The forest lives in the community

A totally new approach in community forestry is necessary now. New management plans should guide production, biodiversity conservation, water protection, tourism, and local enterprises.Access for poor and marginalized groups must be strengthened. Educational collaboration with schools can revive cultural connections.

By Bhola Adhikari in Kathmandu

In the 1970s–80s, after the Himalayan Degradation Theory was made public, based on studies conducted by international development agencies, donor bodies, and some scientists, which pointed out the destruction of the forest and environment in the Himalayan region, a major wave of discomfort was created worldwide. These studies held population growth, poverty, and traditional livelihood systems responsible as the main causes of environmental degradation in the Himalayan region. 

According to this theory, the conclusion was drawn that the local community’s dependence on firewood, fodder, grazing, and farming was the primary factor behind the worsening Himalayan environment.

Forest-dependent communities began discussing among themselves how to protect the forests around them and how to ensure their sustainable use.

In the early 1980s, the Chipko Movement began in Uttarakhand, India. Leaders such as Gaura Devi, Sunder Lal Bahuguna and Chandi Prasad Bhatt carried out a strong civic movement against forest exploitation by contractors and companies through campaigns of hugging trees. This movement brought the role of local communities in forest conservation to the center.

As a result of its influence, a serious debate began in Nepal regarding community involvement, ownership, and rights over forests, which provided a strong foundation for the concept of community forestry. As an outcome of these discussions, communities began engaging in forest conservation campaigns in an organized manner. In particular, locally initiated forest protection campaigns were launched in various villages and places across the country, including Sindhupalchok, Bhojpur, and Dhankuta in Nepal.

Following the political change after the pro-democracy movement, new concepts of forest conservation, management, and utilization emerged in Nepal, namely community forestry. The interim government formed under the leadership of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai transformed Panchayat forests into community forests and decided to grant responsibility and rights to communities for forest conservation across the country. Based on this, the Forest Act was issued and the Forest Regulations, advancing the campaign to legally expand community forestry.

Community dependence on forests was widespread for resources such as fodder, firewood, timber, wild vegetables, medicinal herbs, and grazing. In most hill regions, forests had already been destroyed, hillsides were barren and desolate, and local awareness about the importance of trees and plants was limited. Moreover, government control over forests was very strict and ensured by law. Under the Panchayat system, the possibility of placing forests under village ownership was minimal.

For this reason, after the political change of 2046 B.S., the revolutionary step of managing forests through citizen groups began. This opened a new pathway for directly involving local communities in forest conservation, use, and management.

According to the report of the Forest Research and Training Centre (2024), 43.38 perc ent of Nepal’s land area is covered by forests and 2.70 per cent by shrublands. Thus, a total of 46.08 per cent of the land falls under forest areas.

Successes of Community Forestry

Community forestry is not limited only to the conservation of trees and plants; it has also become a strong institutional medium of democratic practice through thousands of user groups at the village level. Users have made continuous and tireless efforts to transform once barren and desolate hills into greenery. This participatory conservation and development practice has been accepted as a successful model at both national and international levels.

Details Related to Forest Management in Nepal up to the End of FY 2081/082

Table 1: Group and Area Details by Forest Type

S.N. | Forest Type | User Groups / Number | Forest Area (Hectares)

1 | Community Forest | 23,162 | 2,509,825

2 | Collaborative Forest | 33 | 83,783

3 | Pro-poor Leasehold Forest | 7,807 | 44,384.24

5 | Religious Forest | 243 | 5,461.46

6 | Forest Conservation Area | 11 | 194,156

7 | Buffer Zone Community Forest | 899 | 225,008

Source: Annual Progress Report, Ministry of Forests and Environment, FY 2081/082

From this perspective, various community forest management approaches have developed in Nepal. These models have been gradually developed considering forest conditions, the preferences of forest managers, and geographical and biological characteristics.

