AN ASSESSMENT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IN COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUPS

(A case study from two community forest user groups of Kailai District)

SUBMITTED BY

NABIN SINGH

T.U Reg. No : 2-2-47-33-2015

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
POKHARA
HARIYOKHARKA 15, POKHARA

i
A PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
FORESTRY

June, 2020

AN ASSESSMENT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IN COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUPS

(A case study from two community forest user groups of Kailai District)

SUBMITTED BY
Nabin Singh

ADVISOR
Mr. Bikash Adhikari
Assistant Professor
Email: [email protected]
Department of Social Forestry and Forest Management
Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus, Pokhara
ii
 Submitted To:
Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus
Kaski, Nepal

A PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
FORESTRY

June, 2020

DISCLAIMER

This document describes the work undertaken as a part of a program of study at the
Institute Of Forestry, Pokhara. All the views and opinions expressed therein remain the
sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

 Nabin Singh
June, 2020
Email: [email protected]

iii
Tribhuvan University
Institute Of Forestry, Pokhara
Bancampus, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal
Website: www.Iof.edu.np

Citation:
Singh, N. (2020). An Assessment Of Good Governance In Community Forest User
Groups; A Case Study of Two Community Forest Of Kailali District. A Project paper
submitted for the partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Science in Forestry degree, Tribhuvan
University, Institute of Forestry Pokhara, Nepal.

iv
 Declaration

I, Nabin Singh, hereby declare that this thesis entitled “An Assessment Of Good
Governance In Community Forest User Groups” is my original work and all other
sources of information used are duly acknowledged. I have not submitted it or any of its
part to any other university for any academic award.

……………….
Nabin Singh
B.Sc. Forestry
Institute of Forestry (Affiliated to Tribhuvan University)
Pokhara, Nepal

v
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me the
possibility to complete this report. A special gratitude I give to my advisor, Mr. Bikash
Adhakari (Assistant professor, IOF) for his guidance and encouragement throughout the
whole study period. His untiring help, guidance and suggestions invigorated and inspired
me to accomplish this work.

I am also indebted to all other personnel from IOF, Pokhara who have directly and
indirectly helped me with my research.

Furthermore I would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the
members of Patela and Deberia CFUGs, Mr. Bhajan rana and Mr. Arjun chaudhari, who
co-operated during my field visit. I am also grateful to the staffs of DFO, Kailali for
providing necessary informations on CF of Kailali District.

I am eternally grateful to my family members for their love and support. Special thanks to
all my colleagues for their encouragement, interactions, suggestions, continuous help and
good company throughout my research.

Last but not at all the least, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all CFUG
members and CFUG committees in responding my queries providing their valuable time,
their help, generosity, hospitality and their co-operative attitude.

vi
 Abbreviations

AP Annual Plan

CF Community Forest

CFUG Community Forestry User Group

DAGs Disadvantaged Groups

DFO Divisional Forest Office

DoF Department of Forest

EC Executive Committee

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal

FUG Forest User Group

GA General Assembly

GoN Government of Nepal

GO Governmental Organizations

Ha Hectars

HHs Households

IGAs Income Generating Activities

INGOs International Non-Governmental Organizations

MPFS Master Plan for Forestry Sector

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

OP Operational Plan

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

vii
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

RIMS Resource Identification and Management Society

SAMARPAN Strengthening the Role of Civil Society and Women in Democracy

and Governance

UG Users Group

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
Pacific

viii
Contents
DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................. iii
Declaration ..................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ vi
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. vii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Rationale of the study ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research objectives .................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Significance of the study .......................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 6
2.1 Community Forestry ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Good Governance ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Elements of Good Governance ............................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Participation ................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Transparency ................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.3 Accountability ................................................................................................................ 14
2.3.4 Predictability .................................................................................................................. 15
2.4 Need of good governance ....................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1 People's livelihood .......................................................................................................... 16
2.4.2 Sustainable forest management .................................................................................... 16
2.4.3 Ensure broader participation and ownership feeling ................................................. 16
2.4.4 Equitable benefit sharing .............................................................................................. 16
2.4.5 Access and control to decision-making process........................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................... 18
3.1. Study areas ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2. Map of the study area ............................................................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Selection of selected CFUGs.......................................................................................... 19
3.3 Characteristics of selected CFUGs ......................................................................................... 20
3.4 Study Framework.................................................................................................................... 21
3.5. Data Collection Technique .................................................................................................... 22
3.5.1Primary Data collection.................................................................................................. 22

ix
 3.5.2 Secondary Data Collection ............................................................................................ 24
3.6 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 28
4.1 General information of respondents ....................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Gender of respondents................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Age structure of respondents ........................................................................................ 28
4.1.3 Ethnicity of respondents ................................................................................................ 29
4.1.4 Education status of respondents ................................................................................... 30
4.1.5 Occupational status of respondents.............................................................................. 30
4.1.6 Well- Being Ranking of Respondents........................................................................... 31
4.2 Status of good governance in CFUGs..................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Participation ................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2Transparency .................................................................................................................. 38
4.2.3 Accountability.................................................................................................................. 44
4.2.4 Predictability .................................................................................................................. 48
4.3. Comparative assessment of good governance of both CFUG ............................................... 50
4.4 Level of good governance of both CFUGs in Spider Web diagrams ..................................... 51
4.5 Challenges and opportunities .................................................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................... 53
5.1. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 53
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 54
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 56
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Annex 1 Questionnaire format for survey .................................................................................... 59
Annex 2 The elements and indicators of good governance .......................................................... 64
Annex 3 Governance assessment matrix for the level of participation......................................... 65
Annex 4 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Transparency ....................................... 66
Annex 5 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Accountability ..................................... 67
Annex 6 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Predictability ....................................... 69
PHOTO PLATES ........................................................................................................................ 71

x
List of figures
Figure 1: Figure 1 Map of study area ...................................................................................19
Figure 2: Gender of respondents ..........................................................................................28
Figure 3: Age class of respondents ......................................................................................29
Figure 4: Ethnicity of respondents ......................................................................................29
Figure 5: Education status of respondents ...........................................................................30
Figure 6: Occupational status of respondents ......................................................................30
Figure 7: wellbeing of the respondents ................................................................................32
Figure 8: Representation in Executive committee ...............................................................33
Figure 9: Participation in different meetings .......................................................................33
Figure 10: Participation in committee meetings ..................................................................34
Figure 11: Participation in CF activities ..............................................................................35
Figure 12: Forest products distribution ................................................................................36
Figure 13: Participation in decision making process ...........................................................36
Figure 14: Views regarding decision made by EC ..............................................................37
Figure 15: Participation in tours and trainnings ...................................................................37
Figure 16: Transparency in income and income source.......................................................39
Figure 17: Transparency in expenditure ..............................................................................40
Figure 18: Satisfaction of respondents towards fund mobilization......................................41
Figure 19: Public hearing and auditing ................................................................................42
Figure 20: Forest products pricing responsibility ................................................................42
Figure 21: Transparency in forest products distribution ......................................................43
Figure 22: Accountability of EC members in their roles and responsibilities .....................45
Figure 23: Accountability of general members in their roles and responsibilities ..............45
Figure 24: EC biasness to general members ........................................................................46
Figure 25: Read/listen to constitution and OP .....................................................................47
Figure 26: Conflict over power in CFUG ............................................................................47
Figure 27: Governance comparison in spider-web diagram ................................................51

xi
List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of selected CFUGs ........................................................................20

Table 2: Indicators of good governance. ..............................................................................26
Table 3: Category of governance status. ..............................................................................27
Table 4: Well- being ranks of the respondents.....................................................................31
Table 5: CFUG member's participation score. .....................................................................38
Table 6: Transparency score of both CFUGs. ......................................................................44
Table 7: Accountability level of both CFUGs. ....................................................................48
Table 8: Predictability score of both CFUGs. ......................................................................50
Table 9: Comparison of degree of governance of both CFUGs...........................................50

xii
 Abstract

A study on “An Assessment of Good Governance in Community Forest User Groups”

was conducted in Patela CFUG and Dewariya CFUG of Kailali District. The main
objective of this study was to assess and compare the degree of governance in these two
CFUGs as well as to identify the challenges and opportunities of practicing good
governance. Four elements of good governance, namely Participation, Transparency,
Accountability and Predictability, each with four indicators were defined as a measure
for the study. Primary as well as secondary data were collected for this research. Primary
data was collected using questionnaire survey, executive committee meetings, focus group
discussions, key informant survey and direct observation whereas operational plan and
constitution of the respective CFUGs, minute registers, several published and unpublished
documents, scientific journals, reports, articles, previous thesis papers and lecture notes
related to community forestry governance, DFO Kailai records and internet were used to
gather required secondary information. Data were analyzed using MS-Excel and assessed
by grading, scoring and ranking methods using governance matrix table and ranking table.
Bar diagrams, tables and spider web diagrams were prepared and incorporated in main text
to reflect the governance system of the respective CFUGs.
The results of the study revealed that the overall status of governance in Patela CFUG was
‘Good’ with 73% of the total attainable score where as that of Dewariya CFUG was also
‘Good’ with 54% of the total attainable score. Comparing each element of both CFUGs,
transparency, accountability and predictability of Patela CFUG was found higher than that
of Dewariya CFUG.
Finally, it is recommended that CFUG level good governance training and awareness
programs should be organized to enhance the overall governance skill and knowledge of
both user group members.

Key words: Community Forest User Groups, Participation, Transparency, Accountability,

Predictability.

xiii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Forest is one of the most important natural resource, which is directly linked with the
people’s livelihood. For the conservation and management of this resource, in 1982, the
Community Forestry Legislation and Decentralization Act have been passed and plans
were made to increase local forest rights. Master Plan for Forestry Sector (MPFS) 1988 has
been prepared and implemented giving emphasis on community forestry.

Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995) have played great role and provided a clear
regulation in Community Forest (CF) hand over process to locals by forming CF, thus
called Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). The government gives responsibility to
CFUGs for managing the national forests and the right to use forest products in a
sustainable way with the objective of improving the livelihoods of rural communities
(HMGN 2002). Till date, 19,361 Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) have been
formed in Nepal of which 1,072 CFs are managed by women only. A total
of 18,13,478 hectares of National forest have been handed over as community forests
and 24,61,549 households have benefited. About 1.45 million households representing
35% of the total population of Nepal is involved in community forestry management
program (DOF, 2017).

Community forestry is defined by the FAO as "any situation that intimately involves local
people in forestry activity". Community forestry is a branch of forestry that deals with the
communal management of forests for generating income from timber and non-timber
forest products as forms of goods while in other hand regulating ecosystem, downstream
settlements benefits from watershed conservation, carbon sequestration and aesthetic
values as in forms of services. Community forestry program was formally launched in
Nepal in 1978. Following twenty-five years of implementation experience, the program
now represents arguably the most advanced and progressive model worldwide for the
participatory management of natural resources (Nurse, Robinson, Paudel, & Pokhrel,
2004).

