BACK TO THE START

Each tailored to different landscape and livelihood needs, Nepal’s forest management modalities range from collaborative management between communities and the government for the block forests of the Terai, to pro-poor leasehold forestry in areas in desperate need of restoration.

Together, the modalities set a high benchmark for how countries can and should take care of their landscapes, not least because of the one thing all the modalities have in common: granting rights and benefits to local communities.

“Deforestation was very rampant until the 1970s,” says Banjade. “There was no sense of ownership in taking care of forests, and people started felling them. Most of the hills were almost naked, without any vegetation.”

News

40 years of restoration in Nepal

This prompted the government to begin community forestry management systems, offering benefits that inspired communities to start taking better care of their forests and using them to satisfy their needs – for agriculture, energy, timber – in sustainable ways.

In the 1990s, when issues such as representation and equity began joining the policymaking vernacular, more inclusive and pro-poor modalities were added to the roster as well.

However, in 2007, things began to shape-shift. Following a decade of unrest, Nepal’s 240-year-old monarchy lost power and the country began a transition to federalism. The change was formalized in the new Constitution of Nepal in September 2015, dividing authority into three tiers – municipal, provincial and national – each with financial autonomy.

How does this apply to forests? As the new form of government continues to settle in, policies are being adapted to fit. For Banjade and others in the forestry sector, this time of change is a ripe opportunity to improve areas of forest tenure that are still struggling to provide adequate benefits to communities and marginalized groups, such as women.

“Everything is restarting, as local, provincial and national governments are developing new policies to govern every sector. We brought out this issue now as an opportunity for policymakers to reflect on experiences while restarting the forest sector.”

COMMUNITY BUILDING

Banjade uses his introductory piece in the special issue to lay the groundwork for new policymaking processes. This includes harmonizing definitions – for terms as basic as “tenure”, “tenure security”, and “bundle of rights” – as well as pulling out the primary findings and insights from the articles that follow.

“The contributions of community forestry to conservation are very positive,” he says, noting in the introduction that community-based forest management (CBFM) is an extremely effective vehicle for climate change mitigation and adaption. “That’s a key message across different modalities – that community-based forest management is one of the most advanced forms.”

Photo essay

Community forestry pays off for Nepal

There is still much room for improvement in terms of social inclusion and gender equity in forest tenure, as well as the task of evening out benefits across all the different modalities. CBFM, for instance, tends to have a much greater positive impact on livelihoods than more localized management in remote rangeland areas.

However, one of the more foundational stumbling blocks is implementation. Even if forest tenure policies are reformed, on-the-ground implementation doesn’t always happen as it should.

“Most communities are not that rich and don’t afford allowances to leaders, so leaders don’t get accreditation for implementing reforms, or receive punishment for not implementing them. Incentives, then, rarely come down to individuals and involving them in management.”

To this end, Banjade and others are currently conducting research and engagement activities focused on enterprise, so that individuals can gain more financially from forest management and ideally stay more involved, rather than migrating to cities for other forms of employment.

Overall, Banjade hopes that new policies under federalism will be developed thoroughly, taking into account the nuances and needs of the different modalities and communities they affect.

“What I’m advocating is that we should not compromise policymaking processes. They should be done deliberately, involving all levels of stakeholders and building upon experiences – from the global arena, and our own.”