operational plan with district forest office (DFO). It also allocated the 47% of

total budget of the Ministry of Forests for CF and emphasized on the reorientation of

foresters for the new role of facilitation, from the traditional policing to encouraging

participation of local communities in forest management (Shrestha & Nepal, 2003). The CF1

programme, the largest component of the MPFS was explicitly designated to meet the

fundamental requirement; fodder, timber and firewood of people. Those legislations

10

recognized CFUG as an independent local institution for managing CF on an equitable and

sustainable basis. These legal flexibilities have made CF1 as one of the most successful

programme of Nepal (Bhattacharya & Basnyat, 2003). According to Anon (2010) important

characteristics of formal CF1 legislation are:

All accessible forests under national forest can be handed over to users without any

limitation on area, geography and time

Land ownership remains with the state, while the land use rights belong to the

CFUGs

All management decisions (land management and forest management) are made by

the CFUGs

Each member of the CFUG has equal rights over the resources

Each household is recognized as a unit for the membership

CFUGs will not be affected by political boundaries

Outsiders are excluded from access

There are mutually recognized user-rights

There will be an equitable distribution of benefits

The State provides technical assistance and advice

2.3. Aim of Community Forestry in Nepal

Reviewing the history of CF1 for last 30 yrs, Nepal has been successfully applying Nepal’s

forest development strategy and community owned forest management system approach. The

initial objective of CF1 was to improve the relationship between the forests and the local

communities by recognizing their traditional use rights (Niraula &Pokharel, 2004). In fact,

the primary aim of CF1 was greenery expansion and the fulfillment of subsistence level

requirements of forest products of the local communities. It also promotes community rights

to forests, enhances forest sector governance and local democracy along with mitigation of

adverse environmental and climate change effects. Moreover, the approach is instrumental to

organize the people, make a community based institution and implement the forest

management activities based on the collective interest at local level (Chakraborty, 2001). The

approach also provides a common forum for collective action, where people are living near

11

the forests in order to make compatible between livelihood improvement and ecological

conservation in perpetuity.

2.4. Achievements and Challenges in Community Forestry in Nepal

Several impact studies of CF1 across the country have concluded that CF has brought

significant favorable alteration in the socio-economic status of the community (Schereier et

al., 1994). The CFUG committee normally charges a minimum price for the forest products

and collects a community fund from both forestry (mainly firewood, timber and fodder) and

non-forestry sources such as registration fee, membership fee, sanctions and punishment.

Finally, the fund is used for various activities of forest management and community

development aiming at livelihood improvement of user households (Malla, 2000; Pokharel,

2004). CFs has also contributed in road, school, irrigation canal, health post etc which has

caused several direct & indirect positive impacts upon the livelihoods. Furthermore, CF has

brought supportive influences on agriculture production, income and employment generation,

biodiversity conservation, social unity and literacy in society. So, CF1 has brought a change

of great socioeconomic significance in rural society (Branney & Yadav, 1998; Malla, 2000;

Pokharel, 2004; Pokharel et al., 2005).

As a result of devolving managerial rights to user groups, the CF1 programme has had

noteworthy achievements, including forest restoration, social inclusion and representation,

improvement of community infrastructure, rural development, and contributions to poverty

reduction. Barren lands, denuded hills and degraded forestlands have been converted into

productive woodlands (Shanker et al., 2004). Lost greenery is now restored. Forest

management by communities has contributed to environmental improvement, although the

total contribution has not been quantified .With improved forest conditions, the availability

of forest products, local people’s rights of access and the supply of forest products to poorer

households have increased (Gautam et al., 2004). As a result, the time women spend on

collecting firewood as one of their main tasks, has been decreased (Roy, 1999). The

contribution of CF1 to watershed protection, soil erosion control, protection and restoration of

water sources, environmental purification, and a healthier living environment has been

enormous, although additional scientific measurement is still required for real quantification.

The CF has been established as a successful programme to improve the forest condition and

12

livelihood of people (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Chakraborty, 2001; Webb & Gautam, 2001).

Some of the crucial factors for the success of CF1 are dynamic and adaptive nature of the

programme, restructuring and reformulation of policy and devolution of authority to local

communities (Hobley, 1996).

CF1 in Nepal is especially successful in forest conservation (Thoms, 2008; Gautam et al.,

2004, 2002; Yadav et al., 2003). The comparative studies of the forest before and after CF

have shown the better establishment of plantation, regeneration, and faster growth of tree

(Roberts & Gautam, 2003). People are applying their indigenous knowledge to protect, and

manage forest for fulfilling their basic needs which are the primary goals of CF1 (Gilmour

and Fisher, 1991). Some CFUGs are involved in active forest management such as the

establishment of experimental plots to investigate the effect of different silvicultural

treatments and their application in larger scale. As a result, dramatic improvement of forest

after the CF1 programme has been observed. For example, Branney & Yadav (1998) revealed

the increased total number of stems per unit area by 51%, basal area by 29%, increased active

forest management from 3% to 19%. But, most of the CFUGs are protection oriented. They

only remove dead, dying, fallen trees, and leaf litter. Due to such passive management, using

forest just for the subsistence needs, the productivity of the forest is not completely utilized

(Edmonds, 2002; Larsen et al., 2000; Pandit & Thapa, 2004; Yadav et al., 2003; Sowerine

1994; Shrestha, 2000). Therefore, it has been essential and challenging to expedite active

forest management - extracting the overstocked product and enhancing the productivity to the

fullest potentiality of the forest. Forest condition, composition of users groups, decision

making, and access to resources and distribution of benefits are some of the specific

components of CF1 that affect the people’s livelihood (ICIMOD, 2004).

According to Pokharel (2001), Nepal’s CF1 programme contributes to improvement of the

livelihoods of rural people by increasing the resources, through reforming the organizations,

agencies and polices and by facilitating the social changes. Opportunities for livelihood

improvement for the poor have been created at the grassroots through change in forest

management systems (Hobley & Malla, 1996). CFUGs have been able to generate funds

from the sale of forest products, and these funds are being used for forest conservation and

community development (Kanel, 2004; Shrestha, 2004). The studies contend that the CF1

13

programme has been successful in mid-hills of Nepal in improving the socioeconomic

conditions of the people (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001) and the forests (Chakraborty, 2001;

Webb & Gautam, 2001). Several studies showed the strong evidences that after the formation

of the CF there was surplus in firewood, animal bedding, easy availability of fodder and

forage for daily needs. Timber production clearly enhanced the community’s income by

forest for social welfare and development. Similarly, intangible improvements like, women’s

empowerment, social inclusion and harmony reached up the new height (Roy, 1999;

Acharya, 2008; Chapagain & Banjade, 2009).

However, there are plenty of cases that report the negative impact of CF1 programme upon

the livelihoods of poor and forest dependent people (Neupane, 2003; Nightingale, 2003;

Timsina & Paudel, 2003). For instance, Gentle (2000) stated that CF1 programme has

widened the gap between the poor and the rich involved in CF management. Elite groups in

the villages dominate decision-making and often neglect the interest of other people. Forest

condition of most CF is improved after handing of forest to local users, but such forests have

increased contributory burden to poorer households. Poorer households are also not getting

much benefit from community development activities implemented through group funds

(Joshi, 2003). A number of studies have shown that elite members of the society tend to

occupy all the key positions of the executive committee and to make decisions regarding

harvest, product distribution and mobilization of fund (Baral & Subedi, 1999). The ordinary

members of the group were hardly involved in the overall process and had virtually no idea

on harvest and the financial matters of their CFUG (Nightingale, 2002). Consequently, an

unequal distribution of CF benefits in favor of local elite is common in many CFUGs (Brown

et al., 2002; Maharjan, 1998). This variability in CF outcomes indicates an intricate

relationship between CF governance, forest resource status, and livelihood of people.

14

CHAPTER III: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Study Area

Dang is one of the districts of Rapti Zone which is located in Mid-Western Region of Nepal.

The district is surrounded by different geographical structure, starting from 213m asl and

extended up to 2058 m asl and is located between 82° 2’ east to 82° 5’ east longitude and 28°

29’ north to 28° 36’ north latitude. It covers an area of 300338 hectare which is an inner

Terai district with population of 5, 52,583 (CBS, 2011).

Dang has 2 municipalities and 39 VDCs. The two municipalities were Tulsipur and Ghorahi.

Ghorahi, headquarter of Dang is located at 678m asl in height and Tulsipur, headquarter of

Rapti zone located at 663m asl in height. Shantinagar VDC lies in western part of Tulsipur

municipality. The climate is hot and humid. The temperature ranges from 250C to 400C. The

valley is richer in multiple crops but only 32.78% of land is used as agricultural land.

3.1.1. Background of Study Area

Family structures of the community living at the study area are typified with nuclear family.

However some joint families with exceptionally large number of household members were

also found. Santinagar-9 constitutes people of different castes such as Brahmin, Chhetri,

Tharu and Dalit. There were 304 HHs and all these HHs were the members of CFUG.

