Rural Timber Allotment System

ACC launched a proactive study on Rural Timber Allotment System as forestry sector is highly prone to corruption, especially with respect to timber. Subsequently ACC also shared limited information based on the study conducted during an investigation in 2007 to the Ministry. The main objective of the proactive study was to analyze possible systemic weaknesses that provided opportunities for more corruption in forestry sector. The systemic study identified the various problems in the system and provided detailed analysis of the causes to each problem. ACC provided 7 recommendations to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to help address the loopholes in the existing system of Rural Timber Allotment. Non compliance of existing forest rules and regulations was an important issue highlighted by ACC in terms of this failure. Reduction of timber extraction permit validity and ensuring of monitoring functions were some of the recommendations. A copy of the detailed systemic report shared with the Ministry is presented below:

   1.1. Areas for improvement

Rural Timber allotment and management system

    a. Rational for improvement

Environment is one of the pillars of Gross National Happiness and given the priority the Royal Government places in conserving it, it is only proper that we have a system of managing timbers allotment to rural people for various purposes so that nothing is misused and that we achieve our goal of environment conservation.
There are far too many applicants every year and the amount of timbers allotted and cut down every year is also increasing.
The need for institutional improvement in the area of management and administration of allotment of rural timber across the country is further substantiated by the number of complaints received by the ACC alleging deflection of timbers and illegal felling.
It is also understood that there are many people selling timber illegally in Thimphu.

  b. Problem Situation

Monitoring of utilization of rural timber
Environment in Paro, Bumthang and Haa Dzongkhags is reported to be seriously impacted due to vigorous felling of trees. Trees are generally cut down for the purpose of building houses, cow sheds, toilets, firewood and to make agriculture implements, such as ploughs and yoke.
Thimphu, Paro and Phuentsholing are experiencing construction boom and thus the demand for timber is at its best.
Taking the advantage of the situation, rural residents claim rural timber entitlements as a matter of right or routine rather than on actual need basis, and sell them at a rate between rural and commercial rates.
The commercial rate for timber is very attractive.

Methodology of the study
Agroup of ACC officials conducted a brief study of rural timber allotment and management system in Paro Dzongkhag between 9 and 10 February 2009. Following the review of the relevant provisions of the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan, 2006, an enquiry into the status of the rule was made. Review of the rules was underway in the department that further warranted the study to hopefully provide an additional input to the review. The team met with the officiating Dzongkhag Forest Officer, officiating territorial forest officer, a Gup, a Geog forest in-charge, few public individuals, and visited relevant forest check-posts.

    c. Identify problems and analyze causes

Strict implementation of sub-section 8 of section 97 of chapter X of the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan 2006.
The above mentioned rule states, “After utilization, the applicants shall obtain a certificate from Gup and submit to the DFO/PM/Ranger stating that the timber supplied at subsidized rates have been utilized for the rural house construction. The civil authorities and forestry officials shall check the utilization of the timber from time to time…” However, there is a need to look into actual monitoring responsibility and the competent authority to do so.
The civil authority, supposedly the Gups in the Geog cannot be made responsible to undertake such monitoring activity because of the possible conflict of interest as they have to be elected by the people. The Divisional Forest officer has no enough manpower to carry out this activity. For example, in Paro Dzongkhag, there were close to 80 applicants in 6 months alone and that DFO has less than 60 forestrt staff only. A Dzongkhag forestry staff stationed with the geog has no mandates to undertake such monitoring activity.
Geog Administrative Officers together with Dzongkhag forestry staff stationed in Geogs should be made responsible to monitor proper utilization of the rural timber. Therefore, sub-section 8, sections 97 of chapter X needs to be amended accordingly.

Reduce the maximum period of three years to two years to extract timer from the forest from the date of allotment.
One of the main problems with monitoring by DFO staff is that they do not know as to when the applicants will actually bring the timber to the site as the rule allows three years gap after the issue of the permit. Therefore, the time gap of three years after the issue of permit may be reduced to two years to the maximum. Rule 97(8) may be amended.
This is because; it will decrease the time frame and will consequently enhance monitoring functions.

Establish additional forestry check posts
Paro Dzongkhag has only one forest check post to monitor timber movements within and outside Paro. That lone check post is found to be inadequate in its purpose of monitoring timber movements. For instance, timber from Dotey Geog can come to Paro town very easily and it does not have to route through the check post. Similarly, there is no check post to check timber movements from Betikha area to Paro. Effectiveness of the requirement for the timber carriers from Bitekha area to Paro to declare at the Chuzom check post is not ascertained.
Therefore, there is an immediate need to establish additional check post. Also. There is a need to specify rotation of forestry people at the check posts.

Licensing system for chain saw

Illegal felling of trees in Paro is said to have increased drastically. The forestry officials in Paro attribute this to a rampant availability or Power chain saws which made felling and sawing so easy for those unscrupulous people.
Thus, it is recommended that Department of Forestry consult with Ministry of Economic Affairs and come up with an alternative to control people from owning numerous power chain saws in the villages. Introducing of licensing system for such machinery is one way forward.

Disallow Pit sawing/Axe chopping for all categories
Pit sawing and Axe chopping is found to be causing more destruction to other smaller trees in the forest. This is because, pit sawing and chopping warrants additional trees in the form of “Kawos” and “Dangchus” to make pit for sawing and shelter.
Therefore, the DoF should look into disallowing pit sawing and axe chopping in the forest. This would mean changing sub-section 2 and 7 of section 92 of the chapter X of the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules 2006.

Shorten procedure of timber application and allocation.
All three agencies (Geog, Dzongkhag and DFO) through whom an application has to route, are found to be more or less performing the same functions. Therefore, there is scope to reduce procedure by doing away with the process of having to route through Dzongkhag. This may not necessarily lead to corruption or misuse, but will certainly ease the application process. However, if it is for check and balance, is this system alone adequate?

Disallow loaning of subsidized timber
Loaning of timber is found to be one of the major difficulties faced during the course of monitoring by forestry staff. This is because people collude with each other to disguise deflecting of subsidized timber.
Since the subsidized timber will have to be requested based on the need to construct one’s house, the alibi of not having enough money, man power and so on should not hold any water for non utilization/loaning of timber. Therefore, Sub-section 11 of section 97 of the FNCR 2006 should be deleted all together.

Status of implementation
The table shows the status of implementation by Department of Forest in line with 7 recommendations suggested by ACC.