136 International Forestry Review 6(2), 2004

A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in

the resource condition in Nepal
A.P. GAUTAM, G.P. SHIVAKOTI and E.L. WEBB

School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Khlong Luang,
Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand

Email: [email protected]

SUMMARY

This paper reviews the evolution of forest policies and forestry institutions in Nepal and tracks the accompanying trends of change in
the country’s forest cover over the last century. Our objective is to provide an essential foundation to the policy reform process that is
underway in Nepal and many other Asian countries. The review shows that before 1957 the Nepalese government’s focus was on
conversion of forestlands to farmlands, and extraction of timber for export. After the nationalisation of the forests in 1957 until 1976,
policy-making efforts were oriented towards national control of forests through stringent laws and expansion of the forest bureaucracy.
This approach failed as evidenced by widespread deforestation and forest degradation across the country during the 1960s through
1980s. Early efforts of the government and donor agencies to rectify the problem through reforestation and afforestation also largely
failed, but these efforts paved the way for subsequent initiation of the participatory approach to forest management in the late 1970s.
Since then, community-based forest management evolved continuously under the aegis of supportive forest policies and legislations.
The present community forestry program has met with notable successes in some areas. However, the program has been confronted
with some contentious issues in recent years including a policy debate over the suitability of forests in the southern lowlands (the terai)
for community management and sharing of income obtained from community forests. These and some other issues surrounding the
community forestry program are discussed and their implications for designing or improving future forest governance have been
identified.

Keywords: Nepal, forest policy, deforestation, community forestry, conflicts

INTRODUCTION could be increased, and ecological degradation could be

abated. Since then, the community forestry program has
Nepal has witnessed substantial shifts in forest policy and evolved continuously under the aegis of supportive forest
management approaches since the beginning of the policies and legislations. The present community and
twentieth century when serious public concern regarding leasehold forestry programs, implemented by the
the use of the country’s forest resources began. Initially government with supports from several bilateral and
the focus of the Nepalese government was on maximising multilateral donor agencies, have met with some notable
the utilisation of the resource either through exploitation successes, particularly in the middle hills, in terms of
of quality forests for exports to earn national revenue or reversing the deforestation process, local institutional
through the conversion of forestlands to agriculture in development and economic benefit to the local people (Virgo
order to widen the tax base and increase food production and Subba 1994; Pardo 1995; Collett et al. 1996; Jackson et
(Griffin et al. 1988). The forests were nationalised in 1957, al. 1998; Sterk 1998; Acharya 2002; Gautam et al. 2002a,
beginning an era of increased national control of the Gautam et al. 2003). Because of these successes, Nepal is
resource. Following the nationalisation, stringent laws were now considered one of the most progressive countries in
promulgated and the forest bureaucracy was expanded, but the world in terms of community-based forest management.
this could not control the widespread deforestation The community forestry program, however, is not free
occurring across the country. It is widely believed that the of problems. The success of the program is variable across
policy of nationalisation was one of the principal the country. For example, the program has been far less
underlying causes for the increase in deforestation and successful in the terai and high mountain regions when
forest degradation (e.g. Hobley 1985; Shrestha 1996). compared to the middle hills, in terms of both spatial
Amid growing local and international concerns over the coverage and number of community forests (JTRCF 2001).
high rates of deforestation and its consequences, the Several anomalies and misconduct by community Forest
government implemented community-based forestry in 1978 User Groups (FUGs) have been reported from the field,
considering it as one potential mechanism through which particularly in the terai (see Baral and Subedi 2000).
the supply of basic forest products for subsistence needs Moreover, the program has been confronted with a new
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 137

policy debate in recent years concerning the suitability of the population was small and the resources were abundant,
the terai forests for community management and sharing the successive rulers of these early periods felt little need
of income obtained from commercial sell of forest products to regulate forest use, and therefore showed little interest
from community forests (see HMGN 2000; Mahapatra in promoting sustainable forest management. The
2001, Malla 2001). In fact, a new policy of collaborative government encouraged individuals to convert forestland
forest management has emerged for the terai that has to agriculture to increase food production and to increase
limited the expansion of community forestry in only barren state revenue through land tax collection (Wallace 1981;
lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches. Mahat et al. 1986). The earlier policy of encouraging
Addressing the issues surrounding forest management individuals to convert forestland to agriculture was
in the future requires a great deal of information on forests continued during the hereditary dynasty of the Ranas (1846
through time. Similarly, a thorough knowledge of policy – 1950). In the mountains and hills, talukdars (village
evolution, type of institutions, law, and participants that headmen appointed by the Ranas) had the responsibility
were involved in the policy process is of utmost importance of regulating forest use, but there was hardly any restriction
to deal with the complex nature of policy reforms (Cubbage on forest product extraction for subsistence (Mathema et
et al. 1993). Much research in the past tried to fulfil these al. 1999).
requirements by analysing relationships between the The extensive terai forests were little disturbed until the
biophysical changes in forest cover and policy and late 1920s, when the government initiated expansion of
institutional changes (e.g. Schweik et al. 1997; Branney and cultivated areas by clearing some forests and extracting
Yadav 1998; Jackson et al. 1998; Gautam et al. 2002b, timber in other forests for export to India to collect revenue
Gautam et al. 2003; Schweik et al. 2003). Similarly, a number (Joshi 1993). The government hired an experienced British
of past studies investigated the causes and consequences of forester (J.V. Collier) who had a long working experience
deforestation in the country (e.g. Wallace 1981; Thapa and in India for 1925–1930 to supervise and improve timber
Weber 1990; Schreier et al. 1994). Those studies, however, felling in the terai. Collier produced a report in 1928, which
were neither able to explore the complete history of forest suggested extensive clearing of the terai forests for
management in the country, nor could they provide conversion to agriculture and settlements (Graner 1997).
information about the relationships among the policies, Many forestlands were also given as birtas1 to the members
institutions and forest cover changes at the national level. of the Rana family and as jagir2 to influential officials.
This paper reviews the evolution of forest policies, According to one estimate, almost one-third of the total
legislations and forestry institutions in Nepal, and tracks forests and cultivated lands were under birta tenure by 1950,
the accompanying trends of forest cover changes over the 75% of that belonged to the Rana family (Joshi 1993).
last century. The evolution of the community forestry A popular movement in 1950 overthrew the Rana
program, its impacts on forest cover and some contentious government. The democratic government succeeding the
issues surrounding the program have been discussed and Ranas prepared a draft policy on rural forestry in 1952–53
their implications on national policy are identified. The with the help of a Food and Agriculture Organisation
objective is to provide foundation for the policy reform expert (E. Robbe). The policy pointed to two important
process that is underway in Nepal and many other Asian problems requiring immediate attention, namely the
countries aimed at sustainable management of the problems of reforestation in the hills and soil conservation
remaining forest resources. The study is particularly in the siwaliks3 (Graner 1997). The draft policy, however,
important when viewed in the context that Nepal is one of was not enacted and the practice of converting forestland
the leading countries in the world in terms of community- into farmland and export of timber from the terai continued
based forest management. even after 1950.