3.1.2. Background of Community Forest

CF1 programme has been given high priority rather than collaborative and leasehold forests

in the study area. There is no leasehold and collaborative forests in Dang district (DFO,

2013). Approximately 201900 hectares of total land of Dang is covered by forest including

480 CFs. Among 480 CF, Shanti CF lies in Shantinagar VDC, ward no: 9, Jumlekula, Dang

at latitude 28.1489° and longitude 82.204688°. Shanti CF covers an area of 230 ha (MoFSC,

2009) where plantation had been made on 60 ha of the total CF. The forest was registered as

CF in 2057 B.S. and was divided into 4 blocks depending upon the forest density and

dominance. Later on in 2063 these blocks were reconstructed and further divided into 5

blocks for easy access and efficient forest management.

15

Table 1: CF’s local division along with its area and major vegetation

Cluster No. Name of Cluster Area(ha) Major Vegetations

1 Pati khoriya ban 58 Shorea robusta

2 Rati Danda 64 Shorea robusta & Terminalia alata

3 Choti dammar 18 Shorea robusta

4 Lami dammar 33 Shorea robusta & Syzygium cuminii

5 Khoriya ban 57 Shorea robusta & Acacia catechu

( Source: Shanti Community Fores, 2063)

Figure 1: Map showing the study area with distribution of vegetation sample plots

3.2 .Research Design

The study was an explorative research. For primary data both social and vegetation survey

were carried out whereas for secondary data concerning departments and offices, various

published research papers and books were used. For social data using systematic sampling

approach 20% of the HHs were sampled and for vegetation data 40 plots of size 20X20 m2

16

each were laid down with the help of global positioning system (GPS) at an interval of 200m.

Similarly, people’s perceptions were also assessed using FGD, key informant interview. All

the data were recorded and analyzed using computer software MS Excel 2007 and R

software.

Figure 2: Flow chart of research design

Data calculation and Analysis

Result and Discussion

Conclusion and Recommendation

Reconnaissance survey

Consultation and discussion with the supervisor

and CFUG members

Selection of Study Area

Problem Identification

Selection of Study Area:

Easily Accessible Area

Economically Feasible for Study

Data Collection and Methods

Primary Data:

For Vegetation data

Ecological survey

For Social data

Semi-structured questionnaire

FGD with CFUG members

Key informant interview

Secondary Data:

The forest management plans and constitutions of the concern FUGs

CBS data and VDC profile report

Published research papers and concerning departments and offices

L

i

t

e

r

a

t

u

r

e

R

e

v

i

e

w

17

3.3. Methods of Data Collection

3.3.1. Primary Sources

3.3.1.1. Reconnaissance survey

Before the initiation of the survey, a pre- survey of the study area was done in order to collect

the basic information to develop research framework. During the pre-survey visit, feasibility

of the site and general social context of the community was observed and some key persons

related to the study were consulted to get the general information. Consultation and

discussion with the supervisor, CFUG members were also held in order to understand the

biophysical and socioeconomic environment.

3.3.1.2. Socio-Economic Survey

Questionnaire Survey

For the socioeconomic survey, semi-structured questionnaire was used. Out of total 304 HH

number involved in the CFUG, 20% of the HHs were sampled i.e; 60 HHs. Under systematic

sampling approach, HH were selected at an interval of 5 according to the HH number given

by the CF management committee. Questionnaire was prepared in English and translated into

Nepali in order to make understandable to both enumerator and respondents (Annex 1). The

data were coded, categorized and fed into the computer. These data were processed and

statistical analyzes were made with computer software packages, MS Excel 2007 and R

software.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

FGD was conducted with the executive members of the CFUGs as well as other common

users (mainly women users) so as to have knowledge on particular theme or issue such as the

major issues relating the forest, forest management and livelihood improvement of the

CFUGs through forest services.

3.3.1.3. Vegetation Survey:

Following CF inventory guideline (2005), 0.5% of the total study area (1.15 ha or 28 plots)

had to be sampled for vegetation survey but for the best representation and detailed study the

sample numbers were increased to 40 plots of size 20X20 m2 each (0.69% of the total area of

18

the CF i.e.1.6 ha of sample plot area).Systematic sampling approach was used with the help

of GPS at an interval of 200m.

Tree

Plants with diameter greater than 10 cm were taken as trees and were studied in plots of size

20mx20m. In each plot, tree numbers were counted and their height and diameter at breast

height (DBH) were measured. Lopping and other human interferences were also noted in

each plot.

Sapling

Plants with diameter <10 cm and height more than 1 m were considered as sapling. At two

opposite corners (north-west and south-east) of the 20mx20m sampling plots, two square

plots of 5mx5m were made and the numbers of sapling were noted.

Seedling

Seedling included plants with height 30-100 cm .Within the same corner of each 5mx5m

sapling plot, quadratic plots of 1mx1m were established and numbers of seedlings were

counted. 20m

20m

Figure 3: Nested plot design

1m 5m

5m

1m

1m

1m

5m

5m

19

Vegetation Analysis

a. Density (D): Density is the number of individuals per unit area. It represents the numerical

strength of the species in a community.

Density (ind. per ha) = (I/(A x N)) x10000 (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

I= Total number of individuals

A= Area of each sampling plot

N= Total number of plots

Relative Density (R.D): Relative density is defined as the total number of individuals of

species per unit area or per unit volume.

Relative density (%) = (D/T.D) x 100 (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

D= Density of the species

T.D=Total density of all the species

b. Frequency: Frequency is defined as the percentage ratio of number of quadrate in which

species has occurred by the total number of quadrates studied.

Frequency (%) = (E/N) x 100 (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

E= Total no of plots in which species occurred

N= Total no of plots

Relative Frequency: Relative frequency is the frequency of a species in relation to the total

frequency of all the species.

Relative frequency (%) = (F/T.F) x 100 (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

F=Frequency of a species

20

T.F= Total frequency of all species

c. Basal Area:

Basal area (m2) = [(πd2)/4] (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

d (m)= mean diameter at the breast height of individuals of that species

Relative Basal Area:

Relative Basal Area (%) = (B.A/T.B.A) x 100 (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

B.A=Basal area of a species

T.B.A= Total basal area of all species

d.Volume

Volume (m3) = (Grith/4) ^2/l

Where,

Grith =2 π r or π d (m)

l= Height of a tree (m)

e. Important Value Index (IVI): It is a vegetational importance within a study area or stand.

It provides quantitative basis for the classification of community.

IVI (%) = R.D+R.F+R.B.A (Curtice, 1959)

Where,

R.D (%) = Relative Density

R.F (%) = Relative Frequency

R.B.A (%) = Relative basal area

f. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index: The Shannon’s-Weiner diversity index of general

diversity (H) is an overall index of diversity. Mathematically,

21

H = -∑ [(ni/N) log (ni/N)] (Shannon-Wiener, 1963)

Where, ni /N = proportion of the individual tree of a species with total number of individuals

trees of all species in the community

g. Species Evenness: Species Evenness (E) is the distribution of individuals among the

species. Evenness is a maximum when all the species have same or nearly equal number of

individuals.

E=H/log S (Yadav et al., 1987)

Where,

H=Shannon index

S= No of species

Hmax= log S

3.3.2. Secondary Sources

The secondary data of socio economic and demographic were collected from national census

report (CBS, 2011) and VDC profile of Shantinagar VDC. Likewise the secondary data of

the CF was collected from FUGs office and district forest office (DFO) of Dang district.

Other relevant and supporting literatures were collected from various publications like books,

articles, papers and journals.

22

CHAPTER IV: RESULT

4.1 Socio-economic Status of CFUG

4.1.1. General Demographic Information

Respondent age varied from 16 yrs to 77 but most of them (90%) were between 30 to 50 yrs.

Male respondent were 61.7% whereas 38.3 % were female respondent. Agriculture was

major occupation, 90% of the respondents were predominantly farmers. Among remaining,

6.7% were students and 3.3% go for foreign employment. The total population was 365 with

174 male and 191 female. Average male population was 2.55 (±1.59) and mean female

population was 2.78(±2.10). Average family size was 5.33(±3.82). Out of 60 sampled HHs,

77% were Chhetri, 13% of Janjati ,7% Dalit and only 3% were Brahmin. Literate population

was 51.49% of which male occupied 30.4% and female as 21.09 %.

4.1.2. HH Infrastructure

All the respondents had their own house of which almost 85% of HHs were constructed with

brick/stone- mud (wooden pillared) and 15% with the combination of cement and bricks.

Similarly, 63% of the sampled HHs had a tile roof and 27% had roof type of corrugated

plate. 82% of HHs had mud floor and 18% had cemented floors (Figure 4).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4: HH’s physical structure type a: Construction material b: Roofing material

c: Flooring material

0102030405060708090

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

010203040506070

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

0102030405060708090

Mud Cement

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

23

4.1.3. Financial Status

4.1.3.1. Sources of HH Income

The major income sources of studied area were agriculture, native employment (government

services), business, foreign employment and livestock rearing (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Major income source of studied CFUG’s HHs

The total average annual income of each HHs was NRs 215333 (±124784), the highest

income was from foreign employment i.e. 83000 (±115938) and the lowest income was from

native employment i.e. 6000(±21169) (Table 2).

