Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal

Abstract

The community forests (CF) in Nepal, facilitated by Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), is widely recognized as an effective model of community-based forest management. Despite this recognition, there is a notable lack of comprehensive studies assessing the performance of CFUGs in sustaining community forests. Addressing this gap, this study examined twenty-two indicators across five performance criteria, such as user group management, forest management, financial management, livelihood management, and collaboration and networking management, within four CFUGs in central Nepal. Data were collected through household surveys (n = 275) and focus group discussions (n = 4), and indicators of performance criteria were assessed using a Likert scale. Reliability was measured using the coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha. ANOVA was employed to compare mean performance criteria across the four CFUGs, providing an evaluative perspective on overall CFUG performance. The findings underscored collaboration and networking management as high performers, showing an index value of 0.71, while user group management exhibited moderate performance with an index value of 0.56, alongside other moderately performing criteria. Noteworthy disparities were evident across the four performance criteria (p < 0.01), with the exception of collaboration and network management. Approximately 55% of the indicators were rated low to moderate, revealing CFUGs’ deficiencies in regular functions, limited uptake of adaptive and market-oriented management practices, minimal contributions to biodiversity conservation, insufficient capacity for forest revenue generation and mobilization, and restricted income generation and benefit-sharing with communities. The absence of timely and pertinent actions further stifled interaction between CFUGs and community forests, undermining the potential for revenue generation, job creation, and collective actions essential for productive community forest management. Prioritization of the indicators based on the performance index value offers critical policy direction to ensure CFUG sustainability and augment participatory management of common pool resources. Strategies to address identified weaknesses and build on strengths are essential for the success of Nepal’s community forests.

1. Introduction

During the 1980s, many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America began to implement decentralization initiatives to manage natural resource and meet the needs of local communities [1]. These initiatives aimed to empower local communities and stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes related to the management of forests and other natural resources. By devolving authority and responsibility to the local level, these initiatives sought to address issues such as resource exploitation, environmental degradation, and social equity. Family farmers, smallholders, forest communities, and indigenous people have emerged as key actors in this decentralized approach, as they often possess traditional knowledge and have a vested interest in sustainable resource management. Since then, they have managed more than 4 billion hectares of forest and agricultural landscapes [2]. This highlights the important role that communities, groups, and individuals play in achieving sustainable forest management [2,3]. Research by Paudyal et al. [3] and others highlights the importance of effective engagement with these stakeholders to ensure the success of forest management initiatives. By incorporating local knowledge, values, and priorities into decision-making processes, governments and organizations can improve the sustainability and resilience of forest ecosystems while promoting the well-being of local communities. Decentralization of resource management fosters inclusive and participatory approaches, recognizing the critical role of local actors in achieving sustainability goals [3].

Community-based management of common pool resources has emerged as an important land use policy approach in many developing countries, particularly those with agricultural economies. This approach recognizes the importance of local communities in the sustainable management of resources such as forests, watersheds, rangelands, and fisheries [4,5,6]. In Nepal, community forests (CF) managed by community forest user groups (CFUGs) has been widely recognized as a global success story in community-based natural resource management [3,7,8,9]. CF in Nepal began with the failure of the centralized forest protection system in the late 1970s regarding the development, protection, utilization, and management of forest resources by the communities [10,11,12]. Since then, community forests programs have been highly successful in restoring degraded land, providing basic forest products, implementing democratic decision-making processes, and improving household livelihoods [3,5,13]. Over the past forty years, community forests have become a focal point of international interest, gaining legal acknowledgment and significant programmatic support from governments worldwide [7]. The program has provided a wide range of socio-economic and environmental benefits, including contributions to biodiversity conservation, strengthening local institutions and empowering local communities, and improving rural livelihoods [12,14]. In addition, at various scales of institutional interface, community forestry contributes to 80 targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [15]. Currently, there are 23,682 CFUGs managing 24,901.94 km² (37.67% of the national forest) of Nepal’s forest resources [16]. Nepal’s experience with community forestry exemplifies the transformative potential of decentralized governance and community participation in sustainable resource management. CFUGs have emerged as key actors in forest conservation and livelihood improvement, and serve as a model for similar initiatives worldwide [3,17]. The global example of community participation in forest management represents a significant shift towards devolution and decentralization in natural resource management, although it varies based on socio-economic factors and the policy contexts of the specific countries [12,18,19,20]. This approach, which emphasizes the importance of involving local communities in decision-making processes, has received attention in various national and international forums. While community participation is widely recognized as essential for fostering ownership and accountability in resource management, there remains a need for more empirical evidence to evaluate the performance of CFUGs and prioritize different aspects of effective community forest management.