1
Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are
implemented or not implemented (UNESCAP, 2009). Governance is a neutral term, and it
turns out to be good if its attributes are in accordance with the principles of governance
(Gurung, 2002). Forest Governance is defined as the set of principles and rules of forest
resources management under which power is exercised and practiced in all spheres from
private to public and the relationship between the state and its citizens, civil society and the
private sector (Pokharel and Niraula 2004).

The third national community forestry workshop emphasizes good governance as one of
the important components to achieve the objective of community forestry (Acharya et al.,
1998). The key elements of good governance are transparency, accountability, and
participatory decision-making (UNDP, 1997; World Bank, 2000; Chaudhary, 2002;
UNESCAP, 2008).

Good governance in forestry is a process of systematically managing forest resources with

participation from all stake holders including women, poor and disadvantaged groups in a
transparent way so that resources can be harnessed in an equitable basis. Like the idea of a
normal forest, good governance is also a theoretical and almost impossible to achieve in its
practicality but it is considered crucial in achieving the millennium development goals as
stated by the United Nations (UN), especially in a poor and developing country like Nepal
(UNESCAP, 2007).

In Nepal, there are only few CFUGs that practice transparent, participatory and inclusive
decision making process which indicate that the contribution of community forest towards
supporting the poorest, vulnerable and marginalized members of the society has been
limited within CFUGs (Tiwari, 2002; Kanel and Subedi, 2004).The poor and marginalized
are somewhat discriminated in almost every aspect of management and their voices are
given less preferences. The distribution of forest products is inequitable and the interests of
poor and disadvantaged group members are not properly incorporated where poor
community forestry governance is practiced (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).

2
It has been increasingly reported that most of the CFUGs are captured by wealthier and
upper caste men, and, therefore, the interests and concerns of the poor, women and dalits,
who depend more on forest resources for their livelihood, are not adequately taken into
account in CF process (Iverson et al. 2006; Adhikari et al. 2004; Pokharel and Niraula
2004; Pokharel and Nurse 2004; Richard et al. 2003; Bhatta 2002; Nightingale 2002;
Agarwal 2001; Chhetri et al. 2001; Warner 2001; Gentle 2000; Graner). Given the
conflicting views regarding the contribution of community forestry to its user group
members, it is quite imperative to investigate the status of good governance at the CFUG
level. Thus, this study was conducted to assess the status of governance in Patela and
Dewariya Community Forest User Groups of Kailali District.

1.2 Rationale of the study

Community forestry is becoming widely accepted as a means of managing forest
sustainably and for the benefit of the rural people, there is need to focus on good forest
governance. Community forestry is based on the philosophy of people participation;
CFUG as an institution and governance is important aspect of viable institution. It is
believed that the CFUGs can function effectively and be self-reliant, if the good
governance within the CFUGs is strengthened.The good governance related issues is one
of the major “second generation issues” in Nepal’s community forestry development and
management program.

Lack of inclusive policy making process and pro-poor policy outcomes, lack of adaptive
organizational structure, bottom up planning, inequitable decision making and benefit
distribution system are some of the current governance related issues of CF (Pokharel and
Niraula, 2004). Though there is constitutional provision in CFUG constitutions and
operational plans about good governance practices, there is lack of proper implementation.
Kanel and Niraula (2004) concluded that the distribution of forest products is inequitable,
and interest of poor and disadvantaged groups is not properly incorporated in poor CF
governance. Tiwari (2002) reported that there are only few hundred CFUGs, which
practice transparent, participatory and inclusive decision making.

3
This research is a comparative study of Patela and Dewariya CFUGs of Kailai district to
explore status of good governance and address the issues of good governance in
community forestry management programs. The outcomes of the research will be
beneficial for CFUGs study and forestry field staff working to support CFUGs for
developing better strategies to improve good governance practices, which can also be
generalized for the use of other community forest user groups of Kailali district of Nepal.

1.3 Research objectives

The general objective of my research is to assess the status of good governance in Patela
and Dewariya CFUGs of Kailali District.

Specific objectives are as follows;

 To assess the present status of good governance practices such as transparency,
participation, accountability and predictability of Patela and Dewariya CFUGs.
 To identify the challenges and opportunities for improving good governance
practices of selected CFUGs.
 To suggest the role of different stakeholders to promote good governance in CF
management.

1.4 Significance of the study

This is a comparative study of two CFUGs of Kailali district, which would explore and
address the issues of good governance in community forest development and management
programs. The outcomes of the research would be beneficial for the study of CFUGs for
developing better strategies to improve good governance practices, which can also be
generalized for the use in other CFUGs of Kailai district. In addition, this study could also
be useful for the Division Forest Office, Kailai and the Federation of Community Forest
User Nepal (FECOFUN) to know the situation of good governance practices in studied
CFUGs in order to develop plan for capacity building.

4
1.5 Limitations
 The study was not carried out on complete enumeration but based on sampling.
Thus, the criteria and indicators may not be completely free from bias.
 This is a case study from two CFUGs and covers only four elements of good
governance with an assumption that within the scope of this study, other intervening
factors of good governance remain constant.
 The study was undertaken in only two CFUGs of Kailali district. Therefore, the
findings from this study may not represent all CFUGs of Kailali district.

5
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Community Forestry

FAO (1978) defined community forestry as “any situation which intimately involves local
people in a forestry activity. It embraces a spectrum of situation ranging from woodlots in
areas to the growing of trees at the farm level to provide cash and the processing of forest
products at the household, artisan or small industry level to generate income, to the
activities of forest dwelling communities”.
Community forestry is not just a special technology rather a process of socioeconomic
change that requires a continuous participation of the community in planning,
implementing, and problem solving (Kayastha, 1991).

In a recent attempt, Carter (2010) has ‘broadly’ defined community forestry as “an
approach to forest management that actively promotes the rights of the people living in &
around the forest to both participate in forest management decisions and to benefit
(financially and in kind) from the results of the management”. This definition seems to
balance many relevant things suggesting to the evolving nature of community forestry.
However, true community forestry asserts the rights of the people rather than promoting it
since it has a sense of ownership. The promotional attitude may be there, particularly for
communities who have not been able to get their rights recognized despite valuable
contribution; but it is secondary. Carter’s definition therefore corresponds more to a good
version of participatory forestry (Rath, 2010). In Nepal, national forests handed over to
local user groups with operational plan and constitution for the protection and utilization of
its products is known as community forestry.

The introduction of Community Forestry (CF) program in Nepal is a courageous,

innovative and promising step towards participatory forest management and this has been
well recognized throughout the world as a successful people centered program (Gurung
2007). The concept of community forest in Nepal was actually initiated when Forest Act
1961 was amended in 1978 to incorporate the provisions of Panchayat and Panchayat
Protected Forests. However, the Act failed to produce the desired result as the managerial

6
responsibility of the forest lied with the local political entities. Moreover, the forest was
handed over on the basis of political boundary without any proper identification of
traditional and real use rights. According to Nepal Forest Act (1993), the District Forest
Office (DFO), which works under the Department of Forest (DoF), is a responsible
authority to hand over any part of a National Forest as a community forest to Community
Forest User Groups (CFUGs) and to provide them with necessary services for the better
management of their forests to develop, conserve, use and manage the forest and sell and
distribute the forest products independently by fixing their prices according to Work Plan.

Forest Act, 1993 and Forest Regulation, 1995 were prepared and enforced after the
reinstatement of democracy in 1990, have established community forest user groups as
independent and self-governing entity with perpetual succession and have given the
responsibility for the development, protection, utilization and management of forests. The
government transfers responsibility to CFUGs for managing the national forests and the
right to use forest products in a sustainable way with the ultimate policy objective of
improving livelihoods of rural communities (HMGN 2002). The CFUGs have been
recognized as social institutions, legal entities and self-governing autonomous bodies
which have legal rights to formulate their constitution and to take decisions regarding CF
management (Adhikari 2001). The Community Forest Act 1993 gives local people
significant control in the management and harvest of forest resources (Euphrat and
Shrestha, 2002).

The central objective of Community Forestry is to increase livelihood opportunities to

rural/poor communities with emphasis to Pro-Poor. Community Forestry Program
exclusively focusing on the poorest households within the Forest User Groups (HMG/N,
2002). Many rural people meet their subsistence needs from the collection of the fuel
wood, fodder and other non-wood forest products. Forest has been the source for
livelihood of rural people. Without forest resources, they have to migrate to urban areas
leading to family and community disintegration. Hence CF has been an effective tool for
poverty reduction and income distribution (Shahi, 2000). Within the FUGs, rich and poor,
male and female and so called upper caste and lower caste with differences in power, speak

7
and are heard differently. The poorest are the ones who suffer most because first of all they
cannot afford to participate. Secondly if they do, they hardly speak. If they do speak, they
are rarely heard and if heard, they hardly get decision made in their favor. If heard, very
few decisions are implemented and if implemented only few benefited (Pokharel and
Nurse, 2004).

CFUGs are not fully capable of managing their forest on their own. They are increasingly
stronger and gaining more confidence, and have started to make demands for more
autonomy and services required for meeting their expectation of improving livelihoods
through CF (Pokharel and Niraula 2004). Thus, they have to depend on external
organizations/institutions (Ghimire 2005). Many of the Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are now involved in the promotion of CF
program (Timilsina 2003).

The CF program in Nepal has been regarded as a learning ground for governance reform in
terms of participatory decision-making, bottom-up planning process, gender and equity
sensitivity, partnership among government, non-government and private sector agencies,
participatory monitoring, and evaluation mechanism (Pokharel and Niraula, 2004). It has
also contributed to five goals out of eight millennium development goals (Kanel, 2004).
Both Nepalese government’s strategies, tenth five year plan (2002–2007) and poverty
reduction strategy paper, have envisioned improved governance as one of the strategic
pillars of the economic development in Nepal.

2.2 Good Governance

The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put
"governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions
are implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as
corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local
governance. USAID defines governance as the manner in which power is exercised in the
management of a country economic, environment and social resources for development.

8
UNDP (1997) defines governance as exercise of economic, political and administrative
authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, process and
institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal
rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.

Governance is generally defined as the process of decision making by which decisions are
implemented or not (UNESCAP, 2009). Governance is the complex of mechanism,
processes, relationships, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their
interest, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences (UNDP 2002).
Governance is a neutral term, and it becomes good if the governing process has positive
characteristics of its attributes or the process is in accordance with the principles of
governance (Gurung 2002).

