**The Institutional Structure of Land Use Planning for Urban Forest Protection in the Post-Socialist Transition Environment: Serbian Experiences**

#### **Marija Maruna, Tijana Crnˇcevi´c and Milica P. Milojevi´c**


Received: 23 May 2019; Accepted: 2 July 2019; Published: 4 July 2019

**Abstract:** In recent decades, Serbia has been undergoing a period of post-socialist transition that has significantly altered the value system underlying spatial development due to alteration of ownership frameworks and land use rights. In consequence, issues have arisen of how to strike a balance between the various interests involved in the distribution of spatial resources and how to control the outcomes of public policies. Land use planning has been identified as an efficient instrument for implementing the public policy value framework. The objective of this paper is to identify the key points of land use planning in relation to urban forest management of significance for the maintenance of urban forests in the environment of post-socialist institutional transformation in Serbia. Seen as an institutional structure, the practice of land use planning in Serbia is the product of a stable interaction between the set of interrelated rules, procedures and organisational units that allows spatial development outcomes that take into account and safeguard land resources and, ultimately, urban forests. The research was carried out in relation to the concept of institutional transformation across three scales: macro/governance, meso/coordination and micro/agency: (a) components of the regulatory framework; (b) procedures for cooperation between stakeholders; and (c) specific activities of land use planning practice. As a result, the concept of Land use Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP) in Serbia was established. It identifies components of institutional structure of importance for regulating system changes in the post-socialist transition environment and steering them towards the establishment of a value framework that allows the agenda of saving urban forests to be implemented.

**Keywords:** urban forest; institutional design; land use planning; Serbia; governance

#### **1. Introduction**

The research objective of this paper is to provide a critical overview of the institutional framework of the development planning system in relation to urban forest management, particularly land use planning, in the post-socialist environment in Serbia, in order to highlights components of importance to be used by institutional design for re-establishing a stable interaction inside the institutional structure that promotes a value system aimed at saving urban forests. As a result, this paper presents an improvement of the current land use planning system in Serbia by proposing the concept of Land Use Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP), focusing on three major components: urban forests, land use planning and post-socialist environment in Serbia.

The problems of urban growth in the 21st century emphasise the importance of managing land resources in order to achieve sustainable development [1–4]. As a limited resource, land in cities, especially urban forests as compact large greenfield land, is particularly affected by new construction requirements that are directly reflected on environmental problems such as "heat islands", flooding and air pollution. Therefore, the network of woodlands, groups of trees and individual trees located in a city that include forests, street trees, trees in parks and gardens and trees in derelict corners [5], in terminology known as urban and peri-urban forests, play a crucial role in meeting global commitments on sustainable development as well as adaptation to climate change and mitigation of its impacts. These requirements represent a particular challenge for local governments that are expected to make land use more efficient for planning compact cities and mixed-land use [1].

As it was indicated in recent research, urban forest services enhance nine of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [6,7]. These SDGs are 1: No poverty; 2: Zero hunger; 3: Good health and well: being; 6: Clean water and sanitation; 7: Affordable and clean energy; 8: Descent work and economic growth; 11: Sustainable cities and communities; 13: Climate action; and 15: Life on land.

These analyses included five categories that were considered to be urban forest (peri-urban forest and woodlands, city parks and urban forests > 0.5 ha, pocket parks and gardens with trees, trees on streets or in public squares and other green spaces with trees) where the category of peri-urban forest and woodlands was scored with the highest score, suggesting that it contributes to human health and well-being, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, biodiversity and landscapes, economic benefits and a green economy, land and soil degradation, watershed protection, resilience to flooding events, food and nutrition security, wood security, recreation, education, social cohesion and social security and equity. Further, it should be noted that the positive effects of urban forests ecosystems are confirmed within numerous studies [8–11] where it is specifically stressed that in regard to the public's perceptions of the effectiveness of the ecosystems services "environmental knowledge plays a key role in fostering pro-environmental behaviours" [12] (p.171).

Land use planning is a key mechanism for reducing pressure on land resources, which facilitates the implementation of environmental protection policies and steers choices in the direction of nature protection. This intention has been affirmed in the Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity [13], where the issue of integrating biodiversity into urban planning is placed within the context of establishing the appropriate regulatory mechanisms and implementing tools, as well as decision-making instruments that will ensure the integration of nature/biodiversity and the urban structure. Land use planning directly serves the green agenda for ecological health and management of natural ecosystems on the local level, which aims at preserving green open spaces in cities for biodiversity protection and recreation [14]. The importance of integrating green structure planning in city development planning is also borne out by the findings of a survey of 23 European cities [15] that have met green policy targets by employing land use planning as the key instrument.

The achievement of the saving urban forests agenda has been challenged in post-socialist transition Serbia. Namely, after the year 2000, with the transition of the socioeconomic system from a socialist orientation to that of the market and democracy, and the start of the process of joining the European Union, significant institutional changes were initiated in Serbia. Following major challenges are of particular importance for this research.

Firstly, ownership relations over land have changed, thus establishing a new relationship of strengths of power in society and the consequent plurality of interests in the process of creating public policies concerning the use of land resources.

Secondly, with entering into the process of joining the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity, which transfers competencies to the local level, is an important principle in decision-making on public policies, thus giving the highest responsibility and commitment to local authorities in selecting and promoting the agenda. This is particularly challenging for post-socialist transition countries that do not have developed expert capacities at the local level.

Thirdly, global demands for the implementation of sustainable development promote the concept of governance, which implies the development of horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms at different levels of the institutional structure. These demands entail a fundamental change in the concept of decision-making in post-socialist countries, which up to now was hierarchical rather than collaborative.

Harmonization of the above components of institutional changes represents a huge challenge for the transition society, in the selection of a value framework for operation and the regulation of all domains of public policies. This is, beyond doubt, a highly sensitive institutional redesign process that will create instability and insecurity. Models that have proven successful in other situations cannot be applied, and locally-specific answers are expected to be created. In this context, the country must develop its own path of institutional transformation that will satisfy the demands of the new environment of post-socialist transition and the EU accession process, while, at the same time, retaining the positive experiences of the past. That is why this paper will investigate the current institutional framework of the development planning system in Serbia, which is in the function of achieving the agenda 'saving urban forests'. According to the concept of institutional transformation [16–25] the values are embedded in the institutional system and are a result of a balance between its components. With the disturbance of the stability of the institutional system, due to the transition process, which is induced by the influences that came into the system from the outside, an institutional transformation and consequently a distortion of the value framework of public policies and related agendas are inevitable.

Following an introductory section, the paper will first outline the theoretical framework in three important domains: land use planning, urban forest management and the concept of institutional transformation. The methodological section that follows relies on the key conclusions of the previous section to be used as the basis for the selection of methodological instruments and definition of key research questions. The analysis section comprises a detailed presentation of the institutional system of land use planning in relation to urban forest management from the national to local level, according to the concept of institutional transformation, illustrated by examples of the land use planning practice of two medium-sized cities. Within the discussion and conclusion section, as the first step in institutional design, the components of the presented institutional system are highlighted as the basis for the development of the Land use Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP) concept.

#### *1.1. Theoretical Background*

#### 1.1.1. Land Use Planning

In the last decades it has been emphasised that land use planning represents a significant management tool for dealing with unprecedented challenges that lie ahead of the accelerated urbanization process of cities [14,26]. Land use planning is a local development instrument that is complemented by regulations introduced hierarchically within vertical power relations. In general, land use planning is regulatory in character and is used by governments as a legal instrument intended to achieve public/common interest or public policy [27]. It essentially aims at controlling the use of and rights to land, both public and private [28], by applying various regulatory measures, such as protected areas, building codes and rezoning. More specifically, the purpose of the land use plan is to regulate the land as a category of usage, while the purpose of regulatory measures is to change ownership rights [29].

Contemporary development planning, and consequently land use planning, is a political and democratic process that mediates the conflicts over land use, not just a technical tool [30]. Contemporary planning has abandoned the traditional position of technical activity, where plans are understood as documents, to become a collaborative practice jointly undertaken by planners and local communities. This is consistent with the concept of safeguarding green areas, where traditional land use planning is seen as a passive, technical, regulative and rigid planning instrument that is lacking the capacity to protect spatial resources [15,31]. In contrast, the collaborative planning practice predominantly rooted in strategic spatial planning is considered to allow the articulation of a more coherent and coordinated long-term spatial logic for land use regulation [17]. Collaborative strategic planning practice looks at the distribution of spatial resources through process orientation, social inclusion and a multilevel

approach. From this point of view, the distribution of land use is seen as a policy conditioned by the design of appropriate governance institutions and proactive management activities [16,32]. In this context, decision-making is the key mechanism for establishing the value framework for public policy, and consequently selecting objectives relevant for the protection of spatial resources. The practice of strategic planning has proven to be a highly successful instrument for redistributing land in favour of larger open green areas, such as the development of a new urban forest, 'Parkbos', in Ghent, Belgium [33].

#### 1.1.2. Urban Forest Management

Contemporary global development policies, which prioritize climate change issues in addition to sustainability, assign particular importance to urban forests in the context of adaptation to climate change and mitigation of its impacts. In addition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the EU's current strategic framework [34,35] promotes an integrated landscape approach, which links protected spaces with other sectoral interests.

The Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance [36] suggests six principles of good governance as cornerstones for a stable institutional structure for managing forest land: accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, fairness, participation and transparency. These principles intersect three key pillars: (1) policy, legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks; (2) the planning and decision-making process; and (3) implementation, enforcement and compliance. The second pillar is of immediate significance for development planning processes, emphasising as it does how important it is to "examine the extent, characteristics and quality of participation of a range of stakeholders in forest governance and the capacity of different stakeholder groups to engage in governance processes. Components under this pillar also consider the transparency of forest-related decision-making and resource allocation and the degree of accountability of governance mechanisms and processes" [36] (p. 13).