Studies have consistently emphasized the significance of participatory decision-making in natural resource management [8], underscoring its pivotal role in fostering sustainable outcomes. Understanding, anticipating, and mitigating trade-offs are crucial for achieving “win–win” outcomes for both environment and resource users [21]. This requires careful consideration of the competing interests involved and the potential consequences of management decisions. Assessing respondents’ satisfaction with forest management services depends on their perceptions of performance [22]. Thus, evaluating the effectiveness of community forests requires a nuanced understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences. While CFUG participation in forest management represents a significant advance in natural resource governance, there is a need for more empirical research to evaluate the performance of CFUGs and to prioritize different aspects of effective community forestry management [7,18]. Understanding the dynamics of community forestry initiatives is essential for promoting sustainable outcomes amidst environmental changes and socio-economic transitions, including shifts from subsistence agrarian livelihoods to market economies, migration, labor shortages, and unplanned development activities [7,23]. Therefore, the study aims to address three primary research questions related to evaluating the performance of CFUGs in effectively managing community forests: (1) How do the respondents evaluate the performance of the CFUGs in managing the community forests? (2) Are there any significant differences in the perceived performance evaluation indicators among various CFUGs managing the community forests for different performance criteria? (3) What are the priority indicators perceived to strengthen the performance of CFUGs in the sustainable management of the community forests? Overall, this study contributes to the body of knowledge on community-based forest management by exploring community perceptions of the performance of CFUGs and by identifying strategies to improve the effectiveness of CFUGs in the sustainable management of common pool resources [8,21].

Assessing Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) Performance: Criteria and Indicators

Performance assessing criteria and indicators measure an organization’s current or past performance in relation to its environmental policy, objectives, and targets [24]. An organization can utilize multiple criteria and indicators to identify various aspects, determine their significance, establish criteria for enhancing environmental program performance, and evaluate progress across different criteria [24,25]. In this context, considering CFUGs as organizations responsible for managing environmental initiatives like community forest management, we have developed twenty-two indicators across five performance criteria, as depicted in Figure 1 and

Table 1. Performance assessing criteria, indicators, and their descriptions.

Performance Criteria	Indicators	Descriptions
User group management	Inclusive executive committee	Formation of an inclusive executive committee representing women, poor, vulnerable, and marginalized users
	Holding regular meetings	Hold regular executive committee and user annual meetings as per the constitution
	Inclusive decision-making	The voice of women, poor, vulnerable, and marginalized users is considered in decision-making
	Implementation of decisions	Timely execution of the decision made by the general assembly and executive committee
	Timely reporting	Timely prepare and submit annual progress reports to the division forest office and other relevant offices
	Timely public hearing and auditing	Timely conduct of public hearings and audits as per the constitution
	Delegation of roles and responsibilities	Form and deploy sub-committees for delegating responsibility and effective teamwork
Forest management	Community participation	Active and effective participation and engagement of the users in forest management activities
	Timely review and amend of policy documents	Revise the forest operation plan and amend the constitution timely
	Execution of the activities	Execute the activities specified in the forest operational plan
	Practice of reward and penalties	Enforce penalties for illegal activities causing forest degradation and provide rewards for forest conservation and management
	Adaptive management practices	Incorporate climate change adaptation provisions into the forest operational plan, annual plans, and their timely execution
	Biodiversity conservation contribution	Allocation of the revenue generated from resources for biodiversity conservation
	Market-oriented forest management	The current forest management practices are driven by market demand and users’ needs
Financial management	Information management and documentation	Management of information, record-keeping, and documentation
	Forest resources revenue generation and mobilization	Revenue generation from forest resources and fair allocation and mobilization
	Transparent financial auditing and information exchange	Establish a financial auditing system and exchange information with relevant stakeholders
Livelihood management	Employment generation	Generate employment and income from community forest resources
	Equitable benefit sharing	Fair and equitable benefit sharing based on the economic well-being ranking of users
	Targeted livelihood improvement initiatives	Specific activities to improve the livelihoods of women, poor, vulnerable, and marginalized households
Collaboration and networking management	Coordination and collaboration	Establish trustworthy collaboration and networking among the Divisional Forest Office, local government, and other pertinent stakeholders
	Leverage technical assistance	Utilize timely and consistent technical assistance for the implementation of activities outlined in the forest operational plan, as well as for the revision of both the forest operational plan and constitution

Source: Adapted from Lamichhane et al. [10], Cadman et al. [26], WWF Nepal [27] and MoFE [28].

. These indicators were formulated based on empirical studies, reviews of the academic and grey literature, and policy documents [10,17,26,27,28]. The key policy documents reviewed were the Forest Act of 2019, the Forest Regulation of 2022, and the Community Forest Development Guidelines of 2009 from the Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) [28]. The review of the key grey literature included institutional capacity assessment (ICA) tools developed to improve governance in natural resource management groups [27]. These indicators encompass five critical dimensions essential for the sustainable management of community forests. Firstly, user group management focuses on the aspects of governance systems, structure, leadership, and internal organization of CFUGs [10,29,30]. Secondly, forest management indicators focus on forest management policy documents, sustainable management and harvesting practices, and biodiversity conservation [10,29,30]. Financial management criteria encompass information management, revenue generation and mobilization, and transparency within CFUGs [31,32,33]. Similarly, livelihood management considerations include income-generating opportunities, benefit sharing, and targeting activities [32,33,34]. Finally, collaboration and networking management consider interactions with government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other community-based entities for management and technical assistance and collaboration [30,35,36]. Taken together, these indicators provide a comprehensive framework for assessing and improving the performance of CFUGs in managing community forests. This approach ensures that different aspects of CFUG operations are assessed, providing a holistic understanding of their effectiveness. By systematically assessing each dimension, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers can identify the strengths and weaknesses of CFUGs. This insight enables stakeholders to identify areas where CFUGs excel and areas that need attention and improvement. Whether it’s strengthening leadership capacity within CFUGs, implementing sustainable forest management practices, improving financial transparency, or diversifying livelihood opportunities, targeted interventions can be designed to address shortcomings and improve overall performance. By identifying areas for improvement and implementing the necessary changes, stakeholders can contribute to the resilience and effectiveness of CFUGs in protecting forest resources and supporting the livelihoods of local communities over the long term.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study selected four CFUGs in the Chitwan district of central Nepal for analysis (Figure 2 and

Table 2. Details of the study area in the Chitwan district of Nepal.

