short essay on the community forest in nepal

• Steering Committee
• Secretariat
• How to become a member
• Biodiversity
• Current status
• CBD / SEPLS / Satoyama Initiative
• Aichi Targets
• What is biodiversity ?
• Cuurent status
• What is CBD ?
• What is SEPLS ?
• What is Satoyama Initiative ?
• Meetings and events
• IPSI collaborative activities
• Case studies
• Members’ activities
• CASE STUDIES
• IPSI Collaborative Activities
• IPSI Global Conference
• Regional Workshop
• Other events
• ">Announcements
• Announcements
• Publications
• CBD related

Fig 1: Community Forest with surrounding settlement and forests

TOP CASE STUDY Community Forestry in Nepal

Community Forestry in Nepal

SUBMITTED ORGANISATION :

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal

DATE OF SUBMISSION :

Southern Asia

Community Forestry is increasingly recognized as a means for promoting sustainable forest management and restoring degraded forests for enhancing the forest condition as well livelihoods of low income people and forest dependent communities worldwide. It also promotes community rights to forests, enhances forest sector governance and local democracy along with mitigation of adverse environmental and climate change effects. Nepal has a well-documented history of over 30 years in community forestry and has been regarded as a model demonstrating the sometimes difficult paradigm shift from government-controlled forestry to active people’s participation. The Forest Act 1993 provided a clear legal basis for community forestry, enabling the government to ‘hand over’ identified areas of forest to CFUGs in Nepal. Some 1.23 million hectare forest out of 5.5 million hectare of total forest area has been managed under community forest with active participation of more than 14000 Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) in various parts of the country. Patale CF, for example, was almost barren prior to being handed over to a CFUG and now is a fully stocked forest with lots of flora and fauna. CFUGs are managing forests with different silvicultural and management activities. Benefits accrued from forests are utilized for forest management, livelihood improvement, and social and community development activities. Indeed, community forestry and the Patale CF in particular is now widely perceived as having real capacity for making an effective contribution towards addressing environmental, socioeconomic and political problems in Nepal .

Community Forest, Community Forest User Group (CFUG), community development, governance, Handover, Livelihood, Silviculture, Sustainable Forest Management

Mr. Shankar Adhikari, permanent resident of Rupse-4 Palpa, is currently working as Forest Officer in District Forest Office Lalitpur under Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation Nepal. He has completed his graduation in Forestry from Institute of Forestry Pokhara in 2009 and is keenly interested in Forestry, Biodiversity and Ecological services issues. The role of forests and biodiversity in climate change adaptation and mitigation is also another field of his interest.

Back Ground

Community forestry has achieved broad global acclaim over the past three decades as a successful model for natural resource management that is innovative, people-centered and effective.   It is increasingly recognized as a means for promoting sustainable forest management and restoring degraded forests, for enhancing the livelihoods of low income people, forest dependent communities, for promoting community rights to forests, for enhancing forest sector governance and local democracy, and for mitigating the effects of climate change. Nepal, as one of the first countries to experiment with community forestry, has now come to be widely recognized as being at the forefront of its development and has perhaps made greater progress than many other countries in establishing it as the cornerstone of its forest sector policy. It has a well-documented history of over 30 years in community forestry internationally, and it is regarded as a model demonstrating the sometimes difficult paradigm shift from government-controlled forestry to active people’s participation -one that is observed with keen interest for lessons that can be learnt and applied elsewhere. It is now widely perceived as having real capacity for making an effective contribution towards addressing environmental, socioeconomic and political problems. This case study deals with overview of community forestry in Nepal with an illustration of Patale Community Forest.

Evolution of Community Forestry Policy, Programme and Legislation

The failure of a centrally controlled bureaucratic system of classical forestry, and the existence of informal indigenous forest management provided the impetus for institutional innovation in Nepal’s forestry sector. Successive refinement of partnership arrangements between local communities and the state forest agency based on practices in the field, and mutual assessment of the results has led to the growth of community forestry. The initial phase of community forestry in Nepal was geared towards assigning responsibilities and rights of local forest management to the village level political bodies’ i.e Panchayat with the enactment of the Panchayat Forest Rules and the Panchayat Protected Forest Rules, 1978. It was based on protecting and planting trees to meet the forest product needs of the local people based on the principle of ‘gap analysis’. Three years of rigorous study and consultation in the preparation of the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS), in addition to the first national level workshop on community forestry held in 1987 laid the foundation for handing over forests to groups of traditional forest users so that they could meet their basic forest product needs and at the same time conserve these forests. Reorientation of foresters was also considered essential for the sustainable management of these community forests. The MPFS further stressed that participation of local communities in decision-making and benefit sharing was essential for the conservation of forest management. The endorsement of MPFS in 1988 and the political regime change in 1990 were instrumental in the formulation of new forest act in 1993 and forest regulations in 1995. By the early 1990s, however, continued experiential learning had started to highlight deficiencies in the legislative framework under which the community forestry model was being implemented. In particular, the key role of the Panchayat as a local institution began to be questioned. Panchayat were often large (geographically and in terms of population) and tended to be dominated by the traditional elite in rural society (wealthier, better educated, male and high caste). It was found that actual management of community forest and day-to-day decision-making on how the forest was to be developed and used would improve if they were undertaken by those people most directly affected by such decisions and prepared to contribute time and inputs into what they considered as their local resource. Thus, the concept of ‘forest users’ arose, i.e. those local people who traditionally used a particular patch of forest. Subsequently, community forestry became based around the community forest user groups (CFUGs) rather than the panchayat. Much effort during the early 1990s thus became focused on basing community forestry at the community level and seeking ways to bring such disparate groups together into CFUGs. The Forest Act 1993 provided a clear legal basis for community forestry, enabling the government to ‘hand over’ identified areas of forest to CFUGs. The procedures were later detailed in the 1995 Forest Regulations, backed by the Community Forestry Operational Guidelines 1995. According to the Forest Act and the associated Forest Regulations, CFUGs are legal, autonomous and corporate bodies having full power, authority and responsibility to protect, manage and utilize forest and other resources as per the decisions taken by their assemblies and according to their self prepared constitutions and operational plans (with minimal scope for interference from the state forestry agency). Although all benefits from community forests would go to the CFUGs concerned, the land legally remained part of the state.

Important characteristics of formal CF legislation are:

• All accessible forests can be handed over to users without any limitation on area, geography and time
• Land ownership remains with the state, while the land use rights belong to the CFUGs
• All management decisions (land management and forest management) are made by the CFUGs
• Each member of the CFUG has equal rights over the resources
• Each household is recognized as a unit for the membership
• CFUGs will not be affected by political boundaries
• Outsiders are excluded from access
• There are mutually recognized user-rights
• There will be an equitable distribution of benefits
• The State provides technical assistance and advice.

Status of Community Forestry in Nepal

Figure 1: Handing Over CF over time

(Source: Gautam 2010)

Patale Community Forest

Fig 1: Community Forest with surrounding settlement and forests Patale Community Forest (CF) is sandwiched between two community forests, namely Kafle CF and Padali CF in Lamatar Village Development Committee (V.D.C) ward number 1, situated in Lalitpur district just 11 km from Kathmandu, capital of Nepal. It is located at 270′ 27′ north, 270′ 37′ east latitude and longitude, respectively. The community forest consists of 104.6 ha land covering 162 households within a community forest user group (CFUG) with 881 total populations in which 430 are female and 451 are male members. The vegetation type is a mixed one with Chilaune (Schima castanopsis), Katus (Castanopsis indica) and Utis (Alnus nepalensis) as the dominant species. For sustainable management of the forest, it is divided into six blocks, all of which include a fire line to protect from forest fires. From the upper part of this forest scenic view of Kathmandu Valley as well as sunrise view can be observed.

Fig 2: Scenic view of Kathmandu Valley from the community forest area

Historical Background of Patle CF

Prior to 1970, forest conditions were very good with abundant vegetation including trees, shrubs, Non timber forest Products (NTFPs), Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAPs), different wildlife species and plenty of water sources. After 1970, due to an increase in population pressure on the forest and a lack of sufficient source of income for the people to their livelihoods, anthropogenic pressures in this forest rose tremendously, leading to massive deforestation and degradation of the forest. While forest was facing deforestation, in 1985 this forest faced the incident of big forest fire resulting complete loss of vegetation wildlife and converting forest into a denuded hill. Consequently, water sources also disappeared and people faced the problem of having to walk 8-10 hours even to transport a single jar of water. In order to control population pressure and conserve and protect the forest from further deterioration, with the initiation of local communities and the District Forest Office, local people were brought together for conservation and management of that forest and the forest was then handed over to the community forest user group (CFUG) to be managed as a community forest in 1994 after promulgation of the new Forest Act of 1993. Since then, it has been under the control of the community, the condition of the forest has improved, and people are benefitting from forest resources.

CFUGs have their own constitution, which governs the whole user group as well as the executive committee. Executive committee consists of 13 members with six females and seven males’ members. This executive committee looks after the decision making activities within the group. The group has classified households into rich, medium, poor and very poor categories i.e. A, B, C, D. The classification is based on a well‐being ranking and the intention of conducting livelihood improvement program especially focusing on the C and D categories. Similarly, the CFUG also focuses its activities on improving governance status and promoting transparency and accountability. Moreover, it has created a separate monitoring and evaluation subcommittee and an account subcommittee.

Fig. 3: Constitution of Patale CFUG

How is the CFUG conserving and managing the forest?

The CFUG has prepared a five-year Community Forest Operation Plan (CFOP) with technical support from the forest technician of the district forest office. It encompasses overall features of the forest, growing stock, block division, forest management as well as silvicultural operation activities, conservation measures. It also covers provisions for the harvesting, utilization, selling, etc of forest products. CFUGs have to base their activities on this technical document for overall management of the forest. Once approved from district forest officer of district forest office, it becomes officially functional. Based on the approved operational plan, the following forest conservation and management activities are being carried out by the CFUG:

• Protection of forest from uncontrolled grazing, illegal cutting, and forest fires, etc.
• Regular patrolling by CFUG members to conserve the forest and prevent illegal activities like encroachment, tree cutting, etc.
• Provisioning of forest watchers
• Grazing controls
• Hunting controls
• Rewarding informants informing about the activities of illegal activities within the CF
• Complete control over the collection of stone, sand, as well as all activities causing soil erosion, degradation as well as loss of biodiversity.
• Soil erosion controls
• Forest fire controls
• Punishment of persons conducting any activities against the rules of CF.

Major Silvicultural Activities

• Shrub land improvement: they have prepared a shrub land improvement demonstration plot
• Thinning and singling
• Planting and weeding
• Conversion of Pine Forest into Broadleaved forests.
• NTFP demonstration Plot

Fig 5: Plantation being carried out

Forest Product utilization and distribution:

The CFUG has made provisions within its Community Forest Operational plan regarding the collection procedures for timber, firewood, fodder, forage and leaf litter, as well as a timeframe for carrying out different forest management activities. They consume these products within the CFUG and if they have surpluses of these products, they can sell them outside the CFUG.

Major Vegetation and Wild life within CF

Major vegetation of this forest is as follows:

Bears, different species of deer, leopards, pangolins, rabbits, wolves, snakes and bats are found within this forest. Similarly, various types of birds, reptiles, insects and mammals also occur here.

Sources of Income

• Water selling

• Selling of Forest Products
• Membership fee and membership renewal
• Fee from visitors as well as researchers
• Support from different organizations

Now the CFUG has about US $1834 (NRs132000) in its fund The CFUG has been profitably establishing linkages with different grassroots organizations like social clubs, the livestock management committee, the village development committee, the district development committee, media, range posts, NGOs, etc. This has enriched the group and its members across a wide range of issues. Apart from forest conservation and management, CF has been contributing to different aspects of the community, as well as social development activities, as summarized as follows

• Institutional development of the CFUG
• Investment in community and local development: the CFUG has been supporting different types of development activities like road construction, community building construction, drinking water management, cultural preservation activities, ecotourism promotion, income generating activities, etc.
• Scholarships as well as stationery for low income, diligent and marginalized groups of students.
• Supply of forest products for different types of social development work
• Support for income generating activities like goat and pig raising for women and disadvantaged members of the CFUG, i.e. the previously described C and D categories
• Ecotourism promotion

Fig 7: CFUG members

Fig 8: CFUG office room

Future strategy

• Conducting different forest conservation and management activities.
• Conversion of pine forests into broadleaf forests for multiple benefits.
• Capacity building for CFUG members, especially those in the C and D categories.
• Planting of Lapsi (Choerospondis axilaris), multipurpose tree/fruit species, on 2 ha of land.
• Maintenance and promotion of NTFP demonstration plot.
• Commercial production of Bio Briquettes.
• As per the new CF guidelines of 2009, appropriate funding will be allocated for forest development, community development as well as poverty reduction programs; these activities will be implemented accordingly.
• In consideration of Tourism Year 2011 in Nepal, a variety of programs related to ecotourism promotion will be carried out.
• Initiative will be taken in implementing Local Payment for Environmental Services (PES) mechanisms.
• All benefits accrued from the forest will be distributed in an equitable way based on the well-being ranking and contributions of users.
• Recognizing the NTFPS (MAPs) within the forest, forest resource based enterprises will be conducted.
• In coordination with forest-related groups/institutions, NGOs, government agencies as well as donor agencies, programs related to forest development, institutional capacity enhancement and poverty reduction will be carried out.

Lessons Learnt

From the community forestry overview in Nepal as well as the Palate CF case study, in particular, the following lessons were learnt:

• First, community forestry is a viable resource management approach for conserving and improving the condition of forest resources if appropriate policy, policymaking processes and compliance mechanisms are maintained.
• Second, CFUGs can become effective and inclusive institutions, bringing together the rich and the poor, men and women, dalits (untouchable caste) and non-dalits, to address poverty and social exclusion by utilizing available resources for both subsistence and commercial purposes.
• Third, CFUGs, if given complete autonomy and devolution of power, can become viable local institutions for sustaining local democracy and delivering rural development services by creating income generating activities, and establishing partnerships with many NGOs and private sector service providers.

References:

Acharya, K. P. (2002) Twenty Four Years of Community Forestry in Nepal. International Forestry Review 4 (2): 149-146.

Anon (2007) Community forest Operation Plan (2007). Lalitpur: Patale Community Forest User Group, Lalitpur Nepal

Anon (2010) Community forest Constitution (2010). Lalitpur: Patale Community Forest User Group, Lalitpur Nepal

Gautam, M (2010) Community Forest Development Program. CF Bulletin 15 :2-3

Kanel, K.R. (2004) Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution to Millennium Development Goals. Kathmandu, Nepal: 4th National Workshop on Community Forestry 2004

Kanel, K.R. (2009) Partnership in Community Forest: Implications and lessons. Pokhara, Nepal: Community Forestry International Workshop 2009

Pokharel B.K et al. (2007) Community Forestry: Conserving Forests, Sustaining Livelihoods and Strengthening Democracy. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6(2): 8-19

• Capital formation in rural communities;
• Policy and governance reform of various organizations and agencies; and
• Contribution in the process of community empowerment and social change.
• There is enabling policy that recognizes community forestry as the first priority programme of the forestry sector. Community forestry legislation is in place that legitimizes the rights of the user groups. All 12,000 FUGs have their own constitution and Operational Plan that provide legal basis for user group to protect, use, harvest and market the forest products on their own.
• In addition to the government organizations, agencies, officials and staff, there are various service providing organizations including CFUG federations, NGOs, local bodies bilateral projects, and which are emerging and expanding their roles and may are willing to further support the community forestry programme to make it more effective to address the challenges and issues, which will be highlighted later in this article.
• There are many trained human resources within and outside government system. Financial resources and additional expertise offered by donor communities and INGOs have helped to find the ways and means for sustainable forest management and rural livelihoods. Ministry and Department of Forests are the one of the oldest and established government institutions with good infra-structure, tremendous amount of knowledge and skilled manpower and forest resource base of about 40% of the total land area of the country. Many of the CFUGs that have been established thorough out the country are innovative and functioning well not only in managing the forests but also have become good vehicle of rural development and most of these groups have been managing forest resources in a much better way than the government organizations.
• The presence of donor communities who are engaged in building capacity of stakeholders and government agencies together with the work of some international research organizations in generating knowledge have provided Nepal some opportunities to innovate, experiment and learn for workable approaches, methods and tools to promote community forestry.

We can help you reset your password using the email address linked to your BioOne Complete account.

• BioOne Complete
• BioOne eBook Titles
• By Publisher
• About BioOne Digital Library
• How to Subscribe & Access
• Library Resources
• Publisher Resources
• Instructor Resources
• FIGURES & TABLES
• DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

We provide a critical analysis of academic literature on Nepali community forestry.

Existing literature shows improving social and environmental outcomes.

Economic outcomes are modest, less clear and unevenly distributed.

We argue that more consistent methodological approaches are needed to evaluate community forestry impacts.

A deeper understanding of the politicization of community forestry needs to be developed.