Similarly, in the domain of multi-disciplinary research into urban forest governance, Lawrence et al. [37] defined the analytical framework as a research tool. This framework is proposed to comprise four variables for researching the institutional system: (1) policies including national, regional or local policies, plans and programmes that affect urban forestry; (2) planning and regulations, which comprise planning and legal requirements specific to the case; (3) ownership of the land; and (4) access and use rights, such as the right to walk/cycle and/or make use of products from the urban forest. The proposed framework is only a starting model for studying urban forest governance which, according to the authors, should be elaborated on to achieve a deeper understanding of the ways to ultimately make our cities more sustainable.

The importance of stakeholder involvement in policy making to protect natural areas is also acknowledged by the Natura 2000 network, the core pillar in the EU's biodiversity conservation policy [34] and one of the largest networks of protected areas in the world. Although member states are free to align national regulations with EU instruments [34,35], the expected changes reach deep into the institutional foundations of public policy decision-making by legitimising a broad range of stakeholders and, consequently, introducing a multitude of varied interests that need to be harmonised [38–41]. This primarily affects the local decision-making level, the most effective forum for exercising the concept of public interest, as the issues at hand are specific and easy to operationalise.

#### 1.1.3. Concept of Institutional Transformation

According to the concept of institutional transformation, values are embedded in institutional systems and are the result of the established balance between system components [18,19]. From a normative perspective, values and commitments generated in interaction shape undermine and augment formal and official regimes [23]. The concept of institutional transformation additionally describes in detail the procedures and interactions within processes of interest that can be used to

identify challenges in public administration, the formation of interests, the development of policies and links, and the implementation of administrations' programmes in the planning process [21–23].

The orientation of planning practice depends on the values built into the institutional structure. In other words, the dominant ideology informs beliefs, values and systems, which in turn shape institutions, which, ultimately, result in policies [42]. As such, land use planning, the regulation of the use of space, reflects the ideology of defining and using space.

Socioeconomic changes under the influence of external factors initiate the process of institutional transformation [24], which inevitably alters the behaviour of political and economic actors [22] and, consequently, leads to changes in public policy. In essence, institutional transformation takes place in the domain of changes to the value framework, and as such directly shapes the development of society over time. Institutional transformation disrupts what is termed 'stable interaction' within the institutional structure as the guarantee of the established value framework. Stable interaction reduces uncertainty in decision-making by securing stable outcomes, dubbed 'equilibria'. Institutional transformation, therefore, must aim at establishing these stable interactions within the institutional system and so reduce uncertainty.

Institutional design, as a normative aspect of institutional transformation, is an integral and essential part of the planning practice [22]. Institutional design determines the success and quality of interventions by agents (individuals and organisations), and so also determines the success of the planning practice [22,25]. The operation of institutions, from the national to the local level, affects the role and success of planning. Institutions create elements of order and predictability, impose orderliness on societal relationships, reduce flexibility and variability in behaviour, and limit options for one-sided exercise of personal interests [19,24]. Striking a balance between differences in land use interests is a matter of policy choice and the design of appropriate institutions and proactive management activities [22]. Consequently, it can be considered that institutional design is a useful method for changing planning practice.

The behaviour of political and economic actors is conditioned by sets of regularised practices with a rule-like quality [24] that also affect policy outcomes. The so-called regulatory regime of land use management is of crucial importance for the application of planning practice as the source of environmental protection policies [25]. The regulatory regime provides a framework for action within which agencies enjoy autonomy in choosing their modes of operation and create room for exerting influence on the value framework.

From a planning perspective, three general concepts should be viewed as the key elements to be addressed by the institutional design [22]:


That being said, institutional analysis does not focus on norms, rules and practices as integral elements of institutions, but, rather, on their mutual interaction within the context that conditions action [25]. The emphasis here is on understanding relationships between activities and the institutional context that generate practices and a power structure that subsequently determine relationships and changes. Institutional analysis, therefore, observes relationships between systems within an institution,

individual processes within and between those systems, what the constituent units of an institution are, which rules or norms govern their relationships, etc. [19,20]. According to Alexander [22] (p. 213), "institutional design means designing institutions: the devising and realisation of rules, procedures and organisational structures that will enable and constrain behaviour and action so as to accord with held values, achieve desired objectives or execute given tasks". Institutional analysis, as an initial step of institutional design, will be in this research applied to the land use planning practice related to urban forest management in Serbia.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

In accordance with the presented theoretical framework, the critical re-assessment of the institutional structure of land use planning in the post-socialist environment of Serbia related to urban forest management, will highlight the following two aspects: (a) on the one hand, understanding the institutional and regulatory context of the planning process and (b) the other on discerning the relationships between dominant stakeholders in this process that reflect value-based approaches.

Furthermore, the research is based on qualitative assessment on three scales that correspond to the levels of institutional design [22]:

	- (a) Overview and assessment of the institutional and legal framework for urban forest protection standards at all levels of administrative organisation: national, regional and local. In this assessment the position of urban forest protection standards within basic land use planning documents is also included.
	- (b) Overview and assessment of the value framework for urban forest protection in national policy documents. This phase of the research relies on reviewing and analysing both the primary literature (laws, strategies and other public documents) and secondary sources dealing with issues of the planning system for urban forest protection.
	- (a) Identification of the organisational structure, with particular attention to the position, powers and roles of the relevant institutions.
	- (b) Arrangements for collaboration that includes insight into both the horizontal and the vertical levels. This segment of the research relies primarily on a review of primary literature that sets out organisational powers while also considering secondary documents devoted to how land use planning and urban forest management policies are made.

The micro-level entails a detailed review and assessment of the land use planning process in relation to urban forest protection in selected examples of land use planning practice on the local level. It is focused on analysis of activities of concrete cases of planning practices, where formal and informal institutional arrangements in the planning process are observed. The cases of planning practice are concrete solutions for the use of space viewed through the enacted policies and regulations. The accent here is on the description and analysis of the procedure of land use planning in terms of decision-making by the stakeholders (public, private and civil sector) involved that employ various mechanisms, instruments and actions. Both policy-related and regulatory planning solutions are analysed equally. This part of the research relies on both a critical analysis of the actual land use plan development process (particularly the planning procedure for the 'General Zoning Plan') and the concrete examples of the general zoning plans (a result of the planning process) as undertaken by planners. Examples include the land use planning processes of two Serbian cities: Bor and Vrnjaˇcka Banja. The criteria for the selection of the cases were the following.


The methodological procedure shown is seen as suitable for institutional assessment as it emphasises case development factors linked to the context, in the same manner as institutional theory links norms and procedures to the broader institutional landscape [43].

#### **3. Results**

In socialist Yugoslavia, green open spaces were considered a public resource and were, as such, accorded particular attention by urban planners. After World War II, with the institutionalisation of socialism in Yugoslavia, land policy that determined land use was based on the ideological belief in common or 'social' property, as opposed to the private ownership of land. The fundamental political, social and economic reforms pursued at the time, accompanied by the establishment of a new constitutional and legal order by the communist regime, declared which cities and urban settlements stood to be social property and excluded them from legal transactions. In consequence, any extension of the urban territory automatically made new land socially owned. Land use plans served as direct instruments for these transformations and were employed to put public interest into effect in actual space [44,45].

Although the trend under state socialism was to make forest land socially owned as well, forests could be owned by the state, cooperatives or private individuals. Nevertheless, all forests, regardless of ownership, were declared to be of general interest to the community and were placed under government protection [46]. This made the preservation of forests and forest land a matter of public interest, and a system of safeguards was designed and implemented across all levels of governance to attain this objective.

Difficulties encountered by post-socialist countries in transitional processes [47] are inseparably linked to the crucial issues of changes to the value system and established norms [48,49]. Private property, instituted by the changes as a new form of land ownership, has brought about a major shift in traditional patterns of land use planning. Private interests, needs and expectations of how land is to be used have gained legitimacy and so become major factors in land-related policy-making. Consequently, development land has come to be a fundamental resource for a city's economic growth. In these circumstances, pressure has increased to allow construction on greenfield land, where developers do not incur additional costs when investing. Therefore, in a democratising society facing privatisation and the construction of market institutions, land use planning has become both a tool to safeguard property rights and interests of various land use stakeholders and an instrument to correct for market failure [44].

Institutional changes characteristic of post-socialist transition altered the value basis for planning, which also caused a shift in the planning paradigm [50]. Lacking a common planning system model they could employ, post-socialist countries have developed their own approaches to institutional transformation [51]. The experiences of post-socialist countries have shown that no changes were

possible to planners' modes of operation that would allow them to protect the public interest without an institutional foundation being laid first [52].

The issue of public interest in planning has remained ill-defined in Serbia following the democratic changes of 2000. Urban plans have endeavoured to protect interests by defining public land, public areas and public buildings, but the protection of other, privately owned land remained subject to political decision-making and mechanisms intended to safeguard public interest. As such, issues including protection of public spaces, the environment, public health and security, energy efficiency, etc., topics that the public sector is not interested in addressing [53,54], remained within the remit of regulatory regimes of land use governance, primarily at the national level.

By contrast, the EU accession process has placed a number of new demands before the practice of environmental planning. Serbia formally became a candidate country for EU membership in March 2012, starting a negotiations procedure to align the country's regulatory framework with EU law through 34 chapters. Chapter 27 envisages the creation of a sustainable environmental management system, which cuts across all policy sectors and constitutes a value framework for their formulation [55]. In addition to the requirements of the negotiations process, other instruments pertaining more directly to the preservation of green open spaces also affect the harmonisation of the Serbian regulatory framework with the European context. One major such document is the European Landscape Convention [56], ratified by Serbia in 2011 [57]. An innovation introduced in the Convention is the understanding of landscape as a dynamic category that evolves with societal change. This approach means that landscape-related planning activity can no longer be subject only to deliberation by specialised technical bodies, but that landscape development policies must be enacted through democratic dialogue wherein all stakeholders are able to present their perceptions and views of the future of landscape [56].