Descriptions	Name of CFUGs
	Ranikhola	Kalika Pipaltar	Chandithan	Tinkanya
Address	Icchakamana-7, Chitwan	Icchakamana-7, Chitwan	Icchakamana-7, Chitwan	Icchakamana-7, Chitwan
Area (in km2)	1.996	2.003	1.986	1.983
Handover year	2010	2010	2010	2010
Households	262	195	194	185
Major forest type	Shorea robusta, Terminalia alata, Adina cardifolia, Syzygium cumini, and Lagerstroemia parviflora	Shorea robusta, Terminalia alata, adina cardifolia, Syzygium cumini, and Syzygium operculata	Shorea robusta, Terminalia, Adina cardifolia, Syzygium cumini, and Syzygium operculata	Shorea robusta, Terminalia alata, Adina cardifolia, Lagerstroemia parviflora, Trewia nudiflora, and Albizia julibrissin

). Chitwan district has a total population of 722,168 people and covers an area of 2238.39 km². Its geographical coordinates range from latitude 27°21′45″ to 27°52′30″ N and longitude 83°54′45″ to 84°48′5″ E, with altitudes ranging from 144 m to 1947 m above mean sea level [37,38]. This district is characterized by a significant forest cover, with 65.85 percent of its total area. These forests consist of two main types: tropical forests dominated by species such as Shorea robusta (sal), riverine forests, and subtropical forests. In total, there are 93 CFUGs managing a forest area of 227.82 km², benefiting 49,779 households [38]. This study selected four CFUGs (Table 2) handed over to the community by the Division Forest Office, Chitwan.

2.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

A total of 275 respondents were chosen from four CFUGs in proportion to the number of households in each CFUG. This distribution represented 22% from Tinkanya, 23% from Chandithan, 31% from Ranikhola, and 23% from Kalika Pipaltar. The sampled households were sufficient to generalize the findings in the study area at a 95% confidence level with a 5% marginal error [39]. Respondents were asked to rate the performance of each indicator identified to assess CFUG performance using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”. For clarity and convenience, the ratings used different facial icons to ensure respondents could easily understand and engage with the questionnaire regardless of background (Figure 3). The survey targeted individuals over the age of 18 and used stratified random sampling to ensure representation of different demographic groups within each CFUG. Before executing the data collection, informed consent was obtained from the respondents and stakeholders involved in the study.

The three-page questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part A collected information about the perceptions and behaviors of community forest users toward community forest initiatives. Part B involved assessing the performance of 22 indicators using a five-point Likert scale. The performance scale rating ranged from 1, indicating the lowest level of satisfaction (very unsatisfied), to 5, representing the highest level of satisfaction (very satisfied) regarding the performance indicators. Part C consisted of the respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics. The details of the survey questionnaire used to conduct the household survey are in Supplementary Materials.

2.3. Data Analysis

All the data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to test the reliability of the questionnaire and verify the internal consistency of the different performance assessing indicators for community forests. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.81 indicated sufficient internal consistency and reliability. We assessed the performance of four CFUGs using a composite index value. This index value considered twenty-two indicators across five performance criteria: user group management, forest management, financial management, livelihood and employment management, and collaboration and networking management (Table 1). The index values for indicators, performance criteria, and CFUGs were determined using a mathematical method [40,41,42]. First, to ensure consistency and comparability among the ordinal ratings, we standardized the ratings as an index for each indicator using Equation (1).

$${Index}_{P_I}=\frac{P_I-{ P_I}_{min}}{{ P_I}_{max}-{ P_I}_{min}}$$

(1)

where $P_I$ represents the average index value of indicators of the performance criteria and ${P_I}_{min}$ is the minimum value of the indicators. ${P_I}_{max}$ is the maximum value of the indicators. This index value was utilized to assess the performance of each indicator. Subsequently, after calculating index values for all indicators, we calculated the average index values for each performance criterion using Equation (2).

$${AP}_c=\frac{{\sum }_i^n{Index}_{p_{Ii}}}{n}$$

(2)

where ${AP}_c$ represents the index value of one of the five performance criteria for CFUG. ${Index}_{p_{Ii}}$ denotes the indicators, indexed by $i$, that make up each performance criterion. $n$ represents the number of indicators for each performance criterion. Finally, after calculating the average index values for five performance criteria for each CFUG, we obtained the CFUG composite index value of performance by averaging them using Equation (3).

$${CPI}_C=\frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^5{W}_{{AP}_{ci}}{AP}_{ci}}{\sum _{i=1}^5{W}_{{AP}_{ci}}}$$

(3)

where ${CPI}_C$ represents the composite index values of performance for each CFUG calculated as the weighted average of five performance criteria. The weights assigned to each performance criteria, $W_{{AP}_{ci}}$, are determined based on the number of indicators within each criterion: user group management = 7, forest management = 7, financial management = 3, livelihood management = 3, and collaboration and networking management = 2. These weights ensure that all performance criteria contribute equally to the composite performance index values [40]. We assessed the performance levels based on the average index value of indicators, which were categorized into five performance levels: very low performance (value less than 0.20), low performance (value ranging from 0.2 to 0.40), moderate performance (value ranging from 0.41 to 0.60), high performance (value ranging from 0.61 to 0.80), and very high performance (greater than 0.80) [43,44]. Descriptive analysis, including frequency and percentage calculations, was used to present respondents’ characteristics. Respondents’ ratings were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare mean differences in performance criteria among and within CFUGs.

