1

Evolution of community forestry in nepal 1 2

Sushila Rijal1, Kua-anan Techato1,2, Bhagawat Rimal3, Saroj Gyawali4, 3

Sutinee Sinutok1,5,* 4

5 1 Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90112, Thailand 6 2 Environmental Assessment and Technology for Hazardous Waste Management Research Center, 7 Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90112, Thailand 8

3 College of Applied Sciences, (CAS)-Nepal, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal 9 4 Sustainable Study and Research Institute, Kathmandu-16, Balaju, Nepal 10

5 Coastal Oceanography and Climate Change Research Center, 11 Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai 90110, Thailand 12

13 Abstract 14 15

This review assesses the history of community forest management in Nepal since the 1950s to 16 2019 on the base of related policies, research articles and gray scale reports. Prior to the 1950s, 17 forest resources were under the direct management and control of the autocratic rulers, resulting 18 in deforestation and forest degradation. The decline of forest cover continued despite the 19 nationalization in 1957 under the centralized forest governance. Forest cover, which had 20 occupied 45% of land cover in 1964, declined to 29% by 1994. It paved the way for community-21 based forest management approach, which was legitimized through the Forest Act, 1993, and the 22 Forest Regulation, 1995. Since then, national forests have been gradually handed over to the 23 communities for management for sustainability of forest and enhanced local livelihood. By 2019, 24 in total 1.81 million ha of national forest is being managed by a total of 19359 community forest 25 user groups (CFUGs) benefitting 2.46 million households. This has successfully restored the 26 forest cover to 44.47% by 2019. 27

28 Key words: Forest Policies, Community forest, Nepal 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 * Corresponding author. Tel: 66-74-286-847; Fax: 66-74-429-758 46 E-mail address: ssutinee@gmail.com 47

2

INTRODUCTION 48 49

Community forestry refers to the intimate involvement of local people in forest management 50 and forest associated activities (FAO, 1978). Historically in the global context, forest cover was 51 managed under a centralized approach. Economic, political and demographic factors in the 1970s 52 fueled a crisis, resulting in deforestation and forest degradation, globally. As centralized top-53 down management approach failed to sustainably manage the forest cover, debates and 54 consciousness regarding people’s participation and local indigenous knowledge of management 55 became widespread (Fisher et al., 2007). It paved the way of forest management shift from 56 centralized top-down to community-based forest bottom-up management approach. Much 57 progress was achieved in the 1990s as sustainable development and right of the indigenous 58 people to forest resource in relation to their livelihood were recognized (FAO, 2016). The shift of 59 responsibility from the government to the local level is driven also by the decentralization 60 policies that various states were undertaking in the 1990s, which dragged the forestry from need-61 basis to livelihood basis. Decentralization and subsidiarity were assured by the responsibility 62 transfer provision of community-based management practice (FAO, 2001). 63

By mid-1990s, community forestry transitioned from experimental and pilot basis to the 64 mainstream in several national strategies in all the regions. Globalization and trade liberalization 65 gained a widespread momentum in the first decade of the 21st century. This caused prioritizing 66 the commercialization of woods and related goods and services produced under community-67 based forestry. After 2010, the global policy has focused on global climate change and 68 environmental services, and community-based forests have gained further impetus and attention. 69 Community forestry has been gaining a widespread significance as it assures the people’s 70 participation in their affairs ensuring self-determination and democracy; harnesses the skills and 71 motivation of local people, reduces the role and cost of central government and ensures equity 72 and social justice in the equal utilization of forest resources (FAO 2001, 2016). Similar to the 73 world scenario, the evolution of community forestry in Nepal is also associated with the events of 74 deforestation under different sociopolitical and economic setbacks and last few decades, 75 community forestry is recognized as an effective program for the conservation of forest resources 76 and for enhancing local livelihoods in Nepal (Niraula et al., 2013) and in several other countries 77 around the globe (Klooster and Masera, 2000; FAO, 2016). This study has reviewed the 78 evolution and historical developement of community based forest management program of Nepal 79 on the base of available relevant literatures, policies and reports. 80