On the other hand, the changes brought about by transition commenced a decentralisation process in which the local level became involved in decision-making about environmental protection policies. The EU accession process explicitly requires the adoption of standards to allow equal participation of all the various stakeholders in decision-making and reduce the scope for conflict between interests and preferences for protected spaces [58], as is confirmed in the ARHUS convention ratified by Serbian law [59]. This accords with the concept of governance, which promotes the establishment of diverse forms of cooperation, partnership agreements, delegation of authority and greater powers of the local community. Good governance entails the management of protected areas pursuant to the principles and values chosen by all stakeholders. As part of societal and cultural heritage, these principles are modified in accordance with globally recognised requirements and become integral parts of constitutions, laws and other legal enactments that regulate nature protection. However, most powers and responsibilities remain within the remits of governments and their agencies [60].

#### *3.1. Macro-Level: Regulatory Framework for Development Planning System Related to Urban Forest Management in Serbia*

#### 3.1.1. Institutional and Legal Framework for Urban Forest Protection Standards

As yet, Serbia has not enacted legislation that specifically supports planning for the system of green spaces as a separate and autonomous domain. The Law on the Protection and Improvement of Green Spaces has remained at the drafting stage for a number of years [61,62]. Furthermore, a project by the Serbian Association of Landscape Architects, supported by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, that besides requiring spatial and urban plans to acknowledge and recognise existing greenery, green spaces, spaces close to nature and ecosystems, stressed the importance of the institutional framework at the local government level related to management, maintenance and reconstruction of urban green spaces [63].

The lack of an appropriate statutory and planning basis is compounded by the absence in Serbia of guidelines and recommendations for planning green spaces. Plans and regulations do not recognise the expression 'urban forest', but rather define forest land in urban contexts as 'town forests', an echo of the German *Stadtwald* better suited to a general understanding of the urban forestry concept [64,65]. Terms of importance for urban forests formally employed in the green spaces planning system are defined in the Forests Law [66]; these are (a) 'forest', an area of land in excess of 5 acres (500 square metres) covered by forest trees and (b) 'forest land', the land on which are located structures facilitating the attainment of the generally beneficial effects of forests.

In Serbia, the powers for managing, safeguarding and improving forests in urban areas (see Table 1) in essence reside predominantly within two policy departments: the environment and planning. At the national level, the responsible institutions are the Government of Serbia and the Nature Conservation Institute, tasked with conservation activities, as well as the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Construction, Transportation and Infrastructure. These ministries are charged with the development of the national statutory framework for planning and protecting urban forests. The key regulations for urban forests protection are a set of planning laws that govern norms for establishing land use balance in the context of the regulation of property rights to land (i.e., public, private and cooperatively owned property). The relevant nature conservation laws govern standards for the protection, management and use of urban forests.

There is no regional governance level in Serbia, so only the Provincial Nature Conservation Institute (with powers in the Province of Vojvodina) is the only formal regional body. At the local level, urban forests are managed by local state-owned enterprises, established independently by local authorities depending on their size, status and resources. However, powers are often dispersed amongst different organisations and departments, as well as between various levels of governance. So, for instance, in Belgrade, the capital city, the state-owned enterprise manages 32.322,70 hectares of forests, while an additional 611 hectares of forests in the territory of Belgrade are owned and managed by the city itself [65] (p. 339).

Nevertheless, local land use planning has the greatest impact on urban forest protection. Land use planning, one of the most important components of planning in Serbia, is regulated chiefly by the Planning and Construction Law [67], which envisages two spatial governance instruments: Spatial Plans, more focused on the strategic orientation of development, and Urban Plans, more land use oriented with some elements of an integrated approach. Urban Plans are the most common instruments of local land use planning and are divided into three categories: (a) General Urban Plans, mostly oriented towards strategic aspects; (b) General Zoning Plans; and (c) Detailed Zoning Plans, mainly devoted to technical aspects. Land use maps and technical parameters, such as rules of planning and rules of construction, are integral parts of Urban Plans. These land use maps are effective instruments for designating land of public interest, as they formally distinguish between development land (land designated for construction) and other land, which is as a rule publicly held [67]. The Serbian planning system is characterised by a tradition of land use planning [68] that is based exclusively on regulation and where plans are rigid instruments that set out long-term land use, architectural and aesthetic standards, and landscape and natural resource protection rules [69].


**1.** Institutional and legal framework for standards of urban forest protection in Serbia.

**Table**  \*Serbiaisnotformallydividedintoadministrativeregions.Theonly part of thecountrywithterritorialandadministrativeautonomyistheProvince

 of Vojvodina.

#### *Forests* **2019** , *10* , 560

#### 3.1.2. Value Framework for Urban Forest Protection in Serbia

Achieving land use balance is a core task of the planning process in Serbia. So, for instance, the first Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia provided for three key categories of land use as the bases for striking balance in spatial development: agriculture, forests and land for other uses [80]. There are many benefits to preserving forest land and, consequently, the biodiversity of Serbia's ecosystems. With a total surface of 670.598,81 hectares of protected area in Serbia [46] (p. 88), forest and forest land account for more than 40%.

Table 2 presents an overview of the basic value framework for urban forest protection in Serbia. It reveals the extent to which strategic documents address issues of planning and managing urban forests. The key words used in this assessment were: 'urban forests', 'forest parks', 'forests', 'town forests' and 'forest land'. Clearly, the expression 'urban forests' is not recognised in any of the documents considered. The phrase 'town forests' was employed in only one of the instruments, the National Strategy for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources [81], while most of the remaining documents made use of the phrases 'forests' and 'forest land'. The highlight here is that forests are recognised as notable finite natural resources that are important for preserving biodiversity, amongst other considerations. As such, the policy documents provide significant frameworks that guide forest development and protection, in particular to ensure alignment with EU rules and institutional strengthening. Indirectly, it is noteworthy for urban forests protection that the value framework acknowledges the social and cultural functions of forests (in addition to protective and regulatory ones).

*3.2. Meso-Level: Formal Cooperation Procedures between Institutions for Land Use Planning Related to Urban Forest Management in Serbia*

#### 3.2.1. Organisational Structure

The organisational structure of institutions for land use planning related to urban forest management in Serbia is analysed through three aspects: position, powers and roles.

Position: Institutions of formal importance for land use planning related to urban forest management reside at the national and the local level (Figure 1). There are no institutional powers at the regional level, except for the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and as such these cannot be considered to be a general rule. The Serbian Government and Parliament are the supreme institutions, and both are formally the establishing entities for specialised expert organisations responsible for urban forest protection. As such, the Government of Serbia is responsible for the Nature Conservation Institute, while Parliament has responsibility over 'Srbijašume', the Socially Owned Enterprise (SOE) charged with forest management. In addition, the central public administration includes a number of ministries responsible for sectoral duties in relation to land use planning related to urban forest management, such as the Ministry of Construction, Transportation and Infrastructure; the Ministry of Environmental Protection; and other government departments whose remits include urban forest protection issues.

There are also two key groups of institutions at the local level, city administrations and city assemblies. The administrations include a number of departments tasked with urban forest management, while city assemblies formally establish local SOEs that directly perform urban forest management duties.



*Forests* **2019**, *10* , 560

**Figure 1.** Formal cooperation procedures between institutions for land use planning related to urban forest management in Serbia (source: Authors).

Powers: National-level institutions are responsible for the regulatory framework binding on all levels of governance. Here, the Parliament enacts legislation proposed by the line ministries, while the Government is able to adopt 'Government orders', which carry the force of secondary legislation that elaborate on existing regulatory arrangements. The Nature Conservation Institute is specifically charged with assessing the value of natural resources and assigning protected status to 'natural resources of national importance', while the forest management SOE is responsible for regulating forest management at the national level. Documents designating 'protected natural resources' and setting out 'forest management rules' constitute a legally binding framework for land use planning at all territorial levels. Apart from legally binding decisions, the various ministries are responsible for enacting strategic documents that set out the value framework.

At the local level, it is the city assembly that is responsible for decision-making. Decisions are drafted by the city administration through its sectoral departments. In addition to these, the city assembly may incorporate local SOEs responsible for preparing 'development conditions', which regulate norms for the use of space by sector. Apart from legally binding documents, departments of city administration also prepare documents setting out values, such as strategies, action plans and programmes.

Roles: The key role in the governance system is played by Parliament, the Serbian National Assembly, which is the country's legislature. Its local counterpart is the City Assembly. The executive power is vested in Cabinet Ministries at the national level, and in Departments of City Administrations at the local level. Institutions important for enacting legally binding documents specifically aimed at urban forest management are the national Nature Conservation Institute and forest management SOE and local SOEs.

#### 3.2.2. Arrangements for Collaboration

At the horizontal level, collaboration takes place between legislative and executive institutions responsible for land use planning related to urban forest management that are at the same time the key pillars of democratic society. National arrangements in this regard are mirrored at the local level. Particularly important for land use planning related to urban forest management is close horizontal

collaboration between national and local parliaments with specialised nature and forest conservation institutions, which these legislative bodies have formal responsibility for as their incorporating entities. Their horizontal cooperation results in sectoral standards that safeguard land covered by urban forests.

Vertical collaboration between institutions of land use planning related to urban forest management is defined by the national regulatory framework which is legally binding for all lower levels of governance. Within the land use planning system itself, legislation mandates compliance with plans enacted at higher levels (i.e., plans are vertically conditioned).

#### *3.3. Micro-Level: Activities in Land Use Planning Practice*

Amendments to the Planning and Construction Law [87] established the General Zoning Plans as the binding planning documents for central built-up areas at the local level. These plans are defined as operational instruments that allow direct implementation, meaning that they set out conditions for construction. They define the intended use and status of land (publicly-owned and other); typology of construction, regulation, capacities and infrastructure; and set out safeguards and development rules. The General Zoning Plans are hierarchically linked with higher-level plans, the National Spatial Plan and the Local Spatial Plan, which provide strategic guidelines for urban development.