Community forestry praxis has a long history in Nepal. The country is often considered an exemplar in promoting community forestry for environment and development. In this paper, we provide a critical review of Nepali community forestry scholarship to offer internationally relevant lessons and to identify areas of future research. Our review shows that community forestry outcomes have been mixed. Despite playing a role in improving social and environmental outcomes, its provision of economic benefits are modest, not always clear and unevenly distributed. The impacts of community forestry have been heavily influenced by government intervention, with the government controlling valuable forests. We conclude that: 1) more rigorous and consistent methodologies are needed to evaluate community forestry outcomes; 2) the notion of community needs to critically be questioned to understand the dynamics of internal migration patterns, and; 3) a deeper understanding of the politicization of community forestry needs to be developed.

Il existe une longue histoire de la pratique de la foresterie communautaire au Népal. Le pays est souvent considéré comme exemplaire dans sa promotion de la foresterie communautaire pour l'environnement et le développement. Dans ce papier, nous proposons un examen critique de la capacité du savoir népalais en foresterie communautaire à offrir des leçons pertinentes à l'échelle internationale, et identifions les secteurs de recherche future. Notre étude montre que les résultats de la foresterie communautaire ont été mitigés. Bien qu'elle joue un rôle dans l'amélioration des résultats sociaux et environnementaux, les bénéfices économiques qu'elle génère sont modestes, manquant souvent de clarté, et inégalement distribués. Les impacts de la foresterie communautaire ont été fortement influencés par l'intervention gouvernementale, le gouvernement contrôlant les forêts d'importance. Nous en concluons que: 1) des méthodologies plus cohérentes et rigoureuses sont nécessaires pour évaluer les résultats de la foresterie communautaire, 2) il faut que la notion de communauté soit mise en question de façon critique pour comprendre la dynamique des courants de migration interne, 3) une compréhension plus profonde de la politisation de la foresterie communautaire doit être développée.

La práctica de la silvicultura comunitaria tiene una larga historia en Nepal. El país suele considerarse un ejemplo en la promoción de la silvicultura comunitaria para el medio ambiente y el desarrollo. En este artículo se presenta una revisión crítica de los estudios sobre silvicultura comunitaria en Nepal con el fin de ofrecer lecciones relevantes a nivel internacional e identificar áreas de investigación futura. La revisión muestra que los resultados de la silvicultura comunitaria han sido variados. A pesar de desempeñar un papel en la mejora de los resultados sociales y medioambientales, la aportación de sus beneficios económicos es modesta, no siempre clara y distribuida de forma desigual. Los impactos de la silvicultura comunitaria han estado muy influenciados por la intervención gubernamental, ya que el gobierno controla los bosques valiosos. Se concluye que: 1) hacen falta metodologías más rigurosas y uniformes para evaluar los resultados de la silvicultura comunitaria; 2) es necesario cuestionar críticamente la noción de comunidad para comprender la dinámica de los patrones de migración interna, y; 3) es necesario desarrollar una comprensión más profunda de la politización de la silvicultura comunitaria.

KEYWORDS/PHRASES

Publication title:, collection:, publication years.

Location successfully changed to English (Global)

English (global), clientearth communications, what can we learn from community forests in nepal.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Forest governance in nepal concerning sustainable community forest management and red panda conservation.

1. Introduction

1.1. community forest, forest governance, and red panda conservation in nepal, 1.2. prevalence of marginalization despite successful community forest management, 2.1. literature search and search strategies, 2.2. case studies, 2.2.1. governance framework.

• Inclusiveness: Evidence exists that all stakeholders are properly represented, regardless of gender, caste, or class, with an emphasis on including and involving indigenous and marginalized groups in all aspects of forest governance, management, and red panda conservation.
• Equality: Evidence exists that all stakeholders’ perspectives, particularly those of marginalized groups and rights holders, are taken into account beginning with the project proposal preparation stage, when choosing program activities, and when making decisions.
• Resources: Evidence exists that there is a provision of financial, technical, and human resources for alternate means of subsistence and economic empowerment to Dalits and other marginalized groups who depend on the forest for their survival.
• Accountability: There is proof that all training, programs, and initiatives involve all stakeholders, including women and other marginalized groups/communities, as well as governmental agencies at the divisional and municipal levels involved in forest management and red panda conservation. There is evidence that all people, particularly marginalized communities, are held accountable for forest governance programs and actions.
• Transparency: There is evidence that local communities and other stakeholders were informed about all programs and initiatives through regular meetings, webinars, IEC materials, hoarding boards, websites, and the broadcasting of reports and publications.
• Democracy: There is evidence that all relevant stakeholders, including Indigenous people and marginalized groups, are actively involved in democratic decision-making processes such as the planning, prioritization, and implementation of forest governance programs in forest management and red panda conservation, ensuring that their perspectives and preferences are taken into account.
• Agreement: Evidence exists that agreements are reached by consensus among all stakeholders based on majority votes.
• Dispute settlement: Evidence exists that disputes are resolved through proper consultation and discussion with relevant parties and in coordination with relevant institutions and government bodies, depending on the nature of the dispute, in the context of forest management and red panda conservation.
• Behavior change: There is evidence of the implementation of a policy in the Ministry of Forest and Environment of the Government of Nepal or other for payment of ecosystem services in the context of forest conservation and tree planting as well as rules for the use of resources such as timber, fodder, fuelwood, bamboo, and grass from the forest area, and for the cultivation of potential herbs and non-timber forest products.
• Problem solving: Evidence exists that proper forest management plans and activities are being implemented, including identifying the causes of deforestation and degradation and developing strategies to address them.
• Durability: Evidence exists of long-term planning and support, network establishment in the forestry sectors, and coordination and collaboration with formal and informal institutions to ensure the sustainability of the program.

2.2.2. Research Design, Sampling, and Data Collection

2.2.3. statistical analysis, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. history of forest sector development process, forest governance and its relation to community forest, sfm, and red panda conservation, 3.1.1. a brief history of forestry in nepal, 3.1.2. community forestry in nepal.

3.1.3. Forest Ecological Classifications in Nepal

3.1.4. forest governance, cfug, and sustainable forest management in nepal, 3.1.5. forest governance and red panda conservation in nepal, 3.2. case studies, 3.2.1. stakeholders’ attitude toward governance in the community forestry, 3.2.2. comparing stakeholder attitudes to governance of forest and red panda conservation, 4. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission. The Fifteenth Plan (Fiscal Year 2019/20–2023/24). 2020. Available online: https//www.npc.gov.np/images/category/15th_plan_English_Version.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2021).
• Jayasawal, D.; Bishwokarma, D. Scientific Forest Management Initiatives in Nepal ; Multi Stakeholder Forestry Program: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckholm, E. The deterioration of mountain environments: Ecological stress in the highlands of Asia, Latin America, and Africa takes a mounting social toll. Science 1975 , 189 , 764–770. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gautam, A.; Shivakoti, G.; Webb, E.L. Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2004 , 33 , 48–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chapagain, S.; Aase, T.H. Changing forest coverage and understanding of deforestation in Nepal Himalayas. Geogr. J. Nepal 2020 , 13 , 1–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kanel, K.R.; Poudyal, R.; Baral, J.C. Current Status of Community Forestry in Nepal ; Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilmour, D. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness ; FAO Forestry Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acharya, K. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 2002 , 4 , 149–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pokharel, R.K.; Tiwari, K.R. Good governance assessment in Nepal’s community forestry. J. Sustain. For. 2013 , 32 , 549–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pagdee, A.; Kim, Y.; Daugherty, J. What Makes Community Forest Management Successful: A Meta-Study From Community Forests Throughout the World. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005 , 19 , 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kathmandu, N. Central Bureau of Statistics. Environ. Stat. Nepal 2019 , 33 , 30–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acharya, B. Practice and implementation of forest certification in Nepal. Master’s Thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luintel, H.; Bluffstone, R.A.; Scheller, R.M. The effects of the Nepal community forestry program on biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0199526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pathak, B.R.; Yi, X.; Bohara, R. Community based forestry in Nepal: Status, issues and lessons learned. Int. J. Sci. 2017 , 6 , 119–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Breakey, H.; Cadman, T.; Sampford, C. Governance Values and Institutional Integrity. In Governing the Climate Change Regime ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016; pp. 34–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cadman, T. Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: Case Lessons from Forestry ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• MoFE. Format for Reporting on Progress towards the Implementation of the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests. 2019. Available online: https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Austria_report.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2022).
• MoFE. Forest Act 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Forest-Act-2019-2076.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
• Red Panda Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2019–2023) ; Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department of Forests and Soil Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2018.
• Kanel, K.R.; Kandel, B.R. Community forestry in Nepal: Achievements and challenges. J. For. Livelihood 2004 , 4 , 55–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baral, S. Attempts of recentralization of Nepal’s Community Forestry. For. J. Inst. For. Nepal 2018 , 15 , 97–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Puri, L.; Nuberg, I.; Ostendorf, B.; Cedamon, E. Locally Perceived Social and Biophysical Factors Shaping the Effective Implementation of Community Forest Management Operations in Nepal. Small-Scale For. 2020 , 19 , 291–317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosen, L. Who Benefits? Gender Equity and Social Inclusion Among Community Forest User Groups in Nepal: Who Benefits? 2020. Available online: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/72665/Leala_Rosen_MPS_Capstone_Paper.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
• Gurung, A.; Karki, R.; Bista, R. Community-based forest management in Nepal: Opportunities and challenges. Resour. Environ. 2011 , 1 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhatta, B.; Gentle, P. Strengthening the Internal Governance of the CFUGs: Experience of SAMARPAN Project—Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry: Contribution in Millennium Development Goal. 2004, pp. 4–6. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Popular-Gentle/publication/273831113_Strengthening_the_internal_governance_of_the_CFUGs_Experience_of_SAMARPAN_Project/links/550e2ba60cf27526109cf0e6/Strengthening-the-internal-governance-of-the-CFUGs-Experience-of-SAMARPAN-Project.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2022).
• Von Braun, J.; Gatzweiler, F.W. Marginality—An Overview and Implications for Policy. In Marginality ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Larson, A.M.; Pacheco, P.; Toni, F.; Vallejo, M. Trends in Latin American forestry decentralisations: Legal frameworks, municipal governments and forest dependent groups. Int. For. Rev. 2007 , 9 , 734–747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• IGES. Quality of Governance Standard for Forest Sector Activities and Programmes in Nepal at the Community Forest Management Level ; Version 1; IGES: Hayama, Japan, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattarai, B. What makes local elites work for the poor? A case of community forestry user group, Nepal. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests: Tenure, Market, and Policy Reforms, Bangkok, Thailand, 3–7 September 2007; Regional Community Forestry Training Center: Bangkok, Thailand, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentle, P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Paudel, D.; Dahal, G.R.; Kanel, T.; Pathak, B. Effectiveness of community forest user groups (CFUGs) in responding to the 2015 earthquakes and COVID-19 in Nepal. Res. Glob. 2020 , 2 , 100025. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hobley, M.; Jha, C.; Poudel, K. Persistence and Change: Review of 30 Years of Community Forestry in Nepal ; HURDEC: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karki, S.; Maraseni, T.; Mackey, B.; Bista, D.; Lama, S.T.; Gautam, A.P.; Sherpa, A.P.; Koju, U.; Shrestha, A.; Cadman, T. Reaching over the gap: A review of trends in and status of red panda research over 193 years (1827–2020). Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 781 , 146659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Budhathoki, A.; Babel, M.S.; Shrestha, S.; Meon, G.; Kamalamma, A.G. Climate change impact on water balance and hydrological extremes in different physiographic regions of the West Seti River Basin, Nepal. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2021 , 21 , 79–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koenig-Archibugi, M. Introduction: Institutional Diversity in Global Governance. In New Modes of Governance in the Global System ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 1–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009 , 151 , 264–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lammerts van Bueren, E.M.; Blom, E.M. Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards ; Tropenbos Foundation: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T. The governance of REDD+: An institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012 , 55 , 617–635. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T. More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013 , 26 , 214–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cadman, T.; Eastwood, L.; Michaelis, F.L.C.; Maraseni, T.N.; Pittock, J.; Sarker, T. The Political Economy of Sustainable Development: Policy Instruments and Market Mechanisms ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T.; Breakey, H.; López-Casero, F.; Ma, H.O. Governance values in the climate change regime: Stakeholder perceptions of REDD+ legitimacy at the national level. Forests 2016 , 7 , 212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cadman, T. Quality, Legitimacy and Global Governance: A Comparative Analysis of Four Forest Institutions ; University of Tasmania: Hobart, Australia, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maraseni, T.N.; Bhattarai, N.; Karky, B.S.; Cadman, T.; Timalsina, N.; Bhandari, T.S.; Apan, A.; Ma, H.O.; Rawat, R.; Verma, N.; et al. An assessment of governance quality for community-based forest management systems in Asia: Prioritisation of governance indicators at various scales. Land Use Policy 2019 , 81 , 750–761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sevelius, J.M.; Gutierrez-Mock, L.; Zamudio-Haas, S.; McCree, B.; Ngo, A.; Jackson, A.; Clynes, C.; Venegas, L.; Salinas, A.; Herrera, C.; et al. Research with marginalized communities: Challenges to continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIDS Behav. 2020 , 24 , 2009–2012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lamichhane, D.; Parajuli, R. How good is the governance status in community forestry? A case study from midhills in Nepal. J. Ecosyst. 2014 , 2014 , 541374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ghimire, P.; Lamichhane, U. Community based forest management in Nepal: Current status, successes and challenges. Grassroots J. Nat. Resour. 2020 , 3 , 16–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colfer, C.J. Marginalized forest peoples’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: An exploration. World Dev. 2011 , 39 , 2147–2164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bebchuk, L.A.; Hamdani, A. The elusive quest for global governance standards. Univ. PA Law Rev. 2008 , 157 , 1263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauli, K.; Rishi, P. Do the marginalised class really participate in Community Forestry? A case study from Western Terai Region of Nepal. For. Trees Livelihoods 2004 , 14 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maskey, G.; Adhikari, B. REDD+ and Community forestry in Nepal: Strengthening or paralysing decentralised governance? J. For. Livelihood 2018 , 16 , 35–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• McDougall, C.L.; Leeuwis, C.; Bhattarai, T.; Maharjan, M.R.; Jiggins, J. Engaging women and the poor: Adaptive collaborative governance of community forests in Nepal. Agric. Human Values 2013 , 30 , 569–585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishwakarma, M. Democratic politics in Nepal: Dalit political inequality and representation. Asian J. Comp. Polit. 2017 , 2 , 261–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, P.; Singh, U.; Pandey, C.M.; Mishra, P.; Pandey, G. Application of student’s t-test, analysis of variance, and covariance. Ann. Card. Anaesth. 2019 , 22 , 407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schepers, J.; Wetzels, M. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inf. Manag. 2007 , 44 , 90–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagle, R.; Pillay, S.; Wright, W. The History of Nepalese Forest Management and the Roles of Women. In Feminist Institutionalism and Gendered Bureaucracies ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 67–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhary, R.; Uprety, Y.; Rimal, S.K. Deforestation in Nepal: Causes, Consequences and Responses. In Biological and Environmental Hazards, Risks, and Disasters ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 335–372. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Bank. Community Forestry in Nepal ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amatya, S.M. Financing for Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal ; Indufor: Auckland, New Zealand, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pokharel, R.K.; Neupane, R.; Tiwari, K.R.; Köhl, M. Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: A case from Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2015 , 58 , 75–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jhaveri, N.J.; Adhikari, J. Nepal Land and Natural Resource Tenure Assessment for Proposed Emission Reductions Program in the Terai Arc Landscape ; USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
• Pulhin, J.M. The Evolution of Community Forestry. Community Forestry: Paradoxes and Perspectives in Development Practice. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 1996; pp. 12–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dev, O.; Yadav, N. Springate-Baginski, and J. Soussan. Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. J. For. Livelihood 2003 , 3 , 64–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tripathi, S.; Subedi, R.; Adhikari, H. Forest cover change pattern after the intervention of community forestry management system in the mid-hill of Nepal: A case study. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 2756. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khanal, Y.; Upadhyaya, C.; Sharma, R. Economic valuation of water supply service from two community forests in Palpa district. Banko Janakari 2010 , 20 , 24–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pandey, H.; Paudel, G.; Pokhrel, S.; Pokhrel, N. Environmental variables and carbon enhancement in community forests, Nepal. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2020 , 2 , 22–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentle, P.; Thwaites, R.; Race, D.; Alexander, K. A reflection on the role of community forest user groups to enable vulnerable communities to adapt to climate change in Nepal. In Proceedings of the 14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), Fuji, Japan, 3–7 June 2013; pp. 3–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krajina, V.J. Ecosystem classification of forests. Silva Fenn. 1960 , 105 , 107–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivanova, N.; Fomin, V.; Kusbach, A. Experience of Forest Ecological Classification in Assessment of Vegetation Dynamics. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Timilsina, N.; Ross, M.S.; Heinen, J.T. A community analysis of sal (Shorea robusta) forests in the western Terai of Nepal. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007 , 241 , 223–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pfister, R.D.; Arno, S.F. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. For. Sci. 1980 , 26 , 52–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbati, A.; Corona, P.; Marchetti, M. A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: The case of European forest types. Plant Biosyst. 2007 , 141 , 93–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mucina, L.; Bültmann, H.; Dierßen, K.; Theurillat, J.; Raus, T.; Čarni, A.; Šumberová, K.; Willner, W.; Dengler, J.; García, R.G.; et al. Vegetation of Europe: Hierarchical floristic classification system of vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and algal communities. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2016 , 19 , 3–264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chaudhary, R. Forest conservation and environmental management in Nepal: A review. Biodivers. Conserv. 2000 , 9 , 1235–1260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paudel, P.K.; Bhattarai, B.P.; Kindlmann, P. An Overview of the Biodiversity in Nepal. In Himalayan Biodiversity in the Changing World ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stearn, W.T. Allium and Milula in the central and eastern Himalaya. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bot. 1960 , 2 , 161–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stainton, J.D.A. Forests of Nepal ; John Murray: London, UK, 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobremez, J.F. Nepal: Ecology and Biogeography ; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris, France, 1976.
• NARMSAP. Vegetation Types of Nepal. In Tree Improvement and Silviculture Component ; NARMSAP: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• MoEF. Forest Policy 2019 ; MoEF: New Delhi, India, 2019.
• NPC. Fourteenth Periodic Plan 2016/17–2018/19 ; NPC: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
• MoEF. Climate Change Policy 2019 ; MoEF: New Delhi, India, 2019.
• MoEF. National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan, Nepal 2018–2024 ; MoEF: New Delhi, India, 2018.
• MoFSC. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan, 2014–2020 ; Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014.
• MoFSC. Forestry Sector Strategy ; Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
• Webb, E.L.; Shivakoti, G. Decentralization, Forests and Rural Communities: Policy Outcomes in Southeast Asia ; SAGE Publications: New Delhi, India, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler, S.R. Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia ; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pokharel, B.K.; Niraula, D.R. Community Forestry Governance in Nepal: Achievements, Challenges and Options for the Future. 2004. Available online: https://www.forestaction.org/app/webroot/vendor/tinymce/editor/plugins/filemanager/files/8.%20CF_policy_Kanel%20and%20Kandel%20final_june%2029.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2022).
• Simon, D. Our common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development (book review). Third World Plann. Rev. 1987 , 9 , 285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Birnie, P. The UN and the Environment. United Nations, Divided World: The UN’s Roles in International Relations ; Roberts, A., Kingsbury, B., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 327–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, G.T.; Lane, M.B. Converging global indicators for sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 2004 , 6 , 63–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murty, T.S. Forests Source Book Practical Guidance for Sustaining Forests in Development Cooperation World Bank—WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pokharel, R.K. Indigenous forest management practices in some community forests of Nepal. Banko Janakari 2000 , 10 , 37–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Green Foundation Nepal. National Standards of Sustainable Forest Management, Nepal ; Green Foundation Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rytkönen, A. Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal: An MSFP Working Paper ; Multi Stakeholder Forestry Program: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Planning Commission. National Review of Sustainable Development Goals ; National Planning Commission: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2020.
• Dahal, D.S.; Cao, S. Sustainability assessment of community forestry practices in Nepal: Literature review and recommendations to improve community management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2017 , 87 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MoFE. Voluntary National Report to UFF ; Ministry of Forests and Environment: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019.
• Poudyal, B.H.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G. Scientific forest management practice in Nepal: Critical reflections from stakeholders’ perspectives. Forests 2019 , 11 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ojha, H.; Khanal, M.; Shrestha, B. The Process of Handing Over Community Forestry: The Potential Role of I/NGOs ; National Workshop on Community Forestry for Rural Development, ActionAid Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collett, G.; Chhetri, R.; Jackson, W.J.; Shepherd, K.R. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project: Socio-Economic Impact Study ; Technical Note Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project, no. 1/96; Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project; ANUTECH Pty Ltd.: Canberra, Australia, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magole, L.I. Common pool resource management among San communities in Ngamiland, Botswana. Dev. South. Afr. 2009 , 26 , 597–610. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Killian, B.; Hyle, M. Women’s marginalization in participatory forest management: Impacts of responsibilization in Tanzania. For. Policy Econ. 2020 , 118 , 102252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Megaze, A.; Balakrishnan, M.; Belay, G. Human–wildlife conflict and attitude of local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Afr. Zool. 2017 , 52 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glatston, A.; Wei, F.; Zaw, T.; Sherpa, A. Ailurus Fulgens.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015 ; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2015.
• Bista, D.; Paudel, K.; Jnawali, S.R.; Sherpa, A.; Shrestha, S.; Acharya, K. Red panda fine-scale habitat selection along a Central Himalayan longitudinal gradient. Ecol. Evol. 2019 , 9 , 5260–5269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bhatta, M.; Zander, K.K.; Austin, B.J.; Garnett, S.T. Societal recognition of ecosystem service flows from red panda habitats in Western Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2020 , 40 , R50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macura, B.; Secco, L.; Pullin, A.S. What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps. Environ. Evid. 2015 , 4 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahman, M.H.; Miah, M.D. Are protected forests of Bangladesh prepared for the implementation of REDD+? A forest governance analysis from Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. Environments 2017 , 4 , 43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ribeiro, S.C.; Selaya, N.G.; Perz, S.G.; Brown, F.; Schmidt, F.A.; Silva, R.C.; Lima, F. Aligning conservation and development goals with rural community priorities: Capacity building for forest health monitoring in an extractive reserve in Brazil. Ecol. Soc. 2020 , 25 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pujo, T.; Sofhani, F.; Gunawan, B.; Syamsudin, T.S. Community capacity building in social forestry development: A review. J. Reg. City Plan. 2018 , 29 , 113–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Eagles, F.J.; Romagosa, F.; Buteau-Duitschaever, W.C.; Havitz, M.; Glover, T.D.; McCutcheon, B. Good governance in protected areas: An evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013 , 21 , 60–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pandit, R.; Bevilacqua, E. Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2011 , 13 , 345–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDougall, C.; Jiggins, J.; Pandit, B.H.; Rana, S.K.T.M.; Leeuwis, C. Does adaptive collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s community forests. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013 , 26 , 1235–1251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sapkota, L.M.; Jihadah, L.; Sato, M.; Greijmans, M.; Wiset, K.; Aektasaeng, N.; Daisai, A.; Gritten, D. Translating global commitments into action for successful forest landscape restoration: Lessons from Ing watershed in northern Thailand. Land Use Policy 2021 , 104 , 104063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jalilova, G.; Vacik, H. Local people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity in the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012 , 8 , 204–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mustalahti, I.; Agrawal, A. Research trends: Responsibilization in natural resource governance. For. Policy Econ. 2020 , 121 , 102308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T.; Ma, H.O.; Lopez-Casero, F. Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change. For. Policy Econ. 2017 , 79 , 8–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewin, A.; Mo, K.; Scheyvens, H.; Gabai, S. Forest certification: More than a market-based tool, experiences from the Asia Pacific region. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 2600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Poudyal, B.H.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G.; Bhattarai, B. Recognition of historical contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities through benefit sharing plans (BSPs) in REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020 , 106 , 111–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T.; Koju, U.A.; Shrestha, A.; Karki, S. Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation. Land 2023 , 12 , 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020493