Table 2: Various sectors of family income with average amount

SN Family income (NRs) Mean± sd t-test value Df

1 Agriculture 73583.33±55150.73 -8.0481* 81.203

2 Native employment 6000±21169.2 -12.8113* 62.393

3 Foreign employment 83000±115938.3 -6.018* 117.368

4 Business 20000±55326.46 -11.0846* 81.334

5 Livestock 32750±23907.04 -11.2066* 63.355

Total income 215333.3±124784.1

Significant=* at 95%

Of the total average annual income, 45% was from foreign employment, 35% was from

agriculture, 10% was from business and 5% was from livestock and native employment

respectively.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agriculture Business Nativeemployment

Foreignemployment

Liveestock

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

24

4.1.3.2. HH Expenditure

The total average annual expenditure of each HHs was NRs 143300 (±65811.76), of which

the highest expenditure was for food i.e. 58333.33±26627.8 and the lowest was for energy

i.e.7783.33 (±6832.355) (Table 3).

Table 3: Average sector wise family expenditure

SN HH expenditure (NRs) Mean± sd t-test value Df

1 Food Expenditure 58333.33±26627.8 -9.3016 * 77.871

2 Health Expenditure 28600±23071.15 -12.7769 * 73.331

3 Education Expenditure 35483.33±39461.84 -10.9132 * 96.663

4 Energy Expenditure 7783.33±6832.355 -15.8921 * 60.249

5 Other Expenditure 13100±19817.77 -14.7142 * 69.647


4.1.3.3. Income Sufficiency Before and After CF Establishment

Before the establishment of the CF, it was found that 63% had the income sufficient for the

yr, 31.66% had for 9-11 months, 3.33% had for 6-8 months and 1.66% had for less than 6

months. After the establishment of the CF, 93.33% had the income sufficient for the whole

yr, 5% had for 9-11 months, and 1.66% had for 6-8 months (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Income sufficiency before and after CF establishment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All the year

round

9-11 months 6-8months less than 6

months

Fre

qu

ency

(%

)

Income before CF Income after CF

25

4.1.4. Agriculture

Agriculture was widely spread occupation for all surveyed HHs and involvement was found

to be 100% where 80% had traditional agriculture practice, 13% had sedentary agriculture

practice and remaining 7% had commercial agriculture practice. Major crops grown were

rice, maize, mustard, wheat, lentil and potato and vegetables (Table 4). Vegetables were

mostly cultivated for HH consumption. Average irrigated land called “Khet” holding per HH

was found to be 3.64 ha with average of 2757.333 kg of annual rice production. Similarly,

non irrigated land called “Bari” holding was found to be 3.08 ha with an average annual

production of 533.33 kg of maize. In general majority of the HH owned their personal land,

whereas land renting-in was also prominent for cultivation practice (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Status of land ownership of the HHs

Table 4: Average annual production of major crops

Rice Maize Wheat Mustard Lentil Potato

Average area (ha) 3.64 3.08 1.72 2.82 1.487 0.268

Production (kg) 2757.33 533.33 497.33 349.33 146.66 116.66

In agriculture practices, none of the HHs used only organic fertilizer, 32% used inorganic

fertilizer, whereas 68% used both fertilizers (organic and inorganic). Out of sampled HHs,

55% had agriculture production sufficient throughout the yr (Annex 4). In context with the

change in agriculture system after the establishment of CF, 90% agreed that there was not

any change in agriculture system whereas a few 10% agreed that there was change in

agriculture system after the establishment of CF (Figure 8).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Khet Bari

Fre

qu

ency

(%

)

Own land Rented in

26

Figure 8: Change in perception on agriculture system after the establishment of CF

4.1.5. Livestock Status

Major livestock reared were cows, buffalos, oxen, goats followed by pigs. In the studied

community, 95% rear livestock .The total livestock unit (LU) in the community was 73.43

(mean LU=1.22±0.98). Less LU was more frequent than higher LU (Figure 9).

(Note: For Livestock Conversion factor, annex 2)

Figure 9: Histogram of livestock unit

0102030405060708090

100

Traditional to

sedentary

Sedentary to

commercial

No change

Fre

qu

ency

(%

)

27

Figure 10: Contribution of livestock in income generation

Goats got first ranked and oxen got second ranked as most preferred income generating

livestock species (Figure 10) and there was a significant association between first ranked

livestock and second ranked livestock (χ2 value=60.99, Df=24, p=<0.05).

Figure 11: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between LU and income amount

28

There was no significant relation between total LU and total income whereas significant

relation between total LU and livestock income and total income and livestock income was

observed (Annex 6).

None of the HHs agreed that the livestock number had increased after the establishment of

CF. Livestock change after CF and their causes are as follows:

Table 5: Change in livestock status after CF and their reason

SN Livestock Livestock change

(Respondents %)

Livestock change cause (Respondents %)

Same Decreased Decrease in fodder Lack of manpower No benefit

1 Cow 45 55 18 37 0

2 Buffalo 36.66 63.34 28.92 34.42 0

3 Ox 50.8 49.2 21.34 27.86 0

4 Goat 34.42 65.58 31.14 32.78 1.66

5 Pig 91.77 8.23 0 4.96 3.27

6 Poultry 88.52 11.48 0 8.21 3.27

4.1.6. Water Resources and Sanitation

4.1.6.1. Water Resource

The main source of drinking water was public tap and the availability was throughout the yr.

For livestock, 51% used public tap and small scale irrigation for home garden while 48.3%

used stream water for livestock. Out of the sampled HHs, 54.09% agreed that there was

increase in drinking water availability after CF establishment and 45.9% expressed that it

was same after the handover of CF. Besides rain-fed irrigation, surface water irrigation was

available for 6-8 months and it was same after the establishment of the CF programme also

which was claimed by 57.37% of the respondents.

4.1.6.2. Sanitation

Before the establishment of CF, 75% had open latrine, 18% had simple latrine and only 7%

had septic tank latrine whereas after the establishment of CF 93% had septic tank latrine

(Figure 12).

29

Figure 12: Change in sanitation before and after the establishment of CF

Out of the sampled HHs, 34.42% agreed that there was improvement in personal hygiene

after CF programme, 63.93% agreed that there was only improvement in village sanitation

whereas 1.69% agreed that there was improvement in drinking water quality

4.2. Forest Product Dependency and Contribution of CF

4.2.1. Fodder Sources

About 6.66% reported that they didn’t rear livestock and those who kept livestock, they stall

feed them. About 85.24% was dependent on private land for ground grass and about 8.19%

on CF. Similarly, for forage about 65.57% was dependent on private land, 14.7% on CF and

about 13.1% on private as well as CF. Similarly for fodder, about 63.93% depended on

private land and 29.50% on CF as well as private land (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Contribution of sources on available livestock feeding

0

20

40

60

80

100

Open Simple latrine Septic tank latrine

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

Before CF After CF

0102030405060708090

Groundgrass source Forage source Fodder source

Fre

qu

ency

(%

)

CF Private land Private land+CF

30

The total LU in the studied area was 73.43 and the total fodder required for this LU was

117.488 metric ton per year. But in the forest the total volume of available fodder species

was 2038.168 metric ton. Analyzing with the LU required fodder, this volume was sufficient

for 1273.85 LU (Table 6).

Table 6: Available volume of fodder species in the studied forest and LU sustained

S.N Primary data (2070)

Volume of fodder species

per ha (m3)

Volume of fodder species

per ha( in metric ton)

LU value as per

volume

Block 1 (58) 9.55 11.05 6.90625

Block 2 (64) 29.43 25.53 15.95625

Block 3 (18) 2.15 1.038 0.64875

Block 4 (33) 3.89 2.62 1.6375

Block 5 (57) 6.03 4.07 2.54375

Average 10.21 8.8616 5.5385

Note: 1m3=2.41 metric ton, 1 LU needs 1.6 metric ton fodder per yr (GoN, 2071). As Sal was

not considered as first preferred fodder species, its volume was excluded. They used it in

fodder deficient condition only.

Major plant species preferred by the local people for their livestock were Leuceana

leucocephala (Epil-epil), Terminalia alata (Saaj), Shorea robusta (Sal ) etc (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Livestock preferred plant species

31

Decreasing trend in availability of fodder, forage and grass resources were reported by the

majority (>50%) of the HHs after CF establishment (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Trend of fodder, forage and grass availability after CF establishment

4.2.2. Energy

Most of the energy demand was primarily fulfilled by firewood followed by electricity,

kerosene, animal dung, LPG and solar panel. Among surveyed HHs, 96.7% used firewood to

meet their energy need. Total average annual firewood consumption was 1368±436.47

kg/yr/HHs and average amount of firewood provided by the CF was 300(kg/yr/HHs).

However, the use of firewood among household varied significantly (p<0.001) and only

31.60% of firewood demand was found to be fulfilled by the CF and the rest were from

private land (63.3%) and market (1.60%). The use of firewood and use of agriculture residue

for energy was found to be associated to each other (χ2= 7.1253, p = 0.1294) while other

energy sources didn’t have any influence in firewood consumption as energy source.

Table 7: Energy source and their average quantity of consumption

Energy Source Firewood Agri. Residue Kerosene LPG Livestock Dung

Avg. Amount 1318.5 kg 23.66667 kg 2.1Lt 0.05 15.5 kg

Major plant species preferred by the local people from CF for firewood were Shorea robusta,

Terminalia alata, Dalbergia sisso, Lagerstroemia indica, Syzygium cumini and Lagerstroemia

parviflora (Annex 12).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Increased Decreased Same Don't Know

Fre

qu

ency

(%

)

Groundgrass Forest fodder Forage

32

4.2.3. Development in Infrastructure

The average annual revenue collected from the CF was Rs. 3, 00,000 and has invested this

revenue in various development activities such as education, road, irrigation canals, and

community infrastructure such as sanitation and in drinking water supply. Increase in

environment quality, increase in public awareness about forest conservation and development

in community physical infrastructure were supported by the CF (Figure 16). CF has

established one school in Shantinagar-9 and had constructed several public drinking water

taps in the community.

