The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of International Interventions on Community Based Forest Management for Global Environmental Conservation: A Critical Evaluation

Abstract

This study reviewed the policies and outcomes of international support for forest management in Nepal and answered whether international support on forest management in developing countries resulted in positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes at local communities. The evaluation is based on the socio-ecological theory and synergies-tradeoff model of forestry ecosystems goods and services. The study shows that the international interventions influenced national policies and community forestry practices, which contributed to the remarkable increase of forest stock. The new forestry institutions increased timber product supplies to urban users and contributed to offsetting of greenhouse gas emission of affluent societies in overseas. However, the intervention spoiled centuries of old forestry practices, which had contributed to the evolvement of socio-ecological condition, sustained local economy and environment systems. The new forestry institutions and practices locked local opportunities of multipurpose uses of forest, worsened water yield and local knowledge, and hampered local economic activities. Consequently they affected habitat diversities for forest based species, and forest resource supplies for sustaining agrobiodiversities and local food security. In reality the interventions increased benefit to distant users (urban users in the country and affluent societies in overseas) and further marginalized local communities and particularly socially disadvantaged people. The paper shows that the international forestry policies and supports are technically wrong or poorly based on science which is against their promise of providing better technical supports and benefiting local communities in developing countries. It argues that the interventions created many complexities in forestry institutions and practices which require too costly endeavor to change and address the local socioeconomic and environmental problems. The paper has explained the root cause of the international policy problem on many schools of thought.

How Policy and Development Agencies Led to the Degradation of Indigenous Resources, Institutions, and Social-Ecological Systems in Nepal: Some Insights and Opinions

“…They did such crimes against nature and humanity in other institutionally weak societies and especially indigenous communities. For example, the USAID funded abolishing indigenous ruminant livestock and crop varieties and afforest in the livestock grazing pasturelands of an indigenous ethnic community in East Khasihill Meghalaya India for trading forest carbon credit to protect GHG emission-intensive national economies of the USA [113,157]. Shrestha (1990) also stated that developed countries worked in Nepal to secure markets and resources open for their benefits [158].…”

“…The plan is a blueprint of the forestry development strategies of the Multi-stakeholder Forestry Program (project), a joint venture project of Switzerland, UK, and Finland governments in Nepal. The project was designed to abolish the remaining forest products and services-based farming, increase wood production and enhance forest carbon sequestration for trading the forest carbon in developed countries [65,113]. The work of abolishing millennium-old food systems of poor communities primarily for offsetting the GHG emission of developed countries could be considered a crime against poor mountain people.…”

“…These organizations have regularly received many incentives including grants (e.g., organizational expenses and national and international traveling funds) and transportation facilities. The facilities and partnership works have influenced or neutralized decisions and actions of leaders in the organizations of the social groups against potential confrontations and made it easier to escape from the blame of community harm from their advice for regressive resource use policies [78,113]. Despite knowing adverse outcomes in communities from many programs with international initiatives and supports, for example, the carbon forest (often called REDD-plus) program, protected area expansion activities, and landscape decarbonization program, the leaders of FECOFUN and indigenous ethnic group federation could not have an effective voice and take actions against the agencies.…”

Horizontal integration of multiple institutions: solutions for Yarshagumba related conflict in the Himalayan region of Nepal?

“…Despite adequate forest management policies and programmes in the midhills and the Terai, the critical problems of the CF model particularly regarding the management of common property forest resources in high mountains, remain unresolved (Dhakal 2014). It has neglected the concerns of neighbouring communities and nomadic herders in the high mountains (Skutch 2000).…”

Governance systems of yarshagumba collection and trade in the border region of India, Nepal and China

“…In this regard, studies from the Himalayan region examine property right regimes and their impact on access rights of local population to their resources, as well as on resource management. In particular, these studies focus on the community-managed forests and protected areas in Nepal and India and on the analysis of the socio-economic and ecological situation and/or management structures for NTFP Dhakal 2014;Kanel and Kandel 2004;Kumar 2006;Paudel 2004;Subedi et al 2013;Thoms 2008). These studies on value chains and property rights regimes examine the close relationship between socio-economic systems and environmental systems, as well as resource rights and regulations, however, the political dimension within the value chain of a NTFP and how these processes trigger changes within governance systems are less addressed.…”