From 1957 to 1976

CHANGES IN FOREST POLICIES AND
LEGISLATIONS The government nationalised all the forests in 1957 through
the Private Forests (Nationalisation) Act. According to
The approach to the practice of forest management Regmi (1978), the intention behind the nationalisation was
underwent a steady evolution in Nepal during the last to prevent the destruction of forests and to ensure adequate
century. Various forest policies were formulated and
legislative arrangements were made to solve the perceived
1 Land granted to individuals for special services. The system of granting
problems. Based on these major policy changes, the history birta was increasingly abused during the Rana period when members
of forest management in Nepal can be broadly divided into of the extended ruling family started issuing birtas favourably within
the following periods. their family and close relatives (Regmi, 1978).
2 Land assigned to government employees and functionaries for
Before 1957 collecting and using share of produce accruing to the state in lieu of or
in addition to cash remuneration. Jagir assignments were usually
granted for the lifetime (Regmi, 1978).
Before a Shah king of Gorkha unified Nepal in 1769, the 3 Siwaliks are a narrow strip of fragile hills extending east-west in between
area was divided into a number of smaller kingdoms. As the middle hills and the terai. Siwaliks are also known as the churia.
138 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

protection, maintenance, and utilisation of privately owned additional 100,000 ha were illegally encroached during the
forests. The Forest Act of 1957 led to tremendous same period (Joshi 1993). Although the stated objective of
controversy and ignited debates regarding its role in the resettlement program was to control forest
deforestation. Many argued that nationalisation destroyed encroachment and destruction by settling families in
the indigenous forest management systems depriving the designated areas, in practice the policy indirectly
local people of their right to manage and benefit from the encouraged illegal encroachment of forests for cultivation.
forests and as a result forests effectively became open access People encroached forestlands with the hope of getting it
resources (e.g. Hobley 1985; Messerschmidt 1993). However, registered as private property once the land was cleared
Gilmour and Fisher (1991) argue that new institutions arose and cultivated (Wallace 1981).
even after the 1957 Act was passed thus rejecting the open
access claim. Still others argued that the nationalisation was From 1976 to 1988
deemed necessary to prevent the deposed Rana rulers from
continuing to use the terai forests as their own property Following the recommendations of the Ninth Forestry
(e.g. Joshi 1993). Although a separate ministry, the Ministry Conference held in Kathmandu in 1974, the government
of Forestry, was established in 1959 and the government drafted a national forestry plan in 1976. For the first time
bureaucracy had expanded, the government was unable to the Plan recognised the role of local communities and
control the widespread deforestation that was occurring in specifically emphasised their participation in forest
vast inaccessible areas. According to Joshi (1993), this was management (Pokharel 1997). To implement the concept
because the government was not prepared to assume the laid down in the Plan, the Forest Act of 1961 was amended
management responsibilities of newly formalised forest in 1977 to define new categories of forests to be managed
ownership after the nationalisation. by local communities, religious institutions and individuals.
Following the replacement of the democratic Operating rules for the Panchayat Forest (PF) and the
government by a party-less panchayat4 system in 1961, a Panchayat Protected Forest (PPF) were prepared in 1978,
comprehensive forestry legislation – The Forest Act of 1961 which allowed village panchayats to manage barren or
– was promulgated. The Act, among other things, (i) divided degraded lands for forest production. A further provision
forests into different categories, (ii) defined the duties and of leasehold forestry was made in the Rules, allowing a
authority of the forest department, (iii) listed offences, and limited area of degraded forestland to be given to individuals
(iv) prescribed penalties. In an attempt to further strengthen or agencies for reforestation and production of forest
the role of the forest department in controlling products (Wallace 1981). These amendments in the Forest
deforestation, the Forest Protection (Special Provision) Act Act and Regulations have been taken as evidence of the
was formulated in 1967. The Act made provisions for government’s realisation that forests cannot be managed
stronger penalties for damaging or removing forest without the cooperation of local communities and hence
products from national forests without official permission. represent a major shift in Nepal’s forest policy (Shrestha
These Acts, however, were still unable to produce the desired 1996). However, the success of the partnership between the
results, mainly due to poor enforcement (Wallace 1981). Forest Department and the panchayats was very low due to
Moreover, none of the Acts dealt with sustainable various reasons (see Pokharel 1997).
management, future planning, and the needs of the people, During the initial stage of participatory policy creation,
but were only concerned with the sale of forest products, the emphasis of the government and donor agencies was
prohibition, punishment and organisational changes. In on resource creation through reforestation and afforestation
1962, working plans were prepared for some terai districts projects. People’s involvement in forest management was
but they were never implemented. The role of the forestry limited to activities directly related to the government project
staff during this period was limited to forest protection objectives (Collett et al. 1996). Part of the reason for this
through policing, and local people were considered emphasis was the strong international influence originating
offenders (Joshi 1993). from the perception of an imminent ecological crisis in the
Pressure on the terai forestland was also accelerated due Himalayas (see Eckholm 1975), which prompted donor
to migration into the region and the government’s agencies, particularly the World Bank, to recommend large-
resettlement programs. The eradication of malaria in the scale plantations to address the perceived problem.
terai during the 1950s and the 1960s encouraged a massive
migration of people from the mountains and hills to the 1988 onwards
terai in search of fertile agricultural lands. Moreover, a total
of 103,968 ha of forest in the siwaliks and the terai were The 25-year Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (HMGN/
cleared under settlement programs beginning in the 1950s ADB/FINIDA 1988) was prepared during 1986–88 and was
(to the mid 1980s; HMGN/ADB/FINIDA 1988). An approved by the government in 1989. The Plan recognised
community and private forestry as the largest among the
six primary forestry programs and encouraged the transfer
4 A village panchayat was the lowest politico-administrative unit during
the party-less panchayat system of government. It has been renamed of forest access and management rights (i.e. tenure) to local
as Village Development Committee (VDC) after the restoration of communities. The Master Plan emphasised the need to
democracy in the country in 1990. establish FUGs as the appropriate local management bodies
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 139

