Scientific Forest Management Practice in Nepal: Critical Reflections from Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Abstract

Design and application of context-specific forest management practices with the participation of key stakeholders plays a significant role in sustainable forest management outcomes. However, key forestry stakeholders often hold different, and sometimes conflicting, expectations in relation to forest management policies and management objectives. Applying the triple-perspective typology of stakeholder theory, this paper assessed the evolution of “Scientific Forest Management” (SciFM), a signature programme of the Nepalese Government, as well as its policy processes and explored compatibility, complexity, cost and relative advantages of the adoption of SciFM. The government believes that without this programme, Nepal is losing 91 Million US Dollar (USD) per year. This study revealed that participation of key stakeholders remained contested from the beginning of its implementation, primarily due to differences they held in understanding and interpretation of SciFM. Although stakeholders’ views converged on the potential role of SciFM to increase forest product supply and the domination of timber-centric management, their perspectives differed in nomenclature and implementation modality of SciFM. Primarily, the community forest users and their networks did not own the concept from the beginning, as they were suspicious of recentralization and bureaucratic dominance in forest governance through SciFM. Since historically ingrained skepticism in both government officials and community forest users’ networks towards each other has negatively influenced the trust-building environment, the management of stakeholders’ relations through frequent and meaningful deliberations, and the simplification of bureaucratic procedures in implementation and capacity development of key actors could be instrumental in achieving SciFM objectives.

Assessment of Productivity and Profitability through Scientific Forest Management in Sal (Shorea robusta) Forest of Nepal: A Case Study from Patela Community Forest, Kailali District, Nepal

“…Effectiveness of any forest management practices relies on complexities or adoption and the cost or profit made (Poudyal et al 2019). However, this study acknowledged some of the limitations as (1) cost regarding managing the matured natural forest might be underestimating and less in concluding the profitability studies as associated indirect cost and cost of raising the matured forest is missing (2) associated indirect benefits (monetary value) in managing the forest (natural regeneration/health of forest) were not computed (3) potential productivities based on climatic data were not compared with periodic measurement of similar types of managed forest.…”

“…This follows primarily the Irregular Shelterwood Silvicultural System with very high-intensity logging, leaving behind 15-30 mature mother trees per hectare (DoF 2014). The vision of the government outlined as "Forestry for Prosperity" laid the policy foundation for SciFM as one of the four key pillars of prosperity (Poudel 2018;Poudyal et al 2019).…”

Review on Plant Diversity Status and Conservation Practices in Nepal

“…The vision thus laid the foundation for scientific forest management (SciFM) and for sustainable management in Production forests.Later on, governmentalso developed and enacted the Scientific Management Guidelines in 2014. The government has defined the SciFM as "an application of appropriate silviculture system and forest management principles through design of systematic compartment of fixed rotation age" (Poudyal et al, 2019). The Sustainable forest management was aimed to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations (FAO, 2020).…”

Perception, attitude, and motive of local community towards forest conversion to plantation in Dharmasraya District, West Sumatra, Indonesia

“…The relationship between forest and community in Indonesia is supported by the existence of customary law (Marta et al 2019;Dasrizal et al 2019;Ifrani et al 2019) that provides the opportunity for the local community to manage forest areas (Mutolib et al 2020;Lestawi and Bunga 2020). Several studies have shown that the local community can perform proper and sustainable forest management (Handoko 2014;Matsvange et al 2016;Poudyal et al 2019).…”

“…The government continues to reduce community activity around the forest. It can damage forest sustainability (Surati 2014; Purwawangsa 2017), even though several studies observed that the customary community could preserve the forest (Handoko 2014;Matsvange et al 2016;Poudyal et al 2019). Still, an in-depth study is necessary to examine facts regarding customary community and efforts to sustain forest area, whether the customary community can preserve the forest if they manage it themselves, and ensure that forest management by the local community will have an impact on forest sustainability.…”