According to UNESCAP (2004), the term "good governance" refers to eight major
characteristics of decision-making: participatory; consensus oriented; accountable;
transparent; responsive; effective and efficient; equitable and inclusive and following the
rule of law. Good governance practices include: increasing public participation with a
focus on the poor, the marginalized and women’s well-being, transparency, accountability,
predictability, capacity building of constituents, leadership development, coalition-building
in civil society with NGOs, federations and with the private sector and conflict mitigation
through negotiation and mediation, and advocacy (UNDP, 1997).

Good governance, being a key to managing natural resources and promoting economic
growth, is central to poverty reduction (Ireland and Brown, 2007). Good governance
“signifies a participative manner of governing that functions in a responsible, accountable
and transparent manner based on the principles of efficiency, legitimacy and consensus for
the purpose of promoting the rights of individual citizens and the public interest, thus
indicating the exercise of political will for ensuring the material welfare of society and
sustainable development with social justice” (Munshi, 2004).

9
For good governance, four dimensions/ elements - accountability, transparency,
participation and predictability are equally important and should function together”
(Chowdhary, 2004; Sharma and Acharya, 2004 & SAGUN, 2004). These four elements are
not only key to accelerate decision making process in an institution, organization or group
but are equally important to narrow down the gap between the rich and poor and promote
inclusion and empowerment of women, poor and socially discriminated groups of society
like dalits and minority groups (CARE, 2004).

Forest governance is defined as the set of principles and rules under which power is
exercised and practiced in all spheres from private to public, in the management of forest
resources and “the relationship between the state and its citizens, civil society and private
sector” (Brown et al. 2002). Forest governance comprises of a set of institutions,
mechanisms and processes, through which forest users and their groups can articulate their
interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations at
the local level (Giri, 2007). People’s participation, accountability, transparency and pro-
poor policy change are considered as crucial dimensions of governance in forest resources
management (Dahal 2003).

The tenth five-year plan (2002-2007) and poverty reduction strategy paper (2002) have
envisioned ‘good governance’ as one of the four strategic pillars of development
objectives. CF essentially cross- cuts the three layers of governance: micro- (local,
community level); meso- (district or provincial); and macro- (national) level (Pokharel et
al. 2002). The Millennium Declaration (2000) and the Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation (2002), both affirm the importance of good governance at local, national
and international levels (Brown et al. 2002).

Governance in community forestry addresses the relationships, rights, responsibility and

incentives among stakeholders including forest communities, industries and government
(MFSC, 2007). Similarly, it focuses on pro-poor governance with the aim of benefiting
poor and vulnerable people by securing their representation in the executive committee. An
executive committee is one forum of CFUGs where management decisions related to

10
community forestry are made through their representatives. CFUGs are required to include
50% of women in the executive committee and are also required to offer the post of either
chairperson or secretary to a woman (MFSC, 2009). Similarly, they are required to invest
25% and 35% of their income to forest development and maintenance, and pro-poor
programs, respectively (ibid). The remaining income can be used as per the need and
interest of the community.

Since a large population of the country is affiliated with CFUGs and internal governance
of the group is of utmost significance and there is greater dependency of poor and
marginalized segment of the population on the natural resources, governance in
management and utilization of the natural resources and institutions associated with its
management is important to put an end to social injustice and poverty in the country”
(Bhatta and Gentle, 2004).

In Nepal, the term 'governance' has been used in economic, social, administrative, and
political literature since the mid-nineties (Sharma and Acharya 2004). Though the concept
of good governance is old, its assessment is relatively new in CF of Nepal. SAMARPAN
Team (2003) assessed the four basic attributes of governance, namely transparency,
accountability, participation and predictability to explore the status of good governance in
CFUGs of its project area. Chowdhary (2004) assessed the governance status by using
similar attributes in Sarlahi and Mahhotari districts of Nepal. Upadhaya (2006) also
assessed the status of good governance in CFUGs by taking its two attributes (participation
and transparency) in Dhading district of Nepal. Similar studies were done assessing a
certain part of the CF governance of Nepal (e.g., Giri 2005, Bhatta and Gentle 2004, Dhital
et al. 2004, Maharjan et al. 2004, Pokharel and Niraula 2004, Sharma and Acharya 2004).

2.3 Elements of Good Governance

Several studies have revealed that there have been used different elements/criteria
and indicators for governance capacity assessment in FUGs. Good governance has eight
major characteristics as stated by UNESCAP: the rule of law, participation, consensus,
accountability, transparency, responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness, and equity and

11
inclusiveness. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of marginalized and
disadvantaged people are taken into account, and that the voices of the most vulnerable in
society are heard in the decision-making process (UNESCAP, 2006). Even though the
concept of good governance is abstract and almost impossible to achieve in its integrity, it
is regarded as a crucial direction to achieve the millennium development goals and to
eradicate extreme poverty (UNESCEP, 2007).

The SAMARPAN project (2003) used to assess the governance status in CFUGs level
based on four such attributes (criteria): transparency, accountability and participation with
various local indicators. Giri (2006), used six criteria namely: participation; transparency;
accountability; legitimacy of rules; equity and inclusiveness; and effectiveness and
efficiency to explore the existing governance level within CFUGs. Whereas Lamichhane
and Parajuli (2009) used the 8(eight) major criteria (rule of law; transparency;
participatory; accountability; responsive; effective and efficient; equitable and inclusive;
and consensus oriented) and various indicators to assess the good governance in CFUGs.
There is no official criteria and indicator to assess the governance in FUGs level.

The effectiveness of CF may be judged on the basis of, transparency and accountability in
the administration of FUGs, increased benefit sharing on an equitable basis, participatory
decisionmaking within FUGs, increased participation of women and disadvantaged groups
and quality of forest (Bhatta and Gentle, 2004). However, the DoF (2012) developed and
used total of 15 criteria and 56 indicators for awarding the Ganesh Man Singh National
Community Forestry award. These criteria and indicators resemble with criteria and
indicators for awarding successful CF management developed by Pokharel and Larsen
(2006). UNDP (1997) suggested the four elements of good governance, which are
transparency, accountability, participation, and predictability.

UNDP (2002) points out that an effective democratic form of governance relies on public
participation, accountability and transparency. In this study too, participation, transparency
and accountability along with predictability are considered as important attributes of
governance and thus assessed through local indicators to explore the present status of CF

12
governance in Kailali District. The elements of good governance used in this study are
described below:

2.3.1 Participation
Participation refers to the meaningful and active engagement of general members of
CFUGs and their representatives in CFUGs affairs. It includes their active role in decision-
making and their rights and possibilities to effectively file complaints and be heard. It also
implies that all stakeholders, including women, poor, Dalits and marginalized Janajaties,
are meaningfully involved in deciding how the community forest and group fund is
managed, protected and utilized or allocated. In good governance, participation stands for
active and meaningful involvement and leadership of those people that the project aims to
benefit.

Participation focuses in the inclusion of women, Dalits, poor and marginalized Janajaties
who really are far away from the mainstream of development. This process also enhances
cooperation among users group and strengthens good governance. Participation by both
men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either
direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to
point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the
most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making.
Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and
expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.

2.3.2 Transparency
Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that
follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly
accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also
means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable
forms and media. This refers to openness and public access to information of CFUGs so
that all the general members and stakeholders can understand the decision-making

13
processes that affect them and they are knowledgeable about the standards to expect from
executive committees and other relevant officials such as Division Forest Office.

If the general members of CFUG have easy access to i) decisions made by the executive
committees and general assembly, ii) annual program and iii) budget, then their mutual
trust with the executive committee members will be further enhanced and support to
CFUG executive committee would be increased. Transparency eventually supports
strengthening the participation, accountability and predictability of the CFUG.

2.3.3 Accountability
Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental
institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable
to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to who varies
depending on whether? Decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an
organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to
those who will be affected by its decisions or actions.

Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

Accountability denotes the democratic principle that elected executive members of CFUGs
and officials from District Forest Offices and those in public service can be held
accountable for their actions and answer to CUFGs and those they serve. This includes
political, administrative, and financial dimensions. Good governance and sound
institutions of CFUGs play an important role to promote accountability. Accountability
requires that citizens, civil society organizations and the private sector are able to
scrutinize actions taken and decisions made by executive committees, the general
assembly, public institutions and governments and hold them answerable for what they
have, or have not done.

14
2.3.4 Predictability
Laws and policies should exist that regulate society and that are applied fairly and
consistently. Predictability requires the state and its subsidiary agencies to be bound by and
answerable to the legal system in the same way as private enterprises and individuals. The
specific area of action could be the development of predictable legal frameworks for
private-sector development. Predictability derives from sound policies and the procedures,
norms and values for smooth operation of the CFUG in the long run. It is also supported by
a sound and predictable CFUG institution that possesses the vision, leadership and capacity
to bring about a positive transformation of the community and forest use within a
stipulated period of time.

Predictability requires the executive committees and its sub-committees to be bound by

and answerable to the legal system in the same way as general members. The CFUG must
prepare good plans and ensure their proper implementation. Similarly, the CFUG should
develop functional relations with other like-minded organizations to build a constituency to
conduct advocacy functions on pertinent issues. Affiliation with the relevant networks and
federations would also help to amplify their voices in favor of women, the poor, Dalits and
Janajaties. The predictability increases if the CFUG as an institution will execute their
plans with legal frameworks fairly and consistently over time.

2.4 Need of good governance

According to Pokharel and Niraula, (2004), CF in Nepal offers many examples of good
governance such as decentralized decision-making, participatory management of resources,
and equitable sharing of benefits. Government, nongovernmental and private sector
agencies at service delivery level have become more accountable to the forest users. The
forestry sector coordination committee under the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
(MFSC) has identified three themes- livelihood, governance and sustainable forest
management- as second generation reforms in the community forestry program. We think
that the relationships among PRSP, the second generation reforms issues and the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are very closely interlinked (Kanel 2004).

15
Nepal (2007) reported that governance is the manner in which power is exercised in the
management of a country’s economic, environment and social resources for development.
Good governance practices include: increasing public participation with the focus on the
well-being of the poor, marginalized and women, transparency, accountability,
predictability, capacity building of constituents, leadership development, coalition-
building in civil society and private sector, conflict mitigation through negotiation and
mediation, and advocacy. Good governance in community forestry contributes to various
field of rural development as indicated in the following headings:

2.4.1 People's livelihood

More than 78% of the Nepalese people depend on forest resources to support their
livelihood like timber, fuel wood, fodder, forage and leaf litter requirement. Good
governance is, therefore, crucial for providing equitable access to and benefits from forest
resources to all people including the poor, women and marginalized group members of the
CFUG. If resources distributed in an equitable manner, the probability of mis-utilization of
forest resources get decreased.

2.4.2 Sustainable forest management

With participation from various sections of society, there will be better community forest
management and reduced conflicts in CFUG. Well-functioning of CFUG will eventually
lead to sustainability of community forestry.