Figure 16: Social change in community after the establishment of CF

4.2.4. Social Exposure and Harmony

CF committee had also helped in maintaining the social harmony among the villagers. Small

scale social conflicts were resolved within the community by the facilitation of community

forest users committee (CFUC). At the same time, CFUC played a vital role on decision

making on various development activities of the community. Even CFUC provided loans for

the CFUG’s members at low interest. In the context with the women’s empowerment,

80.32% reported that CF1 programme had not directly contributed in any women’s

empowerment activities whereas 19.67% reported that CF had contributed indirectly by

reducing pressure at work.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Environment changes Increased awareness Increased rural

infrastructure

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

33

4.3 Diversity, Regeneration and Management of CF

4.3.1. Structural Parameter

4.3.1.1. Trees

There were 17 different species of trees with tree density 483.75 ind/ha. Shannon-Weiner

diversity index(H) was found to be 0.48 and eveness index(E) was found to be 0.39 of the

CF. Tree species with maximum density 365.63 ind/ha, frequency 97.5%, basal area 20.37

m2/ha and IVI 196.01 was Shorea robusta which was followed by Dalbergia with IVI value

17.33. Similarly, tree species with minimum density 0.63ind/ha, frequency 2.5%, basal area

0.01 m2/ha and IVI 0.98 was Korikat (Annex 7).

Volume of Sal per ha in each block has changed between the yr 2063 B.S to 2071 B.S which

is shown in Table 8. When the volume of Sal of 2063 was converted into monetary value at

national rate, the average price became Rs 28976.651 per ha. Similarly when the volume of

Sal of 2071 was converted into monetary value at national rate the average price became Rs

150566.104 per ha (Table 8).

Table 8: Change in volume of Sal per ha and its estimated wood price

SN Secondary data (2063 B.S) Primary data (2070 B.S)

Volume of Sal

per ha(m3)

Wood Price of Sal

(Rs 533 per m3)

Volume of Sal

per ha (m3)

Wood Price of Sal

(Rs 533 per m3)

Block 1 (58) 71.93 38338.69 247.6 131970.8

Block 2 (64) 48.609 25908.597 322.72 172009.76

Block 3 (18) 52.204 27824.732 382.6 203925.8

Block 4 (33) 87.57 46674.81 37.6 20040.8

Block 5 (57) 11.513 6136.429 421.92 224883.36

Total 54.3652 28976.6516 282.488 150566.104

(Note: The price for different class of Sal is different (Class A= 800, Class B= 500 and Class

C=300) according to national data (GoN, 2069). In the present study Sal was not classed as

first, second and third class so the average price (Rs 533) was considered as a standard

price).

34

4.3.1.2. Sapling

There were 26 plant species found with total density of 2600 ind/ ha. Among them Shorea

robusta was the most common sapling having highest density of 1250 ind/ha, frequency

97.75% and the lowest sapling density were of Mangifera indica, Bauhinia purpurea,

Garuga pinnata with density 5 ind/ha, and frequency 1.25% (Annex 8). Similarly, sapling

Shannon-Weiner diversity index was 0.91 and eveness index was 1.41.

4.3.1.3. Seedling

In total sampled plots, 9 different tree’s seedlings were found. Among them Shorea robusta

had the highest density 32750 ind/ ha and frequency 97.75%.The lowest seedling density

were of Psidium guajava with density 125 ind/ha and frequency 1.25% and Mallotus

philipensis, Xeromplis spinosa with density 250 ind/ha and frequency 2.5% and 1.25%

respectively (Annex 9). Similarly Shannon-Weiner diversity index was 0.231and evenness

index was 0.95.

4.3.1.4. Tree Density and Mean DBH

Tree density was found to be in increasing trend with decreasing trend of mean DBH

(23.1cm) of trees in the CF, linear equation with intercept 390.086 and slope= -6.336 was

observed (Figure 17).

35

Figure 17: Graphical presentation of tree density and mean DBH with linear trend line

4.3.2. Regeneration Status

Sapling-seedling ratio was found to be 1.76 in studied area whereas ratio between trees and

saplings was lower than trees and seedlings (Table 9).

Table 9: Seedling-sapling-tree ratio

Tree: Sapling Tree :Seedling Sapling :Seedling

1.488461538 2.632653061 1.768707483

4.3.2.1. Cut Stumps

The forest was undisturbed at most of the inner regions however grazing and falling of trees

were noticed at the edge of forest near settlement area. Among all studied plots, total density

of cut stumps was found to be 38.75 ind/ ha. Highest number of cut stumps was of Shorea

robusta(71%) (Figure 18) with cut stump density as 27.5 ind/ha and the lowest were of

Syzygium cumini and Lagerstroemia parviflora both having stump density as 1.25 ind/ha

(Annex 10).

Figure 18: Frequency of different tree species among total cut stumps

4.3.2.2. Problems of Weeds and Invasive Species in CF

Unwanted forest weeds and invasive natured species such as Karauti (Cyperus cyperoides),

Gande jhar (Lantena camera) and patpate (Gaultheria fragrantissima) were observed with

wide range of distribution and having dense understory coverage in the forest. Although

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Shorea robusta Acacia catechu Syzgiumcuminii

Dalbergiasissoo

Lagestromiaparviflora

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

36

29.78 % of the respondents reported that there was no use of those weeds but 37.70%

reported that they used those weeds as animal bedding, 14.5% used as bio-fencing, 13.11%

used them for green manure making and 4.91% used them as firing material after drying.

4.3.3. CF Management and Perception

4.3.3.1. Access to Forest Resources and Benefits Sharing

Like other CFs, Shanti CF had also formed a 13 member CFUC and had made certain rule on

access and collection of forest products like restriction on the collection of firewood, fodder,

timber and NTFPs. For timber, CFUC gave permission only to those users that had suffered

from natural calamities or those who had separated from family and needs to build their own

home only after paying charge. Moreover CF management sold timbers only outside of the

village because they fixed rates for other members higher than the CFUGs. For firewood,

they were allowed to collect once a yr only after paying for it. For fodder, forage and ground

grass they were allowed twice a yr after paying for it. For those who did not follow the rules

made by the committee they were fined.

Regarding the perception of the respondent, 58.33% agreed that the main harvested forest

product was timber, 31.66% agreed for fodder and 10% agreed for firewood. All the users

practice collective harvesting for green firewood in CF. All harvested products were

distributed equally among the CFUGs members participating in the harvesting activities after

paying for it under the rule and regulation made by the CFUC. The prescribed price of the

forest products for the poor and the rich people was same due to which it’s very difficult for

the poor people to purchase the forest products.

Aggregating the perception of the respondent, 55.73% reported that there was poaching in

CF whereas 44.26% reported that there was no poaching in CF. Similarly,78.68% agreed that

none of the CFUC member can use the CF for personal use whereas 21.31% reported that

CFUC member can use CF for personal use.

4.3.3.2. Participation in Decision Making

The participation of different social groups in the FUG meetings was not uniform across

different castes and gender. In general, participations from women and lower castes are much

37

lower in comparison to women and so called higher caste men. Analysis of the composition

of CFUC revealed that it was dominated by high- caste and male members (Table 10).

Table 10: Representation of different ethnic groups and gender in existing CFUC

Ethnicity Gender Total

Brahmin and Chhetri Others Men Women

13 - 12 1 13

4.3.3.3. People’s Perception on CF

Before the establishment of CF, respondent collected the forest products at their own time

and anywhere into the forest but after CF establishment and formation of the management

committee, the time schedule and rules for the collection of forest products were made. Out

of sampled HHs, 40% expressed that the CF had limited the community in preferred products

collection, 24.59% expressed that it had limited the free access to the forest, 18.03%

expressed that there had occurred social conflict on resource use whereas 16.39% agreed that

there was no any disadvantage of CF programme. In context with the harvesting system of

forest products, 72.13% agreed that harvesting was sustainable whereas 27.86% didn’t agree.

To make the CF sustainable, 62% agreed that they should use alternative source of energy

such as biogas, solar energy etc, 21.31% agreed that they should protect CF in its original

state and 16.39% agreed that they should plant more trees in CF.

To increase the forest income, 55.73% agreed that CFUC must increase the selling of timber,

27.86% agreed that there should be the selling of Shorea robusta leaf as it was Shorea

robusta dominated forest and 16.39% agreed that CFUC should do marketing of the

medicinal plant that are present in the forest. Out of the sampled HHs, 61.7% reported that

their time for collecting forest products had been saved. As the CFUC limited the access to

the forest, daily time spent was saved. Average annual saved days was 14.25 days per

household. If that saved days per year was converted into monetary value of wage at local

rate (Rs 400 per day) it was equivalent to average 5700 per year. Most of the HHs (38.66%)

had utilized this time in doing their own HHs activities, rearing the livestock (26.33%) and a

few had spent it on educational activity (8.33%).