Cadman T, Maraseni T, Koju UA, Shrestha A, Karki S. Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation. Land . 2023; 12(2):493. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020493

Cadman, Timothy, Tek Maraseni, Upama Ashish Koju, Anita Shrestha, and Sikha Karki. 2023. "Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation" Land 12, no. 2: 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020493

Article Metrics

Article access statistics.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 270 KiB)

• Externally hosted supplementary file 1 Doi: NA Link: http://NA Description: NA

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Global Exposition of Wildlife Management

Community Forestry Management and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal

Submitted: 15 April 2016 Reviewed: 22 September 2016 Published: 22 March 2017

DOI: 10.5772/65926

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Global Exposition of Wildlife Management

Edited by Gbolagade Stephen A. Lameed

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

3,859 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

Community forest management is one of the successful stories of green economy sectors in Nepal recognized by the United Nation Environment Programme. It was initiated in Nepal to mitigate increasing deforestation and forest degradation and address the negative impacts on rural livelihoods. Different studies are conducted by researchers to assess the role of community forest in biodiversity conservation in Nepal. Researchers focused on analysis of biomass, carbon stock analysis, calculation of biodiversity index, change in land use and land cover, spatial analysis of forest resources, camera trapping of wild fauna and socioeconomic analysis by using different primary and secondary data collection techniques. It can be concluded that community forestry management had a great role in biodiversity conservation in Nepal. Biomass, carbon stock, growing stock, soil organic carbon, forest cover, forest products and benefit from forest resource had increased due to community forestry management. Wild animals such as leopard, porcupine, monkey and other birds were increased in the forest. It is recommended to provide skill development trainings and financial support for the installation of renewable and alternative energy technologies to minimize the use of forest resources. More researches on assessing role of community forestry management in biodiversity conservation should be conducted.

• community forestry management
• conservation of flora
• conservation of fauna

Author Information

Anup k.c. *.

• Nepal Electricity Authority, Environment and Social Studies Department, Kharipati, Bhaktapur, Kathmandu, Nepal

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Forestry means use of forests for achieving specific objective that introduces it into different types [ 1 ]. The aim of industrial forestry is to produce wood-based products for national and international markets. But the objective of other approaches of forestry is to create and enhance wildlife habitat and water quality [ 2 ]. Managing forests with the express intent of benefiting neighbouring communities is community forestry (CF) [ 3 ]. Beneficial functions of the forest had attracted various actors and stakeholders, including the state, private enterprises and local forest users. Also, they have built up distinct interactions with the forest to satisfy their economic, political and social needs [ 4 ].

In community forestry, forest user group (FUG) controls and manages the local forests [ 1 ]. Harvesting and pricing of all forest products and forest management are governed by an executive committee elected in the FUG assembly [ 5 – 7 ]. Local people gain membership and receive cash subsidy as an incentive for forest management after registration of FUG in District Forest Office (DFO). Surplus income of community forestry forest user group (CFUG) has been used for the purpose of infrastructure development [ 1 , 5 ]. Therefore, co-operation and collective actions will be obtained by transferring authority and responsibility for forest management to local users [ 5 ]. Incentives are made to control the forest through the practice of sustainable activities for income generation.

CFUG members carrying firewood from CF. (Source: Author).

Many rural communities that depend on nearby forests take community forestry (CF) as a tool for the globalization of the economy. It provides benefit from timber and non-timber forest resources, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 , and also creates job opportunities. Community forestry provides benefits to local users from nearby forests. As neighbouring communities suffer most from resource degradation, community forestry provides overall role to local people in forest decision making [ 2 ]. It provides great opportunity for resource managers to utilize the indigenous knowledge of local people for sustainable management. Rural development practitioners utilize potential of forestry for forest protection, community strengthening and economic development [ 2 ].

Local fruits extracted from CF of Syangja. (Source: Author).

In community forestry, forest can be sustainably managed to protect natural resource and forest ecosystem functions and also provide income opportunities to community residents from traditional and non-traditional products and services. The benefits and services of forest ecosystems include non-timber forest products, watershed protection, recreational use, tourism, carbon storage, spiritual and cultural significance, genetic resources, medicinal plants and wildlife habitat [ 2 ]. In spite of the market values from timber and wood products, non-market values include environmental stability, quality of life and the economic strength of a region. Community forestry is practiced on public forest lands with the partnerships and coordination between communities and forest landowners to foster forest stewardship and economic development. It should be under the management of the local community to emphasize collaborative and participatory management in local needs and local knowledge.

1.1. Community forestry in Nepal

Historical experience shows that unless people are given user rights and ownership to control and make decisions, people lose interest in active practices of forest management [ 5 ]. Community forestry management (CFM) originates in Nepal due to the progressive degradation of hill forests caused by institutional failure [ 3 ]. Before the 1950s, forests in the Middle hills of Nepal were managed by local landlords and there was free access to non-commercial forest products. During 1951–1961, forests were nationalized and controlled by the Department of Forest (DoF). But, they were unable to manage it which creates an open access situation and local users lacked incentives to regulate forest use. It leads to unregulated extraction by creating conflicts between villagers and DoF staff. After this, land registration processes started in Nepal, which lead to encroachment and forest degradation by threatening the sustainability of livelihoods in the Middle hills [ 8 ]. There was increasing loss of forest areas due to the increase in the values of timber and other natural resources [ 4 ]. Involving local people in forest management was necessary so community forestry management was introduced to establish community-based organizations for collective management of forest resources [ 8 ].

Forest policies have been changed as the state and local communities experience forest losses and degradation after the 1950s. The process of nationalization formulates a centrally designed and scientifically informed forest policy in the context of Nepal. The new policy could not work longer as it had limited the use of forest resources and incentives for sustainable use and co-operative management. After the failure of the governmental forest management system and the revival of common-based management systems, local communities have taken back these rights to use and manage their forests and formed institutions called forest user groups (FUGs). Therefore, in the 1970s, local users’ participation in forest management was reconsidered by the government after recognizing the effectiveness and benefits of common property management [ 9 ].

Conference organized by the Department of Forest in 1975 focused on the role of community in forest management. It helps in the emergence of community forest management till 1978 and further development occurs till 1993 [ 8 ]. Community forestry management was initiated on an experimental basis in the 1980s which decides to provide power and authority over resource use to the community level and return property rights to communities. Projects were initiated by the governmental institution with the support of policymakers, field staff of the forest department and project staff of the national community forestry workshop. Eventually, community forestry was legally implemented with the 1993 Forest Act and the 1995 Forest Rules with the support of local users and forestry staffs [ 10 ]. The responsibility of protection of CF is taken by local forest user groups while forestry staff plays the role of supervision [ 10 ].

The need of community involvement was identified in the National Forestry Plan after the deterioration of hill forests. After the National Forestry Plan, two amendments were made in Forest Act in 1977 and 1978, and the handover of forests has started gradually. World Bank, Australia and Britain also need changes in the forestry sector in the 1980s, and community forestry management was introduced in various policies. Decentralization Act in 1982 focused on forming the community forestry management committees for forest management, and the concept of forest user groups was introduced. To provide subsistence needs of people, the Seventh Periodic Plan (1985–1990) gave priority to people’s participation in forest management. As a second major milestone, the master plan for the forestry sector declared to handover forests in the Middle hills to FUGs by following the outcomes of first the National Community Forestry Workshop in 1987. For the reorientation of DoF staff towards this new priority, 47% of investment within the forest sector was invested in support of community forestry programmes for the new role of facilitation. Democracy in 1990 helps to form FUGs the important unit of community forestry management and a strong independent legal institution [ 8 ].

Analysts have delineated three phases of forestry development in Nepal–privatization (before 1957), nationalization (1957 to the late 1970s) and decentralization (the late 1970s onwards) [ 11 ]. Before the state took control of forests in late 1950s, most forests in rural Nepal were controlled and managed by local communities. When the government identified the need of active co-operation of local forest-dependent citizens, participation of local people in the forest management began in the late 1970s. In the history of Nepal, state was controlled by the Shah or Rana families before the democracy in the 1950s, the 1990s and after 2006. The control of forest resource and economic surplus flowed from general people to the ruling elites [ 11 ].

Before the establishment of community forestry, government of Nepal assumed that transferring forests from private groups to the state would enhance people’s access to forest resources but the state imposed regulations to exclude people from controlling forest resources [ 11 ]. To mitigate deforestation and forest degradation and to address the negative impacts on rural livelihoods, community forestry management (CFM) was established as an important forestry policy in the late 1970s. It plays an important role in forest management by linking agriculture, livestock rearing and the forest [ 12 ]. It focuses on avoiding deforestation and forest degradation by implementing protective measures [ 13 ]. Involvement of local people in forest protection and management became an important policy in the forestry sector in the hilly region due to the failure of states to mitigate deforestation and forest degradation [ 13 ].

CFM has been promoted as an important step in common property resource management in Nepal [ 14 ]. To mitigate the growing deforestation and deterioration of the forest, government of Nepal made a policy based on the 1976 National Forestry Plan to involve local communities in forest management [ 8 ]. Many communities in developing countries are successful in transforming natural forests from the deteriorating state to the sustainable state. Community-based forest management is an approach to mitigate increasing deforestation and forest degradation to address the negative impacts on rural livelihoods. In Asia, this management approach quickly became widespread in different forms of community involvement in forest management and protection [ 8 ]. China Collective Forest, India Joint Forest, Philippines Community-based Forest and Nepal Community Forest are some of the examples of community managed forest. In a time duration of more than 10 years, CFM had a great role in forest conservation. Management of forest by local users and supervision by local forestry staff make CFM more successful, which is a successful example of decentralization and empowerment of local people [ 8 ].

A group of households wishing to form a CFUG should prepare an operational plan under the provisions of the Forest Act of 1993 and submit it for registration at the local District Forest Office (DFO). To prepare an operational plan for forest management, CFUG should take technical assistance from forest officials and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There is no any legal limit for the area and size of the CFUGs as it depends on the willingness and ability of the community to manage a forest. CFUG may include all members of a village, a selected group of households, people from different village and district without any administrative boundaries. It is inclusive of households in the village and all households of one or more villages become members of a CFUG, representing diverse interest in forests. CFUG is a perpetually self-governed institution with rights to manage and fix the prices of forest products. Forest use is not restricted in legal framework and practice, but CFUGs have to pay taxes to the government for selling any forest products outside CFUG. The state retains ownership of forests but communities hold the rights to use the forests and make management decisions. With the help of operational plan, CFUGs set the price of various products, collect revenue and mobilize income for community development activities [ 11 ].