The procedure for preparing urban plans is governed by the latest Planning and Construction Law [67]. This is identical for all planning levels in this category (Figure 2). The planning process is preceded by the local parliament's 'Initiative for planning'. The actual process of producing the planning document is entrusted to an expert organisation, which may be a public enterprise or a private company. Various public institutions become involved at various stages of the development of the plan, as do civil or private-sector actors. At the outset of the process, when the 'Concept of the plan' is defined, binding conditions are obtained from the relevant national-level SOEs and institutions, which, for urban forest management, are the Nature Conservation Institute, the forest management SOE and local SOEs tasked with public utilities and environmental protection. Public participation is ensured at two points in the planning process: once at the very beginning, to verify the overall concept, and once at the end, to vet the proposed plan. Immediately before the proposed plan is put up for 'Public viewing', it is at the stage termed 'Inspection of the plan' by the Planning Commission, an expert body established by the local government. After the 'Inspection of the plan' and 'Public viewing' phases, the 'Plan finalization' follows, after which it is sent to the local assembly for 'Adoption of the plan'. The plan may be amended by the local assembly before it is enacted, and the amendments may significantly impact some aspects of the plan.

**Figure 2.** Formal and informal arrangements in the planning procedure (Source: Authors, based on [88]).

Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEA) is yet another key tool for nature conservation. These are defined by the relevant legislation [77], and assessment is mandatory if a decision is made to

produce it at the same time as the Initiative to develop a plan. Even though these assessments were first introduced as early as 2004 as a new environmental protection tool, until 2010 this was only a parallel procedure. The new regulations made them a mandatory and integral component of spatial plans; for urban plans, depending on the scope of each document, formal decisions are made to prepare or not to prepare impact assessments. The SEA aims at describing, evaluating and assessing the likely impact of the General Zoning Plan on the environment and envisages measures to mitigate adverse effects. It is developed in parallel with the draft of the plan and is subject to expert verification by the Planning Commission.

In terms of the transparency and collaborative nature of planning procedures, the practice of public participation does not differ much from that employed in the later stages of the socialist period. Until the enactment of the Planning and Construction Law [87], members of the public could become involved only at the end of the process, once the plan had already been developed, which meant that public comments could pose an issue and draw out the planning process. The 2014 the Planning and Construction Law introduced the option of 'Early-stage public viewing' at the very outset of the planning process.

Within the presented planning model, we can identify formal and informal positions that influence the issue of forest management and preservation:

	- plans of higher order,
	- conditions of institutes for environmental protection and
	- conditions of SOEs for managing forest land;
	- capacity of experts in relation to urban forest management and preservation in various positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, expert responsible for a plan creation, expert in the planning commission, expert from the civil sector and expert from the private sector; and
	- capacity of nonexpert stakeholders in relation to urban forest management and preservation in various positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, civil sector and private sector.

#### 3.3.1. Examples of the Land Use Planning Practice Related to Urban Forest Management in Serbia

The General Zoning Plans of two medium-sized Serbian cities were chosen for this assessment of the institutional structure of land use planning related to urban forest management at the micro-level. These are the General Zoning Regulation Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja [89] and the General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor [90].

#### General Zoning Plan for the Town of Vrnjaˇcka Banja

Vrnjaˇcka Banja is one of Serbia's major spas and a tourist resort of key national importance. Tourism is the city's chief industry, and as such development strategies focus on improving tourism capacities and the quality of the tourist offering.

The General Zoning Plan is based on the Spatial Plan of Serbia [72] and the Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Vrnjaˇcka Banja [91]. A specific feature of this plan is the Government Order Establishing the Area of the Vrnjaˇcka Banja Spa [92], which defined the boundaries of the 182-hectare spa zone, which contains a number of hot and mineral water springs harnessed for use in public baths and medical establishments. In that sense, it should be stressed that forests and forest land are recognised as critical for protection of mineral water springs. A number of the objectives set out in the higher-level plans are of strategic importance for the development of Vrnjaˇcka Banja, including preventing continued degradation of space, addressing threats to natural resources, combating unpermitted construction and use of space contrary to intended purposes and revitalising areas, in particular those with perspectives for development.

The immediate reason for enacting the General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja was the need to take stock of new structures due to wide-ranging changes in the field resulting from not just legal but also illicit construction. The primary objectives of the Plan are to safeguard the city's character as a spa town, increasing the extent of green spaces in the broader territory of the city, especially in naturally green areas and plots of agricultural land that divide commercial zones from housing and central facilities.

The SEA is an integral part of the General Zoning Plan. The SEA concluded that the plan placed substantial emphasis on the sustainability of urban planning, zoning and construction. It also concluded that environmental protection considerations were complied with and incorporated into all aspects of the plan so as to allow the necessary development to proceed with minimum consequences for the environment.

The General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja covers an area of 2.318,97 hectares (see Table 3). One of the Plan's objectives is to protect forests, agricultural land and biodiversity in general. The summary of the current state of publicly-owned green spaces identifies only two uses: forests and forest parks. The General Zoning Plan introduces a forest park with an overall area of 150,3 hectares (see Figure 3). The purpose of this specific type of land use is to preserve forest configurations, ensure they can receive the required care and maintenance and permit them to be used for purposes of tourism and recreation.


**Table 3.** General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja: aspects relevant to land use planning related to urban forest management.

**Figure 3.** General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned state (source: Authors).

The plan also lays down rules for development in the forest parks and sets out conditions for particular types of constructions (catering and hydraulic engineering facilities). The plan bans any changes to the intended use of space, construction of structures, tree felling and unplanned removal of vegetation (except where required to protect plant health, as assessed by the relevant local SOE), earth moving works (except where envisaged by the project designs) and unrestricted vehicle movements and waste disposal. Detailed Zoning Plans are mandated for the three forest parks (Forest Park 1, of 10,46 ha; Forest Park 2, 17,31 ha; and Forest Park 3, 34,91 ha), whereas urban planning designs are required for any interventions within the planned forest parks. Apart from the development rules applicable to all planned forest parks, special requirements were introduced for the Borjak Forest Park (34,91 ha) to take account of the greenery of major importance for the character of the area there, as well as for the forest park near the central city park due to the need to protect cultural heritage monuments.

#### General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor

Bor is located close to a major copper and gold mining and smelting facility. Rapid industrialisation in the latter half of the 20th century made the city an important centre for Eastern Serbia. Current and future development of the area is based on mining and industry and the accompanying manufacturing and services sectors.

The General Zoning Plan is based on the Spatial Plan for the Municipality of Bor [93] and the General Urban Plan of Bor [94]. Specific issues are regulated by the local Development Land Decision [95] and the Decision on Public Development Land [96], which determine which development land can be owned publicly or held otherwise: (1) development land intended for public use, comprising infrastructure and buildings (utilities facilities, urban greenery and other public structures and areas of general interest, such as those devoted to education, child protection, healthcare, social welfare, culture, sports and recreation, etc.) and (2) areas intended for other uses, meaning all other structures and areas (housing, businesses, services, etc.).

Higher-level plans designate Bor as a (sub)regional hub with a catchment area covering a number of surrounding municipalities. Bor is an industrial centre with well-developed industry and significant prospects for continuing development of the nonferrous metals sector based on the mining and

processing of copper and gold ores. The Spatial Plan of Serbia envisages increasing the forested area of the Municipality of Bor from 45% to 49.2% of the total land surface, or to 3.570 hectares. The new forests are planned to take the place of poorer quality agricultural land. The General Zoning Plan sets out priorities for development in all areas; for environmental protection, they entail the implementation of the Municipality of Bor Sustainable Development Strategy and revitalisation of degraded land.

The General Zoning Plan applies to the entire territory of the town of Bor, which is divided into seven spatial units and does not comprise the mining and smelting facilities. The area covered amounts to 1312,20 hectares (Table 4). The plan aims at providing an urban planning framework for buildings and areas of public interest. It sets out the requirements for the reconstruction of the town core and other spaces, construction of public, commercial and other facilities, improved protection of the environment, cultural heritage, natural and man-made settings and other issues. Green areas are a major consideration of the Plan, especially in the town core and as part of housing complexes containing multi-dwelling units. These green areas are planned to account for 0.85% of the entire area covered (or 11,2 hectares).


**Table 4.** General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor: aspects relevant to land use planning related to urban forest management.

The SEA as an integral part of the Plan concludes that attaining the objectives of the plan will not seriously threaten natural and environmental values, and recommends close adherence to the guidelines of the Plan and the SEA with regard to the environment, spatial development and use of natural resources.

The objectives of the General Zoning Plan for Bor include safeguarding and improving the state of green areas and protective greenery, developing sports and recreation spaces and making the urban environment more attractive with the aim of attaining public values and interests of the urban area. The plan identifies two intended uses of publicly-owned green areas: Urban greenery (within the limits of urban development land) and Other greenery (for areas other than urban development land), which also includes forests (Figure 4). In Section 4, the General Zoning Plan introduces forest parks as a separate intended use of land, with a total area of approximately 11.2 hectares. The existing forest, which includes a zoo, is planned to be converted into a forest park designed for recreation. The plan mandates that the fundamental purpose of green areas be respected and that the key natural characteristics of the space be retained in their entirety (including vegetation, elevations, bodies of water and the like). This includes preserving autochthonous vegetation and minimum interventions in terms of introducing additional developments.

**Figure 4.** General zoning plan for Bor: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned state (source: Authors).

The plan sets out development rules for the forest parks and provides conditions for development of passive and active recreation and activity zones, indicates which facilities can be constructed, regulates materials to be used in covering paths and walkways, stipulates how vehicular access is to be controlled and gives pedestrians priority within the forest parks. The creation of the newly-planned green areas and reconstruction of existing ones (which applies to the Section 4 forest park) requires the development of the appropriate technical documentation. This location is not subject to any specific restrictions.

#### **4. Discussion and Conclusions**

Land is a fundamental yet finite resource for urban development, and, as such, is directly exposed to the influence of complex socioeconomic factors. In these circumstances, urban planning must rise to the challenge of addressing the manifold development priorities that stem from public policies. Land use planning consequently becomes an efficient instrument for implementing the value framework of public policies through the definition of ways in which land can be utilised. According to the concept of institutional transformation, values are inherent to the institutional system and are the result of a balance struck between its elements. With the disturbance of the stability of the institutional system, induced by the influences outside the system, there is an institutional transformation and a distortion of the value framework of public policies and accompanying agendas, such as "saving urban forests".

The key factors that influence the transformation of the institutional system in Serbia are as follows.


