Abstract
The status of forest conditions before and after intervention of the forestry projects in community forest in three districts of Nepal is examined. Benefits are observed from the adoption of adaptive collaborative management and collective learning and action research in three sampled districts. The adoption of regular silvicultural treatments has increased the availability of forest products to local users. Moreover, improved forest condition and smallholder livelihoods have improved, as has environmental sustainability. However, the community forestry program has several limitations and shortcomings. Elite capture, social disparity, inequitable benefit-sharing and exclusion of poor and marginalized groups from the community forestry program are notable challenges to be solved in coming years. Special attention is needed to make community forestry inclusive with equitable benefit-sharing and a pro-poor focus.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
1 US$ = 85.89 NRs. as of 18th May, 2012.
The partner organizations of the project are the Forest Resources Studies and Action Team (ForestAction Nepal), Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN), Nepal Herbs and Herbal Products Association (NEHHPA), Nepal Forum for Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ) and Central Department of Sociology and Anthropology Tribhuvan University (CDSA-TU). The project has been funded by the Research into Use (RIU) Program of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with partial funding support from IDRC. The project was formally implemented from 11 June 2008 to 30 June 2011. The aims of the project have been to: strengthen the community institutions (such as community forest user groups-CFUGs); enhance forest access for the users, particularly the poor and marginalized groups, to forest resources and forest resource-related markets; improve governance system of the CFUGs, CFUG networks and service providers; and apply an innovation systems approach among coalition partners as well as with local communities and other stakeholders.
RIU embraces holistic approach to elucidate the process of governance and management and integrating activities with innovation systems through which research can be better used to promote social and economic development in Asia and African countries. RIU is funded through DFID. The RIU Asia program is divided into four themes, further information about which can be found on www.resourceintouse.com. Theme 3, on scaling up of natural resource management research products, has a cluster of projects related to community forest management in Nepal. RIU is managed by the coalition of diverse organizations including: ForestAction, FECOFUN, NEFEJ, NEHHPA and CDSA-TU.
Bhari is a local Nepali term denoting a load of fuelwood and is equivalent to approximately 35–40 kg.
Dalit is a self-designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as ‘lower caste’ and ‘untouchable’ according to Hindu caste division system. In Nepal, dalits are a mixed population of numerous caste groups including Kami (Blacksmiths), Damai (Tailors), Sarki (Shoemakers). Discriminations against dalit still exist in rural areas of Nepal and they are not allowed to access to temples, water resources and eating places of higher caste groups.
References
Acharya KP (2002) Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int For Rev 4(2):149–156
Adhikari B (2005) Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environ Dev Econ 10(1):7–31
Adhikari B, Williams F, Lovett JC (2007) Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ 9(5):464–478
FAO (1997) Implementing sustainable forest management in Asia and the Pacific. In: Proceedings of a regional expert consultation, 12–15 December 1995, Bangkok
Gautam KH (2006) Forestry, politicians and power-perspectives from Nepal’s forest policy. For Policy Econ 8(2):175–182
Gautam AP (2009) Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. Int J Soc For 2(2):101–122
Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL (2004a) A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int For Rev 6(2):136–148
Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL (2004b) Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and Institutions in a Mountain Watershed In Nepal. Environ Manage 33(1):48–61
Giri K, Ojha H (2010) Enhancing livelihoods from community forestry in Nepal: can technobureaucratic behaviour allow innovation systems to work? 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4–7 July 2010, Vienna
Kanel KR, Niraula DR (2004) Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari 14(1):19–26
Laurance WF (1999) Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol Conserv 91(2):109–117
MOF (2011) Economic survey: fiscal year 2010/11. Ministry of Finance (MOF), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
Ojha HR, Cameron J, Kumar C (2009) Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ 11(5–6):365–374
Pant M, Kim KH, Joshi C (2008) Temporal mapping of deforestation and forest degradation in Nepal: applications to forest conservation. For Ecol Manage 256(9):1587–1595
Paudel A, Weiss G (2009) Implications of fiscal policy instruments in community forest management of Nepal: issues and challenges. Banko Janakari 20(2):41–47
Pokharel BK (2004) Contribution of community forestry to people’s livelihoods and forest sustainability: experience from Nepal. World Rainforest Movement, Maldonado, Uruauay, http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Asia/Nepal.html. Accessed on 20th July 2011
Rudel T, Roper J (1997) The paths to rain forest destruction: cross national patterns of tropical deforestation. World Dev 25(1):53–65
Sapkota IP, Oden PC (2008) Household characteristics and dependency on community forests in Terai of Nepal. Int J Soc For 1(2):123–144
Springate-Baginski O, Soussan JG, Dev OP, Yadav NP, Kiff E (1999) Community forestry in Nepal: impacts on common property resource management. School of Environment and Development, Series No. 3, University of Leeds, UK
Wagley M, Ojha H (2002) Analyzing participatory trends in Nepal’s community forestry. Policy trend, IGES, Japan, pp 122–142
WB (2001) Community forestry in Nepal. Precis, World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, No. 217, Washington, DC
Acknowledgments
This manuscript is a part of the project, Reducing Poverty through Innovation System in Forestry (RPISF), hosted by ForestAction, Kathmandu, Nepal. The financial assistance for this project was funded by the Research into Use (RIU) program of the Department for International Development (DFID), United Kingdom. The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Laxman Ghimere for supporting the data analysis and also all individuals, communities and institutions for making this study successful. The authors are grateful to Steve Harrison for his valuable editorial support on this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gurung, A., Bista, R., Karki, R. et al. Community-based forest management and its role in improving forest conditions in Nepal. Small-scale Forestry 12, 377–388 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9217-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9217-z