USER’S PERCEPTION ON SCIENTIFIC FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN COMMUNITY FOREST OF NEPAL
Journal of Global Ecology and Environment,
The government of Nepal has initiated scientific forest management practices in community forests by integrating the silvicultural system rather than considering users local knowledge and practices on forests management. This integrated forest management enhances the productivity and revenue through management of the productive forest. Managing the forest of Nepal has been a big challenge in the recent year but very less is seen to be done to solve the problem. As a result, forest condition of Nepal has gone worse making the environment vulnerable to a number of problems. In this situation, the present research has been conducted to assess the potentiality and constraints of implementing scientific forest management in the community forest.
This study had adopted household survey, key informant interview, focus group discussion and review of Operational Plan for the data collection. The study calculated the benefit-cost ratio of both traditional and scientific forest management project. The analysis of the Benefit cost ratio (BCR) between traditional management and scientific management showed that users are likely to benefit more from scientific forest management. The study showed that the major challenges for the management of forest scientifically were unaware about the implementation procedure and technique, lack of financial resource, lack of coordination between stakeholders, lack of public participation in every step of SFM. Some users are willing to participate in SFM, mainly due to the incentives they got from implementing the scientific plan. There is a need for user's capacity building through training, workshops and awareness program along with financial support from the government for implementing plan effectively.
- Traditional management
- present net value
- benefit-cost ratio
How to Cite
Hill Ian. Forest management in Nepal: economics and ecology (English). World Bank technical paper; no. WTP 445. Washington, D.C. The World Bank; 1999.
Ribot J. Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington DC: World Resources Institute; 2002.
Rutt RL, Chhetri BBK, Pokharel R, Rayamajhi S, Tiwari K, Treue T. The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics. Scientific Forest Management Guideline; 2014.
Bhattacharya AK, Basnyat B. Decentralisation and community forestry programmes in Nepal: Issues and challenges. International Forestry Review. 2005;7(2):147-155.
Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ. Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 2003;3(1):78–92.
MFSP. Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP)- Common Programme Document, Nepal. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Department for International Development (DFID), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Government of Finland (GoF); 2011.
Bhattacharya AK, Basnyat B. An analytical study of operational plan and constitutions at western Terai region of Nepal. Banko Jankari. 2003;13(1):3-14.
Acharya KP. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. International Forestry Review. 2002;4(2):149-156.
Abstract View: 1196 times
PDF Download: 10 times