2.4.3 Ensure broader participation and ownership feeling

Participation from different segments of society, particularly women, poor, janjaties and
dalits ensures the reflection of their concerns and raise ownership feeling in the community
forestry development and management process.

2.4.4 Equitable benefit sharing

Practices of good governance in community forestry contribute to equitable benefit sharing
among the users in a transparent way.

16
2.4.5 Access and control to decision-making process
CFUG activities such as public hearing and public auditing provide an opportunity for the
users to play critical roles in influencing the decision making process in community forest
development and management process and practices and CFUG fund mobilization in
different sectors of user’s livelihoods.

17
 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Study areas

Kailali district, a part of Sudurpaschim Province, is one of the seventy-
seven districts of Nepal. The district, with Dhangadhi as its district headquarters, covers an
area of 3,235 km² and has a population (2011) of 775,709. It borders with Bardiya to the
East, Kanchanpur to the West, Doti to the North and India to the South. Topographically,
Kailali entails 280 40' 60'' latitude and 800 35' 60'' longitudes.

The Kailali has 6 municipalities and 6 rural municipalities and 1 sub-metropolitan city. It is
one of the remote districts of Nepal and is accessible by automobile
from Kathmandu and Nepalgunj via a paved road that runs along the western border of
Nepal..

Almost all area of Kailali lies on Terai area and few area lies on Mid-hill. The lowest
elevation point is 150 meter and the highest elevation point is 2,000 meter from mean sea
level. Elevation of Kailali Headquarters Dhangadhi is 150 m.

As a result of the elevation differences, Kailali has three different types of climate: Lower
tropical below 300 m which covers an area of 59.3% of district, Upper tropical 300-1,000
meter and Subtropical 1000-2000 meters covering 25.9% and 13.8% respectively. The
annual rainfall is about 1757 mm and the temperatures of kailali is 24.6 ºC/76.2ºF.

Subsistence agriculture farming, mainly small scale livestock is the main source of
occupation and livelihood of the majority of the population, with 61% of the population
active in this sector.

18
3.2. Map of the study area

Figure 1: Figure 1 Map of study area

3.2.1 Selection of selected CFUGs
The study was carried out in two Community Forests i.e. Patela CF and Dewariya CF of
Kailali district. Selection of the CFUG’s was done in consultation with DFO staffs on the
basis of development, conservation and utilization practices.
The criteria considered during CFUG selection were:
 One of the community forest is scientifically managed and other is normally managed,
 Both lied in the same geographical range.
 Both were easily accessible.
 Both CFUG’s have been functioning for at least one full period of the operational plan
(5 years).
 CFUG members of both CFUGs were also interested for this study.

19
3.3 Characteristics of selected CFUGs
Table 1 shows the characteristics of selected CFUGs, and both forests were mixed natural
and plantation forests.

Table 1: Characteristics of selected CFUGs

Patela CFUG Dewariya CFUG
Address Dhangadhi 07, Kailali Dhangadhi 07, Kailali
UG Registered 2066 BS (as CFUG) 2060 BS (as CFUG)
Revision of OP 2075 BS 2076 BS
Date of 2056 BS (as CFUG) 2060 BS (as CFUG)
handover
Area 171.44 Hectares 253.87 Hectares
No. of blocks 8 7
Types of forest Mix natural and plantation Mix natural and plantation
Dominant Dalbergia sisoo, Acacia Catechu, Dalbergia sisoo, Acacia Catechu,
species Shorea robusta, Syzygiun Cumini, Shorea robusta, Syzygiun Cumini,
Terminalia alata Terminalia alata
Forest Hired forest watcher and Hired forest watcher and
Protection household rotation household rotation
No. of 98 households 727 households
households
Population Male Female Total Male Female Total

303 282 585 2276 2039 4315

20
3.4 Study Framework

Literature review

Proposal writing

Selection of CFUGs

Survey questionnaire preparation

Data collection

Primary data collection Secondary data

collection
Household
questionnaire survey OP and constitution
of CFUG
Focused group
discussion Minute books
Key informant survey Relevant reports and
articles
Field observation
Thesis, internet,
libraries

Data analysis:
MS excel, MS word

Draft report submission

Report presentation

Final report submission

Figure : Framework of the study

21
3.5. Data Collection Technique

The total sample size was determined by using the formula developed by Pagose et. Al
(1978) and adopted by Thapa 1990 in Nepal i.e n= N\ (1 ₊ Ne²), where n= sample size, N=
Population Size and e = desired errors (10%) and then stratified random sampling is used
for convince and to reduce the chance of heterogeneity. Stratification was carried out on
the basis of wellbeing Rank of the CFUGs members.

Dewariya CFUG was large, only 10 % (73 households) sample was taken while from
Patela CFUG 40 % (39 households) sample was taken. Stratified random sampling
method was used for data collection. Both primary and secondary data were collected
using different methods and techniques which were as follows:

3.5.1Primary Data collection

primary data was collected from the study site using Participatory Rural Appraisal tools
such as household questionnaire survey, meeting with executive committee members,
informal discussions with various focus groups, interviews with key informants, informal
discussions with personnel facilitating organizations and direct observation. Details of
primary data collection methods were given below:

Questionnaire Survey

All together 112 households (72 households in Dewariya CFUG and 39 households in
Patela CFUG) were interviewed out of total 825 households in the two groups. Structured
and semi structured, open and close ended questionnaire format was developed which is
represented in Annex 1 and used in order to access the general level of awareness of the
users about participation, transparency, accountability, and predictability and their issues,
challenges and opportunity.

22
Executive Committee Meeting

Executive committee meeting was held in each CFUG at appropriate times with other
CFUG members to gather information about participation, transparency, accountability and
predictability of CFUG management. Questions were asked about different activities
undertaken by the CFUG, sources of funds, fund mobilization, awareness and willingness
of the user groups, criteria for selection of participants for various activities and other
general information. During the meetings, the researcher carefully observed their decision
making system and the efficiency with which the executive committee passed on their
decisions and kept records in their minute, financial and administrative books.

Key informant Survey

Formal as well as informal interviews were carried out with the key informants such as
school teachers and social workers, elite people, retired committee members, local political
leader and village elders (More than 65 years), forest watchers, DFO staffs and sub-
division forest staffs. Such information was useful to identify and verify the data collected
from other means. For this purposes, altogether 5 different personnel were consulted to
explore the existing issues of forest governance in the studied site.
Ram Chandra kadel Divisional Forest officer, Kailali
Arjun chaudhari Chairman, Patela CFUG
Bhajan rana Chairman, Dewaria CFUG
Ram autar Chaudhari Assist. Forest OFFicer, Kailali
Sangini jagari, Bhagiram chaudahri, Executive Committee members.
Dharma chaudhari, Susma chaudhari

23
Focus Group Discussion
For the purpose of gathering information, perceptions, opinions and attitude on various
existing features of good forest governance and to check the reliability of the answers
obtained from other means, focus group discussion was held with the participation and co-
operation of EC members as well as social worker, local leaders, teachers and users from
different caste and ethnic groups.
The main objective of this method was to encourage the participation of women, poor and
occupational castes and hear their voices regarding their access to local resources and their
involvement in decision making process. This method was just the facilitation for self-
evaluation on governance by the concerned users. Altogether two Focus Group
Discussions was carried out among user groups in the study site. The Checklist/Matrix for
Focus Group Discussion is attached in Annex 2.

Direct Observation
Direct observation to check whether the answers given by the EC members as well as
answers got during household survey were accurate or not, was done in both community
forests. It provided opportunity to attend the committee’s meetings and to examine the
participation of people in community forestry activities, decision making system of CFUG
committee and information dissemination methods. The status of governance in CFUGs, in
case of participation of people in CF meetings and other activities were examined by direct
observation. During visits, constitution, operation plan and meeting minutes of both
CFUGs were also thoroughly reviewed and analyzed.

3.5.2 Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data were collected to supplement primary data and some new information as
well. Those data regarding the research were gathered from published and unpublished
reports/documents through Division Forest Office and concerned service providers. The
related documents i.e. users’ constitution and OP; annual audit reports; minutes of ECs and
general assemblies; forest product distribution register and correspondence and other
administrative records of concerned CFUGs were reviewed during study period. Other

24
necessary information was collected from different sources as published documents, case
studies, online journals, reliable websites and different libraries.

3.6 Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were used to analyze the collected data.
Information collected from the field was carefully recorded, compiled, categorized, coded,
tabulated and analyzed as per the nature of the information. After each interview and group
discussion, major points related to research questions were recorded as bullet points.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of information gave total numbers, mean values and
percentages which were presented in the form of tables, figures and texts according to the
nature of topics under discussion. Simple statistical tools such as bar diagrams, pie charts
were used to analyze results with the help of MS-Excel.

To calculate the degree of governance, 4 elements of good governance, each having four
indicators were used. Each indicator was further divided into four grades (1 to 4, i.e. poor
to excellent). With the help of Governance Assessment Matrix Table (Annex 3-6) each
element was scored. The maximum value per element is 16 and with lowest value 4. Each
element was then judged according to its score and ranked using the ranking in table 2
given below. After that, the score sheets were translated into a visual spider web diagram.

25
Table 2: Indicators of good governance.
Elements of Good governance Indicators
Participation 1. Representation in executive committee
2. Participation in decision making process
3. Participation in CF activities
4. Participation in benefit sharing mechanism
Accountability 1. Accountability of committee members in their
roles and responsibilities
2. Committee members fairness or biasness to any
CFUG members
3. Read/listen and implement constitution and
forest operational plan
4. Conflict over power in the committee and CFUG
Transparency 1. Responsible in setting prices of forest products
2. Transparency in CFUGs fund
3. Public hearing and auditing
4. Transparency in forest products distribution
Predictability 1. Preparation of annual plans, guidelines and
revision of OP
2. Linkage development and networking
3. Clear goal, vision and objectives of the group
4. Human resources development
(Adopted from Bhatta B. and Gentle P.2004 “strengthening the internal governance of the
CFUGs: experience of SAMARPAN project” and Dhananjaya Lamichhane and Rajan
Parajuli.2014“How Good is the Governance Status in Community Forestry? A Case Study
from Midhills in Nepal”).

26
Each element was then judged according to its score and ranked using the ranking in table
given below. After that, the score sheets were translated into a visual spider web diagram.

Table 3: Category of governance status.