Currently, Nepal is practising different community forest management models. Approximately 32,000 rural-level community institutions have been established, managing nearly 40 percent of the country’s forests through conservation, management, and sustainable use.

The most important reason community forestry achieved this success was the progressive policy decision of the government to communalize national forests through the Forest Act and Forest Regulations. This became possible not merely by limiting the belief that “the roots of democracy must be strengthened from villages” to a slogan, but by entrusting forest resources to communities as a practical exercise of democratic socialism.

The ideological foundation of this policy can be seen in the Nepali Congress manifesto. The manifesto prepared under the leadership of B.P. Koirala clearly stated that forest management should be handed over to local villagers, which later governments implemented in practice through community forestry.

This concept has significantly contributed to social justice, equality, and redistribution of production resources. Efforts have been made to ensure proportional participation and representation of all castes, religions, genders, and classes in community forest user groups. With support from donor institutions, community forestry has been established even in remote villages.

Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom considered the role of communities as central to the sustainability of common resources. According to her studies, common resources remain sustainable when local communities create rules, define usage limits, conduct monitoring, and resolve disputes themselves. She argued that resource conservation is possible through community self-governance, not only through government control or full private ownership.

Nepal’s community forests are excellent examples of common resource management. Practices such as local rule-making, defining usage limits, monitoring, and dispute resolution have ensured forest conservation, production sustainability, and social justice.

User groups have successfully developed local policies such as holding regular meetings, conducting patrols, forest maintenance, shrub clearing, and transparent and equitable distribution of firewood and timber. A strong system of self-compliance with self-made rules has been established.

An equally important aspect is the exemplary coordination and cooperation between user groups and government forest staff, which has become a model from which many countries can learn.

Nepal’s community forestry has reached a high point of success. Hundreds of articles, books, and audio-visual materials have been published. The collective sense of social and ecological awareness is high,

Community forests are also moving toward co-benefits through carbon trade.

Nepal’s community forestry programme is globally recognized as a successful model. While it institutionalized forest conservation and local participation, it now faces new opportunities and challenges. Questions about why community forestry was necessary in the past, its current status, and how to make it sustainable and rights-based in the future have become subjects of serious debate.

New Challenges of Community Forestry

Meanwhile, village conditions have changed. Population has declined. Productive individuals have migrated. Dependence on forests has decreased. Livestock numbers have declined. Gas has replaced firewood. Biomass has increased. Difficulties have emerged in collecting forest products.

Many groups have failed to hold regular meetings, assemblies, and audits. Youth engagement remains weak. Extreme politicization has reduced effectiveness. Poor and marginalized communities remain dependent, and have weak access to benefits, while politically connected individuals benefit more.

Encroachment pressures for development activities have increased. Biomass accumulation has increased forest fires and risks. There is also a lack of trust among government, NGOs, and the private sector. Policy processes appear inconsistent. Confusion among federal, provincial, and local roles has created management challenges.

Forests are a production resource, yet management remains overly conservation-focused. Timber imports continue to rise despite domestic potential. Scientific forest management introduced was politically rejected, leading to economic losses.

To address these challenges, coordination, cooperation, and trust-building among stakeholders is essential.

Future of Community Forestry

The time has come to prepare a new roadmap. Reforms are needed to address governance, corruption, social justice, equality, sustainability, and community freedom. Forests should be classified based on conditions and potential. New management plans should guide production, biodiversity conservation, water protection, tourism, and local enterprises.

Access for poor and marginalized groups must be strengthened. Educational collaboration with schools can revive cultural connections.

Sustainable timber production, private sector collaboration, biomass utilization, conflict mitigation, and tourism development should be prioritized.

Community forestry must be freed from political influence. Representation should prioritize forest-dependent users. Group mergers may be necessary.

Legal and policy obstacles must be addressed by future governments. Strengthening local government roles will enhance governance, transparency, inclusion, and sustainability. Proper implementation will ensure both forest conservation and local development.