81 STUDY AREA 82 83

Nepal is the land-locked Himalayan country geographically located between 26˚22’ to 30˚27’ 84 northern latitude and 80˚04’ to 88˚12’ eastern longitude, sharing its northern boundary with 85 China and southern, western and eastern boundaries with India. The elevation ranges from 63 to 86 8848 meters above sea level (masl) and is divided into five physiographic zones: High Himal 87 (above 5000 masl), High Mountain (3000-5000 masl), Middle Mountain (1000-3000 masl), 88 Siwalik (Churia) (500-1000 masl) and Tarai (below 500 masl) region (LRMP, 1986). Forest and 89 other wooded land has occupied 44.74% of the total land cover in the country; largest coverage 90 lies in Middle Mountain (37.80%) followed by High Mountain and High Himal (32.25%), Churia 91 (23.04%) and Tarai (6.90%), in this rank order (DFRS, 2015). The vegetation cover of the 92 country is broadly classified into six types: montane grassland and shrub land (3700-4500 masl), 93 sub-alpine conifer forest (3000-4000 masl), temperate-broadleaved forest (1500-3000 masl), 94 tropical/sub-tropical conifer forest (1000-2000 masl), sub-tropical broadleaved forest (500-1000 95

3

masl), grass lands, savannahs and shrub lands (below 500 masl) (TISC, 2002). Administratively, 96 the country is divided into seven provinces, 77 districts, 293 municipalities (sub/metropolitan and 97 municipals) and 460 rural municipalities (Fig. 1). 98

99 Evolution of community forestry in Nepal 100

The history of community forest can be broadly classified into four periods: a) Period during 101 1846-1950, b) during 1951-1975, c) during 1975-2000 and period after 2000 (Fig. 2). 102

During 1846-1950: Nepal was politically governed by autocratic Ranas (a hereditary dynasty) 103 until 1950. In this period, forest resources were under the direct management and control of the 104 Rana families and were exploited as private property for recreation and hunting. High valued 105 timber of Tarai and Siwalik regions was massively exploited to cater to the demand of Indian 106 railway line sleepers’ construction, and for re/settlement, agriculture expansion, infrastructure 107 development resulting in deforestation, and forest degradation (Chaudhary et al., 2015). 108 However, under the National Code for forest protection and utilization, district forestry offices 109 (Ban Janch Adda) were established in 1925, which had some regulatory responsibilities for forest 110 protection and use. This is considered the first policy and administration in the forest sector of 111 Nepal (FAO, 2009). 112

During 1951-1975: By the end of Rana regime in 1951, indigenous forest management 113 systems were prioritized. Private Forest Nationalization Act 1957 (HMGN, 1957) considered the 114 forest resource a national treasure and brought all the forest resources under the control of State 115 for better management, protection and utilization for public wellbeing (FAO, 2001). However, 116 this policy ignored the effectiveness of forest management, protection, and use by the indigenous 117 people and traditional systems. Instead, forest resource was limited as regards people’s access 118 and ownership. This resulted in forest degradation, deforestation and encroachment (FAO, 2001). 119 Forest Act, 1961 (HMGN, 1961) and Forest Protection (special) Act, 1967 (HMGN, 1967) had 120 demarcated definite roles and authorities to the forestry department, with strict provisions and 121 penalties for deforestation, illegal logging, and forest encroachment activities. However, forests 122 continued to deteriorate. During 1963-1978 in Tarai and Siwalik region alone, 1.05 million ha 123 forest area were degraded and half a million were cleared (Wagley and Ojha, 2003). The policy 124 makers were forced to realize the urgency of decentralized and participatory management 125 policies for the sustainability of forest resource. 126

During 1975-2000: National Forestry Plan, 1976 (HMGN, 1976) introduced ensuring 127 people’s participation in forest management. Forest Act 1978 (HMGN, 1978) handed over a 128 definite area of government forest to Panchayat (party-less local political system with self-129 governance) as Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forests for reforestation and 130 conservation. But these provisions also failed to secure people’s freedom in decision making, use 131 of indigenous knowledge/traditional rights, and people’s livelihood sustainability (Gautam et al., 132 2004). Hence, Decentralization Act, 1982 (HMGN, 1982) highlighted the need of forest 133 management authority transfer to the local level (Bienen et al., 1990). The Forestry Sector Master 134 Plan 1989 (HMGN, 1989) was introduced as a longer term 25-year plan, which was approved by 135 the government with the aim of fulfilling the local needs for sustainably, conserving forest 136 ecosystem, boosting local and national economy and maintaining the natural environment. In this 137 way, Nepal became one of the pioneering countries to implement community forestry in the late 138 1980s, targeting poverty reduction, enhanced local livelihood and forest resource conservation 139 (Mahanty et al., 2009). Under community based forest management, Community Forest user’s 140 Group (CFUGs) were introduced as the independent, autonomous, perpetual and self-governing 141 entities with the responsibility to protect, manage and utilize the forest resource within a certain 142 boundary (Paudel et al., 2018). They have the decision-making authority, accessing rules, 143

