The Community Forest User Groups all over the Nepal are not doing wrong practices. It is a reality that the local communities have been successful in conserving their forests. But, now when they want to harvest and sell the forest products, the Govt seeks to get tax from the sale of forest products, so that those people who are not users of the forests but are only civilians of Nepal, could also be benefited, and the Govt could function well. From this perspective, the Community Forest Users Groups and the pro-CF activists should support the govt action of amendment of Forest Act.  

The Govt. felt only after about two and a half decade of CF that it should not have provided with hundred percent benefits to the local community. Rather the local communities should be given certain percentage of the Govt property. But it has become too late. First providing full benefit, and then proposing for share of benefits, has created problem. But the CFUGs, FECOFUN, and activists should understand that if all the local people should get all the benefits from local resources, then how the govt could run, and how those people who are not users of CFUGs could be included. The CFUGs have not been inclusive in all parts of the nation. It has excluded the distant and marginal communities in many parts of the nation. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to think for those marginalized and the distant/excluded people, who also deserve facility from the government property. If all the local resources are claimed by local people, then, if the people living in boarder areas nearby China or India, claim for all the income of the tax and duties of custom office, then how could the govt solve the problem. 

In the Govt property, the right of the entire civilian should be equal, and therefore, all the people should benefit equally. Those people who have conserved the community forests, certainly deserve greater proportion of the benefits, but still those who are farther from the forest, should also have the stake in the Government property of CF. It is not fair that the users of the CFs should get the timber of Sal and other species at very low cost (NRs40-50 per cu.ft.), whereas those people living in Kathmandu or other parts of the nation, who have not got membership of any CFUGs, need to pay high cost (more than NRs. 5000 per cu.ft.). The Govt as well as the CFUGs and the activists should think over this issue. 

The distant people of Tarai have always been excluded, but have only been recently included in the Collaborative Management of Forests (CFM) in some districts of Tarai. The people of southern Tarai were never informed about the state's policy of CF, and the forests were handed over to the encroachers of the forests, whereas the traditional users up to the India boarder were intentionally excluded. The donor projects of CFs were only concentrated to the mountains and hills of Nepal, who never take care of the stake of the distant users of Tarai. Therefore, it is not fair for the people of Tarai as well.

It is not true to say that only the efforts of local people have been able to conserve the forests in the CFs; but the forest officials and the donors have also played significant role directly and indirectly. And at present time, not only some forest officials but also some members of the CF users groups are corrupt, and therefore, blaming only the forest officials and declaring them all corrupt, is not fair. 

In the news' article, it is quite misleading that the people have been managing their forests very well; but instead they have only been able to protect their forest at the cost of nearby national forest, of which they have not been provided use-right under the jurisdiction of CF, ie., the govt. managed forest. Protection of forest is not the management, but it is the application of management prescriptions. The people may have the capacity to manage a block of forest, but how much area can be managed a community should have to be analyzed based on some rational norms. For example, one household in the hills may need 2-3 hectare of forest to fulfill their basic needs, as well as the household can manage that area. But if a large area of forest is handed over to a community of relatively lesser number of household, the forest could not be managed by the community. Therefore, assessing the management capacity of a community is a very difficult task. Therefore, handing over a large chunk of forest to a small community or vice-versa could not be scientific. Therefore, the amendment in the Forest Act, which is being proposed at present time, has proposed handing over forest area on the basis of the size of the community. 

Also, it is mentioned in the news article that "communities will be at the mercy of DFOs (district forest officers), who have acquired a well-deserved reputation for corruption, to renew their operational plans". This is a very negative way of expression, and I personally condemn this. The CFs has been promoted by DFOs in the past and present as well. DFOs have never acted against the promotion of CFs. Where there have been cases of corruption, it must be by the involvement of the user committee members. So, blaming the DFOs and their staffs is a very biased way of thinking. 

All these problems have come when the forest stock have reached the stage of extraction, ie, when benefit is coming. The users groups of CFs as well as the forest officials have wrong motivation of taking more benefits than what should be taken sustainably. In many cases of Tarai CFs, where well grown forest (stocked forests) have been handed over, the users have only the intention of harvesting the forest without caring for the condition of the forest, and making as much benefit as possible, without even caring for the needs of the local people of the district who are deprived of the forest products. Most of the CFUGs have the intention to sell the forest products outside the district through tender process, without fulfilling the demand of the nearby users and the people of even the same district. This has raised frustration within those people who are not getting even a small piece of wood, whereas the users of CFUGs are burning the wood of Sal as fuelwood in nearby areas of forests. Therefore, if the needs of the excluded is not addressed, the issue will explode the forestry sector in the Tarai and the higher Himal areas. 

We should be proud of the achievements of the CF programme, but we should address the issues in the coming days. The proposed amendments in the Forest Act, 2049 should be discussed among various stakeholders, but it should not be blindly blamed. Also, the roles of the forest officials and the Govt should not be under-estimated and undermined. The pre-occupied thinking of FECOFUN and other NGOs and activists to always resist the government and forest officials should be analyzed through positive thinking. An unbiased discussion among various stakeholders is necessary to come to any conclusion. 

The media people should not publish such a biased article. Thank you!