Despite a sound and well-developed tradition of nature and forest land protection under socialism, these key factors listed above, have significantly eroded the stability of the previous institutional structure and initiated a process of institutional transformation. As a result, the position of land use planning as a robust mechanism for mediating conflicts over land use and a regulatory instrument for policy implementation is highlighted.

Given the objective of this paper, to provide a critical overview of the institutional framework of land use planning in relation to urban forest management in the post-socialist environment of Serbia, we have defined the components of importance, presented below, for establishing a stable interaction inside the institutional structure for promotion of a value system aimed at saving urban forests. As a first step of institutional design, these components represent key aspects of the concept of land use planning for urban forest protection (LUPUFP) in the Serbian post-socialist transition environment.

The analysis was conducted across three scales: macro/governance, meso/coordination and micro/agency. This included the analysis of system components from the national to local level, illustrated by examples of the land use planning practice of two medium-sized cities. Accordingly, the analysis has identified the major institutional changes regarding:

(a) Regulatory structure and the value framework of public policies. This aspect of institutional analysis is aimed at examining the macro-level, which is in Serbia determined by significant macro-societal processes that take place due to the adoption of national and supranational constitutions [22]. It includes two aspects: (a) an institutional and legal framework for urban forest protection standards and (b) a value framework for urban forest protection. Serbia's planning system is hierarchically organised, from higher to lower levels of governance. Legislative changes have aimed at reducing the number of planning levels to promote efficiency and effectiveness in implementing plans. However, planning has failed to keep up with the pace of legislative change, which has in practice led to unclear planning procedures and misalignment between the outcomes of planning at various spatial levels. These circumstances have caused confusion between the national, regional and local levels as to their respective powers and roles. Further, the practice of land use planning related to urban forest management is subject to a variety of laws enacted by administrative authorities in numerous sectors. One issue here is the lack of alignment between urban forest protection standards introduced by the various regulations, which has caused problems with interpretation and implementation at the local level. On the other hand, the value framework for urban forest protection is formally implemented through the legislative framework and the standards for protection envisaged by it. A major issue here is

the set of policy documents the implementation of which is not formalised and is therefore not mandatory. The multitude of formal and informal policy documents at the national level, not sufficiently aligned with one another, prevent both the establishment and the implementation of a clear value framework. As a basic drawback, the absence of a terminological framework and the identification of urban forests as a separate category of urban green land are observed, leaving at the local level a space for different interpretations, as is shown in the cases of the General zoning plans of Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor. In addition, the underdeveloped capacities of local SOEs, due to the lack of expert profiles in the formation of employees, as well as the burden on the public service of many utilities, represent an obstacle in the formulation of requirements as well as the implementation of protection measures. Thus, as was illustrated in both of the General Zoning Plans of Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor, standards defined on the national level serve as guidelines for particular land use planning processes; however, LUPUFP is not yet recognised as a concept. Consequently, the key components of the regulatory framework for the establishment of the LUPUFP system are


regulations for stakeholder involvement in making decisions on urban forests, indicating that various control mechanisms are necessary. The weaknesses of such a system lie in the rigidity of its mechanisms and their uncritical application in locally specific situations. Implementation of the public policies and safeguarding the adopted value framework is contributed by units specialised in nature and forest protection at all levels. As was illustrated in Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor, bottom-up initiatives for forest protection and development from the local level that are recognised within land use planning processes, such as particular local decisions, reflect the adjustment of the institutional structure in order to promote the concept of LUPUFP. Consequently, the key components for the establishment of the LUPUFP system related to the procedures for cooperation between institutions are

	- Establishing collaborative planning, which entails informed decision-making about the directions of urban development at key stages of plan production;
	- Clarifying the roles of experts in the decision-making system and ensuring their independence from political decision-making;

These three groups of components constitute possible guidelines for preserving the robust tradition of land use planning related to urban forest protection by the establishment of the concept of LUPUFP in Serbia. The complexity of the subject, rooted as it is in differing sectors of expertise, certainly calls for deeper consideration of the myriad components of the system in the future. The findings presented in this paper have no ambition to include all the components of the system, but to provide some valuable insight into the practice of land use planning as one of the most efficient instruments for protecting green land in cities and that adheres to the agenda of saving urban forests.

The concept of LUPUFP is in line with current recommendations for the safeguarding and sustainable management of forests and other green areas in cities as crucial components for the health and well-being of citizens, promoted by the most influential documents such as Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement and the New Urban Agenda. Related to that, the main contribution of this research is in the promotion of the relevance of the concept of LUPUFP in accordance to the importance of ecosystem services especially, as outlined by the FAO report regarding the nine SDGs.

The conducted research also contributes to the concept of institutional transformation, which is verified through the system of the land resource management of society in the environment of post-socialist transition. The results of this research presents the specific, practical and applicable path of institutional redesign that leads to the establishment of a concept of LUPUFP as an experience that may assist other countries in the region seeking answers in the process of developing their own models.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.M. and T.C.; Methodology, M.M.; Investigation, M.M., T.C. and M.P.M.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.M., T.C. and M.P.M.; Writing—Review & Editing, M.M.; Visualization, M.P.M. and M.M.

**Funding:** The paper was prepared as a result of work on the scientific projects: "The investigation of climate change and its impacts on the environment—monitoring impacts, climate change adaptation and mitigation" (No. 43007) and "Spatial, Environmental, Energy and Social Aspects of Developing the Settlements and Climate Change—Mutual Impacts" (No. 36035) which were financed within the program Technological development by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

#### **References and Notes**


© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Timber Distribution Dynamics in Scientifically Managed Community Forests: Learning from Nepal**

#### **Prabin Bhusal, Pawan Karki and Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi**


Received: 7 July 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 24 September 2020

**Abstract:** In a bid to address growing timber demand, irregular shelterwood system-based scientific forestry gained momentum in Nepal in 2000. While timber production, in general, is said to have witnessed an increase, the outcomes linked to equitable distribution among users remain unclear, suggesting the need for context-specific studies on the performance of scientific forestry in terms of timber distribution among users. Taking the case of the Western Terai Region of Nepal, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of the patterns and implications of timber distribution under community forestry systems where scientific forest management (SciFM) is practiced. The study deployed focus group discussions (*n* = 4), key informant interviews, and a review of timber distribution processes for the past six fiscal years (2013–2019), the periods before and after the implementation of SciFM. For data analysis, a deductive approach was used; analytical themes were framed along the lines of timber-harvesting trends, timber distribution structure and processes, and timber distribution patterns based on wellbeing. The study revealed a substantial increase in timber harvesting; considering the base year, harvest increased by 45% in the second year and by 56% in the third year. This was, however, characterized by a 40% decrease in the average volume of timber for users within the community forest user group. Ninety-seven percent of the timber produced in this system was distributed among middle- and high-class groups, with only 3% available for poor households—this puts to question the intended objective of providing sufficient timber, especially to poor users. The paper concludes that technocentric efforts linked to increasing timber sufficiency (e.g., through SciFM) have failed to address the needs of the poorest of the poor, as elite capture prevails. We also call for future studies to explore pathways to deal with the hydra-headed nature of elite capture.

**Keywords:** silviculture; timber distribution; benefit-sharing; elite; community forestry

#### **1. Introduction**

With more than four decades of practice in community forestry (CF), Nepal stands as a notable example of decentralized forest management in the Global South [1–3]. The foundation of CF was laid within the framework of the 1976 National Forestry Plan and the Forest Sector Master Plan of 1988 [4]. Further provisions such as the Forest Act of 1993, the 1995 Forest Regulation, and, recently, the Forest Act of 2019, backed up this process. The 2019 Forest Act defines community forests (CFs) as "any part of national forest that has been handed over to users for the development, protection, utilization, and management of forest resources" [5]. As an autonomous body, community forest users have the right to develop, use, and manage the forest and sell and distribute forest products by fixing the prices

themselves [1]. With its primary objectives to enhance forest conservation, it sought to empower forest users to manage forests for their livelihoods [6,7].

The outcomes of CFs in terms of ecological restoration [8,9], livelihood improvement through income generation [10–13], and community development [14–16] have been investigated. However, its contribution to the national economy was rated as low, considering that timber—a main income generator—was still in insufficient supply [17–19]. It has also been criticized for being protection-focused [20,21]. This drawback led to the introduction of scientific forest management (SciFM), a silviculture system-based forest management approach to enhance forest productivity and contribute to the local and national economy [22]. This system largely focused on timber harvesting [23,24], where the forest management plan allows community forest user groups (CFUGs) to cut mature green trees alongside dead, decay, dying, and deformed trees (4Ds), as opposed to the previous plan that restricted timber harvesting to only 4Ds. Thus, the traditional protection-oriented forest management focused only on removing 4Ds. This has created over-mature forests with different age categories [25]. SciFM gained momentum after the enactment of the revised forest policy in 2000 [26,27], which was initiated with the aim of removing over-mature trees to meet the current timber and fuelwood demand and promote natural regeneration. Equally, it stresses the need to increase production and productivity, considering local demand, while commercializing the forest for prosperity [28]. To date, it has been implemented in 285 community forest user groups (CFUGs) across Nepal [29]. CFs are primarily selected based on their timber production potential [26]. Similarly, the selection is guided by the maturity of the forests, their poor regeneration conditions, and dense canopy cover. In the Terai sal (*Shorea robusta*) forest, SciFM is applied through an irregular shelterwood system [30,31]. In this system, the forest area, considered one compartment, is divided into eight subcompartments, assuming an 80-year rotation age and a 10-year regeneration interval [32]. Different activities are carried out in different subcompartments; for instance, regeneration felling, intermediate felling, and final felling are conducted in one of the subcompartments, whereas in other subcompartments, activities such as thinning and cleaning are conducted.

