IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/adm/journl/v3y2014i5p51-65.html

Status and Trends in Forests and Forestry Development in Nepal: Major Success and Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Digambar Singh Dahal

Abstract

Forestry is an extensive land use system in Nepal. Forest management has historically dealt primarily with the silviculture and biological management of forest. Forest is a renewable natural resource, which provides a wide range of environmental, socio-economic and cultural benefits and services. To obtain these benefits and services in perpetuity, an effective management strategy integrating both natural and social part of the forest dependent communities is one of the crucial prerequisites. The major issues lie on interaction between social and natural components and their adaptive mechanism. Management of forestland on a commercial scale has never been a successful story although it was started more than 40 years in Nepal. The first National Forest Inventory (NFI) was carried out with the sole intention of commercial harvesting of the forests so that financial returns could be made possible. Realizing that no significant efforts were made towards the introduction of silvicultural practices to improve the status and condition of forests, the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, 1989 felt the need for scientific forest management in the Terai. On this basis, the new Forest Act 1993 and Forest Regulations 1995 were introduced and emphasized scientific forest management for government.

Suggested Citation

  • Digambar Singh Dahal, 2014. "Status and Trends in Forests and Forestry Development in Nepal: Major Success and Constraints," International Journal of Sciences, Office ijSciences, vol. 3(05), pages 51-65, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:adm:journl:v:3:y:2014:i:5:p:51-65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ijsciences.com/pub/article/487
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.ijsciences.com/pub/pdf/V320140512.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chakraborty, Rabindra Nath, 2001. "Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 341-353, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    2. Dey, Anamika & Singh, Gurdeep & Gupta, Anil K., 2018. "Women and Climate Stress: Role Reversal from Beneficiaries to Expert Participants," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 336-359.
    3. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. Lund, Jens Friis & Baral, Keshab & Bhandari, Nirmala Singh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Treue, Thorsten, 2014. "Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 119-125.
    5. Baynes, Jack & Herbohn, John & Dressler, Wolfram, 2016. "Power relationships: Their effect on the governance of community forestry in the Philippines," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 169-176.
    6. Poudel, Narayan Raj & Fuwa, Nobuhiko & Otsuka, Keijiro, 2015. "The impacts of a community forestry program on forest conditions, management intensity and revenue generation in the Dang district of Nepal," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 259-281, April.
    7. Kramer, Daniel Boyd & Urquhart, Gerald & Schmitt, Kristen, 2009. "Globalization and the connection of remote communities: A review of household effects and their biodiversity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2897-2909, October.
    8. Pokharel, Ridish K. & Neupane, Prem Raj & Tiwari, Krishna Raj & Köhl, Michael, 2015. "Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: A case from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 75-84.
    9. Dhakal, Maheshwar & Masuda, Misa, 2009. "Local pricing system of forest products and its relations to equitable benefit sharing and livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry program in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 221-229, July.
    10. Iversen, Vegard & Chhetry, Birka & Francis, Paul & Gurung, Madhu & Kafle, Ghanendra & Pain, Adam & Seeley, Janet, 2006. "High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 93-107, June.
    11. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Movuh, Mbolo C. Yufanyi & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Salla, Manjola, 2016. "Comparing community forestry actors in Cameroon, Indonesia, Namibia, Nepal and Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 81-87.
    12. Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Albers, Heidi J. & Ngeleza, Guyslain & Lokina, Razack B., 2014. "Insiders, outsiders, and the role of local enforcement in forest management: An example from Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 242-248.
    13. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    14. Caballero, Gonzalo, 2015. "Community-based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: A new institutional approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 347-356.
    15. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    16. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh R., 2010. "Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96827, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Satyal Pravat, Poshendra & Humphreys, David, 2013. "Using a multilevel approach to analyse the case of forest conflicts in the Terai, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 47-55.
    18. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C. & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahamad & Salla, Manjola & Bach, Ngo Duy, 2015. "Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 92-101.
    19. Charles Blessings Laurence Jumbe & Arild Angelsen, 2006. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidence from Malawi’s Forest Co-Management Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 562-581.
    20. Shunji Oniki & Haftu Etsay & Melaku Berhe & Teklay Negash, 2020. "Improving Cooperation among Farmers for Communal Land Conservation in Ethiopia: A Public Goods Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adm:journl:v:3:y:2014:i:5:p:51-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Staff ijSciences The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Staff ijSciences to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.