38

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

5.1. Socio-economic Context

In the studied area average family size was 5.33 which was greater in value than national

average as 4.11 (CBS, 2011). Compare to the national literacy percentage (65.9%), the

studied area had less literacy percentage indicating low opportunity to schooling the people.

As HHs infrastructures and sanitation facilities of the houses indicates the well being of the

family, 85% of the houses were constructed with brick/stone- mud (wooden pillared) which

was more than national average of 41.38% and15% by cement and bricks combination less

than national average data (CBS, 2011). Data (Figure 4) showed that the studied area still

needed timbers from forest for new construction and maintenance of HHs structure because

majority of HHs were traditional type and the tradition still persists. Compared to the

national sanitation data (CBS, 2011) 61.9% of houses had toilets indicating that the studied

area was conscious about sanitation because CFUC promoted the CF users to build toilets

with providing them timbers and financial support. CF also invested its revenue in building

drinking water infrastructure and sanitation. The studied community was getting better

facilities than before. Similar findings were supported by Malla (2000) and Pokharel et al.

(2005).

Although several researchers concluded that the CF had contributed to improve agricultural

production and farming system (Branney & Yadhav, 1998; Pokharel, 2004), the conclusion

did not seem tallied with the present research work (Figure 8). In the studied area, 90% of the

respondent reported no changes on agricultural system even after CF1 programme. Study

showed that 90% of the houses were involved in agriculture but the highest income received

was from foreign employment (Figure 5), 37.6% of the families of the studied area were fully

dependent upon it whereas 34.3% of HHs was dependent on agricultural income. In recent

years foreign employment had emerged out as an income source, 58.3% of HH members of

sampled HHs were outside from the country for foreign employment. In terms of monetary

benefits average income from foreign employment was greater than other employments

hence the attraction was increasing in this sector (Table 2). Income sufficiency was one of

the key indicator of HHs well being, the community had improving trend in income

sufficiency from the benchmark of CF establishment (Figure 6). This might be due to

39

increase in foreign employment or the huge output from the remittance. Similar result was

also found by (Roy, 1999).

5.2. Forest Product Dependency and Contribution of CF

About livestock, 95% of HHs rear them for domestic purpose and in terms of income

generation, respondents ranked goat, ox and hens as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively (Figure 10).

But inspite of being good income generating source, from the social data and the FGD, it

showed that there was decrease in LU after CF programme whereas from the vegetation data

analysis it showed that the forest fodder was still sufficient for 1156.362 LU (Table 6). It

reflected that CF was poor enough to supply livestock’s feed. Less LU needs less fodder.

Higher frequency of low LU valued species indicated that community farm less

fodder/forage demanding species so that they can feed from their private lands or from

agricultural lands (Figure 9). The decrease in LU was due to decrease in workable manpower

and restricted access to CF might also be the hidden cause for decreasing LU which was also

supported by Table 5. Similar result was also found by Roy (1999). The off farm sources of

income as a major source of income for livelihood had to be focused with due importance. It

would reduce forest dependency and the pressure in forest resources.

According to social data and FGD, there was restricted access to the forest and the paying

system for forest products was applied after CF programme. Therefore, people were

compelled to plant trees on their private land so they could fulfill the demand of some forest

products. So for the fodder and firewood, community was heavily dependent upon private

land than the CF.

Sal is one of the best tree species for timber. The volume of Sal per ha had increased and the

earning from Sal had increased between the yr 2063 to 2071. The increment in Sal volume

might be due to effective forest management practice or they were more focused on timber

production. They have also protected Sal as it was a great source of revenue. In terms of

forest revenue collection, CF seemed to be successful in collecting revenue in increasing

trend from timber production which would be beneficial for efficient forest management as

well as CFUG if used properly. Because CF needs to invest its 25% income on forest

management and rest in community development purposes (Gautam et al., 2004). CFUGs

40

had been able to generate funds also from other sources such as registration fee, membership

fee, sanctions and punishment fee. Though the amount of income generated by FUGs varies

widely and depends on the size, condition and type of forest (Malla, 2000), the studied site

was engaged in wider infrastructure development which was appreciated by all villagers and

showed positive attitude towards CF programme. Above findings were consistent with

several research findings like Chakraborty (2001), Webb and Gautam (2001), Thomas

(2008), Kanel (2004), Shrestha, (2004).

5.3. Diversity, Regeneration and Management of CF

Forest was observed as even aged forest because majority of the tree’s DBH was in small

range (Figure 17). From the aspect of density and frequency observed it showed that the

forest was Shorea robusta dominated. Comparing the basal area values Shorea robusta had

remarkable high value than other species in the forest. It was obvious that it was Shorea

dominated forest but other factors also influenced the value such as, having high timber value

of Shorea robusta tree CFUGs gave priority to conserve up to older age rather than other

species which was also supported by the result found by Acharya et. al., 2002.

IVI data obtained clearly proved that Shorea robusta appeared as the most dominant species

in the forest with the major role in the forest ecosystem (Annex 5). CF management had

given more emphasis to maintain timber producing tree species rather than species that are

preferred for forage and fodder (Annex 11) production which reduces potentiality of the

forest to give diverse services to the users. Similar result was also mentioned in the study

done by Gautam et al., 2010.

Species diversity is a function of the number of species in a particular area. As the Shannon-

Weiner diversity index of the sapling (1.95) was high we can say that the sapling species

were highly diversified than that of trees (1.04) and seedling (0.45). As Shorea robusta was

the dominant species in the forest, this might have dominated other species (Gautam et al.,

2010). Analyzing the total densities and frequencies of the trees, sapling and seedling of the

forest (Annex 7, 8, 9), the forest was not mature; it was in the state of regeneration and was

also verified by homogenous DBH size of the trees (Figure 17). There may be also another

41

factor that was the mode of use of the trees may be high because of which the density of trees

in the forest was low as compared to the density of sapling and seedling.

Number of cut stumps in the forest indicates the harvesting process and human disturbances.

Most of the cut stumps were mainly harvested for timber production and firewood

production. Hence these species are bearing the pressure of consumption. In terms of timber

production and current trend of utilization, CF seemed to be sustainable because seedling and

sapling, trees density and current IVI of major harvested trees were well maintained.

One of the underlying reasons for the limited supply of forest products like firewood and

fodder from CF was the protection-oriented approach of the forest management adopted by

the CFUC (Pandit & Thapa, 2004; Yadav et al., 2003). Past studies from similar ecological

and socioeconomic setting in Nepal have reported that once the CGUC take over the

management responsibility of the forest, they establish simple but usually conservative

management rules and limited harvests by area, quality of product or by timer of a year

(Branney, 1998; Neupane, 2003). Observing the studied area, the CFUC had also adopted the

same strategy. This approach negatively affects marginalized members of the community,

particularly poor HHs because there would be less opportunity for them to supplement the

restricted forest products from their own private land. This eventually results in more

inequity within community and could also be a potential threat to the long term sustainability

of the programme. This may be due to a limited knowledge about the actual yields and

responses of forest to intervention and result of concerns of FUGs about risk of degrading the

resource (Neupane, 2003).

Limited access and paying system for forest products applied after CF programme had

reduced the frequency of visit to the forest and leaded to decrease in collection of forest

products. Reduction on daily time spent for forest product collection, especially women’s

lifestyle had became easier than before, similar findings was supported by Gautam et al.,

2004. This could be helpful for the users, most of them have utilized their saved time in

doing their own HH activities and some have utilized in livestock rearing.

There was equal distribution of the forest products among users during harvesting period

which was opposite of study done by several researchers (Chakraborty, 2001; Malla, 2000;

42

Harper & Tarnowski, 2003). The prescribed price of the forest products for the poor and the

rich people was same due to which it was very difficult for the poor people to purchase the

forest products. Similarly the participation of different social groups in the CFUC was not

uniform across different castes and gender (Table 10). Above findings reiterate the general

perception prevalent among scholars that the opportunity for socially marginalized people to

be involved in community decision making is not being realized in practice (Luitel, 2006). In

general, women and lower castes participations were much lower as compared to higher caste

men. The elite groups mostly dominate decisions of the CFUC and the disadvantages groups

within the communities suffer the most since they cannot afford to participate, are unable to

speak out, and are rarely heard when they do (Adhikari et. al, 2003). Thus, supporting poor

and disadvantaged groups for their livelihood subsistence was a big challenge in the studied

area.

43

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion

The studied community was livestock integrated agrarian community. In recent years,

community had more access to diverse income sources like foreign employment, native

employment and business besides traditional source of income like livestock and agriculture.

CF was found as a supplementary source of forest products. CF1 programme was found

successful in contributing community development activities especially in terms of physical

assets development inside the community.

Analyzing the existing diversity status of trees and seedling-sapling diversity, CF found to be

in threat of loss of biodiversity because other non timber producing trees were getting least

priorities on conservation approach. CF was more focused on timber producing activity

rather than meeting the need of fodder, forage and firewood of local communities and

maintaining the biodiversity of the forest. But looking the hidden sort comings of CFUC,

decision making process was generally controlled by elite members of the CFUGs.

Moreover, the current forest products harvesting and distribution systems seems to be

unfavorable to the poorer HHs and socially disadvantaged groups because of equal paying

system. Similarly, studied CF was weak in the aspect of social inclusion and women’s

empowerment.