responsible for the protection, development, and sustainable Several factors might have contributed to the lower
utilisation of local forests. The Plan also made the success of the community forestry program in the terai.
development of an operational forest management plan by The conservative approach adopted by the forest
communities a prerequisite to handing over forests for their department in the handing over of forests to the local
use. It also emphasised the need for retraining the entire communities has been believed to be one of the most
forestry staff for their new roles as advisors and extension important factors. Unlike the hills and mountains, it seems
workers. The Plan recommended handing over all accessible that the forest department is not willing to relinquish its
forests in the hills to local communities to the extent that authority from the terai forests to the local communities.
they were willing and able to manage them (Bartlett 1992). Various forms of anomalies and misconduct by community
The formulation and implementation of the Master Plan FUGs, the socio-economic context of the terai (greater
can thus be considered a turning point in the history of ethnic heterogeneity, better accessibility, high migration into
forestry sector policy in Nepal. the region, and better access to markets) and characteristics
A new forestry legislation (HMGN 1993, 1995) was of the forest resource (high value) have often been presented
promulgated and enforced in 1995 for improved by researchers as the major underlying factors responsible
implementation of the Master Plan. The Forest Act of 1993 for both government scepticism in handing over forests to
categorised national forests into five sub-categories, namely local communities and mismanagement by FUGs (e.g. Baral
community forest, leasehold forest, government-managed and Subedi 2000; Chakraborty 2001).
forest, religious forest, and protected forest. Community
forestry was given the highest priority over other types of Recent policy initiatives
forest management. A community forest is the forest
collectively managed by local villagers who have organised There have been some recent changes in Nepal’s forest
themselves into a FUG according to negotiated and policy. According to a recent (2001) policy amendment, a
approved management agreements with a local district FUG is required to share 40% of its income generated from
forest office. The Act identified a community FUG as a the sell of surplus forest products for commercial use with
self-governed autonomous entity with authority to the national, and local governments (i.e. the Village
independently manage and use the forest according to an Development Committee and District Development
agreed management plan. An amendment to the Act in Committee). Earlier (September 2000), the Forest
1999, however, made it mandatory for a FUG to invest at Department issued a Circular prohibiting the extraction
least 25% of its income in the development and of any forest product from a community forest, even for
conservation of the community forest. meeting subsistence needs, unless a forest resource inventory
The effect of this policy and legislative changes has been and assessment of annual increment has been made. The
positive. The community forestry program has dramatically government has also adopted a separate policy for the terai,
expanded in terms of both spatial coverage and number of inner-terai, and churia forests since 2000. According to this
forests handed over to local communities after the policy contiguous large blocks of forests in the terai and
enforcement of the new legislation (i.e. HMGN 1993; 1995). inner-terai are to be managed as national forest under a
Forest Department records show that a total of 12,924 collaborative management arrangement while setting aside
registered FUGs, including 1,450,527 households, already barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches for
existed in the country (as of 9 December 2003) managing handing over as community forests (HMGN 2000).
1,042,385 ha of community forestland (about 18% of the The above changes in the government forest policy have
country’s forested area). Most of these community forests met with strong opposition from the civil society,
were in the middle hills. Many community FUGs have now particularly the Federation of Community Forest Users in
moved into intensive forest management for the purpose of Nepal (FECOFUN). The FECOFUN considers the above
producing surplus for sales (JTRCF 2001). provisions in the new policy to be against the principles of
The evidence from limited past studies, however, shows decentralised forest management as envisaged by the Forest
that there are wide variations in the success of community- Act of 1993 (pers. comm. with FECOFUN leaders). The
based forest management programs across the country. For FECOFUN is arguing that the new policy would discourage
example, the community forestry program has been far less the FUGs in their effort to conserve the country’s forests
successful in the terai when compared with the middle hills and is pleading with the government to withdraw the policy.
(JTRCF 2001). This is in terms of number of FUGs Many researchers also have criticised the new policy (e.g.
organised for forest management as well as spatial coverage Ambus and Shrestha 2001; Mahapatra 2001; Malla 2001).
of community forests. The most recent FUG database
record (9 December 2003) of the forest department shows
that only 4.4% of the total registered FUGs in the country FORESTRY INSTITUTIONS
are in the terai (including inner-terai, and churia) managing
6.3% of the total community forestlands. This was despite Government organisations
the fact that more than 48% of the country’s population
lives in this region and the region includes 31.5% of the Since it was first established as Ban Janch Adda (forest
total forested lands. inspection office) around 1880, the forestry administration
140 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

in Nepal has undergone a series of fundamental changes ilaka forest offices and 4 to 15 range posts. Range post
and has been substantially expanded over the years. The and ilaka staffs are often the contact points for the local
Kathmahal (timber office) was established in 1927 with the people and act as the interface between the local people
purpose of supplying railway sleepers to India. The and government bureaucracy.
Department of Forest (DoF) was established in 1942 with Some other government departments such as the
a primary objective of carrying out forest exploitation Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
under a series of working plans, following the format Management and the Department of Wildlife and National
originally established in British India (Hobley 1996). Parks also implement some forestry programs through local
Initially, the department had three regional and 12 user groups or directly by the departments. The Department
divisional forest offices under it as recommended by a of Forest Research and Survey is the only government
British forestry advisor E.A. Smithies, who spend several agency that carries out forestry research and is responsible
years with the Indian Forest Service. for providing forestry information required by other
There have been considerable changes in the departments including the Department of Forest.
organisational structure of the DoF since its establishment. Despite several changes in the organisational structure
Significant among those were the changes of 1976, 1983, and the substantial increase in the number of employees,
1988, and 1993 (see DoF 1994). The department now has the success of the government forestry agencies in achieving
74 district forest offices, 92 ilaka (sub-district) forest offices the objectives of sustainable forest management has been
and 698 range posts under it. Along with the structural debated over the years. Joshi (1993) argued that
changes, there have been substantial changes in the number contradictory forest policies and frequent changes in
of employees working for the DoF. For example, in 1961 legislation were primarily responsible for creating an
there were about 2,000 staff; this figure increased to around unstable and counterproductive government forest
6,000 by 1987, and over 7,000 in 1995 (Pokharel 1997). administration.
Historically, the main role of the district forestry staff was
to protect forests through policing. In recent years, Community-based institutions
particularly after the government adopted community
forestry as its main forestry strategy, there has been a Community-based management of forest, in the form of
gradual shift in their role from policing towards facilitation traditional or indigenous systems, has a long history in
and extension. Nepal, particularly in the hills (Arnold and Campbell 1986;
The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Fisher 1989; Gilmour 1990; Messerschimdt 1993). These
in coordination with the National Planning Commission, systems were operational under different types of
is responsible for formulating forest policies and institutional arrangements at different times and locations.
administering the country’s forest resources. Since its During the period when the country was ruled by the Ranas,
establishment in 1959 as the Ministry of Forestry, the many hill forests were under the responsibility of talukdars.
Ministry has undergone several structural changes. The Kipat was another form of land tenure in which land was
present organisational structure of the Ministry consists regarded as the common property of the local ethnic group
of five divisions under the secretary to look after the and was managed from within the ethnic group’s
functions of planning and human resources, foreign aid, organisation (Fisher 1989). Some of the rules adopted by
environment, monitoring and evaluation, and these indigenous systems of forest management included,
administration. In addition, there are five departments, five (i) only harvesting selected products and species, (ii)
regional forest offices and three semi-government corporate harvesting according to the condition of the product, (iii)
agencies under the Ministry. The DoF is the largest and limiting the amount of product, and (iv) using social means
oldest organisation among the five departments within the of monitoring (Arnold and Campbell 1986). Some forms
MFSC. of indigenous systems continue to exist in many places
The five regional forest directors are responsible for despite a general belief that the nationalisation of forests
coordinating, planning and monitoring district forestry in 1957 destroyed these systems and forests under
activities within the region. However, because of insufficient indigenous management are usually of higher quality
resources and executive authority, the regional forest offices compared to other forests in the same area. The continuous
are not capable of functioning as intended (Pokharel 1997). survival of indigenous forest management systems in many
The five regional forest training centres, which are locations despite the nationalisation of forests in 1957 was
positioned under the DoF and work under the general probably because of informal cooperation between
supervision of the concerned regional director, conduct in- communities and local officials that allowed successful
service refresher training for the lower-level technicians, forest conservation practices to continue against the
organise forest management training for the FUG national policy.
members, and facilitate networking among FUGs through The FUGs formed under the state-sponsored
seminars and workshops. The district forest offices are the community forestry program are important local forestry
carriers of government policy in the field and are organisations at present. Each FUG is authorised to make
responsible for the planning and implementation of district rules related to the governance of the community forest
level forestry programs. The districts are divided into three and the FUG itself. Rules crafted by the FUGs become
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 141

