STATUS OF GOVERNANCE IN COMMUNITY FOREST

USER GROUPS
(A CASE STUDY OF MOHANYAL AND JANAHIT
COMMUNITY FORESTS OF KAILALI DISTRICT)

PURNA KUMAR BISTA

2-1-47-16-2005

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
POKHARA CAMPUS
POKHARA

PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
FORESTRY

September, 2022
 Status of Governance in Community Forest User Groups
(A case study Mohanyal and Janahit Community Forests of
Kailali District)

Purna Kumar Bista

2-1-47-16-2005
BSc. Forestry
Advisor:
Mrs. Sabina Lamichhane
Assistant Professor
Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus
Email: slamichhane@[Link]
Co-advisor/Field Supervisor:
Surendra Bahadur kathayet
Assistant Forest Officer
Division Forest Office, Pahalmanpur
Email: bdrkathayatsuren@[Link]

Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry
Pokhara Campus
Pokhara

Project Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Forestry

September, 2022
© Purna Kumar Bista
September, 2022
E-mail: purnabista93@[Link]

Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry
Pokhara Campus
Hariyokharka, Pokhara-15, Kaski
Website: [Link]

Citation: Bista, P. (2022). Status of Governance in Community Forest User Groups; A case
study of Mohanyal and Janahit Community Forests of Kailali District. A Project paper
submitted for the partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Science in Forestry degree, Tribhuvan
University, Institute of Forestry, and Pokhara, Nepal.

.
i
ii
 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, Mrs. Sabina Lamichhane
(Associate Professor, IOF Pokhara) for her guidance and encouragement throughout the whole
study period. Her untiring help, guidance and suggestions invigorated and inspired me to
accomplish this work.

I am also indebted to my college principal, Mr. Binod Prasad Hyajoo , who taught me the basics
of scientific research, my vice-principal, Dr. Bishnu Devkota who gave me useful visions in
writing my project proposal and 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 Mahonyal and Janahit CFUGs, Mr. Tej Ram Chaudhary and Mr. Deepak Raj Ojha,
who co-operated during my field visit. I am also grateful to the staffs of DFO Pahalmanpur,
Kailali for providing necessary informations on CF of Kailali District.

My special gratitude and thanks to Mr. Surendra Bahadur Kathayat for his kind co-operation,
time and encouragement despite his own busy schedule, which helped me in the completion of
this work.

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

Last but not the least, I would like to appreciate the guidance from Basanta Protected Forest for
supporting me with the required funding for the study.

Purna Kumar Bista

September, 2022

iii
 Abstract

The major policy initiative for the forestry sector in Nepal is Community Forestry through
Forest User Groups (FUGs). The success of the community forest is determined on the
practices of its users. However, the slow and tedious operating system of Community Forest
User Groups (CFUGs) has made its users less motivated towards its proper functioning and
management. Therefore, there is immediate need to strengthen the CFUGs so that they can
manage their forests on their own in perpetuity. In order to fulfill this gap, good governance
is required, which means each CFUG must practice internal democracy within its operating
system. In such scenario this research was carried out with the aim to explore the current
status of governance with in Community Forests (CFs) of terai region. The study was
conducted in Mohanyal CF and Janahit CF of Kailali district. The four pillars of governance
via. Transparency, Accountability, Participation and Predictability was analyzed by both
exploratory and descriptive approach. Different PRA tools was used to collect primary and
secondary data, such as focused group discussions, semi-structured interviews, flow
diagrams, key informant surveys (KIS), and field observation, and document reviews.
Furthermore, the information regarding the current state of the users' functioning was readily
depicted using Spider Web and other statistical diagrams. Among the four elements of
governance, participation was found equal in both CFs, transparency and predictability were
found higher in Mahonyal CF and accountability was found higher in Janhit CF. The
participation of users in decision making process in the Janahit CF was found higher than the
Mohanyal CF. The study revealed that the overall status of governance in both CFUGs was
“Good but there is still room for improvement”

Key words: Accountability, CFUG, Democracy, Good Governance, Transparency, Participation,

Predictability

iv
 Table of Contents

Letter of Acceptance ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Declaration .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Rationale/ Justification........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Limitation............................................................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Community Forestry ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Good Governance ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Elements of Good Governance ........................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Need of good governance ................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 People's Livelihood ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Sustainable Forest Management .................................................................................................. 9
2.4.3 Ensure Broader Participation and Ownership Feeling ................................................................. 9
2.4.4 Equitable Benefit Sharing ............................................................................................................ 9
2.4.5 Access and Control to Decision-Making Process ........................................................................ 9
CHAPTER3: MATERIALS AND METHOD………………………………………………....................10
3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 10
3.2. Selection of CFUGs ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Characteristics of Selected CFUGs ................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Study Framework .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.5. Sample Design ................................................................................................................................. 13
3.6 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................. 13
3.6.1 Primary Data Collection............................................................................................................. 13
3.7 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 17
4.1 General Information of Respondents ................................................................................................ 17
4.1.1 Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 17

v
 4.1.2 Age structure ............................................................................................................................. 17
4.1.3 Ethnicity .................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4 Education Level ......................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.5 Occupation ................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.6 Well-being Ranking ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Status of Good Governance in CFUGs ............................................................................................. 21
4.2.1 Participation ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2 Transparency .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.2.3 Accountability ............................................................................................................................ 35
4.2.4 Predictability .............................................................................................................................. 39
4.3. Comparative Assessment of Good Governance of Both CFUG ...................................................... 41
4.4 Level of Good Governance in Both CFUGs in Spider Web Diagrams ............................................ 41
4.5 Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 42
4.6 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………..43
CHAPTER5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION…………………………………………45
5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….45
5.2 Recommendation…………………………………………………………………………………...46
CHAPTER6 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………47
Annex 1: Questionnaire Format for Survey……………………………....................................................51
Annex 2: The Elements and Indicator of Good Governance…………………………………………….56
Annex 3: Governance Assessment Matrix for the Level of Participation……………………………….56
Annex 4: Governance Assessment Matrix for the Level of Transparency………………………………58
Annex 5: Governance Assessment Matrix for the Level of Accountability……………………………58
Annex 6: Governance Assessment Matrix for the Level of Predictability……………………………….60
Annex 7: Photo Plates…………………………………………………………………………………….61