In aggregate, Shantinagar CF1 programme was successful in improving physical, financial

and natural assets rather than human and social assets. Users were found greatly positive to

CF1 programme despite of having limited and free access because of its multidimensional

benefit from revenue and well maintained forest stand. Forest was conserved but lack of

scientific management, ignorance to NTFPs and least knowledge about importance of

biodiversity maintenance were the technical short comings.

6.2. Recommendations

1. CF management should consider using the forest as a source for income generation

through commercial forestry and utilization of other forest products and services as well.

2. Conservation and harvesting of forest products should comply with the user’s preference.

44

3. Biodiversity should be maintained, priority should be given to least dominant species

besides timber producing major tree species.

4. Unscientific removal of understory coverage and cleaning of weeds should be regulated to

avoid biodiversity loss and sustainability of forest ecosystem.

6. Increasing participation of women and other disadvantages groups in decision making

activities is necessary

7. CF should promote livestock farming because of its huge potential of fodder in the forest.

45

REFERENCES

Acharya, K.P. (2002). Twenty-Four Years of Community Forestry in Nepal, International

Forestry Review 4(2):149-156

Acharya, K.P., Tamrakar, P.R., Gautam, G., Regmi, R., Adhikari, A. and Acharya, B. (2002).

Managing tropical sal forests (Shorea robusta) of Nepal in short rotations: findings of a 12-

year long research, Banko Janakari, 12(1): 71-75

Acharya, K.P. (2008). Forest Tenure Regimes and Their Impact on Livelihoods in Nepal.

Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 7(1): 6-18

Adhikary, J.N. and Ghimire, S. (2003). Bibliography of environmental justice (Nepali

Version), Martin Chautari and Social Development and Research Centre, Kathmandu

Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in

resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society 29: 485–514

Anglesen, A. and Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the Forest- Poverty Link: Key concepts,

Issues and Research Implications. CIFOR Occasional paper no 40.CIFOR, Indonesia

Anon (2004). Summary: Social and geographical audit of six hills districts of Livelihoods

Forestry Programme, LFP, Kathmandu

Anon (2010). Community Forest Constitution, Lalitpur: Patale Community Forest User

Group, Lalitpur Nepal

Baral, J.C. and Subedi, B.R. (1999). Is community forestry of Nepal’s Terai in right

direction? Banko Janakari 9 (2): 20-2

Bhattacharya, A.K. and Basnyat, B. (2003). An analytical study of operational plans and

constitution of Community Forests User Groups at Nepal’s Western Terai. Banko Jankari

13(1): 3-14

46

Bhattarai, A.M. and Khanal, D.R. (2005). Communities, Forests and Law of Nepal: Present

State and Challenges. Published by Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal, Forum for

Protection of Public Interests, and Centre for International Environmental Law, 2005.

Branney, P. and Yadav, K.P. (1998). Changes in Community Forestry Condition and

Management 1994-98: Analysis of Information for the Forest Resource Assessment Study

and Socio-Economic Study of the Koshi Hills. Project report G/NUKCFP/32, NUKCFP,

Kathmandu, Nepal

Brown, D. K., Shreckenberg, Shepherd, G. and Wells, A. (2002). Forestry as an entry point

for governance reform, Overseas Development Institute, Forestry briefing, No. 2.

CBS (2011). National Population and Housing Census 2011(Village Development

Committee/Municipality). National Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu, Nepal

Chakraborty, R.N. (2001). Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in

forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal. Ecological Economics 36: 341–353

Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1991). Sustainable Rural livelihoods: Practical concepts

for the 21 st century. Discussion paper 296, Institute for development studies (IDS),

University of Sussex: Brighton.

Chapagain, N. and Banjade, M. R. (2009). Community Forestry and Local Development:

Experiences from the Koshi Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 8(2), 78-92.

Chaulagain, R.P. (2005). Dynamics of forest user group governance. A research thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of master in environment

science, Tribhuvan University.

Curtice, J. (1959). The Vegetation of Wisconsin: an ordination of plant communities,

Madison, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press.

Das, N. (2010). Incidence of forest income on reduction of inequality: evidence from forest

dependent households in milieu of joint forest management. Ecological Economics 69:–16-

25.

47

DFID (1999). Sustainable Livelihood Guide Sheet. Retrieved October 10, 2013 from

http://www.eldis.org/go/llivelihoods/

Edmonds, E.V. (2002). Government-initiated community resource management and local

resource extraction from Nepal’s forests. Journal of Development Economics 68(1):89-115

FAO (1978). Forestry: the Jakarta declaration (eight world forestry congress, October 1978)

FAO (2003a). FAO statistics database on the world wide web. Retrieved November 25, 2014

from http://apps.fao.org/

Gautam, A.P., Shivakoti ,G.P. and Webb, E.L. (2004). Forest cover change, physiography,

local economy and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environmenal

Management 33(1):48-61

Gautam, S.K. , Pokharel, Y.P., Goutam, K.R, Khanal, S. and Giri, R.K. (2010). Forest

structure in the Far Western Terai of Nepal: Implications for management. Banko Janakari,

Vol. 20, No. 2

Gentle, P. (2000). The flow and distribution of community forestry benefits: A case study

from Pyuthan District, Nepal. A research thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the degree of master of forestry science in the University of Canterbury,

Newzealand.

Gibson, C.C., Williams, J.T. and Ostrom, E. (2004). Local enforcement and better forests.

World Development.

GoN (2069). Forest Act 2049 and Forest Regulation 2051, Ministry of Forest and Soil

Conservation, Department of Forestry.

GoN (2071). “Guidelines to prepare animal feed balance situation”, Ministry of Agriculture

Development, Animal Service Department, Hriharbhawan, Lalitpur.

HMG (1993). Forest Act 1993. HMGN Kathmandu, Nepal.

HMG (1995). Forest By-Laws. HMGN Kathmandu, Nepal.

http://apps.fao.org/

48

Hobley, M. and Malla, Y.B. (1996). From the Forests to Forestry- The Three Ages of

Forestry in Nepal: privatization, nationalization, and populism. In pp.65-82. M.Hobley (ed)

Participatory Forestry: The process of Change in India and Nepal. ODI, London

Harper, I. and Tarnowski, C. (2003). A heterotopia of resistance: Health, community forestry

and challenges to state centralisation in Nepal. In D. Gellner (ed.), Resistance and the State:

Nepalese Experiences. 79-92. Delhi: Social Science Press.

ICIMOD (2004). Biodiversity and livelihoods in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan Region.

International Centre for Intergated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Newsletter No.45

ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Joshi, M.R. (2003). Community Forestry Programs in Nepal and their Effects on Poorer

Households. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0036-A1.HTM

Kanel, K.R. (2004). Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution to Millenium

Development Goals. Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry. Proceeding of the

Fourth workshop on community Forestry, Dec.2004. Kathmandu, Nepal: Community

Forestry Division, DOF.

Kanel, K. R.and Niraula, D.R. (2004). Can Rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through

community forestry. Banko Jankari , 14 (1).

Larsen, H.O., Olsen, C.S. and Boon, T.E. (2000). The non-timber forest policy process in

Nepal: actors, objectives and power. Forest Policy and Economics 1:267-281

Luitel, H. (2006). Do Civil Society Organizations Promote Equity in Community Forestry?

A Reflection from Nepal's Experiences. In Sango Mohanty et al eds. Hanging in the Balance:

Equity in Community Based Natural Resource Management in Asia. Regional Community

Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), Bangkok and East West Centre.

Malla, Y.B. (2000). Impact of Community Forestry Policy on Rural Livelihoods and Food

Security in Nepal. Unasylva 51 (202): 37- 45

49

Maharjan, M.R. (1998). Flow and distribution of costs and benefits in the Chuliaban

community forest, Dhankuta District, Nepal. Rural Developmental Forestry Network Paper

23e. ODI, London

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

Mikkola, K. (2002). Community Forestry’s Impact on Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal.

M.Sc. Dissertation, University of London, Imperial College.

MoFSC (2009). FUG Data base. Kathmandu. Nepal

Neupane, H. (2003). Contested impact of community forestry on equity: some evidences

from Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2 (2): 55–61

Nightingale, A.J. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in

community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2 (1): 17-24.

Nightingale, A. (2003). Nature-society and development: social, cultural and ecological

change in Nepal. Geoforum 34 (4): 525–540

Pandit, B.H. and Thapa, G.B. (2004). Poverty and resource degradation under different

common forest resource management systems in the mountains of Nepal. Society and

Natural Resources 17 (1): 1–16

Pokharel, B.K., Stadtmuller, T. and Pfund, J.L. (2005). From degradation to restoration: An

assessment of the enabling conditions for community forestry in Nepal. Intercooperation,

Swiss Foundation for Development and International Cooperation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Pokharel, R.K. (2008). Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds: Do they benefit the Poor?