Rank/Level Poor Medium Good Excellent
Element 1 2 3 4
Total score of each element 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16
Total score 1-16 17-32 33-48 49-64

27
 CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General information of respondents

4.1.1 Gender of respondents
In Dewariya CFUG, more female (60%) were involved in the study as they were actively
participated in forest management activities such as protection and weeding and cleaning
of community forests which was being operated during the field survey. But in Patela
CFUG, mainly male (56%) were active in forest management activities (figure 2).
60%

50%

40%

30% male
female
20%

10%

0%
patela dewariya

Figure 2: Gender of respondents

4.1.2 Age structure of respondents

The respondent’s age was categorized into three age classes. young age group was made
up of respondents within the range of 15-35 years likewise middle age comprised of
respondents who where 36-55 years old and the old age was named for the group of
respondents were more than 56 years (figure 3)

28
 Age structure of the respondents
Patela CF Dewariya CF
47.57%
44.11%

36.43% 38.23%

17.66% 16.00%

Young(15-35) Middle(36-55) old(Above 56)

Figure 3: Age class of respondents

4.1.3 Ethnicity of respondents
In Dewariya CFUG, the respondents were found to be distributed in all caste categories
(Figure 4) with 6.99% respondents' dalit, 39.36%janajati, 5.33% respondents thakuri and
the rest 48.59% Brahmin/Chhetri.
In Patela CFUG, all caste categories comprised in the total respondents. Here, 16%
respondents were Bhramin/chhetri, 8% were dalits and mostly 76% were from janajati
community.
80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% patela CF

30.00% dewariya CF

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
janjati brahmin/chettri dalit thakuri

Figure 4: Ethnicity of respondents

29
4.1.4 Education status of respondents
Respondents were categorized into three groups with respect to education status: illiterate,
literate and well educated. Those who can’t read and write were illiterate; those who can
read and write were considered as literate and those who passed the high school level or
above were categorized as well educated. Figure 5 shows that 52% of the total respondents
of Patela CFUG were literate, 28% were well educated and only 20% of the total
respondents were illiterate. Likewise 45% of the total respondents of Dewariya CFUG
were literate, 38% were well educated and 17% of the total respondents were illiterate.
60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% patela CF
dewariya CF
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
illiterate literate well educated

Figure 5: Education status of respondents

4.1.5 Occupational status of respondents
Agriculture was the main occupation of respondents followed by services and business in
both Patela CFUG and Dewariya CFUG (Figure 6).
70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%
patela CF
30.00%
dewariya CF
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
agriculture service business

Figure 6: Occupational status of respondents

30
4.1.6 Well- Being Ranking of Respondents
CFUG members were categorized into 3 groups in both CFUGs which were Rich (denoted
by A), Middle class (denoted by B), Poor households (denoted by C) based on their food
sufficiency, income, land holding, livestock population, service within country and outside
etc. Both CFUGs were similar in their ethnic composition. Mostly chettri, bahun, janjati
resided here and they have used similar criteria for class differentiation and have been
given in Table.
Out of total 98 HH in Patela CFUG, 39 HH were surveyed. Among the surveyed HH,
18.36% were Rich, 72.44% medium and 9.18% Poor. Similarly in Dewariya CFUG
16.50% of surveyed HH were Rich, 70.28% medium and 13.20 % poor. The total HH in
Dewariya CF is 73. Altogether 112 HH were surveyed.

Table 4: Well- being ranks of the respondents.

Rich Medium Poor
CFUGs Total Study Total Study Total Study
HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs
Dewariya 120 12 511 51 96 10
CFUG
Patela 18 8 71 26 9 5
CFUG

31
 80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% patela CF
dewariya CF
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
rich medium poor

Figure 7: wellbeing of the respondents

4.2 Status of good governance in CFUGs
4.2.1 Participation
Participation of poor, women and dalit CFUG members in CF and CFUG management is
the heart of good governance practices. The main indicators of participation are
representation of women, poor and dalit households in CFUG Executive Committee,
participation during constitution and forest operational plan preparation, attending general
assembly etc, preparation of annual work plan and its implementation and monitoring and
evaluation, and benefit sharing such as participation in training and study tours, forest
products and CFUG’s fund mobilization mechanism and practices etc.

4.2.1.1 Representation in Executive Committee

Representation percent of Women, Men and Dalit were different in two different FUGs.
The numbers of member in EC of Dewariya CFUG were 13, among them 6 were women
and 5 were men. Which represent 46% and 38% of the total member of EC. The
involvement of dalit were 2 in numbers, which is equal to 16% of EC member respectively
(Figure 8). The representation of women in Patela CFUG was found less than that of
Dewariya CFUG. Among the 11 EC members, 4 were women, which represent 36% and 6

32
were male, which represent 54% of total EC member. There were 1 member among Dalit
group, which represent 9% of EC members.
60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% patela CF
dewariya CF
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
women men dalit

Figure 8: Representation in Executive committee

4.2.1.2 Participation in different meetings
Participation of the respondents in different meetings such as user committee formation,
constitution and community forest operational plan finalization was evaluated to ensure the
governance within CFUGs. Participation in user committee formation was higher in both
CFUGs as compare to participation in constitution and OP finalization. Majority of the
respondents did not participate in any of the meetings (Figure 9).
70.00% 65.00%
60.00% 56.00%
52.00%
50.00% 44%
40.00% 32.00%
30.00% 24.00% 26.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
user commity constitution op finalization not attended any
formation finalization

patela CF dewariya CF

Figure 9: Participation in different meetings

33
4.2.1.3 Participation in committee meeting
The committee meets every month throughout the year and every member should
participate regularly. In Dewariya CFUG, 30% of the respondents always participated in
committee meeting whereas 26% participated frequently, 22% participated sometimes and
21% never participated. In Patela CFUG, 45% of the respondents always participated in
committee meeting whereas 16% participated frequently, 24% participated sometimes and
15% never participated (Figure 10).
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00% patela CF

20.00% dewariya CF

15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
always frequently sometimes never

Figure 10: Participation in committee meetings

4.2.1.4Participation in CF activities
CFUG activities include activities such as forest protection, management and regulation.
Out of 73 respondents in Dewariya CFUG, 26% said that they have always participated in
CF activities, 30% said that they have frequently participated and 21% said they have
participated sometimes and 22% never participated whereas in Patela CFUG, 40% said that
they have always participated in CF activities, 24% said that they have frequently
participated and 18% said they have participated sometimes and 17% never participated
(Figure 11). Main reasons for not participating in both CFUGs were lack of interest, lack
of time and less dependency on forest products.

34
 45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%
patela CF
20.00%
dewariya CF
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
always frequently sometimes never

Figure 11: Participation in CF activities

4.2.1.5Forest product distribution

In Dewariya CFUG, 28% of the respondents said that the forest products were distributed
in equal basis which means each household was given an equal share of benefits whereas
51% said that the forest products were distributed in equity basis which means fairly,
without discrimination and 21% didn’t know about distribution of forest products.
Similarly, in Patela CFUG 35% of the respondents said that the forest products were
distributed in equal basis whereas 48% said that the forest products were distributed in
equity basis and 17% didn’t know about distribution of forest products (Figure 12).
All of the respondents of both CFUGs agreed that the distribution of forest products were
decided by executive committee as per the applications submitted by needed ones.

35
 60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% patela CF
dewariya CF
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
equal basis equity basis don’t know

Figure 12: Forest products distribution

4.2.1.6Participation in decision making process
Majority of the respondents in both CFUGs said that decision is made only by executive
committee (Figure 13).
60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% patela CF
dewariya CF
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
executive general assembly don’t know
committee only

Figure 13: Participation in decision making process

36
4.2.1.7Decision made by executive committee
Most of the respondents said that the decisions made by executive committee are good in
both CFUGs (Figure 14).
45% 42%
40% 37%
35%
29%
30%
24%
25% 22%
20%
20% 16%
15% 10%
10%
5%
0%
very good good sometimes good don’t know

patela cf dewariya cf

Figure 14: Views regarding decision made by EC

4.2.1.8 Participation in trainings and tours

Trainings and tours should be conducted in CFUG for human resource development.
Respondents of Dewariya CFUG were getting very few opportunities to attend trainings
given by Division Forest Office and other I/NGOs in community level but the situation
was different in Patela CFUG where 75.44% of the total respondents had participated those
events while 24.56% of total respondent has denied it.

patela CF
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
patela CF
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
yes no

Figure 15: Participation in tours and trainnings

37
Table 5 shows the scores of both the CFUGs for four indicators of Participation, which
was similar in both CFUG with 10 total score.

Table 5: CFUG member's participation score.

Indicators of Participation Total attainable Score Obtained
score Dewariya Patela CFUG
CFUG
Participation in key decision 4 3 4
making position
Participation in decision making 4 2 2
process
Participation in CFUG’s 4 3 3
activities implementation
Participation in benefit sharing 4 2 3
process
Total Score 16 10 12
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent
Table 5 shows that Patela CFUG is ‘Good’ in transparency while Dewariya CFUG is
‘Medium’ were medium in decision making and benefit sharing process and practices.

4.2.2Transparency
4.2.2.1 Transparency in income and income sources
Respondents were asked about the CFUG funds they had in bank and in saving and credit
cooperatives. Only 34% of the total respondents in Patela CFUG reported that they knew
how much amount their CFUG had (Figure 16) whereas 66% didn’t had any idea about
their funds. Figure 16 shows that only 28% out of the total respondents in Dewariya CFUG
had known how much CFUG fund they had whereas the rest 72% of them had no idea
about the CFUG funds.

38
 80.00%
72%
70.00% 66.00%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00% 34.00%
28%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
yes no

Patela CFUG Dewariya CFUG

Figure 16: Transparency in income and income source

4.2.2.2 Transparency in expenditure
In Patela CFUG, 69% of the total respondents reported that they know about the
expenditure details, the remaining 31% replied that they didn’t know about it. About 69%
of the total respondents reported that forestry development, institutional development and
community development activites (watchman, plantation, donation to school, local clubs,
fire line and road construction) and livelihood improvement (pig and goat farming)
activities followed by community development activities.
In Dewariya CFUG same questionnaire were asked, 62% respondent replied that they
know about expenditure details, the remaining 38% replied that they didn’t know. the
funds were mobilized in the field of forest protection and development, community
development and poverty reduction.

39
 80.00%
69.00%
70.00%
62.00%
60.00%
50.00%
38.00%
40.00%
31.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
yes no

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 17: Transparency in expenditure

In Patela CFUG, 80% of the total respondents told that they can see minute books,
registers, account books and other financial records if they wanted whereas rest of them
said they don’t get opportunity to view such records. On the contrary, in Dewariya CFUG,
23% of the total respondents reported that they don’t get to observe financial records what
so ever. Hence 76% of the total respondents from Patela CFUG reported that they were
fully satisfied towards fund mobilization system where as 62% of the total respondents
from Dewariya CFUG said so. Figure 18 clearly shows that the satisfaction level of CFUG
members on CFUG fund mobilization process and practices was higher in Patela CFUG
compared with Dewariya CFUG.

