Page 1
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
Page 2
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
Page 3
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
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
Page 4
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
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
…………………………….
Rajeswar Shrestha
Supervisor
Lecturer
Central Department of Environmental Science
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur
…………………………………
Prakash Chandra Aryal
Co-supervisor
Lecturer
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
……………………………….
Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.
Coordinator
M.Sc. Environmental Science
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
Page 5
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
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
……………………………….
Prof. Bhadra Pokharel, Ph.D.
Principal
GoldenGate International College
Kathmandu, Nepal
Page 6
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.
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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
Page 10
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
Page 11
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
Page 12
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
Page 13
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
Page 14
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,
Page 15
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
Page 16
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.
Page 17
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.
Page 18
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.
Page 19
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.”
Page 20
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
Page 21
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
Page 22
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
Page 23
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
Page 24
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
Page 25
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.
Page 26
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.
Page 27
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
Page 28
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
Page 29
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
Page 30
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
Page 31
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
Page 32
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,
Page 33
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.
Page 34
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 (
%)
Page 35
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 (
%)
Page 36
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
Significant=* at 95%
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
Page 37
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
Page 38
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
(%
)
Page 39
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
Page 40
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).
Page 41
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
Page 42
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
Page 43
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
Page 44
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 (
%)
Page 45
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).
Page 46
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).
Page 47
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 (
%)
Page 48
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
Page 49
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%).
Page 50
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
Page 51
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
Page 52
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
Page 53
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;
Page 54
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.
Page 55
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.
Page 56
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.
Page 57
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
Page 58
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.
Page 59
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.
Page 60
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
Page 61
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)
Page 62
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
Page 63
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.
Page 64
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
Page 65
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
Page 66
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
Page 67
(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
Page 68
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
Page 69
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
Page 70
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)
Page 71
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 (
%)
Page 72
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
Page 73
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
Page 74
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
Significant=* at 95%
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
Page 75
Annex 12: Preferred species for firewood purpose
Annex 13: Most preferred species for NTFPs
Page 76
Annex 14: Preferred species for timber production
Annex 15: Showing species preference of the community for fodder/forage production
Page 77
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%
Page 78
Annex 17: Photographs of field activities
Focus group discussion with CFUC
Focus group discussion with CFUG specially women
Page 79
During HH questionnaire survey
During vegetation plot design (left) and recording data during vegetation survey (right)
Page 80
CF established school (left) and motorable road (right) constructed by CF revenue
Understory coverage of undisered weeds (left) and unwanted weeds hampering