3. Results

3.1. Respondents Characteristics

The study included 275 respondents, with a relatively even gender distribution of 53.45% male and 46.55% female respondents. The majority of respondents fell within the 29–39-year-old and 40–50-year-old age groups. Nearly all respondents were married, representing 97.45% of the sample. The dominant caste or ethnicity among the respondents was Janajati, constituting 91.64% of the sample. In terms of education, the majority of respondents were literate, with 79.27% reporting some level of education. Agriculture was the primary occupation for most respondents, with 72.73% engaged in agriculture activities. Respondents reported a range of monthly incomes, with more than half reporting income between 150 and 300 USD, representing 55.27% of the sample. Further details of respondent characteristics are presented in

Table 3. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

Variables	Category	Frequency	Sample (%)
Gender	Male	147	53.45
	Female	128	46.55
Age (years)	18–28	30	10.91
	29–39	94	34.18
	40–50	86	31.27
	51–61	47	17.09
	>61	18	6.55
Marital Status	Married	268	97.45
	Single	7	2.55
Ethnicity	Janajati	252	91.64
	Bhramin and Chhetri	13	4.73
	Dalit	10	3.64
Education	Illiterate	57	20.73
	Primary level	88	32.00
	Lower secondary	52	18.91
	Secondary level	53	19.27
	Higher secondary	19	6.91
	Undergraduate and above	6	2.18
Occupations	Agriculture	200	72.73
	Business	29	10.55
	Remittance	23	8.36
	Job (private and government)	16	5.82
	Daily wages	7	2.55
Monthly income (USD)	<150	70	25.45
	150–300	152	55.27
	301–450	41	14.91
	>451	12	4.36

, providing insight into the demographic profile of the sample population. This demographic information is essential to understanding the composition of the respondent group and interpreting the results of the study in the context of the broader community.

3.2. Performance to User Groups Management

The evaluation of seven indicators designed to assess CFUGs’ performance in user group management revealed mixed perceptions among respondents. Indicators such as the inclusive executive committee (0.62), timely reporting (0.62), and delegation of roles and responsibilities (0.66) demonstrated high performance. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CFUGs in representing women, the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized users, promoting inclusivity within executive committees, reporting practices, and delegating responsibilities. However, respondents’ perceived moderate performance in holding regular meetings (0.60), inclusive decision-making (0.43), and implementation of decisions (0.60) due to revenue limitations, executive committee capacity constraints, and users’ reluctance to accept responsibility. A notable reason for declining community participation in community forestry is attributed to diversification and access to alternative livelihood opportunities such as foreign employment and business, irregular scheduling, and a lack of advance notice and agendas. Timely public hearings and auditing (0.37) were also perceived as low in performance due to limited revenue and declining user participation, increasing the executive committees’ workload. Overall, the CFUG performance index indicated a perception of moderate effectiveness in user group management, with identified areas for improvement including enhancing inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in CFUG practices (

Table 4. Performance index values and level of user group management indicators.

Users Group Management Indicators	Index Value	Performance Level
Inclusive executive committee	0.62	High performance
Holding regular meetings	0.60	Moderate performance
Inclusive decision-making	0.43	Moderate performance
Implementation of decisions	0.60	Moderate performance
Timely reporting	0.62	High performance
Timely public hearing and auditing	0.37	Low performance
Delegation of roles and responsibilities	0.66	High performance
Average index value	0.56

).

3.3. Performance to Forest Management

The evaluation of CFUGs’ forest management performance across seven indicators revealed a mixed perception among respondents. While three indicators, such as community participation (0.69), timely review and amendment of policy documents (0.64), and execution of activities (0.68), demonstrated high performance. Respondents mentioned that regular CFUG activities include tasks such as cleaning, weeding, thinning, firewood collection, timber harvesting, plantation, water source conservation, pond construction, and fire line construction/maintenance for forest management. Despite dissatisfaction with benefit-sharing mechanisms, CFUGs facilitated increased forest cover and ecosystem services, collaborating with forest offices for technical support. Respondents observed that executive committees are more active compared to users in the valuable and resourceful community forest, while both groups in some CFUGs are inadequately engaged due to low revenue from forest resources. Moderately performing indicators included the practice of rewards and penalties (0.55), adaptive management practices (0.56), biodiversity conservation contribution (0.53), and market-oriented forest management (0.49). Challenges included enforcing penalties due to community members’ involvement in forest degradation and insufficient efforts to combat illegal hunting and wildlife conservation. Further, limited capacity of CFUGs, binding policy mechanisms (forest management activities primarily focused on the removal of dead, dying, and diseased trees), and the need for more conservation-oriented forest management practices (for example, considering flood control and wildlife habitat needs) were among the reasons understood by CFUGs for not being able to adapt to market-driven management approaches. Overall, the CFUGs’ performance index indicated a perception of moderate effectiveness in managing the forest (

Table 5. Performance index values and level of forest management indicators.