vi
 List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Study Areas…………………………………………………………………....10
Figure 2: Framework of The Study………………………………………………………………12
Figure 3: Gender of Respondents………………………………………………………………..17
Figure 4: Age Class of The Respondents…………………………………………………… …18
Figure 5: Ethnicity of Respondents………………………………………………………………18
Figure 6: Education Status of Respondents……………………………………………………...19
Figure 7: Occupation Status of Respondents……………………………………………………20
Figure 8: Well-being Ranking of Respondents…………………………………………………20
Figure 9: Representation in Executive Committee……………………………………………..21
Figure 10: Participation in Different Meetings…………………………………………………22
Figure 11: Participation in Committee Meeting………………………………………………...23
Figure 12: Participation in CF Activities………………………………………………………..24
Figure 13: Forest Product Distribution………………………………………………………….25
Figure 14: Participation in Decision Making Process…………………………………………..25
Figure 15: Decision Made by Executive Committee……………………………………………26
Figure 16: Listen to Other for Decision………………………………………………………….26
Figure 17: Marginal Groups Voice and Response in Decisions…………………………………27
Figure 18: Participation in Training and Tours………………………………………………….28
Figure 19: Satisfaction Level of Respondents on Their Participation…………………………. 28
Figure 20: Transparency in Income and Income Sources……………………………………….30
Figure 21: Transparency in Expenditure ………………………………………………………..30
Figure 22: Satisfaction of Respondents towards Fund Mobilization……………………………31
Figure 23: Public Hearing and Auditing………………………………………………………...32
Figure 24: Responsible in Setting Price of Forest Products…………………………………….32
Figure 25: Transparency in Forest Product Distributions………………………………………33
Figure 26: Level of Transparency in Implementation of Decisions……………………………34
Figure 27: Accountability of EC members in their Roles and Responsibility………………….35
Figure 28: Accountability of General Members in their Roles and Responsibility…………….36
Figure 29: Biasness of Executive Members to General members………………………………36

vii
Figure 30: Read/Listen Constitution and OP preparation ………………………………………37
Figure 31: Conflict over Power in the Committee and CFUG………………………………….38
Figure 32: Governance Comparisons in Spider Web diagram………………………………….42

List of Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of Selected CFUGs……………………………………………………11
Table 2: Elements and Indicators of Good Governance…………………………………………15
Table 3: Category of Governance Status………………………………………………………..16
Table 4: CFUG members Participation score……………………………………………………29
Table 5: Transparency Score of Both CFUGs…………………………………………………..34
Table 6: Accountability Level of Both CFUGs…………………………………………………38
Table 7: Predictability Score of Both CFUGs …………………………………………………..40
Table 8: Comparison of Degree of Governance of Both CFUGs……………………………….41

viii
 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

FPs Forest Products

GA General Assembly

GON Government of Nepal

GOs Governmental Organizations

Ha Hectares

HHs Households

HMGN His Majesty’s Government of Nepal

IGAs Income Generating Activities

INGOs International Non-Governmental Organizations

MPFS Master Plan for Forestry Sector

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

ix
OP Operational Plan

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

RIMS Resource Identification and Management Society

UG Users Group

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific

VDC Village Development Committee

x
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations defines community forestry as
"any circumstance that deeply incorporates local people in forestry work." Nepal's
community forestry initiative was established in 1978. Following twenty-five years of
implementation, the program is currently likely the most advanced and innovative model for
participatory natural resource management anywhere on the planet (Nurse, Robinson, Paudel,
& Pokharel, 2004). A total of 1.45 million families, or 35% of Nepal's population, participate
in the community forestry management initiative. There have been 19,361 Community
Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) created to far, with 1072 women-only committee members.
A total of 18,13,478 hectares of national forest have been designated as community forests,
benefiting 24,61,549 households (DoF,2018).

Forest governance is defined as a system of principles and norms for managing forest
resources that govern authority in all domains, from private to public, as well as the
connection between the state and its citizens, civil society, and the private sector (Pokharel
and Niraula 2004). Forest governance is the process and arrangements by which forest-
related decisions are made and implemented in a truly participatory way. Forest governance
encompasses topics relating to how forest resources are managed, ranging from how
decisions about forest use are made and who is involved in the decision-making process, to
the enforcement of forest laws and policy on the ground.

In the context of Nepal's community forestry program, good governance has not been
achieved at a satisfactory level, as evidenced by several instances where the poor and socially
backward people's voices are not heard, and where the forest user group's executive body is
captured by the elite in terms of forest management and benefit sharing. Only a few CFUGs
conduct transparent, participative, and inclusive decision-making, implying that the role of
community forests in aiding the poorest, most vulnerable, and marginalized members of
society has been limited within CFUGs (Tiwari, 2002; Kanel and Subedi, 2004).Furthermore,

1
 the most important issue in community forestry at the time is a lack of long-term
management. A broader range of stakeholders must be included in decision-making and
implementation in order to establish improved forest governance for sustainable forest
management.

There is a growing acceptance of community forestry as a strategy of maintaining forest

sustainability and for the benefit of rural communities.

The interests and concerns of the poor, women, and dalits, who rely more on forest resources
for their livelihood, are not adequately taken into account in the CF process (Adhikari et al.
2004; Pokharel and Niraula 2004; Pokharel and Nurse 2004; Richard et al. 2003; Bhatta
2002) Given the differing perspectives on community forestry's service to its user group
members, it's critical to look into the state of good governance at the CFUG level. Therefore,
this research will be carried out to examine the state of governance in the Kailali district as a
representative of terai region of the country.

1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 General Objective
• To investigate the status of governance in Janahit and Mohanyal CFUGs of Kailali
District

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

• To compare and examine the current governance state of Janahit and Mohanyal
community forest user groups'.

• To identify the current status of decision making process in both CFs.

1.3 Rationale/ Justification

One of the biggest "second generation concerns" in Nepal's community forestry development and
management program is related to effective governance (Bhatta & Gentle, 2004). Community

2
forestry is becoming more commonly recognized as a means of managing forest sustainability,
and there is a need to focus on excellent forest governance for the benefit of rural people. If
excellent governance within the CFUGs is strengthened, it is thought that the CFUGs can
function well and be self-sufficient. Only a small percentage of the 18960 CFUGs might have
been active in practices such as transparency, participative and inclusive decision-making, poor
and disadvantaged groups participating in decision-making processes, and so on. Despite the fact
that the CFUG constitutions and operating plans include provisions for good governance
practices, there is a lack of proper implementation.