General meeting of CFUG members. (Source: Author).

CFUG members can participate in decision-making process through role-based meetings, executive committee involvement, annual assemblies and forest management plans formulation as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 . Each CFUG prepares its own constitution and operational plan, registers and approves from DFO, defines the social arrangements, responsibilities and rights of the group and makes arrangement for forest management. The strategy, constitution and operational plan are prepared by following standard guidelines and norms but varies from group to group to adapt local traditions and practices. Each CFUG elects a specified number of members to an executive committee for a period of 1–3 years to carry out day-to-day decisions about forest management [ 11 ].

Checklist and feedback collection from CFUG. (Source: Author).

Community forestry management in Nepal is successful in providing important rights, including decision making, empowerment over forest management and use, and access to forest resources at the community level. Community forestry policy and institutional innovations contribute to improved welfare and livelihood security in Nepal by increasing access of CFUG to forest products and by providing positive impacts on income, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, livelihood diversification, and broader community development activities. The role of CFM to overall livelihood security is critically important in Nepal because more than 70% of Nepal’s population depends on agricultural livelihoods that encompass complex interactions between agriculture, forestry and livestock systems [ 11 ].

Up to date, a total of 1,798,733 ha of community forest is handed over to 18,960 community forest user group throughout the country [ 15 ]. The trend of conversion of public forest into community forest is increasing rapidly with the need and interest of local community in conserving forest.

1.2. Role of CFM in biodiversity conservation

Different life forms or varieties of life are called biodiversity, and care and management of biological materials are called biodiversity conservation [ 16 ]. It is categorized as species diversity, ecological diversity and genetic diversity [ 17 ]. Due to the unique geographical location with diverse climate and altitude, Nepal has great diversity of flora and fauna [ 16 , 17 ]. Nepal consists of 0.1% of the terrestrial area of the earth with 118 ecosystems, 75 vegetation types and 35 forest types [ 17 ]. It consists of 5000 species of flowering plants, 2252 species of moths, 635 species of butterflies, 185 species of fishes, 844 species of birds and 181 species of mammals. For the conservation of biodiversity, there is provision of protected areas, zoo, different types of law, conventions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local and national authorities and national and international organizations [ 16 ].

Scenic beauty of forestry combined with water. (Source: Author).

Community forestry is successful in decreasing resource degradation and helpful in the conservation of biodiversity [ 18 ]. Implementation of community forest management has improved the forest condition and biodiversity in the hills of Nepal as compared to degraded forest in the past. It could be a suitable option to conserve biodiversity, but it focuses on sustainable forest product and keeping biodiversity conservation in less priority. Its aim is to supply forest products to local users rather than to conserve biodiversity [ 19 ]. There is a considerable role of community forestry in biodiversity conservation of Nepal. The impacts on biodiversity of plant species are clear but it is less obvious in the case of faunal biodiversity. Community forestry had protected or re-established habitat and helpful in the survival of birds and animals. Operational plans also include prohibitions against hunting at the request of local people [ 20 ]. For the conservation of forest and its biodiversity, CFUGs are voluntarily involved in fencing, planting and meetings. It is helping in carbon sequestration and increasing the forest cover by controlling deforestation and forest degradation [ 1 ].

Various studies have demonstrated a significant increase in forest condition under community forestry showing that it is a proven model for controlling deforestation and forest degradation. CF helps in supporting livelihood in hilly area by providing necessary forest products, such as fodder, firewood, timber, leaf litter and agricultural tools. CFM also helps in conservation of flora and fauna. There is a growing concern that CF is prioritizing only towards sustainable management of forest resources and less towards biodiversity conservation. The aim of community forestry is to supply forest products to local users rather than to conserve biodiversity. Currently, there is evidence that CFUGs are slowly moving towards active forest management. Effective management of CF leads to sustainable production and sustainable harvest of forest resource. Sustainable harvest of forest resource helps to fulfil forest product needs and also helps in livelihood enhancement of local people [ 18 ].

CF has been successful to provide forest resource need of people by enhancing the forest cover. Forest enhancement is increasing ecological services of forest, water resource management, biodiversity conservation, carbon stock, greenery enhancement and air quality management, as shown in Figure 5 [ 12 ]. In actual fact, CFM provides win-win situation in atmospheric carbon dioxide mitigation and biodiversity conservation in global scale; and livelihood enhancement and greenery enhancement in local scale are shown in Figure 6 . Community forestry also had co-benefits of reducing poverty, addressing social exclusion and creating rural employment [ 21 ].

Agroforestry system practiced in CF area. (Source: Author).

In Nepal, local communities have come a long way in conserving forest ecosystems and nurturing local institutions for democracy and social justice. The historical context for the emergence of community forestry in Nepal dates back to the 1950s, when the Government of Nepal nationalized all the forests hoping to optimize the use of natural resources and conserve it sustainably. Communities were totally excluded from the forest management process threatening the livelihood of the rural people. This exclusion led to massive deforestation and degradation of natural resources solely because the community viewed the state as an enemy causing destruction of forest. The situation of environmental crisis had emerged due to lack of participation of community in management of forests. By the late 1970s, Nepal had lost almost 2.2 million hectares of forest cover resulting in serious downstream flooding. In the Kavre and Sindhupalchok districts of central Nepal, a study found that shrub land and grass land have been converted into productive forests increasing the forest area from 7677 to 9678 ha [ 11 , 22 ]. Three different studies conducted in mountain ecosystem for a time period of 25 years (1976–1989–2000) showed that forest cover had increased as compared to the past. Due to the increase in forest cover, small patches were merged into larger ones decreasing their number (from 395 to 175) and increasing forest area (794 ha). Thus, there is an overall improvement in forest protection contributing to local environmental conservation and increased greenery [ 11 , 23 ].

2. Methodology

Different research studies are conducted by different researchers to assess the role of community forest in biodiversity conservation in Nepal by applying different methodologies. Issues raised by researchers in their research studies were reviewed to find out tools and techniques applied by them. It would support the researchers to identify the subject of research with appropriate tools and techniques. It would make the new researchers easy and simple to select appropriate literature necessary for them. This chapter provides the location, aim and methodology of different research studies throughout the world.

With an objective to examine the impacts of forest management on biodiversity in Nepal, Acharya [ 19 ] conducted a study on two CFUGs in the Mid-hill region of Parbat district in Nepal. The study area was selected on the basis of similar socio-economic, ecological conditions, area, forest types and biophysical factors. Forest biodiversity information was collected using six transects walk at three different altitudes in the east-west and north-south directions in each of the CFUGs with the help of informal interviews with CFUG members by applying tools and techniques of participatory rural appraisal (PRA).

Thoms [ 24 ] conducted a study to examine whether community forestry is elite dominated and not successful in livelihoods improvement of CFUGs. For this purpose, primary data were collected from 6 months of field research between October 2002 and April 2003 in four hill districts and two Terai districts. Data were collected from 2871 household surveys selected through multi-stage area probability sampling.

With an aim to compare land use changes between village development committees (VDCs) with and without community forests, Gautam et al. [ 25 ] conducted a study in the Roshi watershed of Kabhrepalanchok district in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Spatial analysis was based on two land use data sets, 1978 data compiled by the land resource mapping project (LRMP) and 1992 data compiled by Survey Department of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN).

With an aim to evaluate forest condition in community forests, national forests and protected areas in the Nepal Terai, Nagendra [ 26 ] conducted a study in three International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research sites in the Chitwan district of Nepal. The site was selected to cover the east-west range at an altitude of 195–425 m above the sea level in Shorea robusta dominated tropical moist deciduous hardwood forests. Assessment of forest condition was carried out through the use of forest plots evaluation by a professional forester and interviews with the local communities depending on forest.

Measurement of diameter of tree inside CF. (Source: Author).

Adhikari et al. [ 18 ] studied the relationship between key household characteristics and common property resources in eight community forest of two districts, Kabhre Palanchok and Sindhu Palchowk, in the mid-hills of Nepal. The study was based on information collected through a household survey. A total of 20% stratified sample of households from each income group was chosen by compiling a census of village households with participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques.

With an aim to assess success of restoration in community forest using a reference of semi-protected natural forest, Baral and Katzensteiner [ 27 ] conducted a study in CF and better protected municipality owned forest (MF) in similar topographic positions in Dhulikhel of Kavrepalanchowk district. The diversity of vascular plants and forest structure was compared with the help of primary data of tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and crown width with the help of transect survey, clinometers and diameter tape.

To assess improved condition of forests by collective action of local communities, Shrestha and McManus [ 28 ] conducted a study in three CFUGs of Nepal. Data collection was directly carried out by rapid forest assessment (RFA), household questionnaire interview (HQI), group discussion, participant observation and informal talks. Rectangular plots were established in each community forest of size 100 m 2 (10 m 10 m) to capture plantation in a recently harvested site and dense forest with mature trees and to represent the diversity of forests within the sample plots.

To identify the role of community forests in the conservation of faunal diversity of Satbariya Range Post of Dang district, Pokhrel and Shah [ 29 ] conducted a study with the help of questionnaire survey, group discussion and line transect methods. They collected data of faunal diversity, abundance and distribution pattern of the wild animals and wildlife-people conflict.

To estimate the climate change mitigation potential from carbon stock of the forest, K. C. et al. [ 14 ] conducted a study in Ghwangkhola Sapaude Babiyabhir Community Forest (GSBCF) in Syangja district of Nepal. Their study was based on carbon stock measurement and review of past studies.

Measurement of height of tree inside CF. (Source: Author).

With a special focus to study the impact of forest resource use on carbon stock of forest, Paudel and K. C. [ 30 ] conducted a study in Kafle Community Forest of Lalitpur district in Nepal. To conduct carbon stock measurement, focus group discussion and key informant interview, field visit was conducted in different time of year in 2012 and 2014. Biomass measurement was conducted directly in the field for trees and sapling by following national guideline as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 . Twenty composite samples of leaf litter, herbs, grasses and soil collected in the field were brought to the laboratory for detailed analysis of biomass and carbon stock.

With a special focus to study the feasibility of community forest management, K. C. and Manandhar [ 31 ] carried out research on GSBCF of Syangja district in Nepal. Their study was based on carbon stock measurement, household survey, focus group discussion, key informant interview and review of past studies.

3. Role of CFM in conservation of flora

As stated in the introductory section, CFM had a great role in the conservation of flora and fauna. To identify the status of community forest, findings of different research studies are documented below.

Gautam [ 32 ] conducted a study to assess the carbon sequestration rate of the agroforestry system, natural forest and annual cropping system in the Terai region of Nepal. Natural forest had the highest carbon stock of 98 ton/ha. Carbon stock in the annual cropping system ranges from 33.2 to 55.5 ton/ha while that of orchard plantation ranges from 35 to 74.6 ton/ha. Similarly, soil organic carbon (SOC) in natural forest, vegetable field and streamside were 53.2, 52.6 and 3.6 ton/ha, respectively.

Acharya [ 19 ] observed that active management by CFUGs contradicts with biodiversity conservation. Forest types are slowly converting to monoculture from mixed, shrub and tree diversity is decreasing gradually, and shrub land areas are gradually converting to high forest land. Active forest management favouring specific useful plant may introduce more homogeneity into the forest structure with consequent loss of biodiversity. It will lead to the modification of forest types and ecosystem in the mid-hills of Nepal affecting ecological functions and services of forests.

Thoms [ 24 ] concluded that community forestry is quite successful in terms of forest protection and management but at the cost of the poorest households. Community forestry is fairly successful in conservation but not in improving rural livelihoods.

Gautam et al. [ 25 ] observed that VDCs having community forests before 1992 sustained less total loss of forested area (1.9%) than VDCs without community forest (9.9%). High forest area was six times higher in VDCs with community forests (77%) than the VDCs without community forests (13%). Loss of shrub land in VDC with community forest was 50% greater than that of VDCs without community forest.

Nagendra [ 26 ] observed that vegetation density and species diversity were highest in national park forest, followed by national forest and community forests. Community forests were Significantly poorer as compared to national forests in species richness and Shannon species diversity of tree; sapling density, sapling diameter, sapling richness, sapling Shannon species diversity, sapling girth and sapling height. Trees located in community forests were Significantly taller with high density than those within national forests, but there was no difference in tree size (diameter). Community forests have Significantly low species richness, low Shannon species diversity and smaller diameter saplings as compared to national park forest. There was low level of grazing, low tree lopping but proper fencing in community forest as compared to the national forest.

Adhikari [ 33 ] tried to examine the contribution of community forestry to household-level income with particular emphasis on group heterogeneity and equity in benefit distribution. The household level benefits suggest that poorer households are currently benefiting less from community forestry. But, poor are not more dependent than the rich in community forest. Regression analysis shows that socio-economic conditions and ownership of private property are directly related to revenue generated from community forest. Households having more land and livestock get more benefits from community forest. Educated people and female-dominated household get less benefit from forest resources.

Bhatta [ 34 ] conducted a study in mixed broad leaved forests of Phulchowki watershed, Lalitpur. The carbon stock in above ground in natural forest and community forest ranges from 91.89 to 112.79 and 55.30 to 67.04 ton/ha, respectively. Similarly, the carbon stock in soil in natural forest and community forest ranges from 195 to 223 and 150 to 160 ton/ha, respectively.

Shrestha and McManus [ 28 ] observed that local communities are effectively protecting the forest through direct efforts of users or through forest watchers or sometimes both. Improvement in forest condition was seen by reversing degradation and regenerating degraded areas but not ideally for biodiversity conservation. The forests have low species diversity as the trees and poles are dominated by few species promoted by the FUG for their social, economic and political values.

Dahal [ 35 ] conducted a study in Sunaulo Ghampa Danda CF in Kathmandu. The biomass organic carbon in pine forest and mixed broad leaf forest was 116 ± 16.39 and 25.95 ± 8.09 ton/ha, respectively. The soil organic carbon in pine forest and mixed broad leaf forest was 10.12 ± 1.03 and 24.62 ± 1.18 ton/ha, respectively. The carbon sequestration status in pine forest and mixed broad leaf forest was 1 and 2.95 ton/ha per year, respectively. The additional benefit to CFUG by carbon trading was $ 563.15 per annum.

Karky [ 36 ] conducted a study in three community forest of Manang, Lalitpur and Ilam district in Nepal. From measurement of carbon stock, it was observed that the carbon stock of community forest with SOC up to 1 m depth (without leaf litter, herbs and shrubs) was 138 ton/ha or 504 ton CO 2 /ha in three districts of Nepal. He found that the annual incremental rate for carbon sequestration in forest under CFM was 1.92 and 7.04 ton/ha per year excluding soil organic carbon. He also found that when CFUGs are permitted to use forest resource, the breakeven price for per ton CO 2 is $0.55 for Illam, $3.70 for Lamatar and $2.30 for Manang.

Baral and Katzensteiner [ 27 ] observed that maximum tree height (13.5 m) and the maximum DBH (29.5 cm) were observed in managed forest (MF). Trees with higher diameters have a higher basal area in MF, but 5–15 cm DBH trees have higher a basal area in CF. CF management activities have affected plant community composition, species richness and distribution, and age class distribution of the trees. CF was less diverse with uniform stands of tree species compared to MF. Overall diversity of vascular plants was maintained by providing proper niches for rich under storey vegetation.

Gurung [ 37 ] conducted a pilot study in western Terai and had estimated the average forest carbon stock to be around 231 ton/ha. The carbon stock in trees above ground, below ground and in soil organic carbon (SOC) had been estimated to be about 68, 18, and 143 ton/ha, respectively. This clearly indicates that the share of SOC was almost 60% of the total forest carbon stock.

Thagunna [ 38 ] conducted a study in Bailbanda Buffer zone CF, Kanchanpur. The total carbon stock of CF was 78.46 ton/ha. The benefit from carbon trade was $ 57,640 at the rate of $ 12.5/ton C.

Aryal [ 39 ] conducted a study in Toudol Chhap CF, Sipadol, Bhaktapur. The total carbon content of pine forest and mixed broad leaf forest were 167.04 and 101.91 ton/ha, respectively.

Bhusal [ 40 ] conducted a study in Nagmati watershed in Shivapuri National Park. The SOC and total carbon content in the sampled area (14 ha) were found to be 9782.11 ± 25.18 ton/ha corresponding to a total of 167442.26 ± 42076.82 ton carbon content in the Nagmati watershed (1406 ha). The total carbon content of Shivapuri National Park (5860.8 ha, i.e. 40% of the total area of park which is forest) excluding soil was 699961.20 ± 175894.32 ton.

Dhakal [ 41 ] measured the total carbon stock in Pashupati Community Forest, Sarlahi district of Janakpur zone. The total carbon stock was found to be higher in naturally regenerated forest i.e. 181.83 ± 26.34 ton/ha followed by planted forest with 159.49 ± 31.96 ton/ha. The recent amount of total carbon stock of 133.65 ± 37.05 ton/ha was found in enriched forest.