Forest Management Indicators	Index Value	Performance Level
Community participation	0.69	High performance
Timely review and amend of policy documents	0.64	High performance
Execution of activities	0.68	High performance
Practice of reward and penalties	0.55	Moderate performance
Adaptive management practices	0.56	Moderate performance
Biodiversity conservation contribution	0.53	Moderate performance
Market-oriented forest management	0.49	Moderate performance
Average index value	0.59

), with opportunities identified for enhancing conservation efforts and adapting to market-driven approaches.

3.4. Performance to Financial Management

Three indicators were evaluated to assess CFUGs’ performance in financial management. The indicators such as information management and documentation (0.68) and transparent financial auditing and information exchange (0.69) demonstrate high performance, indicating effective role of the CFUGs in managing information and transparency in financial processes (

Table 6. Performance index values and level of financial management indicators.

Financial Management Indicators	Index Value	Performance Level
Information management and documentation	0.68	High performance
Forest resources revenue generation and mobilization	0.58	Moderate performance
Transparent financial auditing and information exchange	0.69	High performance
Average index value	0.65

). However, forest resources revenue mobilization (0.58) is perceived to operate at a moderate performance level. According to the respondents, the regulatory policies governing forest resource harvesting and the timing of forest product auctions have limitations. These limitations impact revenue generation, which, in turn, could be utilized to enhance existing resource allocation and forest management systems. The average index value of 0.65 suggests a varied performance of CFUGs in financial management.

3.5. Performance to Livelihood Management

The evaluation of the three indicators to assess CFUGs’ performance in livelihood management revealed a moderate performance (0.57). All the indicator such as employment generation (0.53), equitable benefit sharing (0.58), and targeted livelihood improvement initiatives (0.60) demonstrated moderate levels of performance (

Table 7. Performance index values and level of livelihood management indicators.

Livelihood Management Indicators	Index Value	Performance Level
Employment generation	0.53	Moderate performance
Equitable benefit sharing	0.58	Moderate performance
Targeted livelihood improvement initiatives	0.60	Moderate performance
Average index value	0.57

). CFUGs executive committee members expressed concerns about the lack of transformation in resource management approaches, emphasizing the need to shift towards a market-demand-driven sustainable approach. Despite generating temporary job opportunities for forest patrolling and office secretary roles, insufficient resources such as funding, technical expertise, and infrastructure hinder the development of forest product-based enterprises to meet user and market demands. Additionally, CFUGs’ blanket approach and inadequate need assessments for targeted households have limited the effective design of livelihood improvement initiatives, particularly for marginalized groups like women, indigenous people, and landless users.

3.6. Performance to Collaboration and Networking Management

The evaluated two indicators to assess the CFUGs’ roles in collaboration and networking management showed high performance (0.71). These indicators were coordination and collaboration (0.67) and leverage technical assistance (0.75) (

Table 8. Performance index values and level of collaboration and networking management indicators.

Collaboration and Networking Management	Index Value	Performance Level
Coordination and collaboration	0.67	High performance
Leverage technical assistance	0.75	High performance
Average index value	0.71

). Respondents highlighted increased mobility among CFUGs, fostering collaboration with various programs and institutions such as the Divisional Forest Office, local governments, Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN), CARE Nepal, WWF Nepal, and Forest Action Nepal. This collaboration has facilitated access to resources, funding, and technical expertise, resulting in improved resource management practices, strengthened governance structures, and enhanced socio-economic well-being for forest-dependent communities.

3.7. Comparative Performance Analysis between of CFUGs

Each CFUG’s performance was evaluated across five criteria: user group management, forest management, financial management, livelihood and employment management, and collaboration and networking management. Ranikhola stands out with the highest overall composite performance index at 0.64, indicating high performance. However, Kalika Pipaltar, Tinkanya, and Chandithan exhibit moderate performance, with composite performance indexes of 0.59, 0.58, and 0.52, respectively (

Table 9. The performance criteria and the index values for different CFUGs.

Performance Criteria	Index Value for Different CFUGs
	1	2	3	4
User group management	0.55	0.60	0.62	0.59
Forest management	0.45	0.56	0.64	0.51
Financial management	0.44	0.49	0.64	0.56
Livelihood management	0.56	0.63	0.67	0.65
Collaboration and networking management	0.67	0.71	0.73	0.71
Composite performance index	0.52	0.59	0.64	0.58

Note: 1 = Chandithan; 2 = Kalika Pipaltar; 3 = Ranikhola; and 4 = Tinkanya.

and Figure 4). Ranikhola demonstrates high performance across all criteria, while Chandithan performs moderately. Overall, CFUGs demonstrated high capacity in managing livelihoods and employment, and in managing collaboration and networking compared to other performance criteria.

We calculated the mean performance rating for each respondent across the indicators belonging to the five criteria for ANOVA analysis. The results presented in

Table 10. Comparison of CFUG performance criteria mean scores using One-way ANOVA.