Studies on SciFM to date, in Nepal, have largely concentrated on silviculture practices [33–35], stakeholders' opinion [27,31,36], users' participation [37–39], and their financial implications [26]. Recent scientific evidence points to the fact that SciFM has commodified CFs towards timber production by emphasizing the economic rationale and controlling access to forest products (e.g., timber) for the poor and marginalized [26]. However, issues linked to the dynamics of timber distribution and its implications at the user level are yet to be explored. Timber has always been one of the key income sources in community forestry in Nepal [14,15], making it a major source of contestation in the Terai region of Nepal, particularly around its distribution. The Terai region is a lowland region of Nepal that lies south of the outer foothills of the Himalayas, the Sivalik Hills, and north of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. It occupies 2,016,998 ha of the total land area of the country. The region is located in a subtropical climate zone characterized by hot and humid summers, intense monsoon rain, and dry winters [22,40]. Recent studies on timber have focused on its income potential and contribution [14].

The studies by Basnyat [23,26] and Yadav [41] have signaled some plausible inferences: (1) Increasing timber production in Nepal's CFs is not unconnected to technocentric interventions (e.g., through SciFM), (2) an increase in timber production is a necessary but insufficient condition to meet household livelihoods and poverty needs in scientifically managed CFs of Nepal, and (3) dealing with the hydra-headed nature of elite capture is, without doubt, a perennial and seemingly unresolved problem in Nepal's CFs. Taking the case of Western Terai, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of the patterns and implications of timber distribution under community forestry systems where scientific forest management (SciFM) is practiced. Particularly, it deals with two key questions: (i) how does the CFUG institution function in the timber harvesting and distribution process?, and (ii) what is the timber distribution pattern at the user level after SciFM implementation in community forests? An understanding of timber harvesting and distribution dynamics at the CFUG level could provide relevant insights on issues of equity with regard to timber distribution and benefit-sharing.

Equity in practice in community forests is always an issue of contestation. The Forest Act 2019 and the revised Community Forest Development Guideline of 2014 devolved forest management rights to the community, including reinvestment rights to CFUGs, and clearly stipulates how CFUGs should reinvest their income in community development, forest development, women, and pro-poor activities [14]. Equally, there is the heterogeneity of committee members, where representation in terms of caste, class, culture, and gender is assured [42]. However, several studies have argued that the poor and marginalized benefit less [43–45]. The structural and procedural arrangements in community forest user groups allow elite domination [46]. Usually, the local elite who hold power and wealthier households are selected more frequently than poor and marginalized users for the executive committees [46–49], which are the key decision-making bodies in CFUGs.

Thus, the evidence from this study could further substantiate the need to revisit the governance architecture of Nepal in order to deal with systemic hold-ups that breed inequity. This represents a scientific and policy exigency if SciFM is to meet its intended objectives. The findings will equally be a significant learning avenue for other CBFM regimes in this region that are revisiting community forest governance.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Case Study in Community Forest User Groups*

The case study was conducted in the Bijaya CFUG, located in the Madhyabindu municipality of Nawalpur district in the western Terai region of Nepal (Figure 1). The CFUG is located at the midpoint of the east–west highway. The CFUG covers a total forest area of 161.72 ha, including 153.72 ha of productive forest. The forest is dominated by productive hardwood Sal (*Shorea robusta* Roth) forest managed under the irregular shelterwood system, with eighty years of cutting cycle. The operational plan under SciFM covers 153.72 out of the 161.72 ha of total forest (Table 1). Its implementation began in 2016.


**Table 1.** Description of the study site.

CFUG: Community Forest Users' Group; CF: Community Forest; HHs: Households; SciFM: Scientific Forest Management.

The forest is managed by 358 households, represented by mixed groups of community and wellbeing ranking. The CFUG has categories of users based on their wellbeing ranking, which is characterized by the presence or absence of concrete houses, business, jobs, and landed property. The rich users are those who have 4- to 5-story concrete houses, stable businesses and jobs, and private vehicles. The middle category of users has 1- to 2- or 3-story concrete houses, some businesses or jobs, and is engaged in agriculture. Poor users have houses made of timber-plank walls, tin roofs, labor jobs, and no registered landed property.

Terai forest is a mixed hardwood forest dominated by Sal (*Shorea robusta*) species. The majority of the forest is natural, with mature stands. In our case study site, more than 80% of the forest is dominated by the Sal species, which is one of the key hardwood species of the Terai forest, with a high market value. Similarly, Sal timber is one of the major income sources of the Bijaya CFUG, which contributes approximately 80% of the total annual income of the CFUG. In the case of the Bijaya CF, an 80-year rotation, with a 10-year regeneration period, is in practice under an irregular silviculture system. The SciFM forest area, i.e., 153.72 ha of forest that is considered as one compartment, is divided into eight subcompartments, i.e., from C1S1 to C1S8 (Figure 1). Based on the availability of mature

trees and accessibility of harvesting, C1S5 was selected as a regeneration felling subcompartment that has comparatively more mature trees.

**Figure 1.** Location map of the study area (Source: Operational plan of the community forest user group (CFUG), 2016).

#### *2.2. Data Collection*

To obtain the relevant data for the study, we categorized the data collection process based on our objectives and the intended results. We collected data to analyze (i) timber harvesting and distribution structure and process, (ii) timber-harvesting trends, (iii) timber distribution patterns, and (iv) timber distribution based on the users' wellbeing category. For this, we used a descriptive and narrative approach comprised of the analysis of timber harvesting and distribution structure and institutional setup and the established process adopted for timber distribution at the CFUG level. Similarly, we analyzed timber harvesting and distribution patterns for the last six fiscal years (2013/2014 to 2018/2019), comparing it before and after SciFM implementation. Equally, we categorized the CFUG based on the wellbeing (rich, middle, and poor class) of the users and analyzed the timber distribution pattern amongst these groups in the community forest after the implementation of SciFM. The analysis provides an average result for the three fiscal years (2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019). The detailed process and instruments used are discussed below. We began by undertaking a review of timber distribution processes for the last six fiscal years (2013 to 2019) in the targeted community forest user group. This led to the generation of data on the timber supply pattern. Similarly, relevant governance documents (the CFUG's operational plan, minutes, and timber sales records) were reviewed to understand relevant information at the user level of the institutional setup and forest management activities of Bijaya Community Forest.

For data collection, two key instruments were employed: a focus group discussion guide (8 items) and a key informant interview guide (12 items). These instruments were developed to capture issues linked to timber harvesting, decision-making and timber distribution, institutions and processes linked to timber supply, the role of users and divisional forest officers (DFOs), and the executive committee. In total, we conducted four focus group discussions (FGDs): one with CFUG EC members (11 members; 6 males and 5 females), one with general users (15 users in the mixed group), one FGD with Dalits and Janjatis (Dalits are usually lower caste people, representing marginalized and disadvantaged groups with poor social status; Janjatis refer to Adivasi, a general term in Nepal meaning primitive ethnic groups; 10 user households), and one with Brahmin and Chhetri (Brahmin and Chhetri generally represent the higher caste groups, with strong social status; they usually lead in decision-making positions; 10 user households). Each FGD lasted between two hours and two hours and thirty minutes. The discussions were carried out with open-structure questions, and the information obtained was recorded on field notes used for further analysis. Discussions focused on the status of forest consumption and timber distribution patterns at the household level before and after the implementation of SciFM. Equally, we discussed user roles in timber harvesting and distribution and the relationship between the user's wellbeing class and timber distribution.

From each focus group, we identified key informants and conducted in-depth interviews with them to profoundly unearth some issues that might not have been openly discussed. We primarily focused on how timber is distributed and how timber distribution decisions are made, who leads the decision making, and why. In the case of timber harvesting and distribution structure and processes, we focused on how the EC and members associated with EC were extensively involved in the timber distribution process at the CFUG level, and there was no role for other users in this process. Importantly, we analyzed the criteria for selecting the timber received by user households. In all, there were eight key informant interviews (KIIs): three from executive committee members, three from general users, including women members, and two from ethnic group members. This process helped us to gain insight into each of the key stakeholders' impression of the SciFM implementation, particularly on timber distribution and the associated benefits (Figure 2). It was easy to organize the respondents since the first author has worked with these groups over the years. We explained the motives behind the research to the participants, and they were assured of confidentiality. Field notes were used to record the data. The data obtained were transcribed and coded. Based on the coded data, we summarized this information in the narratives presented in the results section. All of the informants selected were between the ages of 35–60 years, and they were considered to be experienced enough to share their views on the situation as it unfolded over the years.

**Figure 2.** Data collection flow chart.

Similarly, the timber supply records before SciFM (fiscal year 2013/2014, 2014/2015, and 2015/2016) and after the implementation of SciFM (2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019) were collected and minutely reviewed. Equally, the wellbeing ranking of household members was categorized as poor, medium, and rich based on the operation plan in order to investigate timber supply patterns at each level. The documents on timber records, like CFUG minutes, bills of timber sales, audit reports, and timber distribution, were reviewed. First, we recorded the total timber harvested on an annual basis for all the six years, followed by the record of the timber distribution to users and other stakeholders in each fiscal year from 2013 to 2019. The information from these records, coupled with the interviews and FGDs, guided the derivation of issues linked to inequitable distribution of timber among different groups of users in order to understand the hydra-headed nature of elite capture in the entire process.

