Leasehold Forestry in Nepal: Over Two Decades of Implementation

Why Leasehold Forestry in Rural Areas?

• Agriculture, livestock and forestry main stay of livelihood

• Limited opportunities for additional income and employment in rural areas

• Out migration of people in search of income and employment

• Significant areas of degraded forests• Soil erosion due to heavy soil working (cultivation of

annual crops) in hill slopes• Increased women drudgery due to loss of forests –

spending hours for collection of firewood, fodder Need to balance between environmental improvement and the needs of the people

Leasehold Forest User Group

• Leasehold Forest User Group (LFUG) is a small group of 5 to 15 poor households recognized by the District Forest Office for the management and utilization of the Leasehold Forest.

Characteristics of LFUG

• Small group of 5 – 15 HHs

• Involvement of only resource poor HHs

• Homogenous group having similar well being status

Leasehold Forestry

Leasehold forestry is a participatory model of forest management where part of the national forest (degraded) is given to the group of poor households aiming to raise their income and improve living condition simultaneously improving the ecological condition of the hills

Characteristics of Leasehold Forestry

• Land belongs to the government• Management and utilization of LF by the

LFUG/HH• Regulation of LF by LFUG and DFO• District Forest Officer approves the

operational plan of LF and issues a lease certificate

• Possibility of extension of lease period by another 40 yrs

Leasehold Forestry Profile

• Total number of CFUGs = 7,419

• Total number of households involved = 75,021 HH

• Total area of LF handed over = 42,835 ha.

• Average size of LFUG = 10.1 HH

• Average size of the LF = 5.8 ha

• Average LF area per household = 0.6 ha.

• Percent of women in the Key position = 39

Source: LFLP (as of 1st Nov 2014)

Geographical Coverage of the Programme

Conceptual Model of Leasehold Forestry

Community participation in

Restoration of forests for increased resources

Poor and Vulnerable

People

Degraded Forest

Increase capacities and governance

Restore forests with multiple products

Increase income and reduce vulnerability

Sustainable supply of forest products and env. services

Reduce HH poverty

Better management of forest landIncrease forest products supply for

capital formation

Target Beneficiaries

• People living below the poverty line

• Women headed households

• Hardcore Poor of any caste/ethnicity

– Landless or near landless

CF Implementation Process

OP approval by DFO

Joint signature (DFO

& Chairperson of LFUG)

Review and Revision

User Group Formation

Forest & User Identification

Constitution Preparation

LFUG Registration

Operational Plan Preparation (LIP included)

Forests Handover

Implementation

HH Visit Group Meeting

•Group Meeting

Well Being Ranking

• Approval by DFO

Household Survey

Group Level

Information Collection Forest demarcation

Forest Resource

Inventory

Group Meeting

Training/Study tour

Technical support

Financial /Material

Support

Monitoring &

Evaluation

Feedback

Participatory

Resource Mapping

LFUG Formation and LF Hand

Over Process

Strategic Approach

• Coordination approach– Coordination and collaboration with other development

agencies• Participatory Approach

– Involvement of whole community in site selection– Identification of poor households through well being

ranking– Involvement of poor households in the decision making

process • Process Approach

– Learning by doing• Integrated Approach

– Forests– Livestock– Rural Finance

Strategic Approach….

• Social mobilization– Group Promoters from LFUGs

• Livelihood planning– Household level– LFUG level

• Joint planning and monitoring– Participatory planning and monitoring– Joint monitoring

• Crop/product diversification to minimize the risk – Forage cultivation to broom grass cultivation to NTFPs

cultivation to multipurpose tree species plantation– Forage to broom, paper pulp to fruits, bark, leaf to NTFPs to

fruit

Major Interventions

• Trust building through social mobilization

• Group formation/networking

• Institutional strengthening (accounting/ bookkeeping, leadership, gender and social inclusion coaching/training)