Performance Criteria		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
User group management	Between Groups	15.447	3	5.149	36.753	0.000
	Within Groups	37.967	271	0.140
	Total	53.413	274
Forest management	Between Groups	3.734	3	1.245	10.213	0.000
	Within Groups	33.026	271	0.122
	Total	36.759	274
Financial management	Between Groups	2.699	3	0.900	5.668	0.001
	Within Groups	43.015	271	0.159
	Total	45.714	274
Livelihood management	Between Groups	20.072	3	6.691	30.384	0.000
	Within Groups	59.676	271	0.220
	Total	79.749	274
Collaboration and networking management	Between Groups	0.932	3	0.311	1.535	0.206
	Within Groups	54.864	271	0.202
	Total	55.796	274

indicate significant differences among the four performance criteria, including users group management (Mean = 3.64, F = 36.753, p < 0.01), forest management (Mean = 3.68, F = 10.213, p < 0.01), financial management (Mean = 3.50, F = 5.668, p < 0.01), and livelihood and employment management (Mean = 3.53, F = 30.384, p < 0.01). However, collaboration and networking management (Mean = 4.12, F = 1.535, p > 0.1) did not show statistical significance among the CFUGs. This confirms that respondents’ perceptions of CFUGs’ performance vary across different criteria. However, CFUGs demonstrate consistent performance in collaboration and networking management. Respondents cited socio-economic factors as the primary drivers of these differences. These factors include reduced dependence on forest resources due to off-farm livelihood opportunities like business and remittance, inadequate revenue return relative to time invested in CFUGs, and low willingness among users to take on executive roles within CFUGs. Overall, these findings highlight the complex interplay of socio-economic factors in shaping perceptions of CFUG performance across different criteria.

3.8. Prioritizations of the Performance Criteria Indicators

The index values were used to prioritize performance criteria indicators. High-performing indicators were categorized as low-priority, moderate-performing indicators as moderate-priority, and low-performing indicators as high-priority. No indicators were perceived as performing at very high or very low levels by the respondents, thus these categories were excluded from

Table 11. Prioritizations of the performance criteria indicators.

Prioritization Level	Index Value	Prioritized Indicators
Highly prioritize	0.2 to 0.40	Inclusive decision-making, and timely public hearing and auditing.
Moderate prioritize	0.41 to 0.60	Holding regular meetings, implementation of decisions, practice of reward and penalties, adaptive management practices, biodiversity conservation contribution, market-oriented forest management, forest resources revenue generation and mobilization, employment generation, equitable benefit sharing, and targeted livelihood improvement initiatives.
Low prioritize	0.61 to 0.80	Inclusive executive committee, timely reporting, delegation of roles and responsibilities, community participation, timely review and amend of policy documents, Execution of the activities, information management and documentation, transparent financial auditing and information exchange, Coordination and collaboration, and leverage technical assistance.

. The prioritization process revealed that among the twenty-two indicators, two indicators, namely inclusive decision-making and timely public hearing and auditing, were highly prioritized. On the other hand, ten indicators required moderate prioritization, including holding regular meetings, implementation of decisions, practice of reward and penalties, adaptive management practices, biodiversity conservation contribution, market-oriented forest management, forest resources revenue mobilization, employment generation, equitable benefit sharing, and targeted livelihood improvement initiatives. However, ten indicators, as outlined in Table 11, exhibited high performance with limited attention for improvements. These results suggest that some indicators require immediate attention and improvement, while others can be addressed through ongoing monitoring and incremental improvements. By prioritizing indicators based on their level of performance, CFUGs can focus their efforts and resources on the area’s most in need of attention, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of community forest management initiatives.

4. Discussion

The study findings revealed mixed perceptions regarding the performance criteria of CFUGs. Our study indicates that CFUGs demonstrated moderate performance in managing users groups, aligning with previous studies that emphasized indicators such as inclusive executive committees, timely reporting, and role delegation as enhancers of CFUG performance [10,27]. This suggests that while progress has been made in certain areas, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to improve overall performance. Notably, our study highlights progress in increasing representation of women and socially excluded individuals in executive committees, in line with the policy provision of 50% representation for such groups. This progress has led to improved mobility and leadership capacity-building to hold the key position and delegated responsibility. Some studies from the mid-hill region of Nepal, however, provided a contrasting view that women are underrepresented in the executive committee [7]. These variations likely stem from distinct case studies and local socio-economic contexts [45]. Furthermore, studies underscore the positive impact of women’s participation on decision-making processes and effective forest management strategies [46]. However, elite dominance is identified as a challenge, indicating the need for ongoing efforts to increase inclusivity and equitable representation within CFUGs. The variations observed across case studies and local socioeconomic contexts highlight the complexity of addressing these challenges within CFUGs, which might limit the supply of forest ecosystem services [47]. The study revealed that certain indicators, including holding regular meetings, inclusive decision-making, implementation of decisions, and timely public hearings and auditing, were perceived to have moderate to low performance. These findings correspond with previous studies, indicating that mechanisms for collective engagement and fundamental functions of CFUGs, such as annual meetings and decision implementation for forest management, have either become mere rituals or are entirely absent [10,45,48]. In the lowland of Nepal, timber harvesting often takes precedence over other activities within CFUGs [45]. This prioritization can affect how indicators perform within CFUGs, potentially leading to varying performance on different criteria. Overall, the analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the performance criteria of CFUGs in managing user groups. It highlights both progress and challenges that need to be addressed to increase inclusivity and improve overall performance.

