Title: Sustainability Assessment of Community Forestry Practices in Nepal: Literature Review and Recommendations to Improve Community Management

Short Title: Sustainability of Nepal’s Community Forests

Journal Name: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences.

Supplemental text

-History of Community Forestry Management in Nepal

Historically, feudal Nepalese states used their forests as a source of revenue to bolster their military strength [1]. However during the 20th century community forestry has had a well-documented history that began with reforestation efforts in the 1970s [2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].Since the 1980s, there has been an evolving collaboration between local communities and the state forest agency to govern Nepal’s forest resources [11].

In the initial stages, communities hired watchers to protect forests that were used to satisfy domestic needs [12], but this did not stop forest degradation. The Private Forests Nationalization Act of 1957 attempted to solve this problem by Nationalizing all common forests, but the newly instituted Forest Department was under-staffed and inadequately equipped, so this attempt failed. This change led to the free-ride problem (i.e., people could benefit from the forests without being required to protect them). To solve this the implementation of the National Forestry Plan of 1976 ( had several key objectives: restore the balance between nature and humans, support economic exploitation of the forests, implement scientific management, and promote public co-operation. This ushered in a new era for Nepal’s forestry sector. While the Plan only emphasized plantation establishment and protection of the forests, it nonetheless paved the way for Community Forestry in Nepal [13]. Subsequent planning focused on people-centered forestry that was geared toward the development of rural institutional support for forestry; greater self-reliance, more flexible management, the freedom to develop forest operational plans and a constitution for groups that use the forest, and empower impoverished people.

The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector [8], which built on the objectives of the National Forestry Plan, included Community and Private Forestry as its largest component [13]. Since then, Nepal has developed a range of rules, regulations, and policies designed to conserve forest resources. The Master Plan was to combine community forestry with sustainable management. As a result of the strategies defined in the Master Plan, a new Forest Act was introduced in 1993, followed by a forest by-law in 1995 that promoted community forestry.

Under the Forest Act of 1993, community forestry was implemented by giving use rights of the national forests to local groups. These groups had full rights to decide on the protection, management, development, and utilization of the forest’s resources for their collective benefit. This agrees with the definition of Gilmour and Fisher [14], who defined community forestry as a system in which rural people control and manage forest resources, particularly for domestic purposes and as a fundamental part of their farming systems. The Forest Act specifically recognized the “Community Forest User Group” (CFUG) as a legal entity and made provisions for their management. However, the government retained ownership of the forest, and only forest products belonged to CFUGs. With the help of the District Forest Office, each CFUG must prepare an operational plan and a constitution that describes their rights, roles, and responsibilities. The plan is usually developed for 5 to 10 years, and details the available species, existing stock, forest conditions, and the different blocks and their management systems. Furthermore, it serves as the guidelines to help CFUGs sustainably manage their forests and serves as the basis for evaluating changes in the forest at the end of the plan.

The Department of Forests implements this policy in most of Nepal’s 75 districts. Tamang [15] reported that around 20 000 CFUGs have been registered, with most of the community forestry being conducted in the Middle Hills regions though some CFUGs operate in the flat plains of the Terai. The Community Forestry Division of Nepal’s Department of Forests reported that by September 2011, approximately 1.65×106 ha of forest (28% of the total forest area) were being managed by 17 685 CFUGs, including 1026 run by women, representing almost 42% of Nepal’s households [ This has substantially improved forest conditions, biodiversity conservation, and the livelihoods of the local communities. This system has added revenues from various sources to support forest management and community development.

- Supplemental Methods and Literature Review

The literature review search keywords: community forestry management, Nepal, sustainable forest management, principles, multi-criteria analysis, geography, sustainable development, participation.

Optimization of sustainability have been dynamic within the forestry sector, where the influences of new forms of management, and local communities, remain unclear. As local forest management obtains more support from national and regional laws, it has become crucial to find ways to assess the sustainability of community-based forest management.

Forest management does not follow a single accepted worldwide standard. Each of the systems that exist take different approaches to describing their standards for sustainability. In principle, sustainable forest management was accepted by the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 (Decision VII/11 of COP7), and defined as a concrete means of applying an ecosystem-based approach to forests. Sustainably managing a specific forest tract required managers to define, the use the forest to ensure long-term benefits, health, and productivity.