#### *2.3. Data Analysis*

#### Timber Supply Analysis

We adopted a deductive approach [50,51], as the research questions were developed following analytical themes prior to data collection. The themes were framed along the lines of timber-harvesting trends, timber distribution structure and processes, and timber distribution patterns based on wellbeing. Based on these themes, thematic analysis and narratives were employed in the analysis. This was characterized by the transcription of the participants' diverse opinions, including the use of direct quotes and extracts from field notes, to shed light on the discussion. The data obtained from focus group discussions, KII and CFUG minutes, timber distribution records, the CFUG operational plan, and the constitution were reviewed, coded, and entered into MS Excel and the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). First, the timber harvesting and distribution structure and processes at the CFUG level were minutely analyzed. Then, the total amount of timber harvested in each fiscal year was calculated, and it was analyzed and presented in terms of average annual timber harvested before and after SciFM implementation. Then, the timber distribution pattern to user households and other stakeholders was calculated and presented. It was calculated by the total share of timber between users and other stakeholders as per the annual timber distribution records maintained at the CFUG. Equally, the share of timber between the different stakeholders was calculated in percentage by comparing it with the total harvested timber. Finally, within the user's category, we calculated timber distribution between wellbeing rankings. In this procedure, the data were processed and reviewed to verify accuracy before being analyzed using basic descriptive statistics. The results are presented in the form of graphs, tables, and figures, with narrative discussion and individual quotes. All the analysis is further categorized based on the timber demand and supply pattern before and after the implementation of SciFM. While developing the results and discussion along with analyzing the quantitative data, the quantitative information and data obtained from FGD and KII were equally articulated and presented, essentially in the form of quotes and statements. Equally, this information assisted in the quantification of data obtained from the CFUG records.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Timber Harvesting and Distribution Dynamics at the CFUG Level*

Our result depicts a substantial increase in timber harvesting after SciFM implementation in the CFUG, with an increasing trend in the first three years of SciFM implementation. This was, however, characterized by a 40% decrease in the average volume of timber for users within the community forest user group. Ninety-seven percent of the timber produced in this system was distributed amongst middle- and high-class groups, with only 3% available for the poor households. Similarly, the results show that the timber harvesting and distribution structure is dominated by the elite and well-off groups. This has created an avenue for the elite and decision-makers around timber governance to reap benefits after the implementation of SciFM.

#### 3.1.1. Timber Harvesting and Distribution Structure and Processes

The results here describe the institutional structure and process adopted by the Bijaya CFUG for timber harvesting and distribution at the user level. Additionally, it compares and contrasts the bureaucratic processes and complexities around timber harvesting and distribution.

Timber harvesting is one of the key activities of CFUGs that is carried out annually. It is the key source of income for the CFUGs. Though the amount of timber to be harvested is mentioned in the CFUG operational plan (OP), CFUGs need formal permission from the District Forest Office to harvest timber. They have to pass through a series of steps that need to be consciously followed by the CFUG to procure a harvesting permit [52]. According to Puri et al. [53], each year, CFUGs follow at least nine steps before they get final approval from the DFO for distribution and sale of the timber from their CFUGs. To achieve this, CFUGs visit this service at least 20 times to get through this process. During this process, the involvement of the executive committee (EC) with the forest authority is significant, where the forest authority is directly or indirectly involved throughout the harvesting process. This shows that the decision of forest product harvesting in CFUGs, particularly timber, still hinges on the forest authority [54] and the nexus between the EC and the forest authority. Additionally, the process is further complicated if the timber has to be sold to people other than community forest users.

#### Case of Bijaya Community Forest User Group on Timber Distribution Structure and Processes

In the case of timber distribution in the Bijaya CFUG, the EC is the main institutional structure that makes the decisions on timber distribution. However, the CFUG also has a monitoring committee that monitors the needs of the users based on timber demand applications, analyses them, and presents them to the EC for the final decision (Figure 3).

In the Bijaya CFUG, we found the monitoring committee to be a subset of the EC, which comprised the members from the EC. It usually monitors cases of timber demand by the users and ensures that it will not be misused. Generally, the EC opens the timber call and collects the timber demand from the users. This is minutely analyzed, verified, and assessed through user household visits by the monitoring committee formed for this purpose. After finalizing the user households that are eligible to get timber, the committee forwards the list to the executive committee for a final decision. Finally, the EC, through its meeting, finalizes the list and the amount of timber to be distributed to users. The timber distribution criteria are as follows: (i) first come first serve to the schedule, i.e., the user who applies first can claim timber first, (ii) users have to initiate building their house before they claim timber, and they have to show proof of it, (iii) the users who want to build multistory houses will be supplied more timber, and (iv) the timber is graded into A, B and C grades and it is priced as follows: Grade A = NRs1000/cft Grade B = NRs900/cft, and Grade C = NRs800/cft.

The price of the timber is finalized from the meeting of the CFUG, where all the users agree on the price. However, such a meeting is usually dominated by rich and middle-class users who dominate the decision-making. Similarly, the amount of timber to be distributed to the users depends on the annual demand obtained from them. However, after the implementation of SciFM, the CFUGs need to provide 25% of the remaining timber, after fulfilling user demand, to *Apurti*, and the remaining 75% is sold to contractors through an open tender. *Apurti* is a formal committee in the Divisional Forest Office, named "District Ban Paidawar Apurti Samiti", which distributes timber to the general population in the district, collecting the surplus timber from CFs and government-managed forests. One of the executive committee members briefly presented the situation:

*"The timber demand from users is increasing annually, and we have tried our best to fulfill it. We give priority to those users who have already started constructing their houses. Equally, after SciFM implementation, we are also selling timber to contractors. When we sell to contractors, we receive substantial income and this is an opportunity for us to increase our income".*

**Figure 3.** Timber distribution decision-making process at the CFUG level.

#### 3.1.2. Timber-Harvesting Trend

We found a substantial increment in timber harvesting after the implementation of SciFM. Before SciFM implementation, the three-year (fiscal year 2013/2014, 2014/2015, and 2015/2016) average timber harvest was 1567.7 cft/year. This increased by 3.5-fold after SciFM implementation, i.e., 5912.16 cft/year within three fiscal years (2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019; Figure 4). Similarly, after SciFM, the annual timber harvest showed an increasing trend. In the fiscal year 2016/2017, it stood at 3481.9 cft. This increased to 6282.83 cft in the fiscal year 2017/2018 and 7971.77 cft in the fiscal year 2018/2019. With reference to the year 2016/2017, the first year of the SciFM implantation, in the second year (2017/2018), the harvesting increased by 45%, and, in the third year, it increased by 56%. The increase in timber harvesting after SciFM, compared with before SciFM implementation, is due to the irregular shelterwood system employed in scientifically managed community forests. This system allowed harvesting of all mature trees in felling subcompartments except some mother trees (around 20–25 mother trees/ha). Equally, all 4Ds are also removed from all other compartments.

**Figure 4.** Timber harvesting trend before and after scientific forest management (SciFM).

#### 3.1.3. Timber Distribution Pattern

We found a difference in the volume of timber distribution before and after SciFM implementation. Before SciFM implementation, the total harvested timber distributed to the user households was 1567.7 cft/year on average. However, after SciFM implementation, the harvested timber was shared with timber for the contractors and *Apurti*. The average share of timber for contractors was 1613.15 cft/year and 703.91 cft/year for the *Apurti*. Furthermore, an increasing trend in the distribution of timber to the users in each fiscal year (3595.1 cft/year) was observed. However, it is lower than the average amount of the annual harvesting of the timber in the CFUG after SciFM (5912.16 cft/year on average).

On average, we found a 40% decrease in the distribution of timber to the users than that of actual annual harvesting of timber in the CFUG after SciFM implementation (Table 2). Additionally, an increasing trend in the supply of the timber to contractors and *Apurtis* in each of the fiscal years were observed. Thus, in terms of timber supply, the involvement of other stakeholders besides users, such as contractors and *Apurti*, had increased after SciFM implementation in CFUGs. The proportion of timber distributed to contractors increased from 14% in the year 2016/2017 to 31% in 2018/2019, while that for the *Apurtis* increased from 3% to 19% within the same period (Table 2). The result points towards an interesting fact that there is a decreasing amount of timber supply to users and an increasing amount of supply to contractors and *Apurtis* although the timber harvesting amount has increased annually after SciFM implementation. This raises a question as to whether the implementation of SciFM was meant to serve the needs of these bodies or to narrow the supply gap for the peasant forest users. The total volume of timber distributed to users seems to be on the increase; the percentage share of timber to users was found to be on the decline, i.e., the total volume of timber distributed to users in fiscal year 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019 was 83%, 61%, and 50%, respectively. Although, in general, an increase in supply was observed even for users, this did not favor the lower wealth class, as will be discussed below.


**Table 2.** Timber distribution pattern before and after SciFM implementation at the CFUG level.

#### *3.2. Timber Distribution Based on Users' Wellbeing Category*

We categorized the CFUGs based on the wellbeing (rich, middle, and poor classes) of the users and analyzed the timber distribution pattern amongst these groups in the community forests after the implementation of SciFM. The analysis provides an average result for the three fiscal years (2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019) after the implementation of SciFM. According to the CFUGs' wellbeing category, the rich class of people has their own private businesses in city centers like Kathmandu and other cities of Nepal. They are involved in jobs. This group of users rarely attends CFUG meetings and other events. The key positions and decision-making are largely occupied by middle-class users, who are heavily involved in CFUG activities. More than 90% of decision-making positions, including in the EC, are occupied by middle-class users. Poor users are key forest dependents, and they are mainly tasked with daily labor and have weak representation in the ECs.

#### Timber Distribution Based on the Wellbeing Category

On the basis of distribution across wellbeing groups, the middle-class users consume a higher portion of timber, followed by the rich and poor users (Figure 5). We found 88% of timber was consumed by middle-class users in the last three years of SciFM implementation. This user group dominates CFUGs in terms of user numbers and also dominates the decision-making bodies, like the EC and subcommittees. Only 3% of timber is distributed to poor households.

One of the users (representing poor households) shared his plight,

*"We cannot a*ff*ord to buy timber from the CFUG, it is for those users who can construct good houses and can influence the decision to their favor. How can we build a concrete house, which is the prerequisite to getting timber from our CFUG?"*

In the same light, the predominantly middle-class executive members justified their actions by indicating that fewer valid requests are received from the low-class users:

*"I agree, the majority of the timber goes to middle-class households. This can be clearly seen from this year's timber demand—there were very few timber demands from poor households. The problem is from the fixing of the price as there is always a meager voice of marginalized and poor groups while fixing prices. The middle class dominates the decision-making process. Equally, the timber distribution criteria discourage them and they cannot a*ff*ord it. We should rethink the timber distribution system and address the concern of poor and marginalized groups. I am planning to put these issues in the* *upcoming EC meeting. There is a misuse of timber by this privileged group (middle class), and the elite also benefit from the provisions developed for poor and marginalized groups."*

#### **4. Discussion**

SciFM implementation in Nepal has been echoed as a solution towards the established misfortune linked to passive forest management and a blanket policy approach, which contributes to the significant loss of forest resources and timber importation of more than 80% of the timber necessary to meet its domestic demands [55]. Traditional protection-oriented forest management was focused on removing dead, dying, and deformed trees, causing the forest area to be dominated by over-mature trees with a lack of proper age class [25]. This, on the one hand, limited the forest product supply to the local people, and, on the other hand, led to poor forest management. Thus, SciFM implementation was viewed as an approach to enable the forestry sector of Nepal to self-sustain its timber demands [27]. In line with this, our result contributes to this discussion and provides a clear picture of the current implementation of SciFM, concerning the pattern of timber distribution in the lowland region of Nepal. Additionally, it argues for CFUG governance, focusing on the CFUGs' institutional structure and functioning, which largely favor the local elite when it comes to decision-making and its implications in SciFM implementation. The elite in this paper refer to a small and dominant group of community members who hold or influence community forest user group decision-making in their favor or as per their interest.