The indicators showing low to moderate performance, in contrast to those performing well, demand greater attention for improvement. This prioritization can affect how indicators perform within CFUGs, potentially leading to varying performance on different criteria. Strengthening the capacity of user groups is paramount for achieving overarching objectives. Effectively managed user groups play a pivotal role in sustainable forest management, livelihood enhancement, biodiversity conservation, and the fostering of social cohesion, thereby contributing to the attainment of sustainable development goals, particularly goal 2 (zero hunger), goal 8 (economic growth), goal 15 (life on land), and goal 16 (strong institution) [7]. Addressing these indicators is critical to improving the overall effectiveness of CFUGs in sustainable forest management and achieving their overarching goals.

In regards to forest management performance criteria indicators, community participation in forest management activities, and timely review and amend of policy documents such as forest operational plan and constitutions, execution of the activities as specified in the forest operational plan are performing well. Our study findings are consistent with the earlier studies that community participation is critical to effective forest management and landscape restoration efforts across many countries [49]. Involving local communities in forest management activities increases their sense of ownership, promotes stewardship, and encourages sustainable practices. For instance, in Nepal, local communities participating in forest management initiatives led to improved ecosystem services in Nepalese context [3], while in Cambodia, rancher engagement facilitated the restoration of degraded pasture into silvopastoral systems [50]. Similarly, in Brazil, rural community involvement in forest management and agroforestry initiatives contributed to improved forest restoration [51]. This example demonstrates the transformative impact of community involvement in restoring degraded landscapes and promoting sustainable land use practices.

The study underscores the importance of timely renewals of operational plans and constitutions in ensuring effective forest management, consistent with prior research. These documents serve as crucial legal instruments guiding CFUGs in the execution of forest management operations and community engagement efforts. This highlights the role of local communities as stewards of forest resources and agents of positive change in promoting ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation efforts. Failure to renew them in a timely manner may impede forest management operations and community involvement in community forest areas [10,45]. It is crucial to renew these documents in a timely manner to avoid impeding forest management operations and limiting community involvement in forest management initiatives. In contrast, studies in Nepal’s mid-hill region indicate a decline in community participation in forest management. Timely renewal of forest operational plans has lapsed, leading to decreased activity and passivity among user groups compared to the 1990s. This trend is attributed to revenue shortages and understaffing in forest offices, impacting CFUGs’ access to crucial legal and technical support [7,45]. Timely review and amendment of policy documents, such as forest operation plans and constitutions, are identified as important indicators of good performance within CFUGs. This indicates that CFUGs are proactively updating their governance system, structures, and operational guidelines to incorporate learning and improve their effectiveness in forest management. The study highlighted the effectiveness of indicators such as the practice of rewards and penalties, adaptive management practices, biodiversity conservation contribution, and market-oriented forest management in the context of community forestry programs. Research conducted in Gorkha, Nepal highlights the critical importance of implementing the rule of law, including the use of rewards and penalties, for effective forest management [10]. Rewards serve as incentives while penalties act as deterrents, encouraging compliance with forest management rules and regulations among community members. Furthermore, community forest management plays a critical role in biodiversity conservation efforts [47]. Local communities play an active role in forest management activities and implement conservation measures to preserve biodiversity and protect endangered species within community forest areas. Similarly, adaptive management strategies, which consider socio-climatic conditions and market demands, have the potential to increase revenue and foster stronger interactions between communities and forests [7]. By adopting flexible management approaches that can respond to changing environmental and socio-economic conditions, CFUGs can enhance their resilience and sustainability. Considering the forest management indicators in CFUG performance could broaden the role of community forests in meeting local needs and addressing global environmental challenges, such as climate change and disaster management. This is especially relevant given the rising commodification of ecosystem services provided by community forests and their increasing acknowledgment in national policies [7,45]. With growing recognition of the contribution of community forests to ecosystem services and environmental protection, the integration of effective forest management practices is essential to achieve sustainable development goals and mitigate the effects of climate change.

In terms of financial management indicators, CFUGs are doing well in information management and documentation of the financial transactions, as well as transparent financial auditing and information exchange. However, forest resource revenue mobilization requires improvement. Adopting a banking system, maintaining proper record-keeping using the established accounting system, preparing an annual financial progress report, and obtaining endorsement from the general assembly significantly enhance the financial management capacity of CFUGs [27]. However, the study reported contrasting findings, with one key challenge identified being the need to enhance transparency in financial management within CFUGs [10]. Transparency is crucial for establishing trust among community members, facilitating effective oversight of financial transactions, and promoting accountability in resource allocation and expenditure.