operational after receiving approval from the concerned Other agencies

district forest officer. The establishment of FUGs and
handing over forests into their care and supervision has Several bilateral and multilateral donor agencies have
vastly improved the level of contact and cooperation contributed in the development of the forestry sector in
between the forest department and the local people in recent Nepal by providing financial and technical assistance,
years (Collett et al. 1996). Lease groups formed under the primarily for the implementation of the community forestry
leasehold forestry program for the poor are another type program. The history of such assistance dates back to the
community-based forestry organisation. Each lease group early 1970s.
is composed of a small group (5–10) of local people living
below the poverty line who have organised themselves into
a group to manage and use degraded forestland handed FOREST COVER CHANGES
over to them by the district forest office (Sterk 1998).
The first scientific measurement of Nepal’s forest resources
Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal was carried out by the Forest Resources Survey Office of
His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN) with the
The Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal assistance of the United States Agency for International
(FECOFUN) is a non-government organisation established Development. The survey, which began in 1963, was based
in 1995 to complement government initiatives related to on aerial photographs taken during 1953–67 and
the development of community forestry. Over the years, complemented by strip photographs covering 10% of the
there has been a considerable expansion in the surveyed area. Based on this survey, the total forest area
organisational structure as well as the objective of the of the country in 1964 was estimated to be 6.4 million (m)
FECOFUN. It is now working as an advocacy and lobbying ha (Wallace 1981). As the survey did not cover the high
organisation to protect the rights of community forest users Himalayan region and there were considerable gaps in the
and contribute to the development of community forestry coverage of the hill region, these results give only a rough
(Shrestha 2000). The organisation has a multi-tiered estimate of the country’s forested area. No information was
structure with FUGs organised in VDC level networks, available for shrublands, which are mostly degraded forests.
range post networks, district networks, regional networks For about the same period (1964–65), the Water and Energy
and the central FECOFUN. By the end of 2001, more than Commission Secretariat (WECS) of HMGN estimated the
65 districts (out of a total of 75) had FECOFUN total area under forest and shrub cover as 6.5 m ha,
organisations that included more than 6,100 member FUGs including 3.9 m ha in the hills and mountains, 1.7 m ha in
(Ambus and Shrestha 2001). FECOFUN has become an the siwaliks and 0.8 m ha in the terai (Figure 1). Detailed
influential player at the national level and is probably the information regarding the methodology used by WECS is
only national federation of forest users in Asia. not available, except that the estimates were based on aerial

FIGURE 1 Physiographic
zones and development
regions of Nepal
142 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

photographs taken in 1964–65 (HMGN/ADB/FINIDA, The survey, named the National Forest Inventory (NFI),
1988). took 1994 as the reference year. The survey used different
A detailed mapping of land resources for the entire methods for different areas. Landsat Thematic Mapper
country was carried out by the Land Resources Mapping satellite images taken in November–December 1990 and
Project (LRMP), a joint venture between HMGN and 1991 were used to map the forest cover of 14 terai and
Kenting Earth Sciences Limited of Ottawa, Canada. The inner-terai districts. Forest cover data for another 10 terai
survey was based on aerial photography flown in 1978– and inner-terai districts was obtained from aerial photo
79, supplemented by extensive field checking and sampling. interpretation supplemented by field checking. The forest
The LRMP estimated the total area covered by forests and cover for the rest of the 51 hill districts was analysed
shrubs as 6.3 m ha, including 4.0 m ha in the mountains, by interpreting a systematic grid of air photo points
1.7 m ha in the siwaliks, and 0.6 m ha in the terai (LRMP (DoFRS/FRISP 1999). The inventory results of NFI, which
1986). Eight years later, the Master Plan for Forestry Sector were published in 1999, show a 4.3 m ha (29%) area under
Project updated the LRMP results by taking into account forest cover and an additional 1.6 m ha (10.6%) under
the loss of terai and siwalik forests to settlements, shrubs.
overharvest of forests to meet fuelwood needs, and A comparison of NFI results with LRMP – the two
plantation establishments during the period (HMGN/ most comprehensive forest surveys – shows that the forest
ADB/FINIDA, 1988). The results show a small increase area in the country decreased by 24% over a period of 15
in forest area in the hills and mountains and decrease in years (1979–1994), by an annual rate of 1.6%, and the area
the terai and the siwaliks. under shrubs increased by 126% during the same period
An analysis of the changes in forest area between 1965 (Table 2). The high increase of shrubland while the forest
and 1986, based on the estimates of forest cover by the area was decreasing gives clear evidence of high rates of
WECS, LRMP, and the Master Plan, shows that the highest forest degradation over the period, although the total loss
rate of deforestation during the period was in the terai of forested area was not substantial.
followed by the siwaliks. The deforestation rate in the The statistics presented above are the official estimates
siwaliks increased substantially after 1979. The forest area of forest cover changes in Nepal. There are a number of
in the mountains remained largely stable during the period other studies conducted on various scales that explain or
(Table 1). estimate the deforestation rates in the country. Eckholm
The latest national level forest survey was conducted (1975) and Blaikie (1985) were among the early researchers
by the Department of Forest Research and Survey who presented deforestation in Nepal as a classical example
(DoFRS) of HMGN between 1987 and 1998, with of environmental crisis in developing countries. Wallace
assistance from the Forest Resource Information System (1981) compared the 1964 official estimates with a study
Project (FRISP) funded by the government of Finland. conducted by an integrated watershed management project