• Support production and distribution of planting materials

• Plantation along contour using SALT (Forage, fodder, multipurpose tree speceis)

Major Interventions…

• Plantation of other tree species (multipurpose) from second year onward– Cinnamomum tamala– Fraxinus floribunda – Ficus glaberrima– Alnus nepalensis– Zanthoxylum armatum– Leucaena leucocephala– Bauhinia purpuria

• On site coaching on plantation management (plantation, weeding, harvesting) to both men and women of each household

• Protection of natural regeneration

• Livestock management

• Animal health services

• Rural finance institution establishment and strengthening

• Coordination and collaboration with other agencies

Major Interventions…

Major Achievements

Degraded Forests converted to Productive Forests

Degraded Forests before intervention

Degraded Forests after intervention

Degraded Forests after intervention

• Production of forage and fodder increased tremendously

– Demand of large animals

• Livestock production increased through improved animal health services (from 58 percent of HHs in 2010 to 71 percent of HHs in 2013 )• Increased annual income from livestock (from 60 percent HHs in 2010 to 70 percent HHs in 2013)• Average number of goats per HH increased from 3.12 in 2006 to 5 in 2010 to 6.12 in 2013)

• LFUGs and Cooperatives established as rural finance institution (56 cooperatives)

—LFUGs members involved in monthly saving increased from 28

percent in 2006 to 91 percent in 2013— 77 percent of saving amount mobilized in productive activities

•Social mobilization services build capacity of LFUGs(95 percent of LFUGs have record keeping system in place)

Capacity of women, Dalitsand the poor enhanced through social mobilization

Fodder collection time reduced by 2.5 hrs. per/day

• Income poverty of LFUG members reduced through various income generating activities

• Resources generation through coordination and collaboration with other development partners

• Livelihood of the poor improved through enterprise development

Women Entrepreneurs Making Incense Sticks

Bio-briquette Enterprises

Bagged with several awards

• Mountain development awards with cash prize– Kauledanda LFUG intergroup, Jhirubas, Palpa

(2010)

– Hupsekot LFUG intergroup, Hupsekot, Nawalparasi (2011)

– Grihakot LFUG intergroup, ChitrebhanjyangSyangja (2012)

• Environment development award– Aamdanda LFUG intergroup, Devghat, Tanahun

(2012)

• Letter of appreciation from Palpa District Development Committee

Policy Implication

• Leasehold forestry policy in place

• Leasehold forestry introduced inside community forestry

• Government continued programme without external resources

• Leasehold forestry Priority One programme of the government

• Adoption by other projects and programmes

• Separate division established under Department of Forests

Gender and Social Inclusion

• Both man and woman from each household are member of the group

• Involvement of women, Dalits and Janajati has increased– Women in key position (39%)

– Dalit in key position (13%)

– Janajati in Key position (56%)

Other Implication

• Networking of the groups in cluster and district federation

• Poorest upgraded to poorer and poorer to poor category

• Biodiversity increment in the leasehold forests

• Soil erosion controlled to a large extent due to increase in green coverage

Key Learning• Degraded forests can be restored in partnership with

forest dependent poor.

• Intervention is needed at package level: Resource generation to utilization and marketing. •Diversification of the products secures investment.• Local Resource Persons are important for sustainability.• Savings and Credit Scheme, even at low scale, benefits

poor for income generating activities and for vulnerability coping.

•Strong coordination between development partners is also key to the success.•Livelihood improvement planning best tool for resource

pooling

Opportunities and Challenges

• Ever increasing demands for the extension of the programme in neighboring VDCs and districts

• Extension of the programme in other districts and other areas in the same district as potential land (shifting cultivation and degraded forests) available there

• Possibilities of resources generation through resource pooling

• Possibilities of enterprise development with increased production of forage, fodder and NTFPs

• Many species having multiple benefits available to grow that fetch high price

• Potential model to contribute in mitigation and adaptation of climate change effects

Thank You