Because CF is not a one-size-fits-all solution to satisfy the needs of individuals at all levels, the
program's effectiveness is heavily reliant on decision-making and implementation. 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 .The
decision-making method for a long-term organization should be democratic. Without a
democratic decision-making framework, effective participation, devotion, and responsibility are
impossible to achieve. To have good governance, a CFUG must have a functional culture and
system that are in sync with the Internal Democracies construct. Transparency of decisions,
equitable access and control of services and resources, active participation of users, effective
communication, good and effective management, strong confidence and competence of users,
and equitable representation of users are the ingredients of good governance.

Therefore, this study compares the Janahit and Mohanyal in Kailai district to investigate the
state of governance and address concerns related to community forestry management programs.
The findings of the study will be useful to CFUGs and forestry field staff working to assist
CFUGs in building better strategies to promote good governance practices, which may also be
applied to other community forest user groups in Nepal's Kailali district.

3
1.4 Limitation

• This study covers only four pillars of the good governance so analysis of the indicators
other than four pillars of the good governance is beyond the scope of this study.
• The findings of this study may not be representative to the other regions of Nepal except
Terai.
• Due to time and budget constraints, only 10% sample size was taken as reference of the
study.

4
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Community Forestry

Carter (2010) defines community forestry as "an approach to forest management that actively
supports the rights of people living in and around the forest to both participate in forest
management decisions and benefit sharing (financially and in-kind) from the management's
results." This definition appears to strike a good balance between a variety of factors that
contribute to the developing nature of community forestry. True community forestry, on the
other hand, enforces rather than supports people's rights since it has a sense of ownership. The
promotional mindset may exist, especially for communities who have been unable to get their
rights recognized after making significant contributions, but it is secondary. As a result, Carter's
concept is more in accordance with a fair version of participatory 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 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 (1991), 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.
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). Within the FUGs, rich
and poor, male and female and so called upper caste and lower caste with differences in power,
5
speak 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).
But, in recent days, CFUGs are not fully capable of managing their forest on their own. Instead,
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

Good governance is a state in which all stakeholders have the opportunity to use their authority
in a participatory decision-making process, and decisions are implemented in their best interests.
It is a state in which the voiceless are heard, the helpless are empowered, the disadvantaged are
treated fairly, and all stakeholders benefit. By strengthening rural people's livelihoods, good
forest governance supports social and economic fairness as well as environmental
sustainability.(Springate-Baginski, O., & Wollenberg, E. (Eds.) , 2010)

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

6
committee is one forum of CFUGs where management decisions related to 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.

2.3 Elements of Good Governance

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). The elements of good governance used in this study are described below:

2.3.1Participation
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.

2.3.2 Transparency
It 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 processes that affect them and they are

7
knowledgeable about the standards to expect from executive committees and other relevant
officials such as District Forest Officer.
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
[Link] cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

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.

2.4 Need of Good Governance

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:

8
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.

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.

9
 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area

Kailali district is situated in 80⁰30' to 80⁰18' E latitude and 28⁰22’ N to 29⁰05’ N longitude,
covering an area of 3235 km2. Kailali district covers 40% of forest in Terai and rest of the forest
area in fragile Chure. The study was conducted in two community forests of Kailali district that
lies in Sudhurpaschim Province in the Terai region of Nepal. Two community forests Janahit CF
and Mohanyal CF of Ghodaghodi Municipality were comparatively studied for better
understanding about the status of governance in Kailali district as a case study. Janahit CF covers
an area of 111.85 hectares with 460 households while Mohanyal CF covers an area of 100.80
hectares with 436 households.

Figure 1. Map of Study Areas

3.2. Selection of CFUGs
The study was carried out in two Community Forests i.e. Mohanyal CF and Janahit CF of Kailali
district. Selection of the CFUG’s was done in consultation with DFO staffs.
The criteria considered during CFUG selection were:
• Both CFUGs meet the legal criteria to be defined as community forests.

10
• Both CFUGs were considered as active CFUG as per Key informant interview.
• Both CFUGs are situated in the similar geography.
• Both CFUGs were approachable from the ease of study.
• Both CFUG’s have been functioning for at least one full period of the operational plan (5
years).

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

Mohanyal CFUG Janahit CFUG

Address Ghodaghodi Municipality 2, Kailali Ghodaghodi Municipality 1, Kailali
UG Registered 2069 BS (as CFUG) 2066 BS (as CFUG)
Revision of OP 2074 BS 2073 BS
Date of handover 2069 BS (as CFUG) 2066 BS (as CFUG)
Area 100.80 Hectares 111.85 Hectares
No. of blocks 4 3
Types of forest Mix natural forest Mix natural forest
Dominant species Terminalia tomentosa, Acacia Terminalia tomentosa, Acacia
Catechu, Shorea robusta, Dalbergia Catechu, Shorea robusta, Dalbergia
Sisso, Syzyium Cumini etc Sisso, Syzyium Cumini etc
Forest Protection Household rotation Household rotation
No. of households 436 households 460 households

Population Male Female Total Male Female Total

1383 1392 2775 1480 1489 2969

11
3.4 Study Framework

Literature review

Proposal writing

Selection of CFUGs

Survey questionnaire preparation

Data collection

Secondary data
Primary data collection collection
•Household •OP and constitution
questionnaire survey of CFUG
•Focused group •Minute books
discussion
•Relevant reports and
•Key informant survey articles
•Field observation h i i
Data analysis:
MS excel, MS word

Draft report submission

Report presentation

Final report submission

Figure 2 Framework of The Study

12
3.5. Sample Design
Stratified random sampling was used to determine the sample size for household survey to
reduce the sampling bias. Stratification was carried out based on well-being rank of the CFUG
members. A sample of 10% households was taken as respondents for household level
questionnaires survey. A total of 45 Households were surveyed in Mohanyal CF and about 46
Households were surveyed in Janahit CF. The questionnaires (Annex 1) were pretested in the
field and revised wherever necessary before moving to the field.