ICIMOD, ANSAB and FECOFUN (2010) had performed baseline study in 104 community forests (CF) of three watershed areas of Nepal; Kayarkhola of Chitwan district, Charnawati of Dolakha district and Ludhikhola of Gorkha district. Analysis of the DBH distributions of all strata follows a left-skewed trend, indicating most of the trees in all the strata were younger, and there was potential to enhance forest carbon stock by encouraging tree growth. Forest carbon stock in dense and sparse strata of Kayarkhola, Charnawati and Ludikhola watershed were 296.44 and 256.70, 228.56 and 166.75, 216.26 and 162.98 ton/ha, respectively.

Mishra [ 42 ] conducted a study in Chapako CF, Kathmandu. The biomass carbon and soil organic carbon (SOC) of CF were 119.742 and 32.29 ton/ha, respectively. There was potential of storing and sequestering carbon in the CF.

Community forest user groups are giving less attention to biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services due to short-term economic motive, elite sanction and knowledge gap. They are unaware about maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable forest management. Monoculture of high economic valuable species and greenery of the forest are prioritized rather than the natural forest. Seedling plantation, wildlife hunting control and regulating forest encroachment assist biodiversity conservation but species selection, removal of unwanted species and traditional knowledge depletion have negative impact on biological diversity [ 43 ].

The study reveals that the carbon stored in the forest soil is almost double than the biomass carbon [ 44 ]. The biomass in the Gwangkhola Sapaude Babiyabhir community forest, Syangja, Nepal, was found to be 164 ton/ha, with yearly increment of 0.95 ton/ha. The total carbon stock of the forest was 122.29 ton/ha, including soil organic carbon and below ground carbon of 45.18 and 12.85 ton/ha, respectively. The forest was dominated by Schima wallichi , Castanopsis indica and Pinus roxburghii [ 45 ].

Increase in forest cover and leaf litter in CF. (Source: Author).

K. C. et al. [ 14 ] measured the biomass in above ground shoot and below ground root of trees, shrubs, leaf litter, herbs and grass (LHG) in community forest of Syangja district in Nepal. It was observed that above ground biomass of trees was highest (126.3 ton/ha) followed by below ground biomass (27.34 ton/ha), sapling biomass (2.88 ton/ha) and leaf litter, herbs and grass biomass (7.54 ton/ha). Carbon stock in forest (122.29 ton/ha) was increasing at the rate of 0.45 ton/ha per year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) was mitigated by the forest at the rate of 1.64 ton/ha per year. The species diversity of Schima wallicchi was highest followed by C astanopsis indica .

K. C. and Manandhar [ 31 ] observed the total carbon stock of 155.04 ton/ha with soil organic carbon of 50.15 ton/ha in the forest. The more number of trees below 20 cm DBH shows that the forest is conserved after handing it to CFUG and newly grown plants are increasing thereafter. Above ground tree carbon had increased from 59.36 to 80.09 ton/ha while soil organic carbon had increased from 45.18 to 50.15 ton/ha from 2011 to 2014. The carbon stock of Schima wallichi , C astanopsis indica and Pinus roxburgi was gradually increasing from 2011 to 2014.

Paudel and K. C. [ 30 ] observed that community forest management had helped in conservation of plants and animals as forest is getting denser than past, as shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 . Carbon stock in all forms of plants as measured in 2014 was higher than that of 2012 with an annual carbon sequestration rate of 1.52 ton/ha. The forest was dominated by Schima wallichi , C astanopsis indica , Alnus nepalensis and Pinus roxburgi .

Researcher conducting study inside dense CF. (Source: Author).

4. Role of CFM in conservation of fauna

There are very few research studies conducted to assess the role of CFM in fauna conservation of Nepal. Some of the research studies conducted on the concerned topics were reviewed and documented below.

Paudel and K. C. [ 30 ] observed that carbon stock in all forms of plants as measured in 2014 was higher than that of 2012 with an annual carbon sequestration rate of 1.52 ton/ha. Community forest management had helped in conservation of plants and animals. Wild animals such as leopard, porcupine, monkey and other birds were increased in the forest and were frequently seen nearby the forest destroying the crops of people. The forest is becoming denser than past according to the view of local people.

To find the condition of animals in the Setidevi community forest and Gyaneshwar community forest, camera trapping technology was used. In the forest area of 500 ha, 181 animal species including one-horned rhino, Royal Bengal tiger and python have been observed. Among these 125 bird species and 19 mammals have been spotted [ 46 ].

Pokhrel and Shah [ 29 ] observed the increased frequency and movement of wild elephant and blue bull due to the establishment of community forests. Twenty-five mammals, 16 herpetofauna and 163 bird species were recorded in their study area indicating availability of suitable habitat for the species. In the study of 10 transects, they encountered 251 different signs of the wild fauna. Local people had suffered from economic loss of crop damage and livestock due to the increasing number of wildlife in the community forest.

5. Conclusions

Community forest management is an approach to mitigate increasing deforestation and forest degradation to address the negative impacts on rural livelihoods. Studies have demonstrated a significant increase in forest condition under community forestry showing that it is a proven model for controlling deforestation and forest degradation. It has co-benefits of reducing poverty and addressing social exclusion by creating rural employment. It is contributing to livelihood promotion such as fulfilling the basic needs of local communities investing money in supporting income generation activities of the poor people and providing access to the forestland for additional income or employment.

Different research studies are conducted by different researchers to assess the role of community forest in biodiversity conservation in different study areas of Nepal by applying different methodologies. Researchers had focused on analysis of biomass, carbon stock analysis, calculation of biodiversity index, change in land use and land cover, spatial analysis of forest resources, camera trapping of wild fauna and socioeconomic analysis by using different primary and secondary data collection techniques. They are using national guideline and their own derived methodologies for assessing biomass, carbon stock, measurement of biodiversity index and analysis of flora and fauna.

It was concluded that community forestry management had a great role in biodiversity conservation in Nepal. Biomass, carbon stock, growing stock, soil organic carbon, forest cover, forest products and benefit from forest resource had increased due to CFM as compared to past. The number and density of trees of highly productive plant had increased while the number and density of less productive shrubs and bushes had decreased. Forest biomass and carbon in different form of plants, above ground tree biomass, above ground sapling biomass, leaf litter herbs and trees and underground biomass had increased gradually after CFM implementation. Wild animals such as leopard, porcupine, monkey and other birds were increased in the forest and were frequently seen nearby the forest destroying the crops of people. The forest is getting denser and providing habitat to the wild animals as compared to past according to the view of local people.

As community forestry management had great role in biodiversity conservation of Nepal, there is a need of more funding for its sustainable management. Local people are working hard and devoting their time voluntarily for sustainable harvest of forest resource and conservation of flora and fauna. If they do not get adequate benefit of forest resource and monetary benefit from job employment and other income-generating activities, they will start using forest products for sustaining their livelihood and fulfilling their day-to-day need. It would cause utilization of more forest resource and decrease in biodiversity of plants and animals. It is recommended to provide skill development trainings, income-generating activities, high yield forest resource and non-timber forest products and also provide financial support for the installation of renewable and alternative energy technologies to minimize the use of forest resources. In addition, more research studies on assessing the role of CFM in biodiversity conservation should be carried out to find out the feasibility of CFM in the Nepalese context for biodiversity conservation.

• 1. Anup, K.C., I. Koirala, and N. Adhikari, Cost Benefit Analysis of a Community Forest in Nepal . Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 2015. 34(3): 199–213.
• 2. Brendler, T. and H. Carey, Community Forestry, Defined . Journal of Forestry, 1998. 96 (3): 21–23.
• 3. Anup, K.C., Community Forest Management: A Success Story of Green Economy in Nepal . Journal of Environmental Science, 2016. 2 : 148–154.
• 4. Hobley, M. and Y. Malla, From Forests to Forestry. The Three Ages of Forestry in Nepal: Privatisation, Nationalisation and Populism , in Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal, Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3 , M. Hobley, Editor. 1996, Rural Development Forestry Network Overseas Development Institute: London.
• 5. Gilmour, D.A. and R.J. Fisher, Evolution in Community Forestry: Contesting Forest Resources . 1998, RECOFTC: Bangkok, Thailand.
• 6. Khanal Chhetri, B.B., J.F. Lund, and O.J. Nielsen, The Public Finance Potential of Community Forestry in Nepal . Ecological Economics, 2012. 73 (2012): 113–121.
• 7. Anup, K.C., et al., Increase of Forest Carbon Biomass due to Community Forestry Management in Nepal . Journal of Forestry Research, 2016.
• 8. Springate-Baginski, O., et al., Community Forest Management in the Middle Hills of Nepal: The Changing Context . Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2003. 3 (1): 5–20.
• 9. Brown, D., et al., From Supervising Subjects to Supporting Citizens: Recent Developments in Community Forestry in Asia and Africa , in Natural Resource Perspective . 2002, Overseas Development Institute: London.
• 10. Pokharal, B.K., Livelihoods, Economic Opportunities and Equity: Community Forestry and People’s Livelihoods . Journal of Forestry and Livelihood, 2001. 1 (1): 16–18.
• 11. Ojha, H., L. Persha, and A. Chhatre, Community Forestry in Nepal, A Policy Innovation for Local Livelihoods , IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2009, International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington.
• 12. Karky, B.S. and K. Banskota, The Kyoto Protocol and Community-Managed Forests , in Reducing Carbon Emissions through Community-Managed Forests in the Himalayas , K. Banskota, B.S. Karky, and M. Skutch, Editors. 2007, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD): Kathmandu, Nepal. pp. 23–37.
• 13. Banskota, K., B.S. Karky, and M. Skutch, Reducing Carbon Emissions through Community-Managed Forests in the Himalayas . 2007, ICIMOD: Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 14. Anup, K.C., et al., Climate Change Mitigation Potential from Carbon Sequestration of Community Forest in Mid Hill Region of Nepal. International Journal of Environmental Protection, 2013. 3 (7): 33–40.
• 15. DoF, CFUG Database Record Available in MIS . 2015, Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal: Kathmandu.
• 16. Thapa, D., Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal. Bibechana, 2010. 6 : 31–36.
• 17. Shakya, R., et al., Biodiversity Conservation . Banko Janakari, 2009. 19 (1): 1–2.
• 18. Adhikari, B., S.D. Falco, and J.C. Lovett, Household Characteristics and Forest Dependency: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal . Ecological Economics, 2004. 48 : 245–257.
• 19. Acharya, K.P., Does Community Forests Management Supports Biodiversity Conservation? Evidences from Two Community Forests from the Mid Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2004. 4 (1): 44–54.
• 20. Fisher, R.J., Collaborative Management of Forests for Conservation and Development , Issues in Forest Conservation. 1995, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, World Wide Fund for Nature. pp. 1–17.
• 21. Anup, K.C., Feasibility Analysis of REDD+ A Case Study in Ghwangkhola Sapaude Babiyabhir Community Forest of Syangja, Nepal , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2012, Tribhuvan University: Kathmandu.
• 22. Jackson, W.J., et al., Land-Use Changes in Two Middle Hills Districts of Nepal . Mountain Research and Development, 1998. 18 (3): 193–212.
• 23. Gautam, A.P., et al., Land Use Dynamics and Landscape Change Pattern in a Mountain Watershed in Nepal . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2003. 99 (1–3): 83–96.
• 24. Thoms, C.A., Community Control of Resources and the Challenge of Improving Local Livelihoods: A critical Examination of Community Forestry in Nepal . Geoforum, 2008. 39 : 1452–1465.
• 25. Gautam, A.P., E.L. Webb, and A. Eiumnoh, GIS Assessment of Land Use/Land Cover Changes Associated with Community Forestry Implementation in the Middle Hills of Nepal . Mountain Research and Development, 2002. 22 (1): 63–69.
• 26. Nagendra, H., Tenure and Forest Conditions: Community Forestry in the Nepal Terai . Environmental Conservation, 2002. 29 (4): 530–539.
• 27. Baral, S.K. and K. Katzensteiner, Diversity of Vascular Plant Communities along a Disturbance Gradient in a Central Mid-Hill Community Forest of Nepal . Banko Janakari, 2009. 19 (1): 3–10.
• 28. Shrestha, K.K. and P. McManus, Collective Action of Local Communities in Forest Conservation and Utilisation: Critical Reflections from Nepalese Community Forestry, in Small-Scale Forestry and Rural Development – the Intersections of Ecosystems, Economics and Society . 2006, Galway, Ireland. pp. 458–477.
• 29. Pokhrel, G.K. and K.B. Shah, Role of Community Forests in Faunal Diversity Conservation: A Case Study of Community Forests Within Satbariya Range Post of Dang District . Nepal Journal of Science and Technology, 2008. 9 : 111–117.
• 30. Paudel, R. and K.C. Anup, Impact of Resource Utilisation and Management on Carbon Stock in the Community Forest of Nepal . 2014, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu.
• 31. Anup, K.C. and R. Manandhar, Feasibility Analysis of Community Forestry Management in Syangja, Nepal . 2014, Tribhuvan University: Kathmandu.
• 32. Gautam, K.R., Carbon Sequestratoin on Agro Forestry and Annual Cropping System in Inner Terai, Central Himalaya . 2002, Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture, Agricultural University of Norway: Norway.
• 33. Adhikari, B., Property Rights and Natural Resources: Socio-Economic Heterogeneity and Distributional Implications of Common Property Resource Management , in Sandee Working Paper , South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Editor. 2003, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 34. Bhatta, P., Carbon Stock Capacity of Mixed Broad leaved Forests of Phulchowki Watershed, Lalitpur , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2004, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 35. Dahal, P., Carbon Sequestration Status at Sunaulo Ghampa Danda Community Forest, Kathmandu , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2007, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 36. Karky, B.S., The Economics of Reducing Emissions from Community Managed Forests in Nepal Himalaya . 2008, Dissertation to Obtain the Degree of Doctorate, Centre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy, University of Twente, Enschede: The Netherlands.
• 37. Gurung, M., Assessment of Forest Carbon Potential of Riverine Forests at the Khata Corridor and Lamahi-mahadevpuri Complex . 2009, Presented in National Sharing Workshop in Everest Hotel on 25th August 2009. Organized by WWF Nepal/WINROCK International and Terai Arc Landscape Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 38. Thagunna, L.K., Estimation of Carbon Stock of Bailbanda Buffer Zone Community Forest, Chadani VDC-7, Kanchanpur , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2009, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 39. Aryal, C., Status of Carbon Stock at Toudol Chhap Community Forest, Sipadol, Bhaktapur , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2010, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 40. Bhusal, R.P., Carbon Stock Estimation of Nagmati Watershed in Shivapuri National Park , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2010, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 41. Dhakal, K., Carbon Stock Estimation of Pashupati Community Forest . 2010, Master Thesis, College of Applied Science, Tribhuvan University: Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 42. Mishra, N., Estimation of Carbon Stock at Chapako Community Forest , in Central Department of Environmental Sciences . 2010, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 43. Shrestha, U.B., B.B. Shrestha, and S. Shrestha, Biodiversity Conservation in Community Forests of Nepal: Rhetoric and Reality. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 2010. 2 (5): 98–104.
• 44. Khadka, K.J., Carbon Stock Estimation and Analysis of Altitudinal Carbon Content Variation along Thulonagi Community Forest, Jiri, Dolakha , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2011, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 45. Anup, K.C., Feasibility Analysis of REDD, A Case Study in a Community Managed Forest in Syangja, Nepal , in Central Department of Environmental Science . 2012, Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 46. WCN. Endangered Species Found in Chitwan Community Forests . 2013

© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Edited by Lameed Gbolagade Akeem

Published: 22 March 2017

By Jeewan Thapa, Chie Nakajima, Kamal P. Gairhe, Bhag...

2226 downloads

By Fabrice Teletchea

2520 downloads

By Shawn Larson

1776 downloads

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

Advertisement

Forest Management Plans in Nepal’s Community Forests: Does One Size Fit All?

• Original Research
• Published: 26 June 2020
• Volume 19 , pages 483–504, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Srijana Baral   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1542-846X 1 , 2 ,
• Christian Pilegaard Hansen 2 &
• Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri 1  

739 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Technical forest management plans are prerequisites for obtaining forest management rights by community forest user groups in Nepal. However, the relevance of such plans and the rationale for accepting them remain unexplored. Using a multiple-case-study approach, we examine the contents of the silvicultural prescriptions, and the relevance of these prescriptions in day-to-day forest management, and assess the reasons for accepting or rejecting the plans. To do so, we conducted content analysis of 34 plans, direct observations of forest management activities and semistructured interviews, informal conversations, and focus group discussions in nine selected community forest user groups. We also interviewed representatives of the Nepalese forest bureaucracy. We found that the silvicultural prescriptions were identical in all plans and that they were not guided by forest management objectives, forest conditions, and the socioeconomic conditions of the users. Moreover, neither the forest users nor the forest bureaucracy made use of the plans and the prescriptions in forest management. However, both groups accept the plans, albeit for different reasons. The users accept the plans because they considered them necessary in order to gain access to the forest resource, while for the forest bureaucracy, the plan serves as a tool for regaining power and authority over the forest. We argue that there is a need for a closer fit between the management plans and the social, economic, and ecological realities they are embedded in.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Locally Perceived Social and Biophysical Factors Shaping the Effective Implementation of Community Forest Management Operations in Nepal

The illusion of participatory forest management success in nature conservation

Continuous Cover Forestry Practitioners in a Clear-cutting-oriented System: Assessing the Potential to Foster the Practice

Community forest is divided into several blocks based on forest conditions, forest types, and other prominent features in the forest. It is done to simplify the inventory work and forest management.

