Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation

Abstract

This paper investigates issues confronting forest management and sustainability, focusing on the governance of the community forest user group (CFUG) initiative in Nepal. The paper begins with a literature review to give a general overview of the historical and current situation of forest governance in Nepal. It explores the historical impacts of unsustainable logging in Nepal and the World Bank Report, which both investigated and explored avenues for improving the forest situation, including community forestry. The paper outlines the development of community forestry, the legislative, regulatory, and governance frameworks underpinning this unique system of community-driven forest management, and its relationship to sustainable forest management (SFM). SFM in turn has engendered a market for sustainably derived timber and labeling systems for ‘good’ wood. The paper continues by providing an analysis of stakeholder attitudes regarding the current forest governance situation in Nepal. Furthermore, it provides another small case study on how such standards might be applied in the local community context of protecting Nepal’s Red Panda while simultaneously delivering sustainable forest management and community development. It concludes with a discussion on the need for governance standards for forest management and community forestry in Nepal.

Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal

“…In this context, considering CFUGs as organizations responsible for managing environmental initiatives like community forest management, we have developed twenty-two indicators across five performance criteria, as depicted in Figure 1 and Table 1. These indicators were formulated based on empirical studies, reviews of the academic and grey literature, and policy documents [10,17,[26][27][28]. The key policy documents reviewed were the Forest Act of 2019, the Forest Regulation of 2022, and the Community Forest Development Guidelines of 2009 from the Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) [28].…”

“…Utilize timely and consistent technical assistance for the implementation of activities outlined in the forest operational plan, as well as for the revision of both the forest operational plan and constitution Source: Adapted from Lamichhane et al [10], Cadman et al [26], WWF Nepal [27] and MoFE [28].…”

Managing climate change challenges to water security: Community water governance in Ethiopia and Nepal

“…We therefore have very high expectations of ‘Saint Community’, who is supposedly able to perform miracles when anything is ‘community based’.Top‐down approaches to governing natural resources in LMICs have been shown to have a tendency to be problematic, but it is by no means evident that the answer is simply to devolve responsibility to community groups. For example, evidence from community forest management programmes in LMICs—including in Ethiopia and Nepal—demonstrate mixed outcomes (Ameha et al., 2014; Baynes et al., 2015; Cadman et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2019). Without careful design incorporating improved levels of inclusion, and ongoing support, community‐led systems of governance can, all too easily, replicate existing hierarchies and, ultimately, may do little to offset issues of capacity.…”

Comparative Analysis of Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: Embaringo and Gathiuru Community Forest Associations

“…Historically, Participatory Forest Management emerged in response to the shortcomings of traditional state-owned forestry management approaches, which often lead to deforestation, degradation, and conflict with local communities. The origins of Participatory Forest Management can be traced back to the late 20th century, when conservationists, policymakers, and researchers began to recognize the importance of involving local communities and stakeholders in forest management decisions [7]. The 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21 played pivotal roles in promoting community-based approaches to natural resource management, including forests [7].…”

“…The origins of Participatory Forest Management can be traced back to the late 20th century, when conservationists, policymakers, and researchers began to recognize the importance of involving local communities and stakeholders in forest management decisions [7]. The 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21 played pivotal roles in promoting community-based approaches to natural resource management, including forests [7]. As a result, Participatory Forest Management has gained prominence as a more inclusive and sustainable approach to forest management, emphasizing community engagement, equitable benefit-sharing, and the integration of local knowledge.…”