3.6 Data Collection

Both primary and secondary data were collected which were qualitative and quantitative in
nature. The primary data collection method includes key informant interviews, household
surveys using a semi-structured questionnaire, group discussions and direct observation.
Secondary data were gathered from different published/unpublished literature and related line
agencies working in community forestry and buffer zone sector. The following methods were
used for the data collection.

3.6.1 Primary Data Collection

[Link] Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey was conducted to gain about the study area i.e. Community Forest User
Groups and forests.

[Link] Questionnaire Survey

The household was considered as the sample unit. Stratified random sampling without
replacement was adopted with 10% sampling intensity in both CFUGs, covering the
representative of all caste/ethnic, gender and all hamlets. All together 91households (45
households in Mohanyal CFUG and 46 households in Janahit CFUG) were sampled for the
analysis. The purpose of the study was explained at the initial phase of the questionnaire. The
interviews were taken primarily to the household head who takes decision making in the family.
In the absence of the head of the household, the person next to the head was interviewed. An
assistant researcher and a local resource person help was taken to facilitate the household survey.
13
[Link] 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.

[Link] 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
were consulted to explore the existing issues of forest governance in the studied site. Such
information was useful to identify and verify the data collected from other means.

[Link] Direct Observation

Direct observation to verify the responses given by the respondents of the household survey was
conducted in the both community forests. The status of governance in both CFUGs, in case of
participation of people in CF meetings and other activities were examined by direct observation.
During constitution, operation plan and meeting minutes of both CFUGs were also thoroughly
reviewed and analyzed.
Table 2 Elements and Indicators of Good Governance

Elements Indicators
Participation 1. Representation in executive committee
2. Participation in decision making process
3. Participation in CF management activities
4. Participation in benefit sharing mechanism
Accountability 1. Accountability of committee members in their roles and responsibilities

14
 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

3.6.2 Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data were collected from published and unpublished reports/documents through
Divison 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 necessary information was collected from different
sources as published documents, case studies, online journals, reliable websites and different
libraries.

3.7 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

15
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.

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

16
 CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General Information of Respondents

4.1.1 Gender
In Mohanyal CFUG, more female (62%) 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 Janahit CFUG, there
were equal participation in the survey and were equally active in forest management activities
(figure 3).

70%

60%
62%
50%
50% 50%
40%
38%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Male Female

Figure 3: Gender of Respondents

4.1.2 Age Structure

The respondents’ age was categorized into four age classes that were 15-30 years, 31-50 years,
51-65 years and above 65 years. Figure 4 shows that more number of the total respondents of
Mohanyal CFUG (56%) belonged to 31-50 years age class and similar to that of Mohanyal CF,
Janahit CFUG also belonged to 31-50 years age class (63%).

17
 70%
63%
60% 56%

50%

40%

30%
20%
20% 17% 17% 17%

10% 7%
3%
0%
15-30 31-50 51-65 Above 65

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 4: Age Class of Respondants

4.1.3 Ethnicity
In Mahonyal CFUG, the respondents were found to be distributed in all caste categories (Figure
5) with maximum 42% respondents' janjati , 22% Chhetri , 13% Brahmin and Dalit each and the
rest 10 % Thakuri.
In Janahit CFUG, all caste categories comprised in the total respondents. Here, maximum 41%
respondents were Brahmin, 33% were from Chhetri ,15 % Janjati , 9% dalit and lowest 2%
wereThakuri .

Thakuri, Brahmin, Thakuri,

10% 13% Janjati, 2%
15%
Chhetri, Brahmin,
Dalit, 9% 41%
22%

Janjati,
42%

Dalit, 13% Chhetri,

33%

Figure 5: Ethnicity of Respondents

18
4.1.4 Education Level
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 6 shows that 42% of the total respondents of Mahonyal
CFUG were literate, 41% were illitrate and only 17% of the total respondents were well
educated. Likewise 63% of the total respondents of Janahit CFUG were literate, 18% were
illiterate and 19 % of the total respondents were well educated.
70%
63%
60%

50%
41% 42%
40%

30%
18% 19%
20% 17%

10%

0%
Illiterate Literate Well Educated

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 6: Education Status of Respondants

4.1.5 Occupation
Agriculture was the main occupation of respondents followed by business, services, wage labour
Remmittance and others in both Mohanyal CFUG and Janahit CFUG (Figure 7)

19
 Wage
Labour
wage 13%
labour Service/Civi
16% l Service
Service/Civ 11%
il Service Agriculture Remittance
9% 46% 4%
Others
Remittance… 2% Agriculture
others Business 57%
2% 13%

Business
20%

Figure 7: Occupation Status of Respondants

4.1.6 Well-being Ranking

In this study, results of well-being ranking conducted by the CFUG executive committee
members and verified during study were used. They have ranked each household in different
categories of wealth class such as rich, medium and poor class based on fixed properties like
land holding size and house, supported by quality of land, food sufficiency, private vehicle and
income sources as well as educational status of the household and service within and outside the
country. Figure 8 shows the well-being rank of the studied CFUGs.
70% 64%

60%

50% 47%

40% 35%

30% 24%
18%
20%
12%
10%

0%
Rich Medium Poor

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 8: Wellbeing Ranking of Respondents

20
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.

[Link] Representation in Executive Committee

Representation percent of Women, Men and Dalit were different in two different FUGs. The
numbers of member in EC of Mohanyal CFUG were 15, among them 10 were women and 5
were men. Which represent 67% and 33% of the total member of EC. The involvement of dalit
were only 1 in numbers, which is equal to 7% of EC member respectively (Figure 9). The
representation of women in Janahit CFUG was also same as that of Mohanyal CFUG. Among
the 15 EC members, 10 were women, which represent 67% of total EC member. There were 2
member among Dalit group, which represent 13% of EC members.
70% 67% 67%

60%

50%

40%
33% 33%
30%

20%
13%
10% 7%

0%
Male Female Dalit

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 9: Representation in Executive Committee

21
[Link] 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, FP distribution and OP finalization. Some of the
respondents did not participate in any of the meetings (Figure 10).
70%
62%
59%
60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 17%
15%
13%
11% 10%
10% 7%
4%
2%
0%
Constitution FP Distribution OP finalization User Committee None
Finalization Formation

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 10: Participation in Different Meetings

[Link] Participation in Committee Meetings

The committee meets every month throughout the year and every member should participate
regularly. In Mohanyal CFUG, only 7% of the respondents always participated in committee
meeting whereas 53 % participated frequently, 36 % participated sometimes and 4%never
participated. In Janahit CFUG, 15% of the respondents always participated in committee meeting
whereas 54% participated frequently and 2% never participated (Figure 11).