SANDEE Working paper No. 31-08

Pokharel, B. K. and Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and People's Livelihood: Benefiting the Poor

from Community Forestry. Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project. Forest and Livelihood

4(1)

50

Pokharel, B.K. and Niraula, D.R. (2004). Community forestry governance in Nepal:

achievement, challenges and options for the future. A Paper presented in fourth national

community forestry workshop, Kathmandu

Pokharel, B.K. (2005). Community Forestry User Groups: Institution to protect Democracy

and vehicle for local Development. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 4(2):64

Pokharel, B.K. (2001). Community Forestry and Livelihoods in Nepal. Available online at:

hhtp;//www.livelihoods.org/post/forest1-postit.html (accessed 5 January, 2014)

Roberts, E.H., and Gautam, M.K. (2003). International experiences of community forestry

and its potential in forest management for Australia and New Zealand. Paper presented at

Australasia Forestry Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand. April 2003

Roy, R. (1999). Assessment of Rural Livelihood through community forestry:A case study of

Gaukhureshwor community forest,Kavrepalanchowk district. A project paper submitted in

partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of bachelor of forestry science in Pokhara

University, Nepal.

Schreier, H., Brown, S., Schmidt, M., Shah, P., Shrestha, B., Nakarmi, G., Subba, K. and

Wymann, S. (1994). Gaining forest but losing ground: A GIS evaluation in a Himalayan

watershed. Environmental Management 18 (1): 139–150

Sharma, N.N. and Acharya, B. (2004). Good governance in Nepal's community forestry:

Translating concept into actions. A Paper Presented in Fourth National Community Forestry

Workshop, Kathmandu

Shanti Community Forest (2063). Operational plan book

Shrestha, K. (2000). Active vs passive management in community forestry. Issues paper no 1,

Paper prepared for the Joint Technical Review Committee, MoFSC, Kathmandu

Shrestha, R. (2004). Women’s Involvement in CF Programme. Paper Presented in Fourth

National Community Forestry Workshop, Kathmandu

51

Shrestha, S.M. and Nepal, S.M. (2003). National Forest Policy Review. An Overview of

Forest Policies in Asia. Information and Analysis for Sustainable Forest Management:

Linking National and international Efforts in South and South East Asia. EC-FAO

Partnership Programme.

Sowerwine, D. (1994). Forestry Sector Potential and Constraints. Forestry model and report

prepared by consultant. Unpublished report, Kathmandu

Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J. and Liddle, M. (2008). From Exclusion to Ownership?

Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. Rights and Resource

Initiative: Washington, DC.

Thoms, C.A. (2008). Community control of resources and challenge of improving local

livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39:1452-1465

Timsina, N. and Paudel, N.S. (2003). State versus community: a confusing policydiscourse in

Nepal’s forest management. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2 (2): 8–16

USDA Forest Service: Valuing Ecosystem Services. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from

http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices

Webb, E.L. and Gautam, A.P. (2001). Effects of community forest management on the

structure and diversity of a successional broadleaf forest in Nepal. International Forestry

Review3: 146–157

Yadav, N.P., Dev,O.P., Springate-Baginski, O., Soussan, J. (2003). Forest management and

utilization under community forestry. Journal of forest and Livelihood 3(1):37-50

Yadav, U.K.R., Jha, P.K., Behan, M.J., Zobel, D.B. (1987). A Practical Manual for Ecology,

Ratna Book Distributors, Kathmandu, Nepal.

ANNEXES

Annex 1: HHs questionnaire

1. General Information

a. Name of the interviewee: …………………………….. b. Date: ………........................

c .District: ……… d. VDC: ……………… e. Village………………f. Ward No.: ………

g. Age: …… h. Sex: (Male, Female) i. Ethnicity: (Dalit, Indigenous, Brahmin, Chhetri)

j. Religion: …………... (Hindu, Muslim, Bauddha, Christian, others………….)

k. Marital status: Married /Unmarried l. Occupation: …………

2. Household composition

Age

Group

No Sex Education Occupation Income Remarks

M F

0-5

6-14

15-45

46-60

60 &

above

2.1. House Details

Ownership of the

house

Construction

materials(Observation)

Roof Floor

Own house

Rented House

Cement

Stone

Brick

Clay

Straw

Clay

Wood plank

Jasta Pata

Concrete

Tile/Slate

Clay/Dung

Wood Plank

Cement

Ceramics/Marble

3. Sources of income

S.N. Sources of income Amount per year Remarks

1 Agricultural occupation

2 Business

3 Employment(internal and Foreign Employment)

4 Others ( Labor, Forest Product selling)

Total

3.1. How many months is your income sufficient for you and your family to survive?

SN Past Present

1. All the year round All the year round

2. 9-11 months 9-11 months

3. 6-8 months 6-8 months

4. Less than 6 months Less than 6 months

4. Average Household Expenditure

S.N. Expenses Types Amount per month Remarks

1 Food

2 Health

3 Education

4 Energy

5 Others

Total

5. Information about agriculture

5.1. What type of agriculture system do you apply?

a. Traditional b. Sedentary c. Commercial

5.2. Is there any changes in agriculture system before and after the formation of CF?

a. Yes b. No

If yes, a. Traditional to sedentary b. Sedentary to commercial c. Commercial to traditional

d. Crop composition e. Agriculture land area (increase/decrease)

5.3. What are the crops mainly cultivated in your farm?

S.N. Crops types Area

Production Fertilizers Land ownership

1 Rice

2 Maize

3 Wheat

4 Mustard

5 Potatoes

6 Seasonal Vegetables

7. Others

(Fertilizers: 1 Organic, 2 Inorganic; Land ownership: 1 Own, 2 Rented in, 3 Rented out)

6. Livestock information

6.1. Do you have livestock? a. Yes b. No

6.2 .If yes, please specify

Livestock Number Stall feeding Grazing Both

Cow

Buffalo

Ox

Goat

Sheep

Pig

Poultry

Others(please specify)

6.3. Is there any changes (increase or decrease) in livestock status after the establishment of

CF?

Livestock Increased Decreased cause

Cow a. Increase/decrease in

fodder/forage

b. Increase/decrease in

manpower

c. Increase/decrease in

market value

d. Other

Buffalo

Ox

Goat

Sheep

Pig

Others(please specify)

6.4. Has livestock helped you in income generation?

a. Yes b. No

6.4.1. Which livestock contributes more in family income generation?

a. b. c.

6.5 From where do you have necessary fodder for livestock’s?

SN Resources Source Time taken to fetch Availability Trend of

availability

1 Ground grass

2 Forest fodder

3 Thatch, hay

4 Other pasture areas

Source: a. Private forest b.CF c. Government forest/leasehold forest d.Agriculture land

Availability: a less than six months b. 6-9 months c.9-12 months d.Throughout the year

Availability trend: a. Increased b. Decreased

6.6 Which plant species do you prefer the most regarding livestock and why?

Plant species……………………………… Reason……………………………………..

a. Livestock prefer b. Easily available c. Nutritious or beneficial d.Others

7. Water

7.1. Water status

Types Water resources Availability Remarks

Drinking water

Irrigation

Potable

Livestock

Others

(Water resources: a. Well b. Stream, c. public tap, d. private tap, e. others

Availability: a. sufficient for less than 6 months b. sufficient for 6-8 months

c. sufficient for 9-11 months d. enough for year round

7.2 Is there any changes on water resources after CF program?

a. Yes b. No

If yes,

Availability Increased Decreased Cause

Drinking 1.good rural infrastructure

2.awareness

3.forest degradation

4.others

Irrigation

Potable

Livestock’s

8. Sanitation facilities

Sanitation facilities Before Present Remarks

Open

Simple latrine

Pour flush latrine

Septic tank latrine

Others

8.1. Is sanitation improved after the CF program?

a. Yes b. No

If Yes, what type of improve?

a. Improved personal hygiene b. Improved village sanitation c. Improved in water quality

d. Others

9.Information on Energy Sector

9.1. Energy resource consumption

Sources Consumption

amount per month

Sources Collection time

Firewood Kg

Agriculture products Kg

Electricity Unit

Kerosene Liters

LPG Cylinder

Others(Specify)

9.2. How often do you use?

Energy Always Often Sometime Rarely Never

Firewood

Agriculture products

Electricity

Kerosene

LPG

Others

9.3. Where do you collect firewood and also mention their quantity? (1 bhari =………kg)

Source Load (Bhari or kg)

Private forest

National forest

Community forest

Others

9.4. How far is the CF from your Ward?

Please specify the time………hours and ….. minutes

9.5. Who mainly go for collecting the firewood?

a. Men b. Women c. Children

9.6. Has CF establishment saved your time in collecting forest product?

a. Yes b. No

If yes, how much time is saved?

a. ……….. b. No time saved

9.7. For what purpose do you utilize that saved time?

a. Domestic work b. Education c. Livestock raring d.Other employment e.Others

9.8. What is mainly collected from the forest?

a. Fuel wood b. Fodder c. Timber

d. Medicine e. NTFPs f. Others

9.10 Which forest product directly contributes to income generation?

a. Timber b. NTFPs c.Fodder d.Medicine e.Firewood f. Others

9.11 Which plant species would you prefer depending upon different sectors?

SN Forest product Preferred plant species

1 Fuel wood

2 Firewood

3 Fodder

4 NTFPs

5 Medicine

6 Timber

7 Others

9.12. What changes have come in your society after the formation of the CF?

a. Increase income generation b. Increased Awareness c. Increased rural infrastructure

d. Environment changes (fresh air, fresh water) e. No change f. Other (specify……….)