Forest managers develop their plans in consultation with stakeholders, including users, businesses, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and other parties in and around the managed forest. Sustainable forest management criteria and indicators are widely used, and several countries produce national reports that measure their progress towards sustainable management. The International Tropical Timber Organization introduced the criteria and indicators concept and the associated terminology [16]. Since then, numerous organizations and professionals have worked to develop and test criteria and indicators for use under their specific conditions. Several international institutions have also developed criteria and indicators, including the Center for International Forestry Research in Indonesia [17], the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC; and the Regional Community Forestry Training Center of Thailand ( The principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers are the four main theoretical tools for developing a framework

Principles: Principles represent methodologies that form the basis for analyzing a problem and choosing an appropriate action. In the context of sustainable forest management, principles provide the primary framework within which forests can be managed sustainably [18].

Criteria: Criteria represent important aspects that are used to assess the sustainability of forest management [19]. They comprise a set of key elements that can be used to define the assessment’s scope and standards that can be used to judge the progress towards following the principles.

Indicators: Indicators are quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive parameters that can objectively use to determine the direction of change or progress towards some target or criterion [19]. They are used to determine the state or condition of the system in comparison with a criterion [20]. One issue that has received inadequate attention is how to determine threshold values for indicators that are correlated with sustainability; these values have been debated [21].

Verifiers: Verifiers are the data or information that can be used to calculate or assess an indicator [20].

The literature review found nine international and regional initiatives to develop criteria and indicators, which collectively involved more than 150 countries. Although each system has its merits, this paper focuses on the 2012 version of the Forest Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria ( as this system has already been widely implemented in Nepal and provides a starting point for developing a monitoring system that can be customized to meet Nepal’s unique needs. When used to support management interventions, FSC criteria and indicators have resulted in positive changes in forest management. However, no significant economic benefits have been brought to the CFUGs and to entrepreneurs who exploit non-timber forest products (NTFPs) due to lack of a market-oriented approach ( Thus, the initiation of sustainable forest management is the first step required for sustainable community forestry in Nepal. The following impacts were reported after the application of FSC criteria and indicators to management of community forests in Nepal:

  • Restored greenery and enhanced biodiversity an improved forest landscape
  • Reduced frequency and severity of forest fires and of illegal logging
  • Increased supply of forest products
  • Establishment of forest-based enterprises that provide economic opportunities for residents
  • Promotion of Nepal’s forest products in national and international markets
  • Efforts to obtain FSC certification by multi-stakeholders in the forestry sector
  • Promotion of the use of local resources
  • Empowered and enhanced democratic and participatory governance in communities
  • Development of social capital and increase harmony between different groups

- Forest Management in Nepal

In 2004, the first efforts to identify suitable local criteria for measuring forest management were begun by two CFUGs in Parbat District [22]. These experiments are now being repeated in other regions. A second initiative in participatory development of criteria and indicators began in 2005. It led to the establishment of the Ganeshman Singh Forest Conservation Award, which is offered annually by Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation to the most successful CFUGs. Six CFUGs in different regions complied with the local criteria sufficiently well that they received the award [23, 24].

Most studies of Nepal’s community forestry have concentrated on the Middle Hills region. Gautam et al. [25] analyzed the spatial and temporal changes in land use between 1978 and 1992 in a typical watershed covering 543 km2 of the Middle Hills and used geographical information systems to compare land use changes between Village Development Committees (VDCs) with and without responsibility for community forests during this period. They found large differences in the total rate of loss of forested areas; VDCs with community forests lost less forest during the 14-year study period. Moreover, in the group of VDCs with community forests, the high forest (Forestraisedwhollyor mainly fromseed; area increased by 77%, versus only 13% for VDCs without community forests. Acharya [26] reported three main changes in the forest’s structure and composition: a slow conversion from mixed to monoculture forests; gradually decreasing shrub and tree species diversity; and the conversion of shrub communities into high forest. Acharya [26] claimed that the dominant forest management approach in community forestry recognizes biodiversity conservation as a secondary issue and that there is evidence biodiversity has either declined or has been altered by community-managed forests. Based on the changes in the number of species and the size of each community type, biodiversity has decreased, and it is necessary to revise the management to preserve species and forest types.

Dev et al. [27] assessed the impact of community forestry on the livelihoods of forest users in the Middle Hills region. They found that income increased, as did infrastructure development activities and the availability of forest products. Nevertheless, impacts have been below their potential, and the needs of rural households require more investigation to determine what additional opportunities exist and how policy and extension agencies can community needs.