22
60%
53% 54%

50%

40% 36%

30% 28%

20%
15%

10% 7%
4%
2%
0%
Always Frequently Never Sometimes

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 11: Participation in Committee Meeting

[Link] Participation in CF Activities

CFUG activities include activities such as forest protection, management and regulation. Out
of 45 respondents in Mohanyal CFUG, 20% said that they have always participated in CF
activities, 47% said that they have frequently participated and 24% said they have
participated sometimes, whereas in Janahit CFUG, 20% said that they have always
participated in CF activities, 59% said that they have frequently participated and 17% said
they have participated sometimes (Figure 12). Main reasons for not participating in both
CFUGs were lack of interest, lack of time and less dependency on forest products.

23
 70%
59%
60%

50% 47%

40%

30% 24%
20% 20%
20% 17%

9%
10% 4%

0%
Always Frequently Sometimes Never

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 12: Participation in CF Activities

[Link] Forest Product Distribution

In Mohanyal CFUG, 47% 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 30% said
that the forest products were distributed in equity basis which means fairly, without
discrimination whileaccording 10% respondents, the distribution is baised and discriminated type
and13% didn’t know about distribution of forest products. Similarly, in Janahit CFUG 54% of
the respondents said that the forest products were distributed in equal basis whereas 30% said
that the forest products were distributed in equity basis, 7% said that there is baised in FP
distribution and 9% didn’t know about distribution of forest products (Figure 13).

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.

24
 60%
54%

50% 47%

40%

30% 30%
30%

20%
13%
10% 9%
10% 7%

0%
Equality Basis Equity Basis Baised Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 13: Forest Product Distribution

[Link] Participation in Decision Making Process

Majority of the respondents in both CFUGs said that decision is made mainly by the
participation of majority of users instead of Executive Committee only (Figure 14).

70%
63%
60%

50%
40%
40%
33%
30%

20% 18%
15%
11% 11%
9%
10%

0%
Executive Committee only Participation of Majority of General Assembly Don’t know
Users

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 14: Participation in Decision Making Process

25
[Link] Decision Made by Executive Committee
Most of the respondents said that the decisions made by executive committee are good in both
CFUGs (Figure 15).
80% 76%
71%
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 16%
13% 13%
11%
10%

0%
Good Bad Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 15: Decision made by Executive Committee

4.2.1.7Listen to Others for Decision

Majority of respondants of both the CFUGs said that the Executive Committee of their respective
CFs sometimes listen to them instaed of always while making any decisions (Figure 16).
70%
60%
60% 57%

50%

40%
28%
30%

20% 16% 16%

9% 11%
10% 4%

0%
All the time Sometimes Never Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 16: Listen to Others for Decision

26
4.2.1.9Marginal Groups Voice and Response in Decision

Respondents were asked to judge how often, participation of marginalized group, discussed their
agenda and decision taken infavour of them. Out of total respondents, 80% and 76% of both
Mohanyal and Janahit CFUG agreed that it was considerd in EC meetings and general
assemblies and 7% disagreed to it in Mohanyal CFUG and 11% in Janahit CFUG wheares 13%
of both Mohanyal CFUG and Janahit CFUG told don’t know about this (Figure 17). In both of
the CFUG, there were no specific programes and provisions for marginalized [Link] results
also indicated that FUGs and ECs were less concerned and discussed about the marginalized
group voices, agenda and issues in meetings.
90%
80%
80% 76%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%
13% 13%
11%
10% 7%

0%
Yes No Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 17: Marginal Groups Voice and Response in Decision

[Link] Participation in Trainings and Tours

Trainings and tours should be conducted in CFUG for human resource development. But here
both the CFUGs looked less effective in conducting any trainings and tours. Some trainings were
made in both CFUGs like Basket making, Tailoring and plantation training past before but at
present there were no any such training. In Mohanyal CFUG, 67% of the respondents said that
they haven’t take part in trainings while 33% said they have attended any training way before.

27
Similarly, In Janahit CFUG, 72% of the respondents said they haven’t took part in trainings but
28% said they have attended some training before (Figure 18).
80%
72%
70% 67%

60%

50%

40% 33%
28%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 18: Participation in Trainings and Tours

[Link] Satisfaction Level of Respondents on Their Participation

In Mohanyal CFUG, only 11% of the respondents were satisfied from their participation in
decision making process, forest management activities, benefit sharing mechanism etc. whereas
36% were somewhat satisfied and maximum 53% were not satisfied at all. In Janahit CFUG,
only 15% of the respondents were satisfied from their participation whereas majority 46% were
somewhat satisfied and 39 % were not satisfied at all (Figure 19).

60%
53%
50% 46%
39%
40% 36%

30%

20% 15%
11%
10%

0%
Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not at all

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 19: Satisfaction Level of Respondents on Their Participation

28
Table 4 shows the scores of both the CFUGs for four indicators of Participation, which was
similar in both CFUG with 10 total score.

Table 4 CFUG Member's Participation Score

Indicators of Participation Total attainable Score Obtained
score Mohanyal Janahit CFUG
CFUG
Participation in key decision 4 2 2
making position
Participation in decision making 4 3 4
process
Participation in CFUG’s activities 4 3 2
implementation
Participation in benefit sharing 4 2 2
process
Total Score 16 10 10
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent
Table 4 shows that both CFUGs were medium in decision making and benefit sharing process
and practices. The level of Participation in both CFUGs is ‘Good’.

4.2.2Transparency
[Link] Transparency in Income and Income sources
Respondents were asked about the CFUG funds they had in bank and in saving and credit
cooperatives. Only 44% of the total respondents in Mohanyal CFUG reported that they knew
how much amount their CFUG had (Figure 20) whereas 56% didn’t had any idea about their
funds. Figure 18 shows that only 35% out of the total respondents in Janahit CFUG had known
how much CFUG fund they had whereas the rest 65% of them had no idea about the CFUG
funds.