CIAA is an apex constitutional body of the Government of Nepal to curb corruption in the country.

Bajracharya D (1983) Deforestation in the food/fuel context: historical and political perspectives from Nepal. Mt Res Dev 3:227. https://doi.org/10.2307/3673017

Article   Google Scholar  

Baral S, Meilby H, Chettri BBK et al (2018a) Politics of getting the numbers right: community forest inventory of Nepal. For Policy Econ 91:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.007

Baral SG, Vacik H, Chhetri BBK, Gauli K (2018b) The pertinent role of forest inventory in making choice of silvicultural operations in community forests of Nepal. Banko Janakari Special Issue No 4: 65–75

Baral S, Meilby H, Chhetri BBK (2019) The contested role of management plans in improving forest conditions in Nepal’s community forests. Int For Rev 21:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554819825863799

Basnyat B, Treue T, Pokharel RK et al (2018) Legal-sounding bureaucratic re-centralisation of community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ 91:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.010

Bhattacharya AK, Basnyat B (2007) An analytical study of operational plans and constitutions of community forestry user groups of Western Terai of Nepal. In: Forestry for the next decade managing thrust areas, vol. 2, pp 555–576

Brukas V, Sallnäs O (2012) Forest management plan as a policy instrument: carrot, stick or sermon? Land Use Policy 29:605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.003

Charnley S, Poe MR (2007) Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annu Rev Anthropol 36:301–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143

DFO (2016) Annual progress report of 2015/16. District Forest Office, Kathmandu

Google Scholar  

DoF (2004) Community forest resource inventory guideline. Department of Forest, Kathmandu

DoF (2014) Scientific forest management directive. Department of Forest, Kathmandu

DoF (2017) Community forestry bulletin. Department of Forest, Kathmandu

Faye P (2015) Choice and power: resistance to technical domination in Senegal’s forest decentralization. For Policy Econ 60:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.004

Forsyth T (2005) The political ecology of the ecosystem approach for forests. In: Sayer J, Maginnis S (eds) Forests in landscapes: ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Routledge, London, pp 165–176

Gauld R (2000) Maintaining centralized control in community-based forestry: policy construction in the Philippines. Dev Change 31:229–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00153

Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL (2004) Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environ Manag 33:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0031-4

Gilmour DA (1988) Not seeing the trees for the forest: a re-appraisal of the deforestation crisis in two hill districts of Nepal. Mt Res Dev 8:343–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/3673557

Gilmour DA (2016) Forty years of community-based forestry: a review of its extent and effectiveness. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Gilmour DA (2018) Silviculture and community forestry: looking backwards, looking forwards. Banko Janakari 6–14

GoN/MoFSC (2016) Forest sector strategy (2016–25). Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu

GoN/NPC (2016) Fourteenth five year plan (2017–2019). National Planning Commission, Kathmandu

Green KE, Lund JF (2015) The politics of expertise in participatory forestry: a case from Tanzania. For Policy Econ 60:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.012

Guha R (1983) Forestry in British and Post-British India: a historical analysis. Econ Polit Wkly :1882–1896. https://doi.org/10.2307/4372653

Hansen CP, Lund JF (2017) Imagined forestry: the history of the scientific management of Ghana’s high forest zone. Environ Hist Camb 23:3–38. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734017X14809635325548

HMGN (1988) Master plan for the forestry sector Nepal: main report. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, p 142

HMGN (1993) Nepal Forest Act, 1993

HMGN (1995) Forest Regulations 1995

Hobley M (1996) Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, Regent’s College, Inner Circle, Regent’s Park, London

Hobley M, Malla YB (1996) From forests to forestry—the three ages of forestry in Nepal: Privatisation, nationalisation, and populism. In: Participatory forest management in South Asia: the process of change in India and Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 3, Rural Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Insitute, London, pp 65–92

Hobley M, Jha C, Poudel K (2013) Persistence and change: review of 30 years of community forestry in Nepal. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Kathmandu

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ives JD (1987) The theory of Himalayan environmental degradation: its validity and application challenged by recent research. Mt Res Dev 7:189–199

Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Lang Arts Discip 79:441

Krott M, Bader A, Schusser C et al (2014) Actor-centred power: the driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. For Policy Econ 49:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012

Langston N (2000) 80 years later when sound science is not enough: regulating the blues. J For 98(11):31–35

Larson AM, Ribot JC (2007) The poverty of forestry policy: double standards in an uneven playing field. Sustain Sci 2:189–204

Lund JF (2015) Paradoxes of participation: the logic of professionalization in participatory forestry. For Policy Econ 60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.009

Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C et al (2012) Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For Policy Econ 14:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.017

Mathews AS (2011) Instituting nature: authority, expertise, and power in Mexican forests. MIT Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Nightingale AJ (2005) “The experts taught us all we know”: professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode 37:581–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00512.x

Ojha H (2013) Counteracting hegemonic powers in the policy process: critical action research on Nepal’s forest governance. Crit Policy Stud 7:242–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.823879

Ojha H, Timsina N, Khanal D (2007) How are forest policy decisions made in Nepal? J For Livelihood 6:1–17

Ojha HR, Cameron J, Kumar C (2009) Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ 11:365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.003

Pokharel BK (2001) Community forestry and people’s livelihoods. J For Livlihood 1:16–18. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3086.0488

Pokharel RK (2012) Factors influencing the management regime of Nepal’s community forestry. For Policy Econ 17:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.002

Poteete AR, Ribot JC (2011) Repertoires of domination: decentralization as process in Botswana and Senegal. World Dev 39:439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.013

Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34:1864–1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020

Rutt RL, Chhetri BBK, Pokharel R et al (2015) The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal. For Policy Econ 60:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.005

Scott J (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven

Sharma SS (2017) Ignored forest management issues in community forestry inventory guideline 2004 in context of scientific and sustainable forest management. In: Proceedings of the first national silviculture workshops, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal Feb, pp 213–219

Stewart J (1986) Forest policy in Nepal: implications for social forestry. In: Adams M, Casey J, Kerkhof P et al. (eds) From the field: shorter contributions from networkers. Julkaisussa, pp 4–6

Sunderlin WD, Hatcher J, Liddle M (2008) From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC

Toft MNJ, Adeyeye Y, Lund JF (2015) The use and usefulness of inventory-based management planning to forest management: Evidence from community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ 60:35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.007

Vandergeest P, Peluso NL (2006) Empires of forestry: professional forestry and state power in Southeast Asia, Part 1. Environ Hist Camb 12:31–64

Von Hellermann P (2013) Things fall apart? The political ecology of forest governance in southern Nigeria. Berghahn Books, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support received from forest officials, community forest user groups, and service providers. We are thankful to all for sharing their experiences with us. The work would not have been accomplished without support from Mr. Prabal Bir Jung Rana, Mr. Balkrishna Jamarkattel, and Ms. Srijana Awale, who assisted with data collection. We further acknowledge the funding support from the Science and Power in Participatory Forestry project (13-05KU) funded by the Consultative Research Committee for Development Research under the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable suggestions received from the anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Forestry, Hariyo Kharka, Pokhara, 33700, Nepal

Srijana Baral & Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri

Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

Srijana Baral & Christian Pilegaard Hansen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srijana Baral .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Baral, S., Hansen, C.P. & Chhetri, B.B.K. Forest Management Plans in Nepal’s Community Forests: Does One Size Fit All?. Small-scale Forestry 19 , 483–504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

Download citation

Accepted : 20 June 2020

Published : 26 June 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Decentralized forest management
• Silvicultural prescriptions
• Forest bureaucracy
• Forest access
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Globally acclaimed community forest groups in Nepal say new rules threaten their autonomy

Share this article

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Community forestry groups in Nepal say the government is going beyond its authority to introduce new rules that would impact how they make their livelihood from forests.
• The groups say the proposed regulation undermines their autonomy, including by requiring them to allocate half of their commercial timber for sale to the government.
• The groups have shelved protests following talks with the government, but say they will return to the streets if officials fail to heed their demands.

KATHMANDU — Nepalis whose livelihoods rely on access to the country’s community forests have suspended planned protests against a new law they say will threaten their autonomy and force their groups to work under various bureaucratic mechanisms.

The move by the Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN), which has been protesting the proposed changes for more than three months, follows talks with the Ministry of Forests and Environment.

FECOFUN chair Bharti Pathak said the network had presented a list of 10 demands to the government to organize sit-ins and protest rallies across the country. Most of the demands are related to the proposed Forest Regulation, a set of rules being formulated by the government to implement the federal Forest Act of 2019. The network says the government is going beyond its authority by creating institutions and provisions not envisioned under by the original act.

“We discussed our demands with the ministry, and the officials said ‘we will look into it’,” Pathak told Mongabay.

In Nepal, around 34% of the country’s forests are managed by more than 22,000 community-forest user groups. Under the community forestry principles pioneered by Nepal in the 1970s, each community manages its forest for its own use and benefits based on an operational plan approved by the divisional forest officer, a representative of the federal government.

Under the program, which began with the goal to reverse deforestation and protect existing forests, community members can collect wood up to a limit prescribed by the government based on the availability of wood and the condition of the forest. Nepal’s community forestry approach has received worldwide acclaim for helping the country increase its forest cover from 25% to 45% of its total area.

Under the new regulation, community forest user groups would be required to provide 50% of their timber eligible for sale to the district forest production supply committees. But FECOFUN is demanding that community forest user groups be allowed to freely determine the price and market for their commercial timber.

The new regulation would also only allow communities to run enterprises if they prepare a separate business plan for the local forest office to approve. The network, however, wants members to be allowed to operate forest-based enterprises and tourism programs as specified in the Community Forest Operational Plan, which user groups need to submit to the government every year.

“Taxation is also an important issue that needs to be addressed,” said Dil Raj Khanal, policy adviser to the network. Prevailing laws require forest user groups to pay taxes at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. “We demand that the government make necessary legal changes so that we have to pay taxes only to one authority,” Khanal said.

Another point of contention is that the federal and provincial governments have recently declared several new protected areas. These designations, Khanal said, go against the spirit of the Constitution and Nepal’s commitment to various international treaties that recognize the communities’ rights over local resources. “These parks, reserves, buffer zones, environment protection areas and forest protection areas are being created on lands managed by user groups. They are also leading to destruction of community forests that have been historically protected and sustainably harvested by local communities. We request that the government bring an immediate stop to these activities,” he said.

Pathak said FECOFUN members will return to the streets in protest again if the Council of Ministers approves the new regulation without incorporating their voices. “We haven’t seen the final draft of the regulation. We hope the government shares it with us for comments before it is approved.”

Megh Nath Kafle, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Forests and Environment, said the government is holding talks with FECOFUN and is optimistic that an agreement will be reached soon.

Feedback: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

Banner Image:  Members of FECOFUN take part in a street rally outside the Department of Forests and Soil Conservation in Kathmandu. Photo courtesy: FECOFUN

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Canine distemper likely infecting & killing Nepal’s leopards, study shows

Brazil’s race to approve the end of the Amazon: The BR-319 highway needs a new environmental impact assessment (commentary)

Indigenous communities can decide for themselves on carbon market risks (commentary)

Small snails make big comeback in French Polynesia

Reporter who revealed deforestation in Cambodia now charged with deforestation

Eminent Nepali conservation NGOs demand repeal of controversial law

‘We need white men on our side to save the Amazon from destruction,’ 92-year-old Indigenous Chief Raoni says

Police murder Guarani man as Brazil struggles with Indigenous land demarcation

you're currently offline

Community Forestry Management and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal

• In book: Global Exposition of Wildlife Management (pp.51-72)
• Edition: 1st
• Publisher: INTECH
• Editors: Gbolagade Stephen A. Lameed

• Tribhuvan University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Santosh Ayer

• Anija Singh

• Yashoda Thapa

• SCAND J FOREST RES

• Abdirizak Arale Nunow

• Hendra Gunawan

• Debasmita Basu
• Smriti Mishra

• R. M. Tamrakar
• K. R. Shepherd

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Community Forest and Forest Management in Nepal

Bhattarai Binod

• Publication A-Z index
• Browse by subject
• Submit Manuscript

• Special Issues
• Conferences

• Related Content
• About the Authors
• Follow the Authors

This Paper provides brief introduction to the Forest and Community Forest in Nepal and context and status of community forest in Nepal. Community forests in Nepal are built on the experience of other countries around the world, especially its neighbors in South Asia. In order to understand the context and particular designs and objectives of Nepal’s community forestry program, key literature on community forestry is summarized. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of community forestry in Nepal from first protecting local forests and forest products for subsistence needs, to an increased role in income generation and meeting national development goals, including poverty alleviation.

Keywords: forest, Nepal, community, local people, forest management

Cite this article:

• Normal Style
• Chicago Style
• Bhattarai Binod. Community Forest and Forest Management in Nepal. American Journal of Environmental Protection . Vol. 4, No. 3, 2016, pp 79-91. https://pubs.sciepub.com/env/4/3/3
• Binod, Bhattarai. "Community Forest and Forest Management in Nepal." American Journal of Environmental Protection 4.3 (2016): 79-91.
• Binod, B. (2016). Community Forest and Forest Management in Nepal. American Journal of Environmental Protection , 4 (3), 79-91.
• Binod, Bhattarai. "Community Forest and Forest Management in Nepal." American Journal of Environmental Protection 4, no. 3 (2016): 79-91.

At a glance: Figures

View all figures

1. Introduction

FAO (1978) defines community forestry as “a situation, which intimately involves local people in forestry activity” [ 1 ] . This definition includes a wide spectrum of activity such as allowing local communities to completely manage their forest for local needs; giving them access to the economic benefits derived from forest, and protecting forests maintains ecological wellbeing along with generating income for rural communities from the processing of forest products. Community forestry generally involves three major activities. First is local decision making and controlling an area of forest land, second is local control of benefits, including revenue and forest products and third is increasing local value-added manufacturing with maintenance of long term ecological integrity of the forest ecosystem [ 2 ] .

2. Origin of Community Forestry in Nepal

“Hariyo Ban Nepal Ko Dhan (Green Forests are the wealth of Nepal)” has been a very popular slogan in Nepal and to some extent a reality as well. However, with the nationalization of forests by the government in 1957, the local people who had been using the forest resources as well as protecting the forests were deprived of their rights. The nationalization of forests by the government has let to mistrust among the people towards the efforts made by the government for the forest protection. To add woe to this, the increasing population was bound to depend on the adjacent forests for meeting their basic needs such as firewood, fuel, fodder and timber [ 3 ] . As a result of this, the forests were exploited in manners that were not conducive to sustainable management practices. Consequently this led to deterioration of forests particularly in the hills in the form of accelerated forest encroachment, illegal logging and continued deforestation. To stop the rapid decline and deterioration of forest conditions, the government initiated the community forestry program. The community forestry program was specifically brought in with an objective of meeting the subsistence needs of local people and at the same time for protecting the forests by transferring user rights of forest resources to the local users [ 4 ] . In community forests, parts of government forests are handed over to a group of local households known as Community Forest User Groups (CFUG). They prepare a forest management plan according to their needs and forests are managed according to the plan for the purpose of resource utilization as well as protection and conservation. The basic assumption of the CFUG is that users become united and become capable of managing community forests for their mutual benefits. However, requirement and interests of the households participating in community forests is different depending upon their economic status. Poor people want to use it more for subsistence such as fodder, food and firewood while rich people are more interested in its commercial value such as timber.

The need for a community forestry program in Nepal was first emphasized by government policies as early as 1976 (By the National Forest Plan, 1976). This resulted in amendment of the conventional Forest Act (amendment 1977) by making provisions for handing over of part of government forests to the smallest local governance unit, then known as “Panchyat” (HMG, 1978). It further produced regulations called Forest Rules, in 1978 for smooth implementation of the program.

The local panchayats had ownership over plantation forests (Panchyat Forest) and existing natural forests (Panchyat Protected Forests). But it was the local households, who had to be involved to protect the forest, contribute their labor for forest management activities and very often had to sacrifice their traditional use of forests, such as grazing, in the name of community forest development. Therefore, there was no feeling of ownership among the local people. Thus, local a panchayat was not able to motivate local communities sufficiently for forest management. However, in terms of policy formulation, this program is considered as one of the best forestry programs in the world [ 5 ] .

After the panchayat system was overthrown, political instability was created. In the absence of proper legislative structure, forest administration started handing over the forests directly to the local groups involved in protecting forests. Providing ownership of forest management directly to the local forest users made the community forestry program more acceptable, and users started contributing for forest protection and forest management, such as thinning, pruning, weeding, etc. Thus, local communities started to have more responsibility in forest management and they started to get benefits from forest products such as tree fodder, grass, poles and firewood.

