In the past, most governments and donor agencies considered fuelwood as a mere energy demand and supply problem (RWEDP, 1993). The diagnosis of the problems and design for solutions have been based on simple models of supply and demand, i. e. gap theory (Soussan, 1993). This has led to programs for planting trees, reducing consumption through the introduction of improved cooking stoves, and upgrading of the quality of biomass fuels.

The approach adopted for the dissemination of improved cooking stove (ICS) was essentially technology-focused, and with a few notable exceptions in the plains, these efforts have failed to have lasting impact on fuelwood scarcity. The failure of such technology-focused attempts has been documented in Rijal (1996) and RWEDP (1997). These interventions ignored the multiplicity of existing traditional techno­logies and disregarded sociocultural values. Since consumption of fuelwood was perceived as the main cause of deforestation, other factors such as collection of fodder for livestock, land needs for cultivation, and large-scale felling of timber, never received appropriate attention. Alleviation of human drudgery, improvement of deteriorating health conditions and the problems of soil fertility were never considered seriously.

The frequent failure of many such policy initiatives has led to a reappraisal of the fuelwood crisis. A number of studies (Soussan, 1993; RWEDP and ICIMOD, 1997) argue that biomass fuel production and use are intimately integrated into broader processes of resource management in local production systems. Fuelwood problems are likely to emerge gradually, as people respond to a variety of resource stresses. This means that fuelwood stress rarely manifests itself as a simple shortage of fuel (Soussan, 1993).

The issues of control over decisions concerning land and other resources are at the heart of effective fuelwood policies and programs in the context of mountain areas. In previous attempts, local and national governments have failed to establish the conditions that would allow efficient and sustainable allocation of land and resources for woods and cropland, or wood production and food (Durning, 1993; FAO, 1993; WWF and IUCN, 1996).

Although activities to be undertaken in any fuelwood strategy will vary according to prevailing local conditions in the mountain areas of each particular country, in general policy interventions should seek the following (Soussan, 1993; WWF and IUCN, 1996; RWEDP, 1997; Rijal, 1999):

• To secure property rights, and especially ensure the rights of those groups experiencing the worst problems over access to fuelwood resources. This should include customary and communal rights as well as private property rights.

• To improve market functions by eliminating policy-induced distortions in the prices of different types of energy resources and technologies. For example, decision makers are never concerned with the prevailing subsidy on commercial fuels (electricity and petroleum fuels) but always emphasize the commercializa­tion of new and renewable energy technologies. All kinds of energy resources and technologies should be judged by providing a level playing field.

• To improve access to, and management of various renewable energy tech­nologies and commercial fuels so that the options are made available for the mountain people to make appropriate decisions about their energy requirements.

• To bring the voice of the community to the fore, and build effective institutional structures to give the actors on the ground a real control over the decisions that affect their lives.

There is a need to develop specific fuelwood sector strategies that can capture the local specificity of fuelwood problems and opportunities in mountain areas. This should be accompanied by (Rijal, 1996; Soussan, 1993; RWEDP, 1997):

• Improvement on information, including the creation of a database at the lowest level of planning so as to understand the dynamics of biomass fuel production and use in mountain areas;

• Strengthening of the capability of fuelwood planning institutions at local and national levels to create an effective implementation capacity;

• Strengthening of coordination between different agencies as fuelwood issues are inherently cross-sectoral in nature; and

• Efforts to involve local people more (particularly women) in the planning and implementation of forestry and fuelwood programs.

Movement in this direction has begun in recent years, and a number of issues are emerging in the context of hill and mountain areas of Nepal. Some of these issues are also relevant in other countries of the HKH region. A few examples of critical issues are mentioned here.

• A community forestry program was being implemented in Nepal based on the demand of forestry users’ groups. The program involved the transfer of forests to the users’ groups and had a demand-driven approach. After the promulgation of the Forestry Act 1993 and the Forestry Regulation 1995, the Department of Forest rushed to formalize the forest users’ groups and to hand over forest patches to the communities. This was done without a proper assessment of the wood energy needs of different groups. At this point, the program took a more conservationist approach focused on the formalization of property rights. The richer section of the population took control of the forest users’ groups after they received legal status. As a result, poorer groups were given limited access to forest resources, which led to further marginalization.

• It is important to pay attention to the sustainability of supply and demand of fuelwood, including also other forest products such as medicinal herbs, fodder, and timber. This should be considered under various forest management types such as community forest, leasehold forest, social forestry, Joint Forest Management, and private forest. There are more than 200 community forestry users’ groups and other types of forest management practices within a district (1000-2000 km2) of Nepal. Within a particular district some of the user groups are large (300 people) but have ownership of small patches of forest (10-15 ha). Meanwhile, some user groups are small (20-50 people) but own 100 ha or more. In the former case, women and vulnerable groups (low caste) have limited access and, in many instances, are bound to collect fuelwood from government forests for their own consumption, or to sell in the village or other markets and make their livelihoods. In the latter case, there is a surplus generation of cash income as the result of sales of forest produce, which has been the cause of many conflicts.

• Another important issue that needs consideration refers to the costs and benefits of forest management interventions (including clean energy development, community forestry and watershed management) and related environmental services. While such costs and benefits are envisaged within the boundaries of the upstream areas and communities, most of the benefits would accrue to the communities living in the adjoining plains or valleys. What kind of policies and institutional arrangements would allow transfer of these benefits to the upstream communities, so that the cost they bear for interventions is reduced? There is need to develop methodologies that better assess and help to distribute the social costs and benefits of development interventions in upstream and downstream communities.

The aforementioned issues need to be carefully examined. Central to these issues is the possibility to capture the diversity and dynamism of local fuelwood and energy situation in the mountains in a broader context of community development. This is a key to making program interventions relevant and responsive to the needs of the mountain people rather than let them become hostages of any particular set of vested interests.

A broader framework for the management of forest resources in mountain areas can help meet daily energy needs better while also reducing the rate of deforestation, reducing the loss of life due to land slides, increasing the crop productivity by reducing soil erosion and loss of soil nutrient, and balancing the seasonal fluctuation of water levels in the streams and rivers originating from mountains. In addition, such a framework shall also help to reduce flooding of the adjoining plains, regulating the flow of water and timber for people residing in the plain areas.