29
 70% 65%

60% 56%

50% 44%
40% 35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 20: Transparency in Income and Income Sources

[Link] Transparency in Expenditure
In both CFUGs, the funds were not mobilized in the field of forest protection and development,
community development, poverty reduction and institutional development. Both CFUGs claimed
that they do not have sufficient funds for mobilization in these sectors. Executive committee of
Mohanyal CFUG reported that they had provided little amount of money from their account for
the management of ponds with in the CF (Figure 21). However, Janahit CFUG has not mobilized
their funds in any sort of community programs or events at all.
31% of the total respondents in Mohanyal CFUG were known about the expenditure of CFUG
funds whereas only 24% of the respondents from Janahit CFUG were known about fund
mobilization in their CFUG.
80% 76%
69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
31%
30% 24%
20%
10%
0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 21: Transparency in Expenditure

30
[Link] Satisfaction of Respondents Towards Fund Mobilization
In Mohanyal CFUG, on the basis of allowing the users to observe financial records, only 11% of
the total respondents were fully satisfied while 51% were somewhat satisfied whereas 38% were
not satisfied at all. Similarly, in Janahit CFUG only 15% were fully satisfied while 52% were
somewhat satisfied and about 33% were not satisfied at all. Figure 22 clearly shows that the
satisfaction level of CFUG members on CFUG fund mobilization process and practices was
Similar in both the CFUGs.

60%
51% 52%
50%

40% 38%
33%
30%

20% 15%
11%
10%

0%
Very much satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not at all

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 22: Satisfaction of Respondents Towards Fund Mobilization

[Link] 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 Mohanyal
CFUG, 62% of the respondents had attended public hearing and auditing whereas 20% didn’t
attend and 18% were unaware about public auditing and hearing. In Janahit CFUG, 78% of the
respondents had attended public hearing and auditing whereas 15% didn’t attend and 7% were
unaware about public auditing and hearing (Figure 23).

31
 90%
78%
80%

70%
62%
60%

50%

40%

30%
20%
18%
20% 15%

10% 7%

0%
Yes No Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 23: Public Hearing and Auditing

[Link] 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 whereas 20% of Mohanyal respondents and 26%
of Janahit respondents said that executive committee set the price while rest of the respondents
didn’t know about the matter (Figure 24).

70%
58% 60%
60%

50%

40%

30% 26%
20% 22%
20% 14%
10%

0%
OP Executive Committee Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 24: Responsible in Setting Prices of Forest Products

32
[Link] 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. 56% of the total
respondents in Mohanyal CFUG whereas only 17% in Janahit CFUG reported that there was
transparency but 44% in Mohanyal CFUG and 83% in Janahit CFUG said that there was no
transparency (Figure 25).
90% 83%
80%

70%

60% 56%

50% 44%
40%

30%
17%
20%

10%

0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 25: Transparency in Forest Products Distribution

[Link] Level of Transparency in Implementation of Decisions

Figure 26 shows that only 9% of the total respondents of Mohanyal CFUG knew about activities
implementation decision made by the CFUG EC, while majority of them (60 %) knew about the
implementation decision moderately, and rest 31% of them had low level of information about
the implementation decision. In Janahit CFUG, only 15 % of the total respondents knew fully
about the implementation decision made by the CFUG EC, while majority of them (76 %) knew
about the implementation decision moderately, and rest 9% of them had low level of information
about the implementation decision.

33
 80% 76%

70%
60%
60%

50%

40%
31%
30%

20% 15%
9% 9%
10%

0%
High Moderate Low

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 26: Level of Transparency in Implementation of Decisions

Table 5 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of transparency, which was better
in Masthamadhau CFUG compared with Thapley CFUG.

Table 5 Transparency Score of Both CFUGs

Indicators of Transparency Total attainable Score Obtained
score Mohanyal Janahit
CFUG CFUG
Transparency in income and income 4 3 2
sources
Transparency in expenditure details 4 2 1
Public hearing and auditing 4 2 3
Transparency in sales and distribution of 4 2 1
forest products
Total Score 16 9 7
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 5 shows that Mohanyal CFUG is quite “Good” in transparency and Janahit CFUG is
‘Medium’ as far as transparency is concerned.

34
4.2.3 Accountability
[Link] Accountability of EC Members in Their Roles and Responsibilities
In Mohanyal CFUG, 51% of the total respondents reported that the EC members were fully
accountable to the users (Figure 27), while 27% of them said that the CFUG executive
committee was little bit accountable towards them where as 4% of them told that the executive
committee was not at all accountable. Remaining 18% of the total respondents reported that they
didn’t know about this matter. As for Janahit CFUG, 65 % of the total respondents reported that
the EC members were fully accountable to the users, while 24 % of them said that the EC was
little bit accountable towards them where as 7% of them told that the EC was not at all
accountable to them and to user groups.
70% 65%

60%
51%
50%

40%

30% 27%
24%

20% 18%

10% 7%
4% 4%

0%
Fully Little bit Never Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 27: Accountability of EC Members in Their Roles and Responsibilities

[Link] Accountability of General members in Their Roles and Responsibilities

In Mohanyal CFUG, 47% 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 7%
confessed they were never informed about such activities and have never participated. In Janahit
CFUG, 52% of the total respondents reported that they always participated in CFUG activities,
28% said they sometimes participated and only 7% said they never participated in forest related
activities of their community (figure 28).

35
 60%
52%
50% 47%

40%
31%
28%
30%

20% 16%
13%
10% 7% 7%

0%
Always Sometimes Never Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 28: Accountability of General Members in Their Roles and Responsibilities

[Link] Biasness of Executive Members to General Members

Majority of respondents in both CFUGs that was 89% in Mohanyal and 85% in Janahit reported
that they were not biased by committee members but 11% in Mohanyal and 15% in Janahit
CFUG reported that they were biased by committee (Figure 29).
100%
89%
90% 85%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 15%
11%
10%
0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 29: Biasness of Executive Members to General Members

36
[Link] 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 District Forest Officer. OP and Constitution
are the legal documents to hand over the forest as a community forest.
Majority of the respondents of both CFUGs have read and heard the constitution and OP of CF.
only 22% in Mohanyal and 30% in Janahit have not read or listened constitution and OP (Figure
30).
90%
78%
80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30% 22%
20%
10%
0%
Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Yes No

Figure 30: Read/Listen Constitution and Operational Plan Preparation

[Link] 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 (Figure 31).Main reason according to the respondents was nobody else
was interested to be committee member.

