Rapid Silviculture Appraisal to Characterise Stand and Determine Silviculture Priorities of Community Forests in Nepal

Abstract

Community forestry in Nepal is an example of a successful participatory forest management program. Developments in community forestry in four decades have focused on the social and governance aspects with little focus on the technical management of forests. This paper presents a silviculture description of community forests and provides silviculture recommendations using a rapid silviculture appraisal (RSA) approach. The RSA, which is a participatory technique involving local communities in assessing forests and silviculture options, is a simple and cost-effective process to gather information and engage forest users in the preparation of operational plans that are relevant to their needs. The RSA conducted on selected community forests in Nepal's Mid-hills region shows that forests are largely comprised of dominant crowns of one or two species. The majority of studied community forests have tree densities below 500 stems per hectare as a consequence of traditional forest management practices but the quality and quantity of the trees for producing forest products are low. Silviculture options preferred by forest users generally are those which are legally acceptable, doable with existing capacities of forest users and generate multiple forest products. For sustainable production of multiple forest products, the traditional forest management practices have to be integrated with silviculture-based forest management system.

What Governs Tree Harvesting in Community Forestry—Regulatory Instruments or Forest Bureaucrats’ Discretion?

“…Though one of the main objectives of forest management mentioned in the FMP is maintaining forest tree diversity, the dominance of economically valuable species is increasing in the study sites. This is confirmed by a study of six CFUGs in the mid-hills of Nepal [44]. The authors conclude that the current harvesting practices pose a threat to species diversity.…”

“…Trees are like straight boles without or very less tapering, which is a sign of stiff competition among species, which may retard their growth in the future. Adoption of "protective forest management based on limited use by the MFSC" has resulted in the promulgation of harvesting prescriptions resembling the one size fits all approach, which was also observed in the study of [44], where the FMP and prescriptions are identical.…”

Applications of single-tree selection guideline following a DBq approach on Nepal’s community forests

“…DFRS (2015) estimated seedlings (<1.3 m height) of 10,095/ ha, small saplings (≥1.3 m height, < 5 cm DBH) of 1045/ha, large saplings (5-10 cm DBH) of 426 /ha, small poles (10-20 cm DBH) of 287/ ha, large poles (20-30 cm DBBH) 79 /ha, small saw log (30-50 cm DBH) of 46 stems/ha and large saw log (≥ 50 cm DBH) of 18 stems/ha. This forest structure is confirmed by few case studies including Cedamon et al (2016) and Awasthi et al (2015). The current stand structure of community forests in Nepal has been achieved through harvesting based on ad hoc selection and sometimes high grading creating openings on the stand allowing natural regeneration to occur.…”

“…A target basal area of 30 m 2 has been widely used in selection system and is adopted by the EnLiFT Project as suitable for community forests in Nepal. It is to be noted however that many community forests have basal areas <30 m 2 (Cedamon et al, 2016), the aim therefore for selection system is basal area increase from high quality trees. The rapid silviculture appraisal conducted by Cedamon et al (2016) revealed that the diameter limits for residual trees on community forests ranges from 40 to 50 cm (though a few trees larger than 50 cm may present and protected as mother trees).…”

“…Community forest management is undergoing a level of redefinition particularly with regards to efficiently increasing production of forest products to improve forest-based livelihood and efficiently regenerating healthy forests. Cedamon et al (2016) in their rapid silviculture appraisal found that selection and shelter wood systems are preferred by community forest users. These silviculture systems appeal to forest users because of the potentials of planting fodder trees and grasses, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) on the forests after applying treatments.…”