40
 90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00% 62.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00% 23.00%
20.00% 15.00%
11.00% 9.00%
10.00%
0.00%
very much somewhat not at all

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 18: Satisfaction of respondents towards fund mobilization

4.2.2.3 Public hearing and auditing

It is a participatory process that aims to strengthen the transparency and accountability of
institutions which should be conducted at least once a year to inform users about group
programs, income, expenditure, sale and distribution of forest products, group decisions
and their implementation status. Both CFUGs have conducted public hearing of their
development activities along with fund generation and mobilization process and practices.
In Patela CFUG, 76% of the respondents had attended public hearing and auditing whereas
14% didn’t attend and 10% were unaware about public auditing and hearing. In Dewariya
CFUG, 69% of the respondents had attended public hearing and auditing whereas 17%
didn’t attend and 14% were unaware about public auditing and hearing (Figure 19).

41
 80.00% 76.00%
69%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00% 17%
14.00% 14%
10%
10.00%
0.00%
yes no don’t know

Patela CFUG Dewariya CFUG

Figure 19: Public hearing and auditing

4.2.2.4 Responsible in setting prices of forest products

In both CFUGs, majority of the respondents said that price of forest products were set
according to operational plan and constitution of CFUGs (62% in Patela CFUG and 53%
in Dewariya CFUG) whereas 28% of Dewariya respondents and 21% of Patela
respondents said that executive committee set the price while rest of the respondents didn’t
know about the matter (Figure 20).

70.00%
62.00%
60.00% 53.00%
50.00%
40.00%
28.00%
30.00% 25.00%
21.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
op executive committee don’t know

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 20: Forest products pricing responsibility

42
4.2.2.5 Transparency in forest products distribution
According to the discussion with EC of both CFUGs, the forest products were distributed to those
who have submitted an application for the need of forest products. 80% of the total respondents in
Patela CFUG and 72% in Dewariya CFUG reported that there was transparency but 20% in Patela
and 18% in . Remaining 8% of the total respondents reported that they didn’t know about
this matter.
90.00%
80.00%
80.00% 72.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00% 18.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
yes no

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 21: Transparency in forest products distribution

43
Table 6 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of transparency, which was
better in Patela CFUG compared with Dewariya CFUG.

Table 6: Transparency score of both CFUGs.

Indicators of Transparency Total attainable Score Obtained
score Patela Dewariya CFUG
CFUG
Transparency in income and income 4 2 2
sources
Transparency in expenditure details 4 2 2
Public hearing and auditing 4 3 2
Transparency in sales and distribution 4 4 2
of forest products
Total Score 16 11 8
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 6 shows that Patela CFUG is ‘Good’ in transparency while Dewariya CFUG is
‘Medium’ as far as transparency is concerned.

4.2.3 Accountability
4.2.3.1 Accountability of EC members in their roles and responsibilities
In Patela CFUG, 72% of the total respondents reported that the EC members were fully
accountable to the users (Figure 26), while 9% of them said that the CFUG executive
committee was little bit accountable towards them where as 10% of them told that the
executive committee was not at all accountable. Remaining 9% of the total respondents
reported that they didn’t know about this matter. As for Dewariya CFUG, only 50% of the
total respondents reported that the EC members were fully accountable to the users, while
30% of them said that the EC was little bit accountable towards them where as 12% of
them told that the EC was not at all accountable. Remaining 8% of the total respondents
reported that they didn’t know about this matter.

44
 80.00%
72.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
9.00% 10.00% 12.00% 9.00% 8.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Fully Little bit No Don't know

patela CF dewariya CF

Figure 22: Accountability of EC members in their roles and responsibilities

4.2.3.2 Accountability of general members in their roles and responsibilities
In Patela CFUG 66% of the total respondents claimed that they were always informed
prior to carrying out every activities of the user group and have always participated while
18% confessed they were never informed about such activities and have never participated.
In Dewariya CFUG, 57% of the total respondents reported that they always participated in
CFUG activities, 26% said they sometimes participated and only 17% said they never
participated in forest related activities of their community (figure 23).

70.00% 66.00%

60.00% 57.00%

50.00%
40.00%
30.00% 26.00%
16.00% 18.00% 17.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Always Sometimes Never

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 23: Accountability of general members in their roles and responsibilities

45
4.2.3.3 Biasness of executive members to general members
Majority of respondents in both CFUGs that was 76% in Patela and 71% in Dewariya
reported that they were not biased by committee members but 18% in both Patela and
Dewariya CFUG reported that they were biased by committee (Figure 24). Rest of the
respondents did not know about the matter.
80.00% 76.00%
71.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
18.00% 18.00%
20.00%
11.00%
10.00% 6.00%

0.00%
Yes No Don’t know

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 24: EC biasness to general members

4.2.3.4 Read/Listen constitution and operational plan preparation

OP and constitution are the basic documents for implementing the CF activities at the grass
root level. The OP is a document containing management and utilization schemes, for
community forest that is agreed upon between the users and the Division Forest Office. OP
and Constitution are the legal documents to hand over the forest as a community forest.
Majority of the respondents of both CFUGs neither read nor have heard the constitution
and OP of CF. only 43% in Patela and 35% in Dewariya had read or listened constitution
and OP (Figure 25).

46
 70.00% 65.00%
60.00% 57.00%

50.00% 43.00%
40.00% 35.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Yes No

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 25: Read/listen to constitution and OP

4.2.3.5 Conflict over power in the committee and CFUG

Majority of the respondents in both CFUGs reported that there was no conflict over power
in the committee and CFUG. Main reason according to the respondents was nobody else
was interested to be committee member.
90.00%
81.00%
80.00%
68.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
18.00%
20.00% 14%
9.00% 10%
10.00%
0.00%
No Yes Don’t know

Patela CF Dewariya CF

Figure 26: Conflict over power in CFUG

47
Table 7 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of accountability, which
was better in Patela CFUG compared with Dewariya CFUG.

Table 7: Accountability level of both CFUGs.

Indicators of Accountability Total attainable Score Obtained
score Patela Dewariya CFUG
CFUG
Accountability of executive 4 3 2
committee in their roles and
responsibilities
Accountability of general members 4 3 2
in their roles and responsibilities
Accountability of EC members to 4 3 2
general members
Conflict over power in the committee 4 4 3
and CFUG
Total Score 16 13 9
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 7 clearly shows that accountability level of Patela CFUG is good whereas that of
Dewariya CFUG is only medium.

4.2.4 Predictability
4.2.4.1 Preparation of Annual Plans, directives/guidelines and revision of OP
In Both CFUGs, annual plans were made in the annual meetings/ general assemblies and
the decisions were carefully noted in minute books. Regular monthly meeting ensure that
proper measures were taken to carry out those plans effectively. Directives/guidelines for
improving livelihood have been prepared. The constitution of Patela CFUG has been
revised for the second time in 2074/75 B.S. and the OP has been revised every 10 years.
As for Dewariya CFUG, has been revised for the third time in 2076 B.S. and the OP has
been revised every 5 years.

48
4.2.4.2Coordination, linkages and Networking
Patela CFUG had good linkage with Division Forest Office (DFO), Department of
Livestock Services (DLS), FECOFUN and District Forest Coordination Committee
(DFCC). It also had good networking with some other Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs)and few local co-operatives.
Dewariya CFUG, on the other hand, had a good link with DFO but poor link with DLS and
FECOFUN. It doesn’t have any linkages with NGOs as well. Lack of proper co-ordination
with various agencies have resulted in poor exposure of Patela CFUG which in turn makes
it very difficult for them to land projects or aids from governmental and non-governmental
organizations. Users were not aware of such programs and the EC was neither responsive
nor interested to bring such assistance to their CFUG.

4.2.4.3 Clear goal, vision and objective of the group

Both CFUG had some goals and visions for forest development, community development
and utilization of their forest resources in an eco-friendly way. Plans for ecotourism
activities have been made such as Dewariya botanical garden has been constructed near
Dewariya CFUG. In addition to that, better provisions for road, drinking water and
electricity for the local inhabitants is one of the main focuses of Patela CFUG. Both
CFUGs plans to initiate some IGAs too for betterment of poor and marginalized people.

4.2.4.4 Human resources development

To run the CFUG smoothly and successfully, adequate financial, physical and human
resources is required. There should be capacity building trainings and programs to improve
skills for sustainable management of the group. The group also requires trained and skilled
human resources for sustainable management of forest, biodiversity conservation and
climate change adaptation. Both CFUGs had attended training such as thinning, pruning,
fireline construction and community forest management activities effectiveness was seen
in Patela CFUG compared with Dewariya CFUG.
Table 8 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of predictability, which was
better in Patela CFUG compared with Dewariya CFUG.

49
Table 8: Predictability score of both CFUGs.
Indicators of Predictability Total attainable Score Obtained
score Patela Dewariya CFUG
CFUG
Preparation of directives and 4 3 3
guidelines
Human resource development 4 3 2
Co-ordination, linkages and 4 3 2
networking
Clear goal, vision and objectives of 4 2 1
the group
Total Score 16 11 8
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 8 shows that in terms of predictability, Patela CFUG gets a Good score whereas
Dewariya CFUG gets a medium score.

4.3. Comparative assessment of good governance of both CFUG

Table 9 shows the comparison of degree of governance of both CFUGs, which was better
in Patela CFUG with 47 total score compared with Dewariya CFUG with only 35 scores in
64 total full score.
Comparison of degree of governance of both CFUGs
Table 9: Comparison of degree of governance of both CFUGs.
Elements of Ideal Score Patela Dewariya Level of elements of GG
Good CFUG CFUG Patela Dewariya
governance CFUG CFUG
Participation 16 12 10 Good Good
Transparency 16 11 8 Good Medium
Accountability 16 13 9 Good Good
Predictability 16 11 8 Good Medium
Total 64 47 35 Good Medium

50
4.4 Level of good governance of both CFUGs in Spider Web diagrams
The total score of each element of good governance of both the CFUGs was transformed
into a spider web diagram to have a graphical representation of the actual degree/status of
good governance. Figure 27 show the ideal status (a perfect score of 16 for each element)
and the scores of all four elements (Participation, Transparency, Accountability and
Predictability) of Patela CFUG and Dewariya CFUG. Dewariya CFUG was weak in
transparency, accountability and predictability aspects of good governance compared with
Dewariya CFUG of same locality. The main reason for this was lack of awareness about
the importance of community forest management, governance practices, capacity building
training and lack of support from different organizations.
Participation
16
15

10

5
Predictability Transparency Patela CFUG
0
16 16 Dewariya

Accountability
16
Figure 27: Governance comparison in spider-web diagram
4.5 Challenges and opportunities
The study in the two CFUG in Kailai district has revealed both challenges and
opportunities in good governance practices.
 Less dissemination of relevant information, decisions and fund mobilization and
public auditing/hearing practices were seemed like just for formalities.
 Low participation of users in fund mobilization related decisions was found. In
addition, need based training, workshop and cross-visit bring CFUGs together to
exchange their experiences (Choudhary, 2004). But, the participation of users in
any type of training in Dewariya CFUG was very low compared with Patela

51
 CFUG. User's capacity was not built up properly through training and cross visit
programs.
 Inadequate resources to cope with increased resource (financial and human)
requirements in CF management coupled with weak partnership between
government, private sector and civil society were the most prominent of all
challenges followed by weak organizational, managerial and technical capacities of
CFUGs along with monopoly of executive committee members in organizing
meeting and general assembly, insufficient transparency in managing fund.
 There was less coordination between CFUGs and GOs, NGOs and private sector to
develop and manage their activities properly.
 The other challenges found were inactive and inefficient participation of poor
socially excluded Dalit group in decision making forum and general assembly, and
low empowerment of them in CFUGs level.
 There was no provision of equitable distribution of forest products and benefit
sharing and specific provisions for the poor and socially excluded group in the
CFUGs level.
 Since most of the funds were spent in infrastructure and less specific provisions and
programs for the poor and socially excluded groups were least developed and
therefore, low participation of them in CF related activities were observed.
 Among the opportunities, user group members were cooperative. The condition of
the forest was also excellent to generate income and employment opportunities.
Field level DFOs were well motivated for the wellbeing of user group members.