TABLE 1 Changes in forest plus shrub cover over time by physiographic zones. Area in ‘000 ha; shown within parenthesis is
the data source

1964–1965 1978–1979 1985–1986 Annual rate

(WECS) (LRMP) (Master Plan) of change (%)
Zone Area % Area % Area % 1965–1979 1979–1986
Hills and Mountains 3,944 36.7 4,016 37.4 4,252 39.5 +0.1 +0.8
Siwaliks 1,739 92.2 1,698 90.0 1,467 77.8 -0.2 -1.9
Terai 784 37.2 593 28.1 505 23.9 -1.7 -2.1
Total 6,467 43.9 6,307 42.7 6,224 42.2 -0.2 -0.2

TABLE 2 Changes in forest and shrub cover of Nepal over time. Area in ‘000 ha; shown within parenthesis is the source

1978–1979 1985–1986 1994 % change

(LRMP) (Master Plan) (NFI) 1979–1994
Category Area % Area % Area % Total Annual
Forest 5,617 38.0 5,518 37.4 4,269 29.0 -24.0 -1.6
Shrub 690 4.7 706 4.8 1,560 10.6 +126.0 +8.4
Total 6,307 42.7 6,224 42.2 5,829 39.6 -7.6 -0.5
2 2
Note: The total land area of the country used in NFI (147,181 km ) differs from the area used in earlier studies (147,484 km ). The percentages in this
paper are calculated accordingly for respective periods.
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 143

in 1975 and found that a total of 2.3 million ha of forest three major elements of forest governance influence one
was lost over this period; “a decrease of over one-third in another.
just over a decade” (Wallace 1981). Thapa and Weber (1990) Our attempt to establish direct relationships among
found the deforestation rate (4.1%) of Nepal between 1950 forest policy, institutions, and forest cover change, however,
and 1975 to be among the highest of selected tropical was limited by the available information on each of these
countries of south and South East Asia, with more than three elements. Changes in forest policy and institutional
25% of the total forest cover lost during this time. Mahat developments were more closely related but the available
et al. (1987), in a study conducted in parts of two hilly statistics on forest cover change do not exactly match with
districts in Central Nepal (south-east Sindhupalchok and changes in policy and institutional arrangements. Because
north-east Kabhrepalanchok) found no significant changes of this limitation, the trends of forest cover changes can
in forest area for at least a century, although forests were only be indirectly compared with the policy and institutional
found to have degenerated in quality, particularly between changes. Despite this limitation, the study has been
1951 and 1963. successful in showing the broad association among policy,
The national forest survey reports produced by the institutions, and forest cover changes in Nepal over the last
government agencies did not discuss the factors causing century. Moreover, the study has drawn evidence from
deforestation and there is considerable disagreement among several empirical studies conducted at smaller spatial scales
researchers on this issue. The nationalisation of forests in that more clearly show the influence of policy and
1957 and high rates of population growth have been institutional arrangements on forest cover changes (e.g.
identified as some of the major underlying causes (e.g. Schreier et al. 1994; Virgo and Subba 1994; Schweik et al.
Hobley 1985; Mahat et al. 1986; Shrestha 1996), while 1997; Branney and Yadav 1998; Jackson et al. 1998; Gautam
increased extraction of fuelwood and fodder and et al. 2002b; Gautam et al. 2003; Schweik et al. 2003).
subsequent expansions of agriculture for subsistence were The review led to the following four main conclusions
the major proximate causes (e.g. Bajracharya 1983; Griffin and associated implications for designing or improving
et al. 1988). Wallace (1981) reported that “under- future forest governance in Nepal and other developing
investment in the replenishment of the forest is likely to be countries having similar socioeconomic and ecological
a much greater problem than overuse” when considering settings.
deforestation in Nepal. Illicit felling of timber trees for
smuggling across the border and government settlement Forest policy reform was a complex process
programs were other main causes identified for high rates
of deforestation in the terai. The review shows that the changes in the government forest
While most of the past studies presented a gloomy policy of Nepal were influenced by several factors and
picture of deforestation in the country, a few recent studies actors. One of the important factors guiding the policy
conducted in relatively small areas in the middle hills show changes was the perception of the government on forestry-
improving forest conditions after the implementation of related problems in different periods. For example, before
the community forestry program (e.g. Schereier et al. 1994; 1976 the people were seen as part of the problem causing
Virgo and Subba 1994; Jackson, et al. 1998; Gautam et al. deforestation and legislation permitting centralised control
2002b). The findings of a remote sensing and GIS based of forests and strong bureaucracy were considered the
study conducted recently by the authors in a mountain appropriate solution. The nationalisation of forests in 1957,
watershed in central Nepal corroborate these findings and creation of stringent forest acts including the Forest Act
show that forest cover in the watershed increased by about of 1961 and Forest Protection (Special Provision) Act of
15% between 1976 and 2000, mainly by the regeneration 1967, and substantial expansion of the forest bureaucracy
of shrublands and grasslands into high forests (Gautam et are evidence of changing perceptions of the government.
al. 2003). However, the high rates of deforestation continue After about two decades of unsuccessful attempts of
in the terai because of low success of the community managing forests through bureaucratic machinery alone,
forestry program and lack of scientific management of the government realised the necessity of involving local
government-controlled forests. people in forest management to control the rapid loss of
forest occurring across the vast inaccessible areas. The
National Forestry Plan of 1976 and following amendments
DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS in forestry legislation (e.g. the Panchayat Forest and
Panchayat Protected Forest Rules of 1978) were the result
The review of Nepal’s forest policy, institutions, and the of the realisation on the part of the government that the
trends of changes in forest condition presented in the forests cannot be managed without the cooperation of local
preceding sections provides several important insights into communities. The long-existing traditional or indigenous
the historical context in which the forest resources of the forest management systems that were operational under
country were governed, how policies were formulated and different types of institutional arrangements at different
institutions designed to solve the perceived problems. times and locations, provided a strong foundation for the
Through this parallel analysis of policies, institutions, and change in forest policy. International influence was another
forest cover changes, we attempted to illustrate how these important factor contributing to the changes in forest
144 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