Springate-Baginski et al. [28] examined the process of CFUG formation and post-formation support program of Department of Forest. They found that community forestry demands institutional change by the Department of Forests and at the village level, as well as changes in the working relationships between these levels. The main responsibilities of the Department of Forests in the Middle Hills have been changing from their traditional role of forest policing and protection towards facilitation of the activities of CFUGs. However, the Department of Forests’ limited capacity has become a constraint on the implementation of community forestry, and finding a solution may involve re-organizing the Department’s support role. As new CFUG priorities emerge (e.g., community development), multiple support agencies must become involved.

Chapagain and Banjade [29] claimed that the organizational scope of CFUGs is not limited to forestry activities, but encompasses a range of social and community development activities. As development institutions, CFUGs provide opportunities for communities to have political agency (i.e., to develop democratic and equitable governance), and can produce innovative approaches to poverty reduction. Their findings suggest that there is a clear opportunity for development agencies and policymakers to promote CFUGs as a platform that can benefit the poorest citizens. Gurung et al. [30] found that the existing policies and legislation are inconsistent and do not optimally support programs intended to benefit the poor, which is one of the major objectives of Nepal’s community forestry program. This suggests that the criterion of poverty reduction is not being achieved, but better economic data must be collected to confirm the details. One possibility is to monitor the incomes and benefits received by the poorest members of the community

Birendra [31] used the analytical hierarchy process to analyze the issues confronting community forestry in the Middle Hills region. He found that both experts and the local community believed that the positive aspects of community forestry outweighed the negative aspects. By comparing three forest types, he found that Alnusnepalensis was the most important forest type for conservation, whereas SchimaCastanopsis forest was the most important forest type for providing local benefits. This kind of analysis suggests that each CFUG should identify the most important forest types for management and conservation, and define an appropriate criterion for that forest type. The plan can then specify simple indicators such as the area and vegetation cover that must remain stable or increase during the period covered by the operating plan.

Chhetri et al. [32] found that households that owned relatively little land and that belonged to CFUGs were more likely to participate in forest protection activities. In contrast, women and individuals from lower castes participated less in decision-making processes. Households with greater numbers of livestock and that belonged to CFUGs that managed forests well were also more inclined to participate in resource management activities. Low participation was associated with a low education level and a preference for traditional customs, and this likely resulted in low representation of some social groups in CFUG committees.These results suggest that representation must be increased by explicitly including guidelines for the criteria of representatives from each group and also improve the educational activities in the CFUG.

Few studies have focused on the plains of the Terai region. But forests have been improving in CFUG areas at most study sites. Although Baral and Subedi [33] found improved forest conditions in these areas, they suggested that pressure from users of these forests might shift to adjoining areas of national forest. They also found that CFUGs have not yet found a way to include inputs from the forest users who live the farthest from them. Paudel [34] found that of the community forests of Jhapa, Siraha, Saptari, and Rupandehi districts, only Jhapa and Siraha performed well, while the others showed only marginal performance. He also found that distant users were excluded from its use compared to closer household users. These results indicate that the boundaries of CFUG should be better established so they can meet the entire community’s needs.

In Bardiya district, Khanal [35] also found that forest conditions were improving in CFUG areas. The improved biodiversity was demonstrated by an increase in the frequency of sightings of sloth bears (Melursusursinus), peafowl (Pavocristatus), and wild elephants (Elephasmaximus) in the area, along with vigorous regeneration of native Sal (Shorearobusta), satisal (Dalbergialatifolia), sandan (Ougeiniaoojeinensis), and khair (Acacia catechu). These results suggest that each CFUG can identify specific “indicator species” in their plan, whose populations can be monitored simply by asking the community to report sightings to the CFUG.

Poudel [36] conducted research in Nepal’s Siraha and Saptari districts. He found that in the Siraha District, the Jiva CFUG had been unable to significantly improve forest conditions, in contrast to the good improvement obtained by the Majhau CFUG of Mahuli, in Saptari district. Only the latter CFUG was socially sustainable; the Jiva CFUG was socially unsustainable due to poor awareness of the issues, weak leadership, and pressure from distant users. He also found that social conditions were strongly related to ecological conditions, and that both conditions were better in Majhau than in Jiva. These results suggest that monitoring of the forest’s conditions can reveal social problems (e.g., a lack of education) that the CFUG can address so as to improve the outcomes.