A master plan of the forestry sector (1989) placed the community forestry program as one of its six primary programs. The Forest Act was enacted in 1993, where community forestry was recognized as one of the forestry programs for Nepal. Regulations were passed in 1995, which elaborated operational modalities for community forests. The regulations allowed local people to manage the forests and to use the forest products according to the management plan approved by the District Forest Office (DFO).

3. Implementation of Community Forestry Program

After enactment of new Act and Regulation, implementation of the community forestry program in the hills went in to high speed. The government announced the handing over of all accessible forests as community forests. All development partners operating in Nepal supported this idea and started formulating and implementing community forestry programs. By 1995, the number of community forestry and its related programs or projects across Nepal reached 13 (MFSC, 1996). In the beginning, handing over of good forests to the community was limited because DFO (District Forest Office) kept ownership of good forests.

Table 1. The transition of coverage of Community Forest

The data in the table shows that the average formation of CFUGs per year is 200 and area added per year is 2,200 ha.

4. An over View of Forest Management in Nepal

Forests are directly related with the nation’s development. It plays a crucial role for the living standard of people. By knowing this fact, since the beginning of civilization, different efforts have been made for its protection, but in the Nepalese context efforts made by the government can be summarized in the following chronological way. In Nepal, the government earned revenue of US$ 1.11 million from the sale of non-wood forest products or almost 18% of the total revenue of the forest sector in 2002 [ 6 ] . Ninety percent of rural household income is contributed thought non-wood forest production Non-Wood Forest products (NWFP) related economic activities [ 7 ] . In Nepal management of NWFP is done by community forest user groups (CFUG) and national policy explicitly recognizes commercial role [ 6 ] . After more than five years of established community forests in Nepal, the collection of forest products including fodder, grass, thatching materials and leaf litter, has increased while fuel wood collection and livestock number decreased. This has led to tree regeneration and improvement of forest health [ 8 ] . In addition, the number of community forests in Nepal is increasing: as of 2006 14,258 CFUGs has been formed covering two-fifths of the total population and one-fifth of the total forest area [ 9 ] . Studies suggest that the community forest program has had tremendously positive effects on local resource conservation and livelihood conditions [ 10 ] . These studies also suggest that the program has improved other areas of natural resources management including watershed conservation and protected area management [ 10 ] .

Table 2. Forest management and administration history in Nepal

A number of small kingdoms and tribal areas had existed in Nepal before unification. Nepal has been predominantly an agricultural country with a land tenure system. Access to agriculture was important to all level or categories of people in society. Stiller (1975) has described the land tenure system in detail.

The history of forest management in Nepal is close linked with the political history of the country. In earlier periods, the ruler of Nepal has used forest as a potential source of the revenue and had shown little intrest of forest management. Land use policy in the mountains was designed to encourage the conversion of forest land of the farmland in order to increase the tax base [ 11 ] . The forest management situation in the the following period was influenced by political events. The conversion of forest land to agriculture had started before the Prithivi Narayan Shah (Regime 1763). Reclamation of the forest was generally open to anyone who undertook to bring it under cultivation. Tax exemption, normally for three years, was granted in respect of such land, a concession attributed by tradition to King Ram Shah of Gorakha (1606-1633) [ 12 ] .

The Zamindars and other revenue functionaries, over and above jagir land grant received for their work, were also entitled to reclaim as much new land as they liked without payment of any additional tax [ 13 ] . The Gurkha ruler, Ram Shah, established a form of family rule over Gorkha [ 13 ] . The land tenure system was established in this area and land tax was levied known as raikar. The peasants paid tax to the state crown as a rent or tax equivalent to one half of product of the land they held. Peasant rights to the land were based on the regular payment of this rent to the crown representative and other revenue functionaries. At that time, land was not allowed to remain as unproductive.

In a jagir and birta grants, the land was assigned to a person who served the court in some official, civil or military capacity, even the low ranked staff were able to receive benefits from this land. This form of grant remained valid only if the official concerned continued to serve the state or unite the land was recalled or confiscated Kipat is another and entirely different concept of land tenure existing largely in Buddhist or tribal communities in the hill of Nepal in the Gorkhali period [ 14 ] .

In many villages such as Rai and Limbu they retained communal land for many years thought the kipat system of tenure, under which natural resources of land and forest were controlled by a village head and distributed in accordance with family requirements. Communal ownership provided checks: and balances to prevent over-harvesting by legal means. In the similar manner, in the Gurung and Magar villages, these groups of people commonly managed their forest using a traditional system that was exercised thought a council of village leader- Mukhiya. In the local system of authority, village heads were powerful about village activities, including forest and pasture.

It seems that even before 1743, the former rulers of many autonomous states utilized natural resources for the principle source of income as a family heritage. In the name of state income generation, most of the land had been converted into agricultural land for revenue collection.

In 1969, the greater part of present-day Nepal was united into one nation by the King of Gorkha, Prithivi Narayan Shah. After the P.N. shah regime, his descendants continued the task of unification and, by 1808, the frontier of Nepal extended 2,100 km from the Tistha River in the East. At that time, the political situation in India was different and the British were spreading their political control over the Gangetic Plan by subjugating the native Indian rulers. In the Tarai, confrontation occurred between Birtish Indian and Nepal forces. British demanded for evacuation of the Tarai territory were unacceptable to Gorkhali Government. The result was the British-Nepal war (1814-1816) ant the Treaty of Sugauli gave the Birtish East India Company highly important advantages. A large portion of Nepalese territory was surrendered to the Birtish but the part of this was subsequently restored to Nepal in 1861 and 1960 [ 15 ] .

After 1950, there was rapid political changes made in the previous King’s leadership. The forest was used to secure votes by different level of politicians mostly during the election period. Each elected Government even became unable to solve the forest land encroachment by the migrants in the Tarai.

The Government and authorized individuals have exploited nature forest resources for their personal benefit for generations. Forest land was distributed to kin and powerful people by introducing a different tenure system. In the later stage of the Ran regime, one third of state-owned forest was transferred as a birta and kipat and therefore belonged to Rana family. In 1957, the government enforces the Nationalization Act and nationalized privately owned forests. Many scholars suggest the deforestation in Nepal can be traced to the nationalization of communal forest lands in 1950s by the government, thereby alienating local people from their ancestral institution and controls [ 16 ] . In fact entitlement of forest was not communal it was with landowners and they allowed local people for forest products use.

Local control over forest remained in places where strong local leadership had excluded Government interference. In these areas, forests were protected thought local action to ensure that local people could continue to meet their needs from the forest, and the Act appears to have had little effect [ 17 ] . Despite the argument made by Rhodes, there is not any evidence that shows Government has nationalized communal forest. Most of the forest was under the control of powerful people as private forest, which was national property previously. Even powerful people owned these forests as birta, kipat and other means. Forest was permitted to use to local people as mercy of landlord, and there was system providing gift and labor donation instead of taking forest products. The main intention of this Act was to size the power and control of limited elite Zamindars, bringing all the forest under Government control with a view to preserving this natural resource, providing for the protection of forest, and controlling use by the people.

The 1957 nationalization Act states the “….. forest constitutes an important part of the national wealth and to protect national wealth… management utilization thereof for the public interest it is expedient to nationalist private forests” (Private Forest Nationalization Act, 1957). There was a provision in this Act that about the limited area of private forest for the individual family, which could not be nationalized. After the end of the Rana era, the government had nationalized private forest in a weak organizational structure and was unable to communicate that view of nationalization to people. Local elite and landlord Zamindar distorted the message of the nationalization Act which accelerated deforestation. Presently, nationalization of private forest has provided an opportunity for increasing community forest in the country, since all the accessible forest under control of Zimindars has been now converted to community forest.

The forest Act 1961 was mainly concerned with forest administration. It defined the categories of forest and covered legal procedures for handling different types of forests, which included the duties of the Forest Department (DOF), forest offences and prescribed penalties. This Act also made provision for private forest plots (ban batika), not exceeding in area of 1.25 hectares in the Hill and 3,25 hectares in Tarai, if the individuals planted and grew trees with their own resources and efforts. However, there was a little provision for transferring Government forest land to Panchayat community forest for their use and it remained inactive. In 1962, King Mahendra instituted the Panachyat Policy, which was a new national political system, based on local people’s committees called Panchayats that would build “democracy from the grass roots” [ 17 ] .

The main focus of the Forest Protection Special Act 1967 (special arrangement) was to further define forest offences and prescribe penalties for these, as well as forest protection. A special court was established under the provisions. This Act provided more power to the District Forest Office in conserving forest resources and policing functions in practice. However, it was only applied in the weaker sections of society, which was brought under the purview of this law enforcement actively. The powerful individuals, who were involved in offences, often escaped thought influence and manipulation. So this Act also proved to be of limited use and the DOF became unable to manage forest resources effectively.

• PPT PowerPoint Slide
• PNG Larger image(png format)

•  NEW View larger figure in new window

This map shows protected areas, ecological zone and forest of Nepal. The master plan for the forestry sector of 1988 is an overall twenty-five years forest policy that included strategies to manage forest resources in the appropriate way. The master plan was prepared by Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation.

5. The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector

Before the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (MPFS) in 1988, a provision made in the Forest Act and its bylaws was duly acknowledge in the national plans and programmed in Nepal. The NPC has incorporated policies from the national forestry plan published in 1976 into seventh five-year plan. Objectives of that policy were to meet people’s needs for forest products, including timber, fuel wood, fodder etc. It maintains or restores ecological balance thought afforestation and water shade management, and encourages maximum economic gain from forest products. The corresponding aims of the seventh five-year plan were to supply the needs of daily life such as fuel wood, timber, bedding materials, leaves and grass, as well as to carry out afforestation. Encouraging the maximum participation of the people protected afforested areas.

The master Plan was prepared by the combined efforts of the Government and donors, international development agencies. The plan specified two sets of objectives; the long –term objectives and the mid –term objectives. They are as below.

Table 3. Objectives of Master Plan for Forestry Sector

6. Community Forestry – A General Overview

Community Forest is defined as a situation, which intimately involves local people in forestry activities [ 18 ] (FAO 1978). Gilmour and Fisher (1991) have defined CF in terms of control and management of forest resources by the rural people who use them especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their farming systems. CF started in the late 1970s, when the development strategies of the 1950s and 1960s that focused on industrial development were being criticized for overlooking rural development and not meeting the basic needs of the rural poor. Since then, it has been spreading over the world with different names but similar objectives. Malla (2001) reports some examples like Join Forest Management in India, Social Forestry in Bangladesh, BC Forestry in Canada, Community Forestry in America, Social Forestry in China, Community Forestry in Nepal, and so on.

The community forestry program was launched in the late-1970s as part of efforts to curb the widely perceived crisis of the Himalayan forest degradation, when the government of Nepal came to the conclusion that active involvement of the local people in forest management was essential for forest conservation in the country. The term community in its broadest sense may refer to any group of persons united by a “community of interest”. In this sense a professional group, a residential unit, or a club or a voluntary association may all be referred to as communities. A forest is a biological community dominated by trees and other woody vegetation. Thus community forestry activities are aimed at providing direct benefits to rural people and that “the people” should have a substantial role in decision making. At this level that is as a statement about the philosophy behind community forestry, there is nothing wrong with the term [ 18 ] . Community forestry is flourishing in Nepal, improving the livelihoods of rural household of communities, and nurturing democracy at the grassroots level despite a prolonged insurgency and political upheavals [ 19 ] .

During the 1970’s, the recognition of Himalayan degradation as a serious environmental crisis [ 20 ] . Increased pressure on international development institutions and donor governments to contribute to the conservation of the Himalayas. This led to a shift in the development discourse away from an emphasis on infrastructure and technology transfer toward environmental issues [ 21 ] . Moreover, Nepal’s strategic geopolitical situation (being located between China and India) and fragile environmental condition attracted donors [ 22 ] .Whose viewed forestry and the environment as the key elements of integrated conservation and development projects.

Several international agencies (Such as NPO, NGO, INGO) assisted the Nepalese Government in formulating the master plan for the forestry sector (MPFS), which recognized the need for local people’s participation in the conservation and management of the country’s forest resources. In 1989, as the master plan for the forestry sector was being finalized and formally adopted by the government, an ongoing movement against the panchayat system by the citizenry also culminated in the reinstatement of multiparty democracy in the country. The decisions of subsequent governments further strengthened the regulatory framework of a community-based forest plan for the forestry sector (MPFS).

Community forestry is one of components of social forestry. Agro forestry, Agro-salvo pastoral systems and private planning programs come under the umbrella term of social forestry. [ 23 ] , describes the natural and potential role of social forestry. He opines on what ways, and to what extent social forestry can help to alleviate the acute socio-economic problems faceted by many developing countries. In this potential role of social forestry, he mentioned in his paper the ecological aspects like site protection, economic aspects like income and wage and social benefits like a higher quality of life.

The emerging of the concept of community forestry in the late 60’s and early 70’s parallels with the wider concert of development with basic community needs. Community forestry initially involved local people in forest activity. Community forestry refers to the control and management of forestry resources by the rural people who are using them especially for domestic purposes and as an integral part of their farming system. Villagers see community forestry or village forestry as the control management and use of forest resources. It seeks to increase the level of awareness of local people and actively involve them in all aspects of forestry activities. [ 24 ] .

Community forestry has been defined as “The control protection and management of local forest by local people or community known as a user group.” [ 25 ] . Gerald Foley has also an opinion that over the past decade, farm and community forestry has emerged as one of the principal responses to the problems caused by the widespread loss of tree and forest cover in the developing world. Its aim is also help people to solve their own wood supply problems, meet their own needs and preserve the environment in which they live by planting trees on their farms and around villages [ 26 ] .

Table 2 shows the main features of current community forestry in Nepal.

Table 4. Main Features of Current Community Forestry in Nepal

The most signification regulatory development in support of community forestry was the enactment of the forest Act 1993 by the first elected parliament after the 1990 movement for democracy. The 1993 Forest Act guaranteed the rights of local people in forest management [ 25 ] , as briefly summarized in Table No: 3. Nepal became the world’s first country to enact such radical forest legislation, allowing local communities to take full control of government forest patches under a community forestry program. Meanwhile, international agencies continued to support the process of reorienting government forestry officials the work as facilitators of community based forest management and away from their traditional policing roles [ 24 ] .

Table 5. CFUG right as per the forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995)

Regarding the forest management, present Forest Act of 1993 entitles the CFUGs “to develop conserve use manage the forest sell and distribute the forest product independently by fixing their process according to operational” (Forest Act 1993). The forest regulation of 1995 introduces a provision that in order to transport forest products, a committee or person designated by the CFUG shall issue a permit and stamp the timber. The transportation products can only take place after informing the concerned forest office and having the matter endorsed by checkpoints located in route.

• PREV View previous figure

Above data shows process of Community Forest formation.

Detail of tenure Certification Process in Nepal is as follows

The Forest Regulation (1995) and CF Development Guideline (2009) describe the CF handover process:

1. Written request to District Forest Office (DFO) by interested forest users to manage their accessible forest they have been traditionally using as Community Forest (CF)

2. With technical and other forms of support from DFO, CFUG formation and preparation of CFUG constitution by forest users

3. Application to DFO by CFUG for registration

4. Registration of CFUG by DFO and issuance of CFUG registration certificate

5. With support of DFO, preparation of Operational Plan (OP) of CF by CFUG (includes survey, demarcation of forest area, forest inventory and calculation of annual increment)

6. Submission of OP to DFO by CFUG for approval 7. Approval of OP by DFO and issuance of CF handover certificate

Forest Rules (1995) provide scope for CFUGs to prepare their Operation Plans (OPs). The OPs define forest conditions, management activities and determine the annual allowable cut for timber and fuelwood. The OPs are prepared in line with the CF Inventory Guidelines (2004).Forest Rules (1995) stipulate that a District Forest Office (DFO) needs to conduct a field verification of the OP before approving and handing over the forest to a CFUG. The DFO can also suggest to amending the OP if they feel it is necessary. Upon approval, they issue a certificate to the CFUG with a bond to the effect that the CFUG will comply with the conditions that are prescribed.

7. Forest Classification

Six categories of forest are recognized in Nepal. These are as flows

1. Government managed forest

2. Leasehold forest

3. Religious forest

4. Protection forest

5. Community forest. and

6. Private forest

Below table depicts categories of forest, their management objectives and agencies responsible for their management. Among these forest categories, CF has received the highest priority with in the forest sector, because large numbers of people are directly involved in this forest category.

Table 6. Forest classification, management objectives and responsible institutions

Government managed forests are defined as all national forests (except private forest) that are directly managed by His Majesty’s Government. Since government managed forest are national forests, all rights dictating their use are reserved by the government. Government managed forests may only be used in the capacity prescribed in their work plan; ownership of the land and of the products derived from government-managed forests lies with the government- managed forest may only be prepared, approved and implemented by the government. The following activities are prohibited in government-managed forests (HMG 1995):

• Deforestation, cultivatation and construction (of housing, roads, paths etc.)

• Grazing, the setting of fires and the production of charcoal.

