Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
References
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
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
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
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
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
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
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite 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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09450-9