policy. For example, perception of the so-called “ecological the changing ownership of the unevenly distributed terai
crisis” in the Himalayas during the mid-1970s prompted forests. Most of the terai forests are confined along the
the international community, particularly the World Bank, foothills while the settlements extend to a vast area in the
to take an interest in Nepal’s forest management, and south. Because of this, there is a possibility that a vast
supported changes to forest policy. majority of the villagers, who are currently accessing the
Despite poor outcomes from the implementation of the forests, may lose their de facto rights over these forests if
Panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest rules, the the forests are handed over to nearby communities.
government forest policy continued to evolve in the favour It may also be relevant to link the recent policy changes
of community-based management after 1978. Preparation with the evolution, organisational set up and orientation
and implementation of the 25-year Master Plan in 1989 of the Nepalese forest bureaucracy. The initial structure
and the enactment of progressive forestry legislation of the government forestry organisation in Nepal was
(HMGN 1993, 1995) to support the Master Plan policy heavily influenced by the forestry system once used in
could be taken as evidence of the government’s clear British India and established for traditional timber
commitment towards community-based forest production and related silvicultural objectives. Despite
management. The donor community supporting the changes in policy and experience of implementing various
community forestry program also played an important role forms of community-based forestry programs, the basic
in bringing about those major policy changes. In recent structure and functioning style of the forest bureaucracy
years, the civil society, particularly the FECOFUN, has remains the same. The Department of Forest, the main
also been actively involved in the development of the implementing agency, still operates within a quasi-feudal
community forestry program. Some environmental NGOs, culture and possesses many characteristics that are
such as the Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists, as incompatible to the requirements of the community-based
well as academic institutions and independent researchers, forest management policy. For example, decision-making
have also contributed to the development process. is based on top-down process of command and instruction,
It is not quite clear why the government, after having rather than interaction and exchange of information.
met with certain degree of successes from the community Informal institutions and personal social networks also
forestry program, came up with a new policy provision that have a strong influence on decision-making process
demands a community forest user group to allocate 40% (Pokharel 1997). These factors might have played role in
of its income obtained from the commercial sale of forest the policy change process.
products to the national coffer. This change in policy has The above discussion indicates that forest policy reform
led to a conflict between the civil society, particularly the in Nepal was a complicated process that was influenced by
FECOFUN, and the government forest bureaucracy. The several factors and actors including the traditional
FECOFUN is arguing that the new policy would practices, perceived knowledge of the resource condition
discourage the FUGs in their effort to conserve the and problems among participants involved in the policy
country’s forests and wants the to government withdraw reform process, the nature of the resource, the socio-
this policy. The policy makers, on the other hand, argue economic context, and the institutional as well as individual
that the proposed taxing system will help reduce the interests of the stakeholders.
disparity in the distribution of forest benefits among the
country’s citizens as the tax money can be used to fulfil the Policy could not bring about the desired outcomes when
forestry requirements of the people who have no forest-dependent people were alienated
community forest. The conflict over this new policy change
is further complicating the issue, and acting against a The failure of the forest nationalisation policy of the
smooth implementation of the community forestry Nepalese government, despite substantial expansion of the
program in future. forest bureaucracy and creation of stringent forest acts,
Similarly, there has been no comprehensive study to provides clear evidence that alienation of the people
investigate the possible reasons that prompted the through coercive measures is not the appropriate solution
government to adopt a separate forest management policy to control overexploitation of forests. In fact, the
(HMGN 2000) for the terai, inner-terai and churia regions. nationalisation of forests in 1957 and the following
We speculate that the past experiences of mismanagement legislative arrangements (that were oriented to centralised
of community forests by some FUGs might have been one control of the resource) proved to be counterproductive as
of the major bases for this new policy. The socio-economic evidenced by widespread deforestation and forest
context of the terai (greater ethnic heterogeneity, better degradation following those events.
accessibility, high migration into the region, and better Although it took more than two decades after its
access to markets) and characteristics of the forest resource implementation, the community-based forest management
(high value) could be some major underlying factors policy of the government has started producing some
responsible for the government scepticism in handing over positive results. Several studies have reported that forest
block forests in the terai and inner-terai to local cover and biophysical conditions have improved in many
communities. The government may also be concerned about places under the protection and care of community forest
the possibility of inter-community conflicts arising from user groups thereby providing economic benefits to the local
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 145

people and contributing to environmental conservation (e.g. based forest management can mainly be attributed to the
Jackson et al. 1998; Sterk 1998; Webb and Gautam 2001; Forest Act of 1993. Although the Master Plan for the
Acharya 2002; Gautam et al. 2002a, Gautam et al. 2003). Forestry Sector of 1989 provided the clear policy directives
Another important achievement associated with the in favour of the community forestry program, it was only
community forestry program is that the concept of the after the enforcement of the 1993 forest act that the
forest user group as a responsible local organisation program gained momentum and dramatically expanded in
entrusted to manage and use forests has been strongly terms of both spatial coverage and the number of forests
embedded within the institutional structure of the national handed over to local communities. This was because of
forest governance system (Collett et al. 1996). These the government’s commitment, through this Act, to
findings show that peoples’ involvement is essential for relinquish its authority to the local communities by
achieving the desired outcomes from a forest management recognising a community FUG as a self-governed
effort. autonomous entity with authority to independently
The recent changes in the government forest policy, manage and use the forest according to an agreed
particularly the proposed sharing of income obtained from management plan.
the commercial sell of forest products from community It is not yet clear whether the recent adoption of a
forests among the forest user group, the national separate forest policy for the terai, inner-terai, and churia
government, and local governments, and the provision that by the government is aimed at undermining the progressive
limits the community forestry in the terai and inner-terai history of community forestry in the country as perceived
to barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches, is by the FECOFUN. One of the major factors contributing
likely to destroy the mutual trust and collaboration between to this confusion is a lack of reliable information to verify
communities and the forest bureaucracy that has been the arguments put forward by each of the two parties (those
built up after more than two decades of the implementation supporting and opposing the new forest policy). There is
of the community forestry program. The government no comprehensive research to investigate and understand
adopted this policy at a time when the community forestry the position of the government and the FECOFUN on
program was being smoothly implemented, at least in the this issue. The biased attitudes of some of the researchers
middle hills. The policy changes may result in re-alienation have in fact helped to widen the dispute instead of solving
of the local people from forest management, similar the it. For example, Mahapatra (2001:1) stated “…the bill
effects of the nationalisation policy in 1957 (although appears to be a strategic legislation to snatch control over
arguably to a lesser extent since use rights would still be the densely forested and highly valued terai (plain) forests
legal). from an aggressive community that wants to protect it from
We argue that instead of adopting the blanket approach timber smugglers backed by politicians”. The blame of
to community forestry, it may be wise to adopt a broad “snatching” control of the terai forests by the government
decentralised forest governance policy and flexible is baseless because more than 95% of the terai forests have
community forestry implementation strategy that can always remained under government control and only a very
accommodate variations in biophysical, socioeconomic and small proportion (<5%) of the total forested area has been
demographic conditions across space. In fact, the current handed over to the local communities in recent years.
forestry legislation of Nepal has given the concerned district There is, however, a general belief that the forest
forest officer the authority of judging the suitability of a department has remained reluctant to hand over forests to
forest for community management. The few instances of local communities in the terai. The new policy limiting the
misuse of authority by some district forest officers and expansion of community forests in the terai and inner-terai
mismanagement of community forest by some FUGs to barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches,
should not be the basis for a change in forest policy, as the provides evidence of the unwillingness of the forest
reported few cases are outliers and do not represent the bureaucracy to relinquish its authority from the terai forests
general situation. Such problems can be solved through for the benefits of the local people. One of the arguments
continuous personal as well as organisational changes in of senior forest bureaucrats behind this reluctance is that
forest bureaucracy and the institutional strengthening of the communities do not have capacity to manage the more
FUGs through appropriate training and technical support. diverse and high value forests of the terai. There is, however,
Based on our analysis, we conclude that a flexible policy not enough evidence to support this argument. There are
allowing local solutions to variable community forestry cases where community forests are better managed than
situations across space would be far superior to an inflexible government forests, even in the terai (Chakraborty 2001).
blanket policy requiring a complete policy restructuring Moreover, there is a general concern about whether the
to confront emerging (or special interest) needs. forest department, which does not have experience with
the successful implementation of any forest management
Government should be willing to relinquish its authority for plan in the past, will successfully do so in the near future
the benefits of the local people and commence with scientific management of block forests
in the terai, inner-terai and churia, as envisaged by the new
The current standing of Nepal as one of the most policy. In this context, the rationale for the new policy seems
progressive countries in the world in terms of community- to be unconvincing.
146 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