52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSIONS
The study revealed that the overall status of governance in both CFUGs was “Good but
there is still room for improvement”. Participation of the respondents in meetings and
general assembly in both CFUGs was found satisfactory. Majority of respondents of both
CFUGs participated at the time of user committee formation, constitution finalization and
while deciding the distribution of forest product.

Representation of women in executive committee in both FUGs was found to be nearly

same and satisfactory than that of poor and dalits in EC. Marginal group’s voices and
response in decision making in both FUGs was found to be same and at satisfactory level.
Similarly, the suggestions are discussed most of the times in Patela CFUG while only
sometimes the suggestions are discussed in Dewariya CFUG.

Regarding transparency, both users perceived the existing transparency situation in the
groups weak. The system of public auditing was done generally once a year in both FUGs
but this is not found to be in regular basis, as well as low and inactive participation of
general members was found. Majority of respondents of Patela CFUG have known about
their CFUG fund than that of Dewariya CFUG. Transparency in expenditure, OP and
constitution discussion was excellent in Patela CFUG whereas poor in Dewariya CFUG.
Therefore, level of transparency in Patela CFUG is better than in Dewariya CFUG.

Regarding the accountability, the perception of the users towards accountability is

satisfactory in both but the user perceived Patela CFUG is Good accountable than
Dewariya CFUG.

The predictability status was too seen well in Patela CFUG than in Dewariya CFUG.
Guidelines regarding fund mobilization, pro-poor and focus group activities were lacking
in the field level and this was accompanied by the lack of annual plans and programs in

53
Dewariya CFUG. The coordination and the networking with GOs, NGOs, INGOs and
private sectors perceived by both FUGs was found to be satisfactory.
The overall conclusion by the study is, whatever be the sex and caste composition, if the
EC members and all users are dedicated, responsive and accountable to their group, it can
function better. The good governance in terms of participation, accountability,
transparency and predictability has been found to be better in Patela CFUG than Dewariya
CFUG.

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are the recommendations for forest user groups as well as any concern
institutions working for both CFUGs as a whole.
 Regular and active participation should be done in meetings and general assemblies by
the users. Users should attend whole process of discussions and decisions in the
meetings. In order to strengthen good governance, users should not only be aware of
their rights but also obey their responsibilities.
 Well documentation and record keeping and access of users on it are crucial aspect of
governance. A public hearing as well as public auditing should be conducted at least
once a year to inform users about group plans, income, expenditure, sale and
distribution of forest products, group decisions and implementation status. Users
should be informed about income, expenditure, programs and decisions of the group on
a regular basis by posting information in public places.
 The decision making process should include poor, women, disabled; Dalit, indigenous
people and ethnic groups, and special consideration should be given to develop
leadership of these groups. As governance is the process of decision-making and the
process by which decisions are implemented, these essences of forest governance

54
 should adopt in FUG. In most of the case decisions are made by elite members of FUG
and forced to implement by users.
 CFUG level good governance training and awareness programs should be organized to
enhance the good governance skill and knowledge of both user group members.
 Both FUGs should develop guidelines for fund mobilization especially for target
groups, women, poor and dalits.
 A monitoring mechanism and committee should be formed to monitor all the activities
performed at the group level in a joint or participatory way.

55
REFERENCES

Adhikari, J.R. (2001). Community based natural resource management in Nepal with
reference to community forest: A gender perspective, a Journal of the Environment,
Vol. 6 (7): pp, 9-22.

Bastakoti, R. R. (2005). Evaluation of collective action in forest user groups in Dhading

district, Nepal. Master’s thesis, Dresden University, Tharandt, Germany. “Common
Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai”. World Development 33 (7), 1101– 1114.

Bhatta, B. and Gentle, P. (2004). “Strengthening the internal governance of the CFUGs:
Experience of SAMARPAN project” In: Proceeding of the Fourth workshop on
community forestry, 25 years of community forestry, Dec. 2004 Community
Forestry Division, DOF.

Chowdhary, C.L. (2004). Governance in Community Forestry user groups in the

perspective of post formation support. In: Twenty five years of Community
Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. KANEL, K et al. (eds),
Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry, August 4-6,
2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp.

Dahal, G. (2003). Devolution in the context of poor governance: Learning from

Community Forestry in Nepal. Forest and Livelihood, Vol. 2 (2): pp, 17-22.

DOF, (2017). Community Forest Division. Retrieved 2March, 2017, from

http://dof.gov.np/dof_community_forest_division/community_forestry_dof

Ghimire, S. (2005). Performance evaluation of local non –governmental organizations’

involvement in Community Forestry development in Kaski and Ramechhap
districts, Nepal. Bachelor thesis, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Nepal.

Giri, K. (2005). Civic participation in community forest governance in Rupandehi district,

Nepal. Master's thesis, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
(BOKU), Austria.
56
Gurung, S.B. (2002). Governance and decentralization in achieving sustainable
development is essentially a task of transforming governance. Policy Input in
Governance Issues. Kathmandu, (December): pp, 1-12.

HMGN (2002). Tenth five-year Plan (2002-2007). National Planning Commission

Kathmandu, Nepal.

HMG/N. (2003). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002- 2007).HMG National Planning
Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal

Kafle, S. (2060). Nepalma Sthaniya Shusan Ra Garibi Niwaran. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Kanel, K.R. (2004). Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution to

Millennium Development Goals. In K. R. Kanel, P. Mathema, B.R. Kandel, D.R.
Niraula, A.R. Sharma, and M. Gautam (Eds). In K.R. Kanel, P. Mathema, B.R.
Kandel, D.R. Niraula, A.R. Sharma, and M. Gautam (Eds.), Proceeding of the
Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry (pp 4-30). Kathmandu:
Department of Forest..

Koirala, R., Giri, K. and Pokharel B.K. (2008). Development and Status of Community
Forestry Governance in Nepal.

Lamichhane. D. and Parajuli. R, (2014). How Good is the Governance Status in

Community Forestry? A Case Study from Midhills in Nepal, Gorkha District.

PAUDEL. A and VOGEL. S, (2007). Community Forestry Governance in Nepal: A Case

Study of the role of service providers in a community forest users group, Parbat
District

Pokharel, B.K. and M. Nurse (2004) Forest and People's Livelihood: Benefiting the Poor
from Community Forest. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 4 (1): 1929pp

Pokhrel, B.K. and Niraula, D.R (2004). “Community forestry governance in Nepal:
achievements, challenges & options for the future”.

57
Pokhrel, B. and Niraula, D. (2004). Community Forestry governance in Nepal:
Achievements, challenges and options for the future. In: Twenty five years of
Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. KANEL, K
et al. (eds), Proceedings of Fourth National Conference of Community Forestry,
August 4-6, 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. 587 pp.

Rims (2003). “Good Governance Practices in Community Forest Management: A Case

Study of Selected CFUGs” Gaguri, Dhading.

Samarpan et al. (2003). A guideline to assess the governance status of civil society
organizations, SAMARPAN Program of Care Nepal, Nepalgunj.

Thapa, K.B. (2005) . An Assessment of Good Governance Status of Community Forest

User Groups, Banke District, Nepal: A Thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the B.Sc. Forestry degree at TU. IOF, Nepal.

UNDP (2002). Nepal Human Development Report. Poverty reduction and governance.
UNDP, Nepal.

UNESCAP (2004). United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, Wisconsin, USA. World Development 29 (10), 1649–1672. [Online].
Available at: < http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm>. [Accessed on
4th March 2017].

UNDP (2002). Nepal Human Development Report. Poverty reduction and governance.
UNDP, Nepal.

Wunder, S. (2001). Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forest: What Scope for Synergies?
World Development 29:1817-1834 Cited in Pokharel, B.K. and D.R. Niraula
(2004) Community Forestry Governance in Nepal Achievement Challenges and
Options for the Future. In 25 years of Community Forestry, August 2004, DOF,
Kathmandu, Nepal.305p.

58
Annexes

Annex 1 Questionnaire format for survey

A. RESPONDENT’S INFORMATION Date:
1 .Respondent’s Name: ……………………………… 2. Sex: ………………
3. Age: …………………………..
4. Ward No:…………………… 5. VDC/MP: ………………………
6. Well Being Ranking: ………………………………
8. Family members in your house:
Male:…………. Female: ……………….. Total: …………..
9. Education Status:
a) Illiterate b) Literate c) SLC d) Intermediate
e) . Bachelors/Masters
10. Occupation / Major Income sources:
a) Agriculture b) Business c) Service/Civil Service d) Study/Student
e) Wage Labour f) Remittance g) Others

B. PARTICIPATION
How frequently do you attend committee’s meetings/assemblies?
a) Frequently b) Sometimes c) Always d) Never
4. Have you attended the following events?
a) Meeting of user committee formation b) Meeting of constitution finalization
c) Meeting of OP finalization d) Meeting while deciding distribution of FP
e) None
What is the decision making process generally found in the FUG?
a) Executive committee only b) Elite and influential members
b) By participation of majority of users d) By general assembly
e) Don’t know
Have you ever participated in the decision making process?
a) Yes/always b) Yes/ sometimes c) No (Why?)
Are you satisfied with your participation?