• Removal, sale or distribution of forest products, and the extraction of resin, bark, timber, firewood, boulders, rocks sand or soil.

• Export of forest products to foreign countries.

• Stealing, destruction or damaging of any government property

• Destruction of biodiversity, the hunting of wild-life and the collection of insects and butterflies.

Individuals have no rights of any type in government-managed forest except when a rights or facility has been obtained thought a lease or in any other way from the government or from an authority empowered by the government. For the purpose of developing or conserving the forest, the government or an authority empowered by the government may close any private or public path or stream situated with in the national forest (HMG1995).

Leasehold forests are areas of national forest leased to any corporate body, industry, community or individuals living below poverty line. As a condition of the lease, leaseholders are required to utilize the forest in one of the following ways (HMG 1995):

• Production of raw materials required by the forest-based industries

• Production, utilization or sale and distribution of forest products with appropriate measures in place for sustaining the resource

• Operation of eco-tourism in a way that is compatible with the conservation and development requirements of the forest

• Implementation of an agro-forest project in a way that is compatible with the conservation and development requirement of the forest

• Operation of an insect, butterfly or wild farm/park in a way that is compatible with the conservation and development requirement of the forest

In the event that the leaseholder fails to perform its defined task in accordance with the forest lease, or other-wise undertakes activities that may cause significant adverse environmental effects, the Regional Forest Director may decide to cancel the forest lease and reclaim the forest. The Regional Forest Director has ultimate authority over the lease as stipulated under the MFSC.

Upon receipt of an application, the DFO can handover a religious forest to the jurisdiction of a religious body, group or community wishing the manage the forest for its religious value. Before handing over the forest necessary arrangements must be made to ensure the traditional rights of forest user are not adversely affected. The religious body or community may utilize the forest products derived from the religious forest for religious activities and not for commercial purpose. Where any significant environment impact is anticipated, trees may not be removed and any activities which caused soil erosion or damage to public property-particularly in watershed areas- are prohibited. If the group fails to meet any of the terms and conditions defined for the forest’s management, the DFO may reclaim the forest at any time.

A component to national forests, protected forests are considered to be of special environment, Scientific or culture importance. The government prepares and implements a work plan for the management of protected forests. No activities other than those defined in the work plan or those granted special prior approval by the government, can be conducted in a protected forest.

A community forest is a part of a national forest that has been handed over to a user group for its development, conservation and utilization for the collective interest. The forest Act and its regulation have provided ample opportunity for people to participate in the management of forest of Nepal basically thought the provision of community and leasehold forests. The DFO has the authority to hand over management of community forests to user groups. The DFO is also authorized to provide technical and other assistance required to user groups and mobilize users to prepare that work plan for the management of the community forest. As self-governing institution, FUGs are legally allowed to fix prices of the forest products they sell and to apply silvicultural and other forestry practices in the management of the forest. The new policy has also allowed users to cultivate non-timber forests products as a means of generating income earned on forest based cash crops and to commercialize wood and non-wood products and their processing to fulfill the subsistence needs of local people. In so doing, due consideration must be given to the health and vigor of the forest. Similarly FUGs are free to collect and spend income generated from the community forest not only for the development of their forest but also in order to carry out other social and community development activities. FUGs may independently network and consult with other FUGs and their federation. FUGs have provided a platform for the discussion of all aspects of forest resource management for local people, politicians and government officials. In the event that a FUG fails to perform its function or attempts to carry out any operation not included in the Work plan which may cause adverse environmental effects, the DFO is empowered to cancel the registration of the FUG and rescind the rights to the community forests. The FUG has the status of an autonomous corporate body and has a separate seal of its own.

Fugs are fully legalized to collect funds and use them to finance activities of public interest having made full disbursement for the development of the community forest. The FUGs should deposit their income into a separate account. The FUGs are funded by the following sources (HMG 1995):

• Grant received from His Majesty’s Government

• Grant, assistance or donation from any person or organization

• Amount received from the sale and distribution of forest products

• Amount collected thought fines

• Amount received from any other source.

The FUG is required to submit an annual report of its activities, including descriptions of the condition of the forest and the expenditure and balance of its account, to the DFO.

Private forests are forests planted, nurtured or conserved on any private land owned by an individual. The owner of the private forest may develop, conserve or manage the private forest, and utilize or sell and distribute the forest products by fixing prices at will. Any person or institution can register a privately owned forest with the government, and is legible to receive any necessary technical assistance from the state if they do so.

8. Concept of People Participations

People participation as a concept has gain remarkable currency in recent years. This is mainly because of its symbolic power as a glossy cover to make plants, program and project attractive. Besides endorsing people participation is one good way to assert the legitimacy of a program or project today when there is so much talked about in empowering the local people and decentralization. People’s participation has been taken as a means by government agencies and their projects alike for achieving their goals [ 27 ] .

Participatory management is often seen as an appropriate solution to reduce degradation. It has been thought that granting property rights over the local commons would ensure the equitable and sustainable use of environment resources. When the responsibility of allocating natural resources is delegated to local organizations, communities tend to appropriate forestry programs. So this sort of program is one of the best ways of economic and environment activities through the proper management of local resources of forests [ 28 ] .

Community participation is aprocess in which people are encouraged realizing that they themselves have the abilities, energies and some of the resources to make initiatives to improve their lives. This approach is being fulfilled through the community forestry project, which requires community participation [ 29 ] .

The willingness to participate in community forestry clearly varied depending on the nature of the activities (Decision making, forest protection, forest development and forest utilization). In each activity different groups of people were found to be participating at different levels and for different resources [ 29 ] . The principle aim of community forestry is to involve people in all stages from decision making to harvesting, so it is the most essential feature of community forestry.

9. Conceptual Framework

Local people are primary managers and users of forest products. Low levels of their participation have created the problem in protection and management of forest products in terms of grass, fodder, fuel wood and leaves. In this way participation involves the production and management of community forestry from very beginning.

Some independent variables can be found to minimize women’s participation in the community forestry system. Social and cultural factors highly influence to women’s participation. At the same time, the education level of women and lack of skills are supporting factors to bypass their involvement in the CF system.

The conceptual framework of Mobilization of Natural resources development by Yogo (2005) has been used. It consists of three factors: “Resources”, “Institutions “and “Norms”. Natural “Resources” (community forest) are the base of local development and utilization, and an “Institution”, such as CFUG acts as the user of the resources. The CFUG acts as the user of the resources. The CFUG will be based on a “Norm” such as forest Management Rules for the sustainable use of resources.

Community forests provide products with value such as timber, fuel, food, as well as an in-direct benefit from the forests as pathways to peripheral populations. Likewise, the community forest policy can make changes in the status of CFUG and “forest management” rules can be adapted at the national level. Overall, these factors supposedly contribute to “poverty reduction”.

10. Status of Community Forest

When the Community forest program was first implemented during the 1990s; the hand-over rate was high. Figure 1 depicts the hand –over of Community Forests from 1991 to 2008. A considerable number of Community forests were handed over to communities between 1994 and 1997, possibly because a new Forest Act was promulgated in 1993 with provisions for more user rights.

Nearly 1.5 million people are involved in Community Forests and the figure is increasing day by day since only 20 percent of the total potential Community Forests have been handed over to the 14,439 CFUGs (CFD 2010). The potential Community Forest area is 5.5 million ha and only 1.23 million ha have been handed over to Forest Users' Groups, and these groups comprise 35% of the total population (26million) of the country. The goals and objectives of Community Forestry will vary according to the individual needs and aspirations, whether it is a developed or a developing country. In developing countries, the aim is to meet the basic needs of the communities such as fuel-wood, fodder, grass building materials, medicines, and food. Whereas, the goal of Community Forestry in developed countries is to strengthen community stability including reducing unemployment, by enhancing sustained economic benefits from forestry. Therefore, there are many reasons to increase people’s participation in forests. In the past many governments have failed to manage forests, keeping the forests in state control. The rationale behind the provision of the Community Forestry and the CFUGs in Nepal was a consequence of the government's incapability to conserve the forest and biodiversity effectively through its bureaucratic systems. In 1957, the Government nationalized virtually all forests by placing them under the legal authority of Forest Department. As a result, people gradually lost all of their traditional rights over the forests and were deprived from getting their subsistence needs from forest products. Resentment against nationalization contributed to unregulated extraction, creating conflict between villagers and DOF staff (SPRINGATE et al. 2003). This distancing of people from resources management led to wanton destruction of forests in Nepal [ 18 ] . Therefore, Community Forestry began as an attempt by governments and aid agencies to provide an alternative way for forest departments to manage forests, that is, through including local people [ 18 ] .

Even though the hand over rate of CFs is declining, the accumulated area and the number of CFs have increased substantially from 1991 to 2008. Some figures related to CFs are shown in Table 4 . Out of a total area of 5.5 million hectares, 2 million hectares are categorized as potential CFs and the remaining 3.5 million hectares are categorized as leasehold forest and government managed forest. Twenty two percent of Nepal’s forest area has been handed over as CF. Up until 2009, 14,569 forest patches have been handed over to communities. Approximately 1.67 million households, which constitutes about 35% of the total population, are involved in CFM (DoF, 2009).

The chart shows that the first community forests were created in 1987, in just a few districts, and rose slowly after the approval of the master plan for the forestry sector in 1989. The forest Act 1993 and the forest Regulations 1995 jump-started the registration, management planning and handover of community forests. The number of community forests in the country increased dramatically between 1991 and 1996, particularly in the easily accessible hill areas. However, due to the ten years of political insurgency that followed, the rate of community forest creation heavily decreased: government staff could not easily move around the rural areas, and the priority of donor partners changed from forestry to peace building. After the success of the second revolution in 2006, the trend seemed to turn upwards again, but was halted by the government of Nepal passing a policy to stop handing over the forests. This policy was reversed in 2010 and met with an increase in community forest creation, but this again was followed by a policy that has made community forest creation more complicated and restricted its budget.

Table 7. Status of CF in Nepal as of 2009

11. Contribution of Community Forestry on Rural Livelihoods

Forest resources play a crucial role in rural livelihoods in Nepal and elsewhere in the developing countries [ 8 ] . The forest resources directly fulfil forest related subsistence needs of women, poor and backward people as well as commercial needs of well-off people [ 30 ] . The recent studies show that the Community Forestry in Nepal has contributed to the improvement of forest condition and people’s livelihoods mainly in two ways: Capital formation in rural communities and policy and governance reform of various organizations and agencies [ 31 ] . The Community Forestry is oriented towards the development of natural capital (e.g; Good forest conditions), physical capital (e.g; schools, roads, temple,), financial capital (E.g.; CFUG fund), human capital (e.g.; reoriented forestry staff, higher education of forestry staff, capable CFUG member), and social capital 28 (e.g.; building CFUG as local elected body, and FECOFUN) [ 8 ] These capital or assets produced by Community Forestry are playing a crucial role in rural development and development of livelihood assets. Some previous studies carried out by Forest Action team in 2003 on “Impact of Community Forestry on livelihoods in the Middle Hills of Nepal” described the Community Forestry’s impacts on livelihoods of the local people. They suggested two major types of impacts: Direct Impacts: Change in the levels and security of forest products and benefit flows (through the improvements to the forest resources and/or improved tenure right) Indirect Impacts: An indirect benefit comprises all those benefits that come from the institutional development of the community based forest management system or the institutional system of Community Forestry. These benefits include improved social capital for collective planning and action; support for community infrastructure and development activities; household livelihood/ income generation opportunities (including credit facilities) and finally improved human capital. There is much evidence, which shows that the forest conditions and flow of forest products have improved through Community Forestry [ 32 ] . Increased forest product flows are due to improvement of forest conditions (Natural capital), and changed entitlements to use it [ 8 ] . Since natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resources flow and services useful for livelihoods are derived [ 8 ] . Much evidence shows that Community Forestry has contributed to the development of social capital in rural as well as in the urban part of Nepal through the set of social relationships [ 32 ] . The CFUGs create a new social forum, with the potential for local-level development planning, improved social support structure and social cohesion [ 8 ] . It has been reported that Community Forestry process has increased social cohesion, which has enhanced social capital, of those who have been powerless, left in isolation and excluded from the mainstream of social and political processes. For, example, [ 33 ] , reported that the participation of women in the committee has increased from 19% in 1996 to 30% in 2003 in the project area [ 31 ] . The CFUGs have created a network through their federation from village level to the district and to the central level: FECOFUN is the observable example of the development of social capital through Community Forestry in Nepal. Similarly, the investments of Community Forestry fund in the village or community level have led to improve village level infrastructure, are the source of physical capital in the grassroots' level [ 8 ] . Since the physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods. The CFUGs have carried out many community development activities on their own by using group funds or through volunteer work [ 31 ] . Construction of village trails, small bridges, community buildings, schools and temples, drinking water supplies, village road construction, village electrification, and trail making are examples of physical capital created through the Community Forestry program in Nepal. The group fund generated from the sale of the forest products, levies and outside grants are the financial capital created through Community Forestry [ 31 ] . Substantial amount of funds have been generated from Community Forestry, for example in the year 2002/03, the CFUG from Banke, Bardia, Kailali and Dhading districts generated a total amount of Rs. 30,9000(US$ 412,000) from forest products sale, membership fees and penalties (CARE 2003). Table 2 provides the information on income and expenditure of CFUGs in Nepal. Data shows that the CFUGs of Terai region alone have contributed to 46.5 percent of the total income of the CFUGs, while CFUGs in Middle Hills and High Mountains have contributed 48 29 percent and 6 percent respectively. The amount of income and expenditure presented in the table is an example of financial capital generated from Community Forestry.

Table 8. Income and expenditure of CFUGs in Nepal

Also, through the Community Forestry program, a number of training, workshops and exposure visits have been conducted by government and non-government organizations and individuals at the community level, for enhancing knowledge and skills related to forest silviculture, community development, organizational management and leadership development [ 31 ] . Report from NSCFP supported districts for Community Forestry show that more than five thousand community members have participated in various workshops, trainings and seminars over a six –year period. Data show that 13 government staff have received a long term scholarship for higher studies; 312 community members (of which 149 are female) have received scholarships for schools and post school education, and a total of 1,184 staff members of government and non-government organizations have received short term training and study tours [ 31 ] . These types of activities carried out by governmental and non-governmental organization at the rural level, enhance the capabilities of the people and raise the level of awareness. Many illiterate rural women are becoming literate through this training, which is the human capital generated through Community Forestry. Human Capital refers to both the health and nutritional levels necessary for sustained labor input and the educational standards and skill levels that make labour more productive [ 32 ] .

12. Other Benefits and Considerations

According to the Nepalese government social forestry program, activities conducted in community forests are supposed to be concerned with generating economic benefits as well as improving ecological and social conditions as well. Below are ways community forests can be managed to support these processes, as well as what is known regarding why households join a CFMG.

Some of the hoped for ecological benefits include the following. Through community forests CFMGs can contribute to the rehabilitation of degraded forests, water sources can be protected, fire incidence can be reduced, wildlife can be protected, forest cover can be improved, and the CF area can be recreational area for outsiders to visit. However, there is limited empirical documentation on actual practices and ecological impacts, especially over time.

The literature suggests there is great potential for community forests to enhance cooperation among the members of CFMGs and build local governance capacity. Especially in rural areas in Nepal they always have cooperation as part of every program like marriage parties and other occasions where they always help each other. A sense of ownership over the forest can be increased thereby protecting the CF against outsiders illegally taking resources. There is also potential for rural residents to have a formal way to express their concerns and priorities by participating in CFMG meetings.

13. Conclusion

In the history of forest management, before the start community forestry activities in the early 1980s there were little tradition of national forest management in the middle hills. Even in the Tarai, the term Forest Management meant mainly the harvesting of trees and was only concerned with afforestation on clear felled areas. Government forest management was synonymous with forest protection and establishment of plantation. During early 1990s priority for community forestry shifted and focused on the handover of nature forest.

Existing studies suggest there are many opportunities for CFMGs member to increase their livelihood from community forests, as well as contribute to environmental sustainability. These include strong political support from the government, enabling regulatory frameworks, growing capacity within the Nepal government and the forest-related development sector, and some beginning experiments with timber and non-wood forest product income generation in community forests. Community forestry as a strategy to enable the utilization of forest resources in a sustainable way arose during the 1970s. the development strategies of the 1950s and 1960s focused on industrial development, which were being criticizes for overlooking rural development, and not on acting the basic needs of the rural poor.

Abbreviation

CBS: Central Bureau of Statistics

CF: Community Forest

CFUG: Community Forest User Group

DDC: District Development Committee

DFO: District Forest Office

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization

FUG: Forest User’s Group

GN: Government of Nepal

INGO: International Non-Governmental Organization

MPFS: Master Plan for Forestry Sector

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

NPC: National Planning Commission

PF: Panchayat Forest

PPF: Panchyat Protected Forest.

• Full-Text PDF
• Full-Text ePUB
• Citation-(RIS Format)
• Citation-(BibTeX Format)
• Citation-(EndNote Format)

• Google Scholar
• VIRAL HEPATITIS CONGRESS
• JournalTOCs

Help & Contacts

• Questionnaire