9.13 Do you feel (any changes) any difference in your daily life or in your livelihood, when it

was just a forest and now it is a community forest?

a.Yes b. No

9.14 Do you like this community forest program?

a.Yes b. No

If yes, in what sense: a. Increase income generation b. Increased Awareness c. Increased

rural infrastructure d. Environment changes (fresh air, fresh water) e.Other (specify…)

9.15 .What do you think are the disadvantages of this program?

a. Limits the free access to the forest b. Limits the preferred products collection

c. Social conflict on resource use and management d. Others

9.16. Has CF program supported women empowerment?

a. Yes b.No

If Yes,

a. Education b. Income generation c.Social exposure d) Others

10. Management in CF

10.1. How often is it opened to collect firewood?

a. Once in a week b. Once in a month c.Once in 6 month d. Once in a

year

10.2. What changes have you noticed in forest condition after the formation of CF?

a. Improved slightly b. Improved rapidly c. No change d. Worse than before

10.3. What do you think about resource harvesting from community forest?

a. Sustainable supply b. More than sustainable supply c. Less than sustainable supply

10.4. If not sustainable supply, how it can be sustained?

a. Planting trees b.Use of alternative energy c. Use from private forest d. Other (specify)

10.5. Do you practice plantation activities there?

10.6. What do say about Encroachment? Poaching in CF? Is there paale system?

10.7 .Can CFUG members have access for the timber for his/her personal need?

10.8. Has any species disturbed the CF?

a. Yes b. No

If yes, what problem: a. In collecting firewood b. In collecting timber

c. In collecting fodder d. plant regeneration

10.9. Do you know what the total yearly income of this community forest is?

10.10 For what purpose do you invest the money (revenue) collected from CF?

a. Health services b .Education c. Development program d. Women empowerment

e. Others

Annex 2: Unit conversion

Livestock

Livestock Livestock Conversion Factor Cattle 0.50

Buffalo 0.50 Sheep/Goat 0.10

Pigs 0.20 Poultry 0.01 (Source: FAO, 2003a)

WEIGHT

Units in Nepali Units in metric system

Mana ½ kg or 0.56

Pathi 4 kg or 4.5 l

Muri 80 kg or 90

Maund 36 kg

Bora 100 kg

Bhari 30 kg

AREA

Units in Nepali Equivalent

Dhur 0.345 ropani or 0.0179 ha.

Kattha 0.69 ropani or .035 ha.

Ropani 0.052 ha

Bigha 20 kattha or 13.8 ropani or 0.68 ha

1 m3=2.41 metric ton

(Source: Social Structure, Livelihoods and the Management of Common Pool Resources in

Nepal, 2003)

Annex 3: Sources of income of studied HHs

Annex 4: Showing sector wise expenditure of the HHs

Annex 5: Showing food sufficiency from agriculture only of the HHs within a year

05

101520253035404550

Agriculture Business Native

employment

Foreign

employment

Liveestock

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Exp. Food Exp. Health Exp. Education Exp. Energy Exp.Other

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All the year

round

9-11 months 6-8months less than 6

months

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

Annex 6: Correlation test table

Correlation test t-value (Df=58) p-value

Total LU, Total income 1.2 0.2327

Total LU, Livestock income 6.4 2.06E-08*

Total income, Livestock income 2.3 0.02076*

Significant= * at 95%

Annex 7: Tree composition of the forest with IVI values

SN. Name of trees Local

Name

No of

individuals

Density

(no./ha)

Basal

Area

(m2/ha)

Frequency Importance

Value

Index

(IVI)

1 Shorea robusta Sal 585 365.63 20.37 97.50 196.01

2 Terminalia alata Saaj 41 25.63 0.50 35.00 18.75

3 Dalbergia sisso Sisso 44 27.50 0.45 30.00 17.33

4 Acacia catechu Khair 30 18.75 0.37 35.00 16.78

5 Aesandra butyracea Chiuri 16 10.00 0.25 20.00 9.60

15 Semecarpus anacardium Bhalayo 8 5.00 0.10 12.50 5.49

6 Syzygium cumini Jamun 7 5.00 0.05 12.50 5.8

7 Psidium guajava .L. Gauva 7 4.38 0.05 12.50 5.14

8 Mangifera indica Mango 5 4.38 0.12 10.00 4.65

9 Phyllanthus emblica Amala 4 3.13 0.07 10.00 4.19

13 Lagerstroemia parviflora BotDhairo 4 3.75 0.13 7.50 3.76

10 Lagerstroemia indica Dhauwa 3 2.50 0.11 7.50 3.43

11 Albizia lebek KaloSiris 6 2.50 0.04 7.50 3.11

14 Anthocephallus chinensis Kadam 4 2.50 0.25 2.50 2.41

12 Melica azedarach Bakaino 8 1.88 0.03 5.00 2.13

16 Bombax ceiba Simal 1 0.63 0.01 2.50 0.98

17 Cassine glauca Korikath 1 0.63 0.01 2.50 0.96

Total (N) 774 483.75 22.89 310.00 300.01

Annex 8: Status of sapling of the forest

SN Name of the sp Local Name No of

individuals

Density

(no/ha)

Frequency

1 Shorea robusta Saal 250 1250 97.5

2 Phyllanthus emblica Amala 3 15 7.5

3 Dalbergia sissoo Sisso 30 150 30

4 Albizia lebek Kalo siris 17 85 22.5

5 Syzygium cumini Jamuno 18 90 27.5

6 Mallotus philipensis Ruhini 46 230 42.5

7 Garuga pinnata Dhabdabe 1 5 2.5

8 Xeromplis spinosa Main kada 22 110 20

9 Quercus floribunda Thinke 4 20 7.5

10 Terminalia bellirica Barro 2 10 5

11 Lagestromia parviflora Bat dhaero 22 110 25

12 Ghokar 3 15 2.5

13 Kariyo 3 15 2.5

14 Dhyapar 2 10 2.5

15 Dalbergia stipulacea Tate vari 3 15 7.5

16 Piper longum Pipari 15 75 22.5

17 Litsea monopetala Kutmiro 2 10 2.5

18 Bauhinia purpurea Tanki 1 5 2.5

19 Semecarpus anacardium Bhalayo 12 60 5

20 Bombax ceiba Simal 4 20 7.5

21 Terminalia alata Saaj 23 115 30

22 Acacia catechu Khayer 16 80 12.5

23 Melica azedarach Bakaino 3 15 7.5

24 Lagerstroemia indica Dhauwa 5 25 7.5

25 Mangifera indica Mango 1 5 2.5

26 Psidium guajava Gauva 12 60 12.5

Total(N) 520 2600 415

Annex 9: Status of seedling of the forest

SN Name of species Local Name No .of

individuals

Density

(no/ha)

Frequency

1 Shorea robusta Sal 262 32750 97.5

2 Dalbergia sissoo Sisso 12 1500 10

3 Albizia lebek Kalo siris 3 375 3.75

4 Syzygium cuminii Jamuno 3 375 3.75

5 Mallotus philipensis Ruhini 2 250 2.5

6 Xeromplis spinosa Main kada 2 250 1.25

7 Lagerstroemia parviflora Botdhairo 5 625 5

8 Acacia catechu Khair 4 500 2.5

9 Psidium guajava Gauva 1 125 1.25

Total(N) 294 36750 127.5

Annex 10: Cut stumps in the forest

SN Name of species Local name No of Individual Denisty(no/ha)

1 Shorea robusta Sal 44 27.5

2 Acacia catechu Khair 8 5

3 Syzygium cuminii Jamuno 2 1.25

4 Dalbergia sisso Sisso 6 3.75

5 Lagerstroemia parviflora Botdhairo 2 1.25

Total 62 38.75

Annex 11: Vegetation Variables


Variable Range Mean t-value p

Richness 0.000-0.964 0.4752 8.9446 5.46E-11

Diversity 0.000- 0.818 0.2802 7.0166 2.03E-08

Abundance 6 -50 19.375 17.0716 < 2.2e-16

Mean DBH 14.34-53.08 23.115 21.0549 < 2.2e-16

Mean Height 10.310-20.166 15.048 49.4517 < 2.2e-16

Sapling 9-22 13 30.9066 < 2.2e-16

Seedling 4-12 7.35 23.1612 < 2.2e-16

Annex 12: Preferred species for firewood purpose

Annex 13: Most preferred species for NTFPs

Annex 14: Preferred species for timber production

Annex 15: Showing species preference of the community for fodder/forage production

Annex 16: Preferred species test table

SN Forest products from CF

Chi

square–

value

Df P value

1 First timber sps and second timber sps 52.2963 12 <0.05*

2 First firewood sps and second firewood sps 38.4759 24 0.03097*

3 First fodder sps and second fodder sps 42.3764 35 0.1828

4 First MAPs/NTFPs sps and second MAPs/NTFPs sps 34.9888 25 0.08841

Significant=* at 5%

Annex 17: Photographs of field activities

Focus group discussion with CFUC

Focus group discussion with CFUG specially women

During HH questionnaire survey

During vegetation plot design (left) and recording data during vegetation survey (right)

CF established school (left) and motorable road (right) constructed by CF revenue

Understory coverage of undisered weeds (left) and unwanted weeds hampering

assessment of livelihood improvement ...learningportal.wwfnepal.org/dashlib/files/assessment...

Documents