4

determining forest product prices and the other declarations agreed by the assemblies. 144 Operational Plans are the legal mechanisms to guide conservation and management activities, 145 monitoring and silvicultural practices for the sustainable utilization of forest resources (DoF, 146 2017). 147

Forest Act 1993 (HMGN, 1993) along with the periodic plans strengthened the legitimacy of 148 community forest management program. Forest Act 1993 categorized the forest resource into 149 community, leasehold, religious, protected, and government forest. Forest Regulation 1995 150 (HMGN, 1995) outlined the procedural guidelines for implementing Forest Act, 1993. It 151 presented the guidelines and process of CFUG formulation and defining their authorities. Forest 152 Sector Policy, 2000 (HMGN, 2000) came with the target of preserving the land from degradation 153 and desertification and handover of Tarai forests for management to the community. 154

Period after 2000: During 2008, the REDD+ program was globally introduced as a 155 mechanism to safeguard forests and condense the emissions from deforestation and forest 156 degradation, emphasizing the economic benefits obtained from carbon stocks in forests. Nepal 157 became a party of the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, “plus” 158 afforestation (REDD+) program since 2008 to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, and to 159 contribute to forest-based carbon stocks (MoFSC, 2015). Community Forest is regarded as an 160 alternative to implement REDD+ and reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to climate change 161 (Angelsen 2009). The Emission Reduction Program (ERP) emphasizes the expansion of localized 162 forest governance and forest management regime in the less managed government forests to 163 obtain maximum utilization of forest resource for local livelihood on the base of Sustainable 164 forest management concepts (MoFE, 2018). 165

Later on it was also argued that despite the wide range of environmental and economic 166 potentials, forest resources of Nepal are not delivering anticipated benefits particularly due to the 167 conservation focused management approach. The higher demand of timber products has 168 increased the demand-supply gap, drained economy due to the import of high valued timber and 169 associated products, and caused a loss of high-quality forest products particularly from the 170 community forests (Poudyal et al., 2020). Hence, the amendment of Forest Act 1993 in 2016 has 171 paved the way for implementation of scientific forest management, aiming to increase the 172 protected forest area by around 0.2 million hectares (DFRS, 2016). The concept of ‘Forestry for 173 Prosperity’ introduced in 2012 envisioned promoting the scientific forest management in the 174 forest with high-valued timber. It was re-piloted in Tilaurakot collaborative forest of Kapilbastu. 175 Now it has been implemented in 285 community forests, 20 collaborative forests and seven 176 government forests. It has aimed to cater to the existing forest product demand and to limiting 177 imports, generating employment and regenerating forest resources (MSFP, 2016b). 178

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 (GoN, 2015a) has provisions for the management of forests 179 under federal, provincial, and local levels and by diverse types of user groups with the aim to 180 conserve, promote and sustainably use forest resources and biodiversity, while minimizing the 181 adverse impacts of industrial and physical development. Similarly, Article 57 (5 to 9) provisions 182 the power dissemination of federal state and local governments for forest management. The Local 183 Government Operation Act, 2017 (GoN, 2017) mandated local government to facilitate the 184 community based forest management approach to sustainably managed forests (Paudel et al., 185 2018). 186

In the current context, Forest Policy 2015 (GoN, 2015b) highlighted the local to national 187 sustainability through livelihood options and decentralized, inclusive and strong governance of 188 forest resources through community forestry. Forest Sector Strategy (2016-2025) has further 189 prioritized the role of community forestry in sustainable management of ecosystem services and 190 biodiversity and payment of ecosystem services (PES) in them (MSFP, 2016a). The Ecosystem 191

5

Based Adaptation (EbA) approach regards ecosystem services as an integral part of the 192 adaptation strategy to cope with the impacts of climate change (Rizvi, 2015). To address the 193 challenges created through deforestation and forest degradation, the Government of Nepal 194 introduced a forestry decade (2014-2024) with the motto of “one house one tree, one village one 195 forest, one city several gardens” targeting in particular the restoration and planting of at least 196 26,000 hectares of forest in the Tarai, Siwalik and Hill regions. Additionally, community forests 197 were provided specific rights for several ecosystem services such as ecotourism, biodiversity 198 conservation, carbon stock, and sediment retention and soil erosion control. Now, Forest Policy, 199 2019 (GoN, 2019) is in hand and it also aims to improve the forest sector governance and 200 productivity in different tiers of administration. 201