Policy reform can be successful when traditional practices program of the Asian Institute of Technology, and a
and institutions are included in the reform process MacArthur grant made available via the Workshop in
Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University.
The evidence from limited past studies shows that there The authors thank three anonymous reviewers for their
are wide variations in the success of community forestry comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and
programs across the country. Such variations have been Sarah Kantner for her editorial assistance.
reported not only among the physiographic regions but also
in different locations of the same region (Varughese 1999;
Chakraborty 2001) and even within a sub-watershed REFERENCES
(Schweik et al. 1997; Gautam 2002b). The difference in
local institutional arrangements that define rights and ACHARYA, K.P. 2002. Twenty-four years of community forestry
responsibilities of the local people towards a forest has been in Nepal. International Forestry Review, 4 (2): 149–156.
reported to be the major factor leading to those variations. AMBUS, L. and SHRESTHA, N.K. 2001. With experience
The findings of a recent research conducted in a watershed comes wisdom: the Federation of Community Forest Users
in the middle hills corroborate the above findings and in Nepal (FECOFUN) in 2001. Forest, Trees and People
Newsletter No. 45.
indicate that formal handover of forest ownership is not a
ARNOLD, J.E.M. and CAMPBELL, J.G. 1986. Collective
major factor determining successful forest conservation at
Management of Hill Forests in Nepal: The Community
the local level when the rights to organise and manage Forestry Development Project. In: Proceedings of a
forests for the community benefits have been recognised Conference on Common Property Resource Management,
(even informally) by concerned authorities (Gautam el al. April 21–26. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
in press). BARTLETT, A.G. 1992. A review of community forestry
The success of the community forestry program in the advances in Nepal. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 71 (2):
hills can partly be attributed to many successful indigenous 95–100.
systems of forest management that were in existence before BAJRACHARYA, D. 1983. Fuel, food or forest?: Dilemmas in
the forests were nationalised in 1957. These local forestry a Nepali village. World Development, 11 (2): 1057–1074.
institutions, in many cases, were built upon established BARAL, J.C. and SUBEDI, B.R. 2000. Some community
systems of authority and responsibility in the villages, forestry issues in the terai, Nepal: where do we go from here?
Forest, Trees and People Newsletter No. 42:20–25.
including monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Some
BLAIKIE, P. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in
of these traditional institutions were formalised by the
Developing Countries. Longman, New York.
forest user groups after the implementation of the BRANNEY, P. and YADAV, K.P. 1998. Changes in community
community forestry program while others provided a basis forest condition and management 1994–1998: Analysis of
for the development of new institutions (Gilmour and information from the forest resource assessment and
Fisher 1991). socio-economic study in the Koshi Hills. Nepal
In contrast to the hills, the terai hardly had any United Kingdom Community Forestry Project, Kathmandu,
indigenous systems of forest management (except for Nepal.
patches of religious forests at some locations). This was CHAKRABORTY, R.N. 2001. Stability and outcomes of
probably because of better accessibility, more favourable common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the
market condition and high value of the terai forests that terai region of Nepal. Ecological Economics, 36: 341–353.
provided incentives for illegal harvesting and opportunistic COLLETT, G., CHHETRI, R., JACKSON, W.J. and
SHEPHERD, K.R. 1996. Nepal Australia Community
behaviour by individuals, thereby weakening the
Forestry Project Socio-economic Impact Study. ANUTECH
possibilities of local institutional development for collective
Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia.
action. Indeed, illegal logging activities in the terai are a CUBBAGE, F.W., O’LAUGHLIN, J. and BULLOCK III, C.S.
serious concern and not infrequent occurrences. The low 1993. Forest Resource Policy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
success of the community forestry program in the terai can York.
thus also be linked with the development of local DEPARTMENT OF FOREST (DoF) 1994. Department of
institutions. The above evidence suggests that identification, Forest: An Introduction (in Nepali). DoF, His Majesty’s
recognition, and incorporation of local institutions, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
including indigenous systems of resource management, in DEPARTMENT OF FOREST RESEARCH AND SURVEY/
the policy reform process are of crucial importance for FOREST RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEM
designing or improving future forest governance and PROJECT (DoFRS/FRISP) 1999. Forest Resources of Nepal
(1987–1998), Publication No. 74. DoFRS, His Majesty’s
management.
Government of Nepal and FRISP, The Government of
Finland.
ECKHOLM, E.P. 1975. The Deterioration of Mountain
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Environments. Science, 189: 764–770.
FISHER, R.J. 1989. Indigenous Systems of Common Property
This research was supported by a doctoral research grant Forest Management in Nepal. Working Paper No.18.
from DANIDA provided to Ambika Gautam under the Environmental and Policy Institute, East-West Centre,
Integrated Watershed Development and Management Honolulu, Hawaii.
 A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal 147

