The background of this training program stems from the recognition of the critical role that forests play in supporting ecological balance, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development. With increasing pressures on forest resources due to factors such as deforestation, illegal logging, and climate change, there is a pressing need to empower individuals with the expertise to promote responsible forest management practices.
The study was conducted between August to December 2023. which included desk review of available reports and relevant documents; forest inventory in representative forests; consultation with municipality through focus group discussion, workshops, meetings in person, telephone communication; sharing for feedback; and field observations. Various factors were examined during this study including resources, markets, institutional modalities and investment modalities, environmental impacts, and policies.
Community forests play a crucial role in sustainable forest management and conservation. These forests are often managed by local communities who have an assigned interest in their well-being and are responsible for making decisions regarding their use and protection. To empower community forest users with the necessary knowledge and skills for effective forest management, a modular training program on forest management is designed.
On 22-24 August 2023, 22 Masters of Science in Forestry student (12 female students, 10 male students) of Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu led by Professor Nagendra P Yadav and Professor Rajesh Rai visited the EnLiFT2 working sites in Chaubas and Chautara for observation of community sawmill, different silviculture regimes and interactions with EnLiFT2 researchers and selected CFUG members.
What is becoming apparent is that there are many dots that connect CF with the stakeholder-beneficiaries, albeit in differential ways. It is paradoxical to note that the CFUGs which are at the closest proximity from the forests (and forest-based-livelihoods) seem to be at the largest distance in terms of decision-making roles; on the other hand, the political-bureaucratic institutions of Nepal, which are comparatively at a father distance from their interaction to the forest on a day-to-day basis, are controlling the decisions. This paradox suggests that the decisions (or their lack thereof) made at the top bureaucratic institutions have major impacts in the livelihood functionalities of the local community; whereas, the decisions made by the local communities have little impact vice versa. Therefore, the productivity and efficiency of CF, to a considerable degree, is working under the assumption that all levels of the bureaucratic-hierarchy will naturally work to maximize the benefits for the CFUGs. In reality, however, this is not entirely accurate. Hence, an important indicator becomes, whether the complexity of the bureaucratic mechanism in Nepal, at least in part, could explain the receding trends in CF-practices compared to its robust and exemplary past.
The term ‘cluster’, in the context of EnLiFT2 (Enhancing Livelihood from Improved Forest Management in Nepal) project is used to refer to a group of community forests, leasehold forests and private forests in and around a specific forest patch. The idea emerged in response to low access to technical and institutional services and high operating costs of individual forest management units that has resulted in low returns thereby disincentivising forest managers. The scale of management is an important factor determining transaction costs, especially in the context of increasing interface with the market and associated regulatory compliance. In fact, low scale of operation, increasing market competition and exhaustive compliance requirements have weakened the economic rationale of forestry business in Nepalese hills. Most of the community forest operational plans (CFOPs) are expired and revising them would incur huge costs.
Nepal has been exercising a decentralized approach to management of forest resources following the inception of federalization. The transition from unitary governance has witnessed a shift in responsibilities, on resource management, to the Provincial governments. In the move to apprehending the real essence of decentralization, the federal government has enacted Forest Act and Regulation and is in the process of preparing standards on forest management. Stepping on this, the provincial government has enacted Forest Act and is in the process of developing Working Procedures.
Promotion of private forestry through introducing innovative management methods, capacity building of private forest owners, facilitating farmers associations and improving their access to better market and fair price has been one of the important action areas of EnLiFT2.
EnLIFT2 review and plan meeting was called by Dr Naya Sharma Paudel, country coordinator of EnLiFT2 and organized on 12 March 2020 with participation of key project staffs who are directly engaging in the project activities at field level, that includes officers, managers and experts affiliated to Forest Action Nepal (FAN), Nepal Agroforestry Foundation (NAF) and RECOFTC in the meeting hall of FAN.