59
 a) Very much satisfied b) Somewhat satisfied c) Not at all (Why?)
Is there active participation of women, poor and Dalits in community activities / meetings/
General assemblies?
a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Never e) Don’t know
Does the user committee listen to others while taking the decisions?
a) All the time b) Most of the times c) Sometimes d) Never e) Don’t know
Do poor/women/DAGs raise their voices during decision making / general assemblies and
are they taken into account while making decisions?
a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know
On the basis of educational status, generally who takes the decisions?
a) Illiterate b) Literate c) Both d) Don’t know
On the basis of ethnic composition, generally who takes the decisions?
a) Higher caste c) Lower caste c) Both d) Don’t know
On the basis of gender, who takes decisions?
a) Generally males b) Generally females c) Both equally d) Don’t know
What do you think about the decisions that have been made by the executive committee?
a) All good b) Most of them good c) Sometimes good d) Don’t know
Do you take part in trainings, tours and workshops?
a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Never
How is participation decided?
a) Equal basis b) Equity basis c) Power and Influence d) Don’t know
Do you think poor, women, Dalits and Janajati get a good chance to take such trainings
and activities?
a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Never e) Don’t know
Do you speak during general assemblies?
a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Only listener
b) e) Don’t go f) No GA
How effective are the planning of different activities?
a) Implemented immediately b) Implemented slowly
b) Only Discussions d) Don’t know
Is there conflict during decision making?

60
 a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Never e) Don’t know
How often do u participate forest management activities?
a) Always b) Frequently c) Sometimes d) Never (why?)
How are forest products distributed?
a) Equal basis b) Equity basis c) Biased (How?) d) Don’t know
How is distribution of forest products decided?
a) Executive committee b) Rich and elite members of the group/ committee
b) By participation of majority of users d) By participation of all users
e) Don’t know
Are there any Income Generating Activities (IGA) run by the CFUG?
a) Yes b) No

C. TRANSPARENCY
What are the sources of income of the CFUG?
a) Donation from I/NGOs b) Donation from DFO c) Membership fees
d) Sale of Forest Products e) Penalties f) VDC g) Don’t know
Do you know how much money your CF has?
a) Yes (How much?) b) No
Where is the fund deposited?
a) Bank/Finances/Saving and Credit b) Chairman c) Treasurer
d) Given on loan e) Others
Who is responsible for setting prices of forest products?
a) CFUG/OP b) CFUC c) Users d) Don’t know
Are you satisfied with the existing forest product distribution system?
a) Very much satisfied b) Somewhat satisfied c) Not at all d) Don’t know
If No, what should be done to improve?
.………………………………………………………………………………
How is information disseminated to the users about the decisions made?
a) Letter b) Phone c) Directly d) Notice board e) Don’t know
Does the treasurer deliver the financial transactions in regular meetings?
a) Yes b) No c) No regular meetings d) Don’t know

61
Is there a practice of public auditing and hearing?
a) Yes b) No c) No regular public audits d) Don’t know
Do you know about CFUG fund/fund mobilization?
a) Yes b) No
If yes, how the fund from CF is mobilized in different sectors?
a) Forest Protection and development
……………………………………………………………………………………
b) Community Infrastructure development
……………………………………………………………………………………
c) Poverty reduction
……………………………………………………………………………………
d) Institutional development
……………………………………………………………………………………
e) Savings
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Do you get chance to observe the financial records of the CFUG?
a) Yes/if interested b) No
Does the executive committee use CFUG funds responsibly and honestly?
a) Yes c) No c) Don’t know
Do you know about the decisions made in the last meeting?
a) Yes b) No
Major ones:
How are trainees selected for trainings and other activities? Is there good transparency?
a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know
Are you satisfied towards fund mobilization system of your CFUG?
a) Very much satisfied b) Somewhat satisfied c) Not at all satisfied d) Don’t
know
In general, what do you think is the level of transparency?
a) High b) Moderate c) Low

62
D. ACCOUNTABILITY
Do you think all the EC members are accountable to the users?
a) Yes /fully b) Little bit c) No d) Don’t know
Do you think the general members and EC members are aware of their roles and duties?
a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know
Were you informed prior to carrying out any CF related activities?
a) Yes /always b) Yes/sometimes c) Never
Does your group make any discrimination in its members in any matter?
a) Yes/always b) Yes/sometimes c) Never
Do you think you have been dominated in CFUG activities?
a) Yes/always b) Yes/sometimes c) Never

E. PREDICTABILITY
Have your group prepared any directives / guidelines for the implementation of different
programs?
a) Yes (What are they?) b) No c) Don’t know
Are there any tours and trainings organized by any other organizations?
a) Yes (What are they?) b) No c) Don’t know
Is your group getting financial, technical or advisory assistance from external agencies?
a) Yes (What type of?) b) No c) Don’t know
Have your group conducted any programs in collaboration with other external
organizations?
a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know
If yes, name the organization / agencies.
…………………………………………………………………………

63
 Annex 2 The elements and indicators of good governance

Elements of good Indicators

governance
Participation 1. Participation in key/decision making position.
2. Participation in decision making process.
3. Participation in implementation.
4. Participation in benefit sharing process.
Transparency 1. Transparency in income and income sources.
2. Transparency in expenditure details.
3. Transparency about the provisions mentioned in OP and
constitution, annual program and group’s decisions.
4. Transparency in sales and distribution of forest products.

Accountability 1. Accountability of user committee in their roles and responsibilities.

2. Accountability of general members in their roles and
responsibilities.
3. Accountability of the group towards the marginalized and poor
households.
4. Accountability in equitable distribution of forest products and
benefit sharing.
Predictability 1. Preparation of directives and guidelines.
2. Networking.
3. Co-ordination and co-operation.
4. Clear goal, vision and objectives of the group.

Adopted from Bhatta B. and Gentle P. (2004) “Strengthening the internal governance of
the CFUGs: experience of SAMARPAN project.”

64
 Annex 3 Governance assessment matrix for the level of participation
Participation
Indicators/Grade 1 (Poor) 2 (Medium) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent)
1. Key/decision <33% women >33% Women and Women and
making position representative in EC. women Dalits Dalits in key
No representative representativ representative positions of the
from Dalits in EC. e in EC but in EC (but not EC.
no Dalit in key positions
representativ of the EC).
e in EC.
2. Decision Important decisions Important Participation of Important
making process are made by rich/elite decisions are women and decisions are
members of the made by Dalits and made by GA
group/committee. committee important involving active
members decisions are participation of
only. made by the women and
majority of Dalits.
users.
3. Implementation By rich/elite members EC only. By the Active
of the participation of participation of
group/committee. all members but almost all the
poor and Dalits members
are overlooked. including
women, Dalits
and poor.
4. Benefit sharing Decisions are made by EC only. By participation By participation
process rich/elite members of of majority of of almost all the
the group/committee. users but poor users including
and Dalits are women, Dalits
overlooked. and poor.

65
 Annex 4 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Transparency
Transparency
Indicators/Grade 1 (Poor) 2 (Medium) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent)
1. Income and Only known by Only known Known by Known by all
income sources rich/elite by the majority of users (including
members of the committee users. Dalits and
committee/group. members. The details women).
The details are
are not disseminated
disseminated to the users
to the users. timely.
2. Expenditure details Only known by Only known Known by Known by all
rich/elite by the majority of users (including
members of the committee users. Dalits and
committee/group. members. The details women).
The details are
are not disseminated
disseminated to the users
to the users. timely.
3. Provisions Only known by Only known Known by Known by all
mentioned in OP rich/elite by the majority of users (including
and constitution, members of the committee users. Dalits and
annual program committee/group. members. women).
and committee
decisions
4. Sales and Only known by Only known Known by Known by all
distribution of the rich/elite by the majority of users (including
forest products members of the committee users. Dalits and
committee/group. members. women).

66
 Annex 5 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Accountability
Accountability
Indicators/Grade 1 (Poor) 2 (Medium) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent)
1. User Some EC Only key All EC members EC members are
committee in members do not members of are well of their well aware of
their roles and even know that EC are aware rights, duties their rights.
responsibilities they are members of their roles and Responsibilities
of EC. Their and responsibilities and duties. They
activities are responsibilities and they are less are accountable
motivated for . accountable to to FUG, DFO,
self-benefit and the group women, poor and
not accountable to members Dalits.
the users and including
DFO. women and
Dalits.
2. General General members Village elites Majority of the Group members
members in are not interested and a few users pay pay attention
their roles and in program others know attention and are whether the
responsibilities implementation, about their aware of their activities,
income- roles and duties, roles and expenditures and
expenditure responsibilities responsibilities. decisions are
details, etc. All . made according
the responsibility to the rules and
handed over to regulation as
the EC. provisioned in the
OP.
3. Group towards No program for Users are Some IGAs are Pro poor
the women, Dalits trying to run running and all programs such as
marginalized and low income some special users including IGAs are running
and poor groups for their activities for poor and Dalits effectively.
households betterment. EC women and are getting equal Marginalized and

67
 and influential Dalits. Some benefits. Forest poor households
people get more programs are products are charged less
forest products. running but distribution in according to
poor and Dalits equal basis but status and
are not getting poor, women contribution in
direct benefits. and Dalits are forest protection.
given priority.
4. Equitable EC are given EC and People have All the people
distribution of priority and then rich/elites are access to the including poor
forest products elites and lastly given priority forest products and Dalits have
and benefit the general users in distribution but the forest access to forest
sharing and minority of forest products are products and
groups. products. distributed concession is
prejudicially. available to the
poorest of the
poor people in
the group

68
 Annex 6 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Predictability
Predictability
Indicators/Grade 1 (Poor) 2 (Medium) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent)
1. Preparation of No EC prepared Authentic AP, AP and
annual plans, Provision. such plans Guidelines/directives guidelines/directives
directives/guidel with have not been have been prepared
ines and revision OP not discussions prepared but for effective
of OP revised yet. from elites discussed in implementation of
and noted in assembly and noted OP and also
minute only in minute approved from DFO
books. books. and agencies.

OP revised OP revised in time OP always revised

but less with active in time.
participation participation of
of users. majority of users.
2. Networking No With With DFO and other Regular interaction
networking. FECOFUN I/NGOs also. with all GOs,
and DFO I/NGOs.
only.
3. Co-ordination Poor linkage Co-ordinatio CFUG has made co- CFUG has made co-
and co-operation and co- with DFO ordination with ordination with all
ordination only. governmental related
with DFO. organizations and governmental and
other CBOs at local non-governmental
level. line agencies
working in the
district.

69
4. Clear goal, No programs Programs Programs have been Programs have been
vision and have been have been formulated but only formulated and
objective of the formulate formulated partially implemented
group and but not implemented. effectively to
implemented. implemented. achieve the desired
goal.

From RIMS NEPAL, Dhading, 2003 “Good Governance Practises in Community Forest
Management: A Case Study of Selected CFUGs, Gaguri, Dhading” (with modifications)

70
 PHOTO PLATES

Discussion with user group members

Executive Committee members Division Forest Office, Kailai

71
Discussion with Division Forest Officer Household Survey

72