Currently, there are six modalities of community managed forests: community, leasehold, 202 collaborative, protected, religious and buffer zone community forests (Fig. 3). The national 203 forests which are handed to CFUGs for development, conservation and use are community 204 forests. Collaborative forests are jointly managed by local people, Department of Forest (DoF) 205 and local government, whereas leasehold forests are assigned to a group of pro-poor households 206 with the aim to enhance livelihoods. The forests that are located at the outskirts of wildlife 207 reserves and national parks, and managed by the community, are buffer zone community forests; 208 and the forests that are declared ‘protected’ due to their cultural, environmental and scientific 209 significance are defined as ‘protected forests’. National forests that are handed over to a religious 210 community or institution are termed ‘religious forests’ (Pathak et al., 2017). 211

Since 1988/89, national forests have been annually handed over to communities for 212 management. By 2019, in total 1.81 million ha of National forest was being managed by a total of 213 19359 CFUGs benefitting 2.46 million households (DoF, 2019). The Government of Nepal has 214 been gradually handing over the forests to the communities annually since 1988 and the highest 215 number of forests was handed over the communities during 1995-1997. Bagmati Province has the 216 highest handover and province 2 has the lowest handover by 2015 (Fig. 4). 217

218 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 219 220

Community forest program has contributed to the national increase of forest cover and 221 landscape restoration, forest regeneration, increased forest density, species and biodiversity, 222 stems per unit area, basal area and growing stock. Primarily, community forest management 223 program is considered to be a major contributing factor in successfully combatting the forest 224 degradation in Nepal (Reddy et al., 2018). However, the success of community forest is limited 225 in the mid-hill districts (Niraula et al., 2013) and the governance mechanism in Tarai is not 226 effective (Bampton et al., 2007). The forest cover of Tarai region declined with the average 227 annual decline rate of 0.40% in 1991-2010 and 0.44% during 2001-2010 (DFRS, 2014). In the 228 recent decades too, the forest cover is under pressure due to large population concentration and 229 urbanization driven by various socioeconomic, political, planning and policy factors (Rijal et al., 230 2020). The smuggling of high valued timber, agro based livelihood, and people’s dependency 231 upon forest for timber, firewood, leaves and litter has threatened forest resources (Chaudhary et 232 al., 2015). The program not only has enhanced the local livelihoods but often has adversely 233 impacted the traditional livelihood options of the local people by restricting access of the local 234 people to forest products, such as timber, firewood, litter and non-timber forest products 235 (Gautam, 2009). Mere implementation of community forest management program may not be 236 capable of ensuring biodiversity conservation and carbon storage, instead it increases the 237 extraction of biomass and hinders biodiversity conservation (Luintel et al., 2018). Community 238 forests are blamed for the elite capture in social inclusion, benefit sharing and decision making. 239

6

Internal disputes often appear on ground due to the inability to resolve the conflicts, which 240 indicates the need of state control in forest management (Timsina and Paudel, 2003). Scientific 241 forestry is accused of escaping away from the primary objective of equal and equitable benefit 242 sharing due to the dominance of bureaucracy and elite capture in the scientific forest 243 implementation process (Basnyat, 2020). Similarly, ecotourism within the community forests is 244 criticized for the deteriorated of natural and social environment and the exclusion of local people 245 from benefit sharing and decision making (Nyaupane and Thapa, 2006). 246

However, community forestry is blamed for several shortcomings, such as elite capture, 247 exclusion of marginalized, internal conflict and unequal benefit sharing. Local people’s 248 perceptions toward scientific forest management and ecotourism activities in community forestry 249 are often not matching with each other. Maintaining a healthy forest cover, conserving 250 biodiversity, enhancing local livelihoods, poverty reduction, balanced social and natural 251 environment, are pivotal and challenging. For this, evaluation of ecological changes and 252 ecosystem services, people’s perceptions towards the implementation of policies, and monitoring 253 forest cover changes are imperative for future planning and policy making. However, there is a 254 dearth of assessments of synergy between all kinds of ecosystem services and community-based 255 forestry in the rapidly urbanizing regions within Tarai. 256