GAUTAM, A.P., WEBB, E.L. and SHIVAKOTI, G.P. 2002a. LAND RESOURCES MAPPING PROJECT (LRMP), 1986.
Local participants’ perceptions about socio-economic and Land Utilisation Report. Kenting Earth Sciences Limited. His
environmental impacts of community forestry in the Middle Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Government of Canada.
Hills of Nepal. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, MAHAPATRA, R. 2001. “Betrayed”: Nepal’s forest bureaucracy
12 (2): 60–81. prepares for the funeral of the much-hailed community forest
GAUTAM, A.P., WEBB, E.L. and EIUMNOH, A. 2002b. GIS management programme. Down to Earth, 9 (22): 20–22.
assessment of land use-land cover changes associated with MAHAT, T.B.S., GRIFFIN, D.M. and SHEPHERD, K.R. 1986.
community forestry implementation in the Middle Hills of Human impact on some forests of the Middle Hills of
Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 22 (1): 63–69. Nepal: Part 1. Forestry in the context of the traditional
GAUTAM, A.P., WEBB, E.L., SHIVAKOTI, G.P. and resources of the state. Mountain Research and Development,
ZOEBISCH, M.A. 2003. Land use dynamics and landscape 6: 223–232.
change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. MAHAT, T.B.S., GRIFFIN, D.M. and SHEPHERD, K.R. 1987.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 99: 83–96. Human impact on some forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal,
GAUTAM, A.P., SHIVAKOTI, G.P. and WEBB, E.L. In press. Part 4. A detailed study in southeast Sindhu Palchok and
Forest cover change, physiography, local economy and northeast Kabhre Palanchok. Mountain Research and
institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environmental Development, 7 (2): 111–134.
Management. MALLA, Y.B. 2001. Changing policies and the persistence of
GILMOUR, D.A. 1990. Resource availability and indigenous patron-client relations in Nepal: Stakeholders’ responses to
forest management systems in Nepal. Society & Natural changes in forest policies. Environment History, 6 (2): 287–
Resources, 3: 145 –158. 307.
GILMOUR, D.A. and FISHER, R.J. 1991. Villagers, Forests MATHEMA, P., SHRESTHA, K.B. and STHAPIT, K.M. 1999.
and Foresters. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal. Participatory forest management: implications for human
GRANER, E. 1997. The Political Ecology of Community Forestry resources’ development in Nepal. In: Bhatia, A. (ed.)
in Nepal. Freiburg Studies in Development Geography, Participatory Forest Management: Implications for Human
Heidelberg, Germany. Resources’ Development in the Hidukush Himalayas, Volume
GRIFFIN, D.M., SHEPHERD, K.R. and MAHAT, T.B.S. 1988. V, Nepal. International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Human impact on some forests of the Middle Hills of Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nepal Part 5: comparisons, concepts, and some policy MESSERSCHMIDT, D. A. 1993. Linking indigenous knowledge
implications. Mountain Research and Development, 8 (1): to create co-management in community forest development
43–52. policy. In: Warner, K. and Wood, H. (eds.) Policy and
HIS MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL (HMGN) Legislation in Community Forestry. Proceedings of a
1993. Forest Act 1993 (official translation). HMGN, Ministry workshop held in Bangkok, Jan 27–29. Regional Community
of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. Forestry Training Centre, Bangkok.
HIS MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL (HMGN) PARDO, R. 1995. Community forestry comes of age. Journal of
1995. Forest Regulation, 1995 (official translation). HMGN, Forestry, 93 (11): 20–25.
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. POKHAREL, B.K. 1997. Foresters and Villagers in Contention
HIS MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL (HMGN) and Compact. Ph.D. thesis. University of East Anglia,
2000. Revised Forestry Sector Policy. HMGN, Ministry of Norwich, UK.
Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. REGMI, M.C. 1978. Land Tenure and Taxation in Nepal. Ratna
HIS MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL/ASIAN Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu.
DEVELOPMENT BANK/FINNISH INTERNATIONAL SCHREIER, H., BROWN, S., SCHMIDT, M., SHAH, P.,
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (HMGN/ADB/FINNIDA) SHRESTHA, B., NAKARMI, G., SUBBA, K. and
1988. Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal: Main WYMANN, S. 1994. Gaining forest but losing ground: A
Report. HMGN, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, GIS evaluation in a Himalayan watershed. Environmental
Kathmandu. Management, 18 (1): 139–150.
HOBLEY, M. 1985. Common property does not cause SCHWEIK, C.M., ADHIKARI, K. and PANDIT, K.N. 1997.
deforestation. Journal of Forestry, 83:663–664. Land cover change and forest institutions: a comparison of
HOBLEY, M. 1996. Participatory Forestry: The Process of two sub-basins in the southern siwalik hills of Nepal.
Change in India and Nepal. ODI, London. Mountain Research and Development, 17: 99–116.
JACKSON, W.J., TAMRAKAR, R.M., HUNT, S. and SCHWEIK, C.M., NAGENDRA, H. and SINHA, D.R. 2003.
SHEPHERD, K.R. 1998. Land use changes in two Middle Using satellite imagery to locate innovative forest
Hills districts of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, management practices in Nepal. Ambio, 32 (4): 312–319.
18: 193–212. SHRESTHA, B.P. 2000. Lobbying and advocacy as a means for
JOSHI, A.L. 1993. Effects on administration of changed forest realising rights over common property resources. Paper
policies in Nepal. In: Policy and Legislation in Community presented at “Constituting the Commons: Crafting
Forestry. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Bangkok, Jan Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium”, the Eighth
27–29. Regional community Forestry Training Centre, Conference of the International Association for the Study
Bangkok. of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 31–
JOINT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF COMMUNITY June 4.
FORESTRY (JTRCF) 2001. Joint Technical Review of SHRESTHA, K.B. 1996. Community Forestry in Nepal: An
Community Forestry: Report of the Joint Technical Review Overview of Conflicts. Discussion Paper Series No. MNR
Committee. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, 96/2, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Kathmandu, Nepal. Development. Kathmandu, Nepal.
148 A.P. Gautam, G.P. Shivakoti and E.L. Webb

STERK, A. 1998. Leasing Degraded Forestland: an Innovative VIRGO, K.J. and SUBBA K.J. 1994. Land-use change between
Way to Integrate Forest and Livestock Development in 1978 and 1990 in Dhankuta District, Eastern Nepal.
Nepal. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Mountain Research and Development, 14: 159–170.
Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, WALLACE, M.B. 1981. Solving Common-Property Resource
Thailand. Problems: Deforestation in Nepal. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard
THAPA, G.B. and WEBER, K.E. 1990. Actors and factors of University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
deforestation in ‘Tropical Asia’. Environmental Conservation, WEBB, E.L. and GAUTAM, A.P. 2001 Effects of community
17 (1): 19–27. forest management on the structure and diversity of a
VARUGHESE, G. 1999. Villagers, Bureaucrats, and Forests in successional broadleaf forest in Nepal. International Forestry
Nepal: Designing Governance for a Complex Resource. Ph.D. Review, 3: 146–157.
thesis, Indiana University, USA.