37
 70%
61%
60%
49%
50%

40%

27% 28%
30% 24%

20%
11%
10%

0%
Yes No Don’t Know

Mohanyal CF Janahit CF

Figure 31: Conflict Over Power in The Committee and CFUG

Table 6 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of accountability, which was
better in Janahit CFUG compared with Mohanyal CFUG.

Table 6 Accountability Level of Both CFUGs

Indicators of Accountability Total attainable Score Obtained
score Mohanyal Janahit CFUG
CFUG
Accountability of executive committee 4 2 3
in their roles and responsibilities
Accountability of general members in 4 2 3
their roles and responsibilities
Accountability of EC members to 4 3 3
general members
Conflict over power in the committee 4 3 3
and CFUG
Total Score 16 10 12
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 6 clearly shows that accountability level of Janahit CFUG is good whereas that of
Mohanyal CFUG is medium.

38
4.2.4 Predictability
[Link] Preparation of Annual Plans, Directives/Guidelines and Revision of OP
In Mohanyal CFUG, 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. The constitution has been revised for
the first time in 2074 B.S. and the OP has been revised every 5 years.
As for Janahit CFUG, it has been more than a year since the last annual meeting/ general
assembly took place. They have made some annual plans/ guidelines or directives for any
purpose. The constitution has been revised for the first time in 2073 and the OP has been revised
every 5 years and now it is in the phase of revision.

4.2.4.2Coordination, Linkages and Networking

Mohanyal CFUG had good linkage with Division Forest Office (DFO), FECOFUN and District
Forest Coordination Committee (DFCC). It also had good networking with some other Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and few local co-operatives.
Janahit CFUG, on the other hand, also had a good link with DFO and FECOFUN. But it doesn’t
have any linkages with NGOs. Lack of proper co-ordination with various agencies have resulted
in poor exposure of Janahit 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.

[Link] Clear goal, Vision and Objective of The Group

Mohanyal CFUG had some goals and visions for forest development, community development
and utilization of their forest resources in an eco-friendly way. In addition to that, better
provisions for drinking water and electricity for the local inhabitants is one of the main focuses
of Mohanyal CFUG. They plan to initiate some IGAs too for betterment of poor and
marginalized people.
On the contrary, Janahit CFUG doesn’t seem to have any sort of goals and visions for the future.
The EC is struggling to stay on good terms with the general users and as the president of the
committee recently passed away, they reported that there have been problem in coordination

39
among the Committee members and the users. Hence, this CFUG lacks clear vision, goal and
objective.

[Link] 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 hadn’t attended any of such training on skill development and forest
management.
Table 7 shows the scores of both the CFUGs in four indicators of predictability, which was better
in Mohanyal CFUG compared with Janahit CFUG.

Table 7 Predictability Score of Both CFUGs

Indicators of Predictability Total attainable Score Obtained
score Mohanyal Janahit CFUG
CFUG
Preparation of directives and 4 3 2
guidelines
Human resource development 4 1 1
Co-ordination, linkages and 4 3 2
networking
Clear goal, vision and objectives of 4 2 1
the group
Total Score 16 9 6
Rank: 1= poor, 2= medium, 3= good, 4= excellent

Table 7 shows that in terms of predictability, Mohanyal CFUG gets a Good score whereas
Janahit CFUG gets a medium score.

40
4.3. Comparative Assessment of Good Governance in Both CFUG
Table 8 shows the comparison of degree of governance of both CFUGs, which was better in
Mohanyal CFUG with 38 total score compared with Janahit CFUG with only 35 scores in 64
total full score.
Table 8 Comparison of Degree of Governance of Both CFUGs
Elements of Ideal Score Mohanyal Janahit Level of elements of GG
Good CFUG CFUG Mohanyal Janahit CFUG
governance CFUG
Participation 16 10 10 Good Good
Transparency 16 9 7 Good Medium
Accountability 16 10 12 Good Good
Predictability 16 9 6 Good Medium
Total 64 38 35 Good Good

Each element *0-4 – poor 5-8- medium 9-12- Good 13-16 Excellent
Overall * 0-16 - poor 17-32 medium 33-48 good 49-64 Excellent

4.4 Level of Good Governance in 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 31 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
Mohanyal CFUG and Janahit CFUG. Participation aspects of good governance was same in both
the CFUGs, while Mohanyal CFUG was weak in Accountability compared to Janahit and Janahit
CFUG was weak in transparency and predictability aspects of good governance compared with
Mohanyal 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.

41
 Mahonyal CF Janahit CF Ideal
1 Participation
4.4 16 1.1
4.3 14 1.2
12
4.2 10 1.3
8
6
4.1 1.4
4
2
4 Predictability 0 2 Transparency

3.4 2.1

3.3 2.2

3.2 2.3
3.1 2.4
3 Accountability

Figure 32: Governance Comparison in Spider-web Diagram

4.5 Challenges and Opportunities

The study in the two CFUG in Kailali 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 (Chaudhary, 2004). But, proper training and participation was equally
lacking in both CFUGs. 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

42
 executive committee members in organizing meeting and general assembly, insufficient
transparency in managing fund.
• There was no 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 not 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 almost good to generate income and employment opportunities. Field level
DFOs were well motivated for the wellbeing of user group members.