#### *Timber Harvesting and Distribution: How the Elite Dominate While Neglecting Concerns of the Poor*

Community forestry has been criticized for being less productive [12,20,21,56]. Thus, the application of the SciFM scheme sought to increase forest product supply, particularly timber supply. Our result depicts a substantial increase in timber harvesting, with an increasing trend in the first three years of SciFM implementation. Along the same lines, Khanal and Adhikari [24] find that SciFM intervention has increased the harvesting of forest products from community forests. Similarly, the arguments by many scholars like Bampton and Cammaert [57] and Joshi et al. [31] also support that SciFM implementation is timber-focused. Equally, Basnyat et al. [23] describe Nepal's SciFM as timber-centric; users obtain a considerable amount of timber, and they invest time to harvest timber from the forest.

However, we found a decrease in the average volume of timber supply to users by about 40% after SciFM implementation, although the total volume of timber distributed to users seems to be on the increase. Likewise, after SciFM, timber was sold more to outside stakeholders than to users, e.g., contractors and the *Apurti*, and, interestingly, as the annual harvesting of the timber increases, the timber sales with these agencies increases. The remaining timber, after fulfilling the demand of users, is auctioned to contractors—this explains the largely skewed supply towards *Apurtis*. However, huge differences in the timber transaction amount between users and contractors and *Apurtis* have created some timber governance irregularities and provided a hidden opportunity to directly involve stakeholders. Equally, CFUGs take this as an opportunity to increase their annual income. This indicates that although the benefits after SciFM exceeds traditional protection-oriented management systems [24], CFUGs prioritize timber sales to contractors and outside stakeholders instead of fulfilling user demands and local needs. One of the CFUG committee members succinctly presents the situation:

*"Though the annual allowable timber harvesting has noticeably increased after we initiated SciFM in our forest, timber distribution issues have been encountered. Last year, 2665 cft of timber was put for auction by the CFUG. However, the auction price (NRs 1200–1300*/*cft) put by the contractor was far less than the market price of the timber (the market amount is around NRs2000–2200*/*cft). We suspected that there should be some issues as the di*ff*erence in the market and auction rates could benefit middlemen, while the CFUG loses about NRs 2.6 million. Thus, we dissolved that auction process and reopened it, and, finally, we sold at the market price of NRs 2000–2200*/*cft".*

This shows that the timber distribution process has created an avenue for the elite and decision-makers around timber governance to reap benefits after the implementation of SciFM. The complicated bureaucratic process during timber harvesting and the chain of involvement of forest technicians while allowing timber-harvesting decisions, the extensive involvement of the EC, no role for users in the timber distribution process at the CFUG level, and, importantly, the criteria for selecting how much timber to be received by user households, largely ignores poor community forest users in favor of forest technicians and the local elite. This has consciously or unconsciously created a narrative around timber—"timber is not for poor and marginalized households; it is a business for the elite". Basnyat [26] supports this view by stating that CFUGs give first priority to selling timber on the market or to the local elite while neglecting local user demand, particularly the poor and marginalized groups. Both elite capture and bureaucratic control govern this process. Thus, this system could ultimately decrease user participation in decision-making and forest management activities [31,39,58].

Among the wellbeing classes, timber benefits substantially remain within the elite and dominating class. For example, 97% of timber each year is distributed to the dominating middle class and rich class user households. However, very little timber is provided to poor households. On the other hand, the decision-making bodies, like the EC, are dominated by the elite users, where out of 10 members of the EC, 8 are from middle class user households, who are the key elite in CFUGs. Elite capture issues in CFs have been extensively reported, revealing how well-off users manipulate and capture timber transactions to the detriment of poor and marginalized groups [57,59,60]. Although there is no clear policy and guideline for the equitable distribution of timber, CFUGs usually collect timber demand applications and authenticate them by visiting user households to check whether they actually need the timber or not. Based on that and reviewing the history of the users, including how many times and what quantity of timber the users have received before, the committee finally decides on timber distribution. There is no specific and established timber distribution criterion based on the user's category. It all depends on the CFUG's committee decision.

In this situation, SciFM implementation in community forestry, with its key focus on timber and income, ends up benefitting the elite and well-off groups, while ignoring the poor and their livelihood concerns. This leads to the reinvention of elite domination around timber governance and justifies the hydra-headed nature of elite capture. Several studies have illustrated that the well-off groups and powerful local elite dominate the executive committees of CFUGs more frequently than the poor and disadvantaged [47–49,61]. This is equally relevant in the Nepalese context as the institutional structure of community forest user groups places the whole authority of decision-making power in the hands of the few members of the executive committee [47,62]. Evidence suggests that community forestry benefits have flowed less to marginalized and disadvantaged households than to the middle class and wealthy households [41]. On the other hand, the reluctance of forest bureaucracy and the local elite to transfer power to the poor locals [63], as they have captured the decision-making process, is evident in Nepal [39,64]. As local groups begin to have mature, well-defined policies, institutions, and practices [3,7], they could potentially contribute to redefining community forestry positions by contributing substantially to local livelihood and poverty reduction.

Overall, we found that SciFM intervention in community forest has some positive implications, although several limitations have been demonstrated by recent studies; it is accused of having decreased user power and user participation and posing threats of recentralization [31,39,65]. SciFM has focused on timber harvesting and employed technical aspects that could be a burden to forest users [27,38]. Additionally and most importantly, it could create opportunities for the local elite while neglecting the concerns of the poor [26]. We see SciFM intervention as an opportunity for timber-based enterprises, as envisioned by the Forest Policy 2015 and Forest Act 2019. It could be the vehicle for decreasing timber import and fulfilling national timber demand [32]. Most importantly, it could be the vehicle for poverty reduction through reinvestment in livelihood improvement and community development. There is a strong nexus between community forests, community livelihoods, and poverty reduction [6]. However, several studies have argued that there are no expected results produced by CFs in terms

of poverty reduction [43,44]. The poorer households are found to have received fewer benefits from CFs [43,45], and it is argued that the rules of equality in sharing costs and access to benefits have unexpectedly resulted in unfair outcomes, as poor and vulnerable groups need more and specific forest products than the wealthier households do. Similarly, the protection-oriented forest management practices, which only allowed limited harvesting of forest products and did not reach their full potential, have resulted in poor socioeconomic benefits for rural livelihood improvement and poverty reduction. Thus, SciFM intervention provides a great opportunity to establish the narrative that CFs can substantially contribute to poverty reduction. However, with signs of unequal distribution of timber under SciFM, it remains questionable whether increases in timber production would essentially contribute to improving the wellbeing of all CFUG members. This leads us to share the position that governance issues linked to equitable resource distribution and benefit-sharing should be prioritized. Furthermore, the current arrangement has prioritized timber production and supplies to the market over the demands of users—this contradicts the very essence of instituting SciFM. Finally, along with timber governance that includes equitable distribution among users, the capital for reinvestment in a new forest (regeneration felling, regeneration growths, and its management) is required and is important for the sustainable management of SciFM in community forestry. Together, the CFUGs' commitment and collective action matter a lot.

#### **5. Conclusions**

While SciFM is applauded for having contributed to increasing timber production, several questions relating to the volume of timber harvested and its pattern of distribution among user groups still beg for clarity. In this paper, we explored the dynamics of timber distribution under community forestry systems where scientific forest management is practiced in Nepal's Terai region. We conclude that despite the increase in timber after SciFM initiation, questions linked to equity in the distribution amongst different wealth groups remain unanswered. As a step towards seeking solutions here, SciFM as a process should be firmly institutionalized. With a substantial increase in timber harvesting (56% increase by the third year), one would have expected the household supply gap to be narrowed substantially. However, this gap was narrowed for middle and rich households, who enjoyed up to 97% of the timber, as opposed to just 3% for the poor households. The present lethargy could be traced from the significant representation of the former groups in the decision-making body, giving them the opportunity to make decisions that suit their interest. By way of conclusion, we argue that the technocentric efforts linked to increasing timber sufficiency (e.g., through SciFM) is a necessary but insufficient condition to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor, as elite capture persists. Though timber harvesting increased after SciFM for the CFUGs, its distribution and effective management need collective planning and an equity approach. Similarly, governance issues linked to equitable resource distribution and benefit-sharing should be prioritized. Further research should explore pathways to deal with the hydra-headed nature of elite capture. Policywise, the current institutional setup should be revised to accommodate a significant representation of poor and indigenous users. This will reflect their needs and aspirations during the decision-making processes linked to timber allocation and change the current narrative, which attributes timber to middle and rich households.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, design of research instruments, data collection, analyzing data, writing—original draft preparation and review, P.B. and P.K.; writing—review and editing, J.N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was partially funded by the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment REDD Implementation Centre, Babarmahal, Kathmandu. Open access funding was provided by the Technische Universität Dresden.

**Acknowledgments:** Open Access Funding was provided by the Publication Fund of the TU Dresden We would like to give sincere thanks to the Bijaya Community Forest User Groups who helped us during the fieldwork and who always welcomed us with a smile. Similarly, thanks go to the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus, Pokhara, Divisional Forest Office, Nawalpur, Assistant Forest Officer Hari Gautam (Nawalpur), Navin Gautam, Saroj Rijal, and Keshab Prasad Gautam for field support.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Article*