257 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 258 259

This work was financially supported by the Graduate School of Prince of Songkla University, 260 and the Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University. The authors thank 261 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Seppo Karrila and the RDO (Research and Development Office), Prince of 262 Songkla University for assistance with proofing the English. 263 264 REFERENCES 265 266 Angelsen, A. (2009). Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. Cifor. 267 Bampton, J.F., Ebregt, A. and Banjade, M.R. (2007). Collaborative forest management in Nepal’s 268

Terai: policy, practice and contestation. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6: 30-43. 269 Basnyat, B. (2020). Commodifying the community forestry: a case from scientific forestry 270

practices in Western Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest Research 25: 69-75. 271 Bienen, H., Kapur, D., Parks, J. and Riedinger, J. (1990). Decentralization in Nepal. World 272

Development 18: 61-75. 273 Chaudhary, R., Uprety, Y. and Rimal, S. (2015). Deforestation in Nepal: Causes, consequences 274

and responses. In: Shroder, J.F., Sivanpillai, R. (Eds.), Biological and Environmental Hazards, 275 Risks, and Disasters. Elsevier, pp. 335–372. 276

DFRS. (2014). Terai forests of Nepal 2010–2012. Department of Forest Research and Survey, 277 (Ed.)., Kathmandu, Nepal. 278

DFRS. (2015). State of Nepal's Forests. Department of Forest Research and Survey, (Ed.)., 279 Kathmandu, Nepal. 280

DFRS. (2016). Forestry Decade Program, 2014-2024. In Department of Forest Research and 281 Survey, (Ed.)., Kathmandu, Nepal. 282

DoF. (2017). Annual Progress Report. Department of Forest, Government of Nepal. 283 DoF. (2019). Community Forestry Division. Department of Forest Research and Survey 284

Conservation, (Ed.), Kathmandu, Nepal. 285 FAO. (1978). Small-scale forest-based processing enterprises. Forestry Paper 79. Rome. 286

7

FAO. (2001). Forest and People: 25 years of community forestry. Food and Agriculture 287 Organizaiton , United Nations, Rome. 288

FAO. (2009). Asia Pacific Forestry sector Outlook Study II, Nepal Forestry Outlook Study, 289 Working Paper Series. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, 290 Nepal 291

FAO. (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. 292 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 293

Fisher, R., Prabhu, R. and McDougall, C. (2007). Adaptive collaborative management of 294 community forests in Asia: Experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines. Center for 295 International Forestry Research: Indonesia. 296

Gautam, A.P. (2009). Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. International 297 Journal of Social Forestry 2:101-122. 298

Gautam, A.P., Shivakoti, G. P. and Webb, E. L. (2004). Forest Cover Change, Physiography, 299 Local Economy, and Institutions in a Mountain Watershed in Nepal. Environmental 300 Management 33:48-61. 301

GoN. (2015a). Constitution of Nepal, 2015. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law, Justice and 302 Parliamentary Affairs. 303

GoN. (2015b). Forest Policy, 2015. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Government of 304 Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. 305

GoN. (2017). Local Government Operation Act, 2017. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law 306 and Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 307

GoN. (2019). National Forest Policy, 2019. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. 308 Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. 309

HMGN. (1957). His Majesty Government Nepal, Private Forest Nationalization Act. Ministry of 310 Forestry and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. 311

HMGN. (1961). Forest Act, 1961. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law and 312 Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 313

HMGN. (1967). Forest Protection (Special) Act, 1967. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, 314 Ministry of Law and Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 315

HMGN. (1976). National Forestry Plan, 1976. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of 316 Law and Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 317

HMGN. (1978). Forest Act, 1978. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law and 318 Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 319

HMGN. (1982). Decentralization Act. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law and 320 Justice, Kathmandu Nepal. 321

HMGN. (1989). His Majesty's Government of Nepal. Master Plan for the Forestry Sector. K. 322 Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation, Nepal. 323

HMGN. (1993). Forest Act, 1993. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and 324 Soil Conservation, Kathmandu Nepal. 325

HMGN. (1995). Forest regulation, 1995. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest 326 and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu Nepal. 327

HMGN. (2000). Revised Forest Sector Policy 2000. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, 328 Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu Nepal. 329

Klooster, D. and Masera, O. (2000). Community forest management in Mexico: Carbon 330 mitigation and biodiversity conservation through rural development. Global Environmental 331 Change 10: 259-272. 332

LRMP. (1986). Land Resources Mapping Project. H. a. K. E. S. Survey Department, Kathmandu, 333 Nepal. 334

8

Luintel, H., Bluffstone, R.A. and Scheller, R.M. (2018). The effects of the Nepal community 335 forestry program on biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. PLOS ONE 13: e0199526. 336

