forestry governance and climate change in the context of community forestry in nepal yuba raj bhusal...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF
COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL
Yuba Raj BhusalKrishna P. Acharya
Ministry of Forests and Soil ConservationGovernment of Nepal
22 October 2009
![Page 2: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OUTLINE
1. Forestry in Nepal
2. Evolution of Forest Management
3. REDD and Community Forestry
4. Conclusion
![Page 3: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Forestry in Nepal•National forests accounts 39.6% (29+10.6 i.e., 5.8m. ha);• Subsistence agro-based economy (livelihood of more than 66%);•Heavily dependent on forests; •Local communities have established user rights over the forests since long time;
![Page 4: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2. Evolution of Forest Management•Forests as the main source of state revenue, •Forests given to individuals during Rana regime (1846-1950);•Nationalization Forests (Private Forests Nationalization Act, 1957);•However, deforestation continued- ‘Himalayan degradation debate’ 1970s;•Government alone not able to control deforestation. 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
FRSO-1964 LRMP-1978 MPFS-1985 NFI-1994
Assessment Year
Are
a in
'000
ha
Forest Shrub Total Area
![Page 5: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Evolution contd…•Community based national policy and legal base framed in 1970s (National Forests Policy 1976, Forests Act amended in 1978: PF and PPF);•Institutions re-structured and re-oriented;• Community forestry adopted, ‘traditional use rights’ as one of the key hand over criteria;•Community forestry in Nepal – a most successful example of sustainable management of forests.
19551955 20072007
![Page 6: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
3. REDD and Community Forestry•REDD as an emerging incentive; •REDD implementation enhances Nepal’s commitments to her international obligations;• Nepal understands that- REDD brings additional benefit and carbon as co-benefit;• Issues of tenure/ownerships of the carbon;•Benefit distribution (between central and state/local governments, government and community, inter/intra community, Indigenous peoples/ forest dwellers and other poor households).
![Page 7: FORESTRY GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL Yuba Raj Bhusal Krishna P. Acharya Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f035503460f94c170b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
4. Conclusion•Forestry sector governance reforms recognizing the rights of the communities is a key to achieve sustainable management of forests (SMF);•Institutional restructuring and re-orientation are important components;•Recognition of ‘bundle of services’ is important than a particular service of the forest resource (i.e., carbon) to secure rights of the communities;•Clear understanding of the community and their customary rights is vital to reduce potential conflicts;•Multi-stakeholders involvement may address REDD related issues.