Trees and forests had played crucial role for survival in many societies and regions in the world. This role has been more immense in Nepal wherein a considerable fraction of the population heavily depends on forest and tree products for dwelling, food and food production, cooking, heating and medicine (Springate-Baginski et. al. 2003). Community forestry (CF) has been promoted in the last three decades in Nepal to provide forest users‟ greater control and access to forest resources and therefore improve local community‟s livelihood. However CF has not made significant impact on farming systems and rural livelihoods (Dougill et. al. 2001, Malla et. al. 2003). Low impact of community forestry torural livelihoods is brought about by the lack of active forest management to enhance productivity (Yadav et. al. 2009). The lack of active forest management of community forest is associated with several underlying factors including technical issues, protection oriented forest management, poorly designed silvicultural practices and limited practical knowledge of forest management (Yadav et. al. 2011). Gilmour (2014) noted that despite the advances on understanding of social and policy arrangements of community forestry in the last few decades, particularly in Asia there has been an apparent lack of coherent body of knowledge on appropriate technical systems for community forestry
This protocol is called “Yalamaya Protocol for the conduct of ethical and professional research practice within ACIAR project” or in short “The Yalamaya Protocol”. „The Project‟ in this Protocol denotes “Enhancing Livelihood and Food Security from Agroforestry and Community Forestry in Nepal” supported by ACIAR.
The aim of this paper is to assess the impacts of recent Earthquake disasters in Nepal with a view to synthesise key implications to the present and future activities of the EnLiFT project operating in Lamjung and Kavre districts. Nepal‟s 11 districts including the capital city of Kathmandu have been badly affected by two major earthquakes on the 26th of April and the 12th of May 2015. These earthquakes, as well as hundreds of aftershocks that followed, killed nearly 9,000 people, injured more than 22,000, and damaged over one million houses and historic monuments and public infrastructure1 The National Planning Commission (NPC) of Nepal has estimated the damage at US$ 7 billion2, approximately one third of Nepal‟s gross domestic product. The two earthquakes have triggered over 3,000 landslides in the Nepal Himalayas with the imminent risk of devastating floods with the onset of monsoon in July 2015. The poor, women, girls and elderly people are severely affected. Displaced populations are also vulnerable to abuse, neglect, marginalisation and exploitation. Nepal Government estimates show that the earthquake has increased poverty by 2-3% from its pre-existing base of 26% population below the poverty line.
Nepal is an agro based economy with agriculture being the largest contributor to GDP (29.37%) in 2016 (GoN, 2016). Over 60% of the population is engaged in agriculture, due to which it is the only sector that has the necessary multiplier effect to reduce poverty significantly (DANIDA 2013). The Nepal Trade Integration Strategy (2010) highlights the potential export commodities such as cardamom, honey, ginger, lentils and tea as export products. Because of economic liberalization, the expansion of marketing of these commodities is possible where farmers can participate and enter into regional and international export markets (FAO 2011; ADS 2015, Shrestha and Pandit 2017). Demography is another factor contributing to the changing farming landscape. While rural populations continue to grow, more people are migrating and settling in towns and cities (Paudel et al 2014; ADS 2015). This change has resulted in an increasing number of people in urban areas being fed by smaller numbers of farmers. As a result of which many ancient terraces become abandoned and labor scarcity has been prominent (Paudel 2014; Shrestha and Pandit 2017).
Nepal is experiencing serious challenges on declining productivity and increasing food insecurity in recent years. As a result of which many rural youths are migrating to the cities and aboard (Malaysia, South Korea and gulf countries) for job. There is a shortage of active male labour force in most rural areas, which leave agricultural land terraces without proper use. In order to address this challenge, the EnLIFT project funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) facilitated Improved Agroforestry Systems and Entrepreneurship training in every year starting from 2013.
The overall approach to linking research-policy was conceived under the concept of a policy lab that goes beyond any rational model. Named as EnLiFT policy lab (or EPL), the approach takes into consideration the view by Spilsbury and Nasi (2006) – to simply assume that conducting research on policies relating to forests and disseminating the findings will lead to changes in the policies themselves is unrealistically naive and grossly overestimates the role of knowledge in policy change processes. While critiques of rational, technocratic and multi stakeholder approach argue that policy lab within key policy actors and policy makers would not be able to raise the voice from ground, the research findings shared by researchers (policy lab facilitator and team) are embedded within critical action research. In a broad sense, research-policy interface refers to communication processes used to open frontiers of dialogue between researchers and policy actors. Such interface has been seen as having the potential to foster collaboration and cocreation of knowledge among science and policy actors (Van den Hove 2007). Figure 1 below shows how the bridging of the research and policy cycles takes place.