Similarly, in terms of livelihood management indicators, CFUGs are not sufficiently making progress to employment generation, equitable benefit sharing and to design targeted livelihood improvement initiatives. Initially, in the 1990s, community forestry programs were designed when communities heavily relied on forest resources for daily livelihoods [46]. However, the context has changed significantly, the shift from subsistence agrarian livelihoods to a market economy, along with migration and off-farm activities, has greatly changed community demands and needs. New livelihood options have arisen, which challenge the conventional dependence on forest resources for daily sustenance. The evolving context requires a reassessment of current approaches to community forestry to ensure their relevance and effectiveness in meeting the changing needs of local communities. The conventional approach of ‘business as usual’ that primarily focuses on conservation-oriented forest management may no longer align with the diverse livelihood needs of community members. To tackle these challenges, there is a need to shift from conservation-oriented forest management to a productive, timber-focused approach. This approach aims to generate revenue, create job opportunities, and meet the evolving demands of the community [7]. By adopting a more economically feasible approach to forest management, CFUGs can better support local livelihoods while ensuring the sustainable use of forest resources. CFUGs can improve the socio-economic well-being of community members while maintaining ecosystem integrity and biodiversity conservation by prioritizing economic viability and job creation. By shifting to a productive, timber-oriented approach and implementing adaptive management strategies, CFUGs can enhance their capacity to support sustainable livelihoods and socio-economic development in forest-dependent areas.

Regarding the collaboration and networking management performance of the CFUGs, they are doing well in both indicators, i.e., coordination and collaboration with various government and other agencies and leveraging technical assistance from divisional forest offices. Scholars suggest that community collaboration and networking, both internally and with external organizations, boost communities’ adaptive capacity [52]. By providing access to new information, skills, and resources, these collaboration networks enable effective responses to socio-ecological changes [53]. Formal and informal collaboration allows communities to gain valuable knowledge, strategies, funding and opportunities for interaction [6,52] and fostering innovation and collective action. The study conducted by McDougall et al. [54] revealed that enhancing internal collaboration and involvement of women and economically disadvantaged individuals led to improved adaptive collaborative governance of the CFUGs.

Lastly, the comparative analysis of performance criteria indicators within CFUGs revealed variability in user group management, forest management, financial management, and livelihood management. However, collaboration and networking management criteria remained consistent. This indicates that CFUG performance is dependent on the socio-economic context of forest management as well as societal factors. For example, community forests that generate sufficient revenue and offer financial incentives to members tend to have higher user participation [45]. The changing dynamics and varying performance levels underscore the need to rethink existing management approaches to strengthen the capacities of CFUGs. Particularly for CFUGs that are not performing well due to low revenue generation, declining community participation, and deficient basic functions such as inclusive decision-making and public auditing, existing policies and practices must adapt to improve both revenue streams and fundamental functions. Tailored decentralized policies that correspond to the specific performance capabilities of CFUGs are essential. For instance, focusing on a timber-production-oriented management approach in forests with high growth rates can increase revenue, create jobs, address market demand, and foster community involvement for the basic function of CFUGs [7]. Additionally, considering Nepal’s socio-economic context, restoring degraded landscapes through agroforestry systems can diversify livelihoods, improve forest landscapes, and enhance overall land productivity.

5. Conclusions

In the conclusion, the results address the three questions raised in the study. First, the study revealed that respondents perceived the performance of CFUGs in managing community forests as moderate to high, measured on a scale from very low to very high. Second, significant differences were observed in the perceived performance assessment indicators among various CFUGs managing the community forest program across the four different performance criteria, except for collaboration and networking management. Third, the majority of indicators within the performance criteria of user group management, forest management, and livelihood management capacity require improvement through changes in existing management practices and policies. This highlights the importance of considering the specific context and circumstances of each CFUG when evaluating performance and designing performance improvement strategies. The improvement indicators include CFUG passiveness in regular functions (such as meetings and decision-making), inadequate adoption of adaptive and market-oriented management practices, limited contributions to biodiversity conservation, insufficient capacity to generate forest revenue and mobilization, and restricted income generation and benefit sharing with communities. Failure to take timely and appropriate actions further constrains the interaction between CFUGs and community forests, diminishing their potential to generate revenue, create jobs, and foster collective actions—foundational elements necessary for productive community forest management. Timely and appropriate actions are necessary to address these issues and enhance the interaction between CFUGs and community forests, ultimately advancing both local and national development priorities.

The majority of indicators within the performance criteria of user group management, forest management, and livelihood management require improvement through changes in existing management practices and policies. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and CFUGs. Firstly, differences in performance levels stem from CFUGs’ limited capacity to fulfill regular functions, adopting adaptive and market-oriented management practices, contributing more to biodiversity conservation, increasing forest revenue generation and mobilization, and improving income generation and benefit sharing with communities. Timely and appropriate actions are necessary to address these issues and enhance the interaction between CFUGs and community forests, ultimately advancing both local and national development priorities. This may further erode community roles and stewardship in managing community forests. Secondly, addressing low to moderately performing criteria indicators should be a priority for both divisional forest offices and CFUGs, particularly those with similar socio-economic contexts. Lastly, the indicators utilized in this study can inform policy development at local, provincial, and federal levels, aiding in the drafting of policies, manuals, and guidelines. The study acknowledges limitations, such as the reliance on perception-based analysis, which could be influenced by respondents’ experiences and level of engagement in the community forest program. The study clearly demonstrates that the effective performance of CFUGs is crucial for managing community forestry. Their contributions to socio-economic empowerment and environmental conservation are undeniable. Moving forward, the study provides a concise summary of its findings, implications, and limitations so that policymakers, researchers, and CFUGs can understand the significance of the results and identify potential areas for future research or interventions.