What we did
Our Community Facilitators support the formation of networks of Forest User Groups (FUGs), developing their institutional capacity and ensuring they operate around principles of inclusion and accountability.

Marketing support networks are often formed around a non-timber product such as cardamom or medicinal herbs to negotiate trade deals and explore new markets. The sale of community forest products particularly benefits the poorest members through the FUG’s programme of pro–poor activities such as micro-credit for income generating activities. (The poorest are invariably Dalits, women and people of minority ethnic or religious groups.)   Geographically based networks such as Village Forestry Coordination Committees are formed from one member of every local FUG.  One has now been formed in over 50% of local authority areas.

Why we did it
FUG networks work closely with local government planning and decision making forums, providing a practical approach to decentralisation.  They strengthen the voices of previously excluded groups and lead to more equitable geographical coverage of services and opportunities. Whether geographic or interest based, the networks provide a strong support to FUGs.  Networks with high capacity are proving to be an effective way of ensuring long-term sustainability of FUG development.  They provide continuity to the work of increasing the active management of community forests and supporting the livelihoods of the most poor and excluded households.

Benefits
FUG networks ...

• Advocate the rights of poor and excluded rural people. 
• Increase access to markets and capacity for collective bargaining.
• Coordinate support from service providing agencies.  
• Coordinate and monitor  the work of local Community Facilitators in FUGs. 
• Facilitate groups with different strengths to come together and benefit each other.
• Draw-down funds from district level whilst ensuring a focus on inclusion and pro–poor initiatives.
• Raise their own funds to use as revolving credit for the most poor and excluded households in the area.

Voices
“We have 16 FUGs on our network plus the local authority chair and government agency staff. We are working to reduce overlap in service provision. We play a coordinating role in drawing funds and implementing programmes. And we are a sharing platform. We are preparing for when LFP is not here, setting up a fund – we will run programmes from the interest. We can also use it to get match-funding from government agencies.” Shesh Raj Regmi, Network chairperson

“If the networks are strong and capable we don’t need to go through NGOs we can be the local development agencies.  Money from government agencies should go through networks to FUGs – it will then be easy to coordinate and to monitor. We will start saving money to keep Facilitators working in FUGs, giving them work according to ability.  In Baglung 13 networks now have the capacity to play such a role and 60% of all the networks have raised funds.” Kul Bahadur karki, Network Chairperson

“Since Animation activities started, we have established a network of the five FUGs in this village to improve the facilities of the FUGs, the livelihoods of poor members and our organizational development. The main objective of the network is for all the FUGs to work together.  Before we put our FUG funds in the bank; now we have started a ‘basket fund’ for the FUG work and revolving funds for loans for the poor.  We jointly decided to revise our Operational Plans so that 33% of the committee members are women.  We looked at how we could use the fund to develop our villages and have provided trainings on income generating activities for the poorest people.  We work together to develop our communities now and for the future of the children.  We also resolve conflicts between FUGs and individuals.” Ramji Basnet, Network Chairperson.