Mahanty, S., Gronow, J., Nurse, M. and Malla, Y. B. (2009). Reducing Poverty through 337 Community Based Forest Management in Asia. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 5(1): 78-89. 338

MoFE. (2018). A Sustainable Forest Management-Based Emission Reduction Program in the 339 Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. N. R. Center. 340

MoFSC. (2015). Nepal REDD+ Strategy, Part 1: Operational Summary. REDD Implementation 341 Centre, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. 137 pp. 342

MSFP. (2016a). Forestry Sector Strategy. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, 343 Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. 344

MSFP. (2016b). Scientific Forest Management Initiatives in Nepal. Government of Nepal, 345 Kathmandu, Nepal. 346

Niraula, R.R., Gilani, H., Pokharel, B.K. and Qamer, F.M. (2013). Measuring impacts of 347 community forestry program through repeat photography and satellite remote sensing in the 348 Dolakha district of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 126: 20-29. 349

Nyaupane, G.P. and Thapa, B. (2006). Perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism: A case 350 study at ACAP, Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 351 13: 51-61. 352

Pathak, B., Xie, Y. and Bohara, R. (2017). Community Based Forestry in Nepal: Status, Issues 353 and Lessons Learned. International Journal of Sciences 6: 119-129. 354

Paudel, N.S., Adhikary, A., Mbairamadji, J. and Nguyen, T.Q. (2018). Small-scale forest 355 enterprise development in Nepal: Overview, issues and challenges. Rome, FAO. 84 pp. 356

Poudyal, B.H., Maraseni, T. and Cockfield, G. (2020). Scientific Forest Management Practice in 357 Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Forests 11(1): 27. 358

Reddy, C.S., Pasha, S.V., Satish, K.V., Saranya, K.R.L., Jha, C.S. and Murthy, Y.V.N.K. (2018). 359 Quantifying nationwide land cover and historical changes in forests of Nepal (1930–2014): 360 implications on forest fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 91-107. 361

Rijal, S., Rimal, B., Stork, N. and Sharma, H.P. (2020). Quantifying the drivers of urban 362 expansion in Nepal. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 192: 633. 363

Rizvi, A. R., Baig, S., Barrow, E. and Kumar, C. (2015). Synergies between Climate Mitigation 364 and Adaptation in Forest Landscape Restoration. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 59 pp. 365

Timsina, N. and Paudel, N.S. (2003). State versus community: a confusing policy discourse in 366 Nepal’s forest management. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2(2): 8-16. 367

TISC. (2002). Forest and Vegetation Types of Nepal. Department of Forests. Kathmandu, Nepal: 368 Tree Improvement and Silviculture Component. 369

Wagley M. and Ojha, H. (2003). Analyzing Participatory Trends in Nepal's Community Forestry. 370 Policy Trend Report: 122-142. 371

372 373

9

Figure Captions 374 375

Fig. 1. Map of Nepal 376 Fig. 2. Flowchart showing the historical development of Community Forests in Nepal 377 Fig. 3. Forest Regime of Nepal prepared on the base of literatures 378 Fig. 4. Province-wise handover of national forests to CFUGs from 1988 to 2016. Handover of 379 forests began in 1988 and peaked during 1995-1996. 380 381

10

382 Fig. 1. 383

11

384 Fig. 2. 385

386

12

387 388 389

390 Fig. 3. 391

392

13

Fig. 4

38 1 9 24 103218 263

378 329 265 200 135 16570 69 71 94 66 68 71 85 107 60 24 16 12 32 2613 8 2 9

1210

8631

3025

2133 43

37 25 20 22 27 19 717 26 27 2863

131

211321 356

301246

249 200 321 254129 155 133 105 112 85

184181

106 69 59 43 2517 0 0 7

70

188

312

364267

287

257188 156 158

92121

137104 83 94 106

115 126

8130 42 30 121

1 10 24

37

101

125

190282

261

270

261221 113

103113

131133 174 128 146

242 254

133

74 52 16 1622 5

10

27

38

122

160 206

187

185

152139

103

3660

3127 26 62 97

123 145

57

41 4627 198

0 00

115

132

184

240 217

202

211

123154

123

5666

7978 56 59 46

104 83

60

35 6530

60

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

<7/12/1

988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Far-western Province Karnali Province

Gandaki Province Province 4

Bagmati Province Province 2

Province 1

Year

Num

ber

of C

FUG

s

14