4.6 Discussion
Good Governance has always been a key influential factors in Community Forest Management
Systems. However, the main obstacle to establishing good governance in lack of understanding
and awareness regarding CFs is a problem in Nepal (Rijal et al. 2021). Except for elites in
positions of leadership or with strong educations, the majority of the other members hardly
understand governance and its terminology. While asking responses, we further simplified the
questionnaire by asking specific questions about each element. According to Kanwoski et al.
(2011), for forest governance to succeed, it must be natural, investigated, and supported by the
community. Notably, this research demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of CFs in this
strategy for good governance based on the four elements of the governance.
The lack of responsiveness in both CFs is clearly explained by this study, and monitoring
mechanisms should be developed in both CFs. In the focus group discussion, most meetings
emphasize keeping suggestions and complaints. The debate over community forests user
committee (CFUC) on such suggestions/complaints throughout their meeting to take into account

43
the user member's suggestion or address their complaint, and follow-up improve the sense of
responsiveness to the users. Similarly, the CF general assembly's selection of executive
committee, not elections, are in control of high score in consensus-focused. The executive
committee meetings and table work resulted in a delay in addressing the public's need for forest
resources, which led to the lowest responsiveness score.
The overall governance score based on four elements was 59.3% in Mahonyal CF and 54.6% in
Janahit CF which represents Mahonyal CF quite better than Janahit CF but both the CFs needs
improvement. Moreover, comparable study conducted by Lamichhane and Parajuli (2014) had
reported 76.38% of governance score in CFs of Gorkha district and considered satisfactory. Low
participation of users in benefit sharing process was found which corresponds to the findings of
Choudhary, (2004). Both the CFs under study had fifty percent of women participation in
representation committee probably with the improvement of legal procedure requiring more than
50 percent representation in committee which opposes the conclusion given by Pokharel and
Tiwari (2013). Moderate participation in CF implementation activities can be exceled by
incentives which is recommended by the Adhikari et al., (2016). Marginal voices was heard in
the decision making by the executive committee which contradicts with the study of Kimensgi
and Bhusal (2022).
Making CFUG representatives, though responsible to the users, appropriate putting the
operational plan into practice as well as the Constitution, open accounting and effective public
mobilization resources and opinions of corporations, the ineffective users in making decisions,
and the adoption of fair benefit sharing systems were among the major concerns for effective CF
governance at Nepal (Raut et al., 2020). Therefore, in order to address these challenges, it is
essential to understand the community forestry condition as of the government and interested
parties to fulfill community forestry's goals initiatives in light of the new federal structure. This
will result in a win-win scenario, both the local and the economy and ecology will both benefit.

44
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
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 quite satisfactory. Majority of respondents of both FUGs 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 Mohanyal CFUG while only sometimes the suggestions are
discussed in Janahit 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 Mohanyal CFUG have known about their CFUG fund than
that of Janahit CFUG. Transparency in expenditure, OP and constitution discussion was
excellent in Mohanyal CFUG whereas poor in Janahit CFUG. Therefore, level of transparency in
Mohanyal CFUG is better than in Janahit CFUG.

Regarding the accountability, the perception of the users towards accountability is satisfactory in
both but the user perceived Janahit CFUG is medium accountable than Mohanyal CFUG.

The predictability status was too seen well in Mohanyal CFUG than in Janahit 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 Janahit CFUG.

45
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 Mohanyal CFUG than Janahit CFUG.

5.2. Recommendation
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 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.

46
 CHAPTER 6: 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.

Adhikari S, Kingi T, Ganesh S. 2016. Incentives and Community Participation in the

Governance of Community Forests in Nepal. Small-Scale For 15: 179-197.

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

[Link]

47
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.

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.

Kanowski PJ, McDermott CL, Cashore BW. 2011. Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis
of forest governance. Environ Sci Policy 14: 111-117

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.

48
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

Pokharel RK, Tiwari KR. 2013. Good Governance Assessment in Nepal’s Community Forestry.
J Sustain For 32: 549-564

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

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.

Raut, S., Upadhaya, S., Chhetri, S. G., & Joshi, M. R. (2020). Assessing Governance Status:
Learning from Community Forest User Groups, Nepal. Journal of Forest and Natural
Resource Management, 2(1), 1-18.

Rijal, S., Subedi, M., Chhetri, R., & Joshi, R. (2021). Good Governance Assessment in
Community Forest of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Environmental Science, 37(3), 251-
259.

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 [Link]. Forestry degree at TU. IOF, Nepal.

49
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: <
[Link] [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.

50
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?

51
 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?

52
 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

53
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
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

54
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.
…………………………………………………………………………

55
Annex 2The 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.”

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 Women and Women and
making position representative in representative Dalits Dalits in key
EC. No in EC but no representative positions of
representative from Dalit in EC (but not the EC.
Dalits in EC. representative in key
in EC. positions of
the EC).

56
2. Decision making Important decisions Important Participation Important
process are made by decisions are of women and decisions are
rich/elite members made by Dalits and made by GA
of the committee important involving
group/committee. members only. decisions are active
made by participation
majority of of the women
users. and Dalits.
3. Implementation By rich/elite EC only. By the Active
members of the participation participation
group/committee. of all members of almost all
but poor and the members
Dalits are including
overlooked. women,
Dalits and
poor.
4. Benefit sharing Decisions are made EC only. By By
process by rich/elite participation participation
members of the of majority of of almost all
group/committee. users but poor the users
and Dalits are including
overlooked. women,
Dalits and
poor.

57
Annex 4 Governance assessment matrix for the level of Transparency
Transparency
Indicators/Grade 1 (Poor) 2 (Medium) 3 (Good) 4 (Excellent)
1. Income and income Only known by Only known by Known by Known by all
sources rich/elite the committee majority of users
members of the members. users. (including
committee/group. The details are The details are Dalits and
not disseminated women).
disseminated to the users
to the users. timely.
2. Expenditure details Only known by Only known by Known by Known by all
rich/elite the committee majority of users
members of the members. users. (including
committee/group. The details are The details are Dalits and
not disseminated women).
disseminated to the users
to the users. timely.
3. Provisions Only known by Only known by Known by Known by all
mentioned in OP rich/elite the committee majority of users
and constitution, members of the members. users. (including
annual program and committee/group. Dalits and
committee decisions women).
4. Sales and Only known by Only known by Known by Known by all
distribution of the rich/elite the committee majority of users
forest products members of the members. users. (including
committee/group. Dalits and
women).

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.

58
 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
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

59
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/directive guidelines/directive
directives/guide with s have not been s have been
lines and OP not discussions prepared but prepared for
revision of OP revised yet. from elites discussed in effective
and noted in assembly and noted implementation of
minute only in minute OP and also
books. books. approved from
DFO and agencies.
OP revised OP revised in time
but less with active OP always revised
participation participation of in time.
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
and co- and co- with DFO ordination with co-ordination with
operation ordination only. governmental all related
with DFO. organizations and governmental and
other CBOs at local non-governmental
level. line agencies
working in the
district.
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)

60
Annex 7: PHOTO PLATES

61
62