| Abstract | The study focused on the assessment of the socio-economic characteristics of
Forest User Groups (FUGs), economic benefits occurring from community forest to users
and effect of training and extension activities on institutional capacity building in terms of
users' awareness and performance on community forestry (CF) activities using tools such
as user's interview, field observation, key informant interview and informal discussion.
Four FUGs, two near and two far from district headquarter were taken as cases in Tanahun,
a midhill Western regional district of Nepal.
The findings of the study reveal that the socio- economic factors like religion, etlmicity,
gender, and education and economic status are not barriers in equal distribution of forest
products from community forests. Certain factors like education status (understanding
level), ethnicity (dominance), gender (participation), occupation (working outside country),
age group (economically active population), family size and livestock holding (fuelwood
and fodder requirement, grazing) have effects on the management of community forest.
FUGs have extracted comparatively less forest products after taking the protection and
management responsibility of the forest and they seemed satisfied with the hope that they
would get more through proper forest management once the forest condition was
improved. Presently, forest condition, lack of users' knowledge and skills in income
generation activities, and teclmical support from concerned agency are barriers to
substantial economic returns from community forest. Forest products sale, penalty,
membership fee, grant and donation are main sources of FUG income, which they are
investing in social development works by supporting local governance.
Concerned stakeholders have conducted pre formation and post formation training and
extension activities related to CF matters for users. Users' awareness level on CF policy,
rules and regulations; contents of Operational plan (OP) and constitution, PUG/Forest User
Group Committee (FUGC) rights and responsibilities, silvicultural operations, and record
keeping and accounting vary significantly between FUGs. The awareness level seems
higher in FUGs near to district headquarter in comparison to FUGs far from it
Training participant selection in all FUGs is not satisfactory. In most cases, the chairperson
selects participants without holding FUGC meeting due to which FUGC members and
influential persons are attending training and workshops at a higher proportion. Sharing of
training knowledge and skills with other users by trained users is very poor.
Institutional capacity in terms of FUG performance on certain CF activities like
silvicultural operations, record keeping and accounting, works according to OP and
constitution, enhancing participation in FUG and FUGC meeting, women participation in
FUG assembly, decision making in FUG/FUGC meeting, transparency in each
FUG/FUGC activity, and conflict management seems medium and it is higher in FUGs
near to district headquarter than in FUGs far from it.
Main problems of FUGs are record keeping and financial management, conducting income
generation activities, silvicultural operations, boundary conflict, and livestock grazing in
community forests. Adequate teclmical suppo1i to FUGs by concerned institutions and
associated stakeholders through mutual coordinating actions is important for further
strengthening institutional capacity building process ofFUGs. |