Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Community forest in Nepal: success, challenges and way forward

From UBC Wiki

Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Community forest in Nepal: success, challenges and the way forward

Overview

Vyacheslav Argenberg / http://www.vascoplanet.com/

Forest management in Nepal has had a turbulent and complex history. Contributing roughly 15% of Nepal's GDP and covering around 45% of the national land area, the vitality of effective forest management is now all but lost.[1]The past however, tells a different story. Nepal’s long history of unchecked and often poorly regulated harvesting practices led to the rapid deterioration of its fragile mountain ecosystems. These ecological changes were enough to raise international concern throughout the 1960s and 1970s, when governments and donor agencies began noticing Nepal's severe forest mismanagement. [2]

These mounting concerns culminated in 1975 when the Nepalese government made the decisive move to nationalize all forests in an attempt to halt further degradation. Yet nationalization alone proved insufficient, as state agencies lacked the capacity to manage vast forest areas effectively.[2]Recognizing the essential knowledge and long-standing stewardship practices of local communities, the government began involving local people in forest governance in 1976. Thus, laying the foundation for what would become one of the best examples of community-based forest management (CBFM) in the world.[1]

At present, the success of Nepal's community-based forest management has gone beyond simply providing a sustainable mechanism to manage forests; it has evolved into a legitimate strategy for lifting citizens out of poverty while upholding strict ecological protection standards. Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) have generated substantial income through the sale of timber and non-timber forest products. [1] These funds therefore provide infrastructure for community development, education, and local employment opportunities. Additionally, improved forest health has helped stabilize watersheds, reduce erosion, and support biodiversity recovery, creating long-term ecological benefits that reinforce both livelihoods and environmental resilience. As a result, CBFM has become not only a conservation success story, but also an example for rural development for the entire world. [3]

This is not to say that Community-based Forest System is flawless. There are still infrastructural, and societal challenges that need to be overcome. Inequitable forest sharing, and social exclusion being at the forefront of the issues. [2]

Overall, Nepal’s Community forest model has become an excellent example for forest management world-wide. Demonstrating how decentralization and local empowerment could contribute to forest recovery. As a result, CBFM spread internationally and is now commonplace in many regions requiring sustainable and participatory forest governance. [2]

Governance and Management

Nepal’s community forestry system is a decentralized governance framework in which forest resources are co-managed by the national government and the local communities who directly depend on them. Under this model, village residents are granted substantial authority to make decisions regarding forest protection, management, and utilization. Community members participate in setting harvesting rules, establishing conservation measures, and regulating day-to-day forest use, thereby strengthening local ownership and long-term stewardship of forest resources. [1] This collaborative approach was further institutionalized by the 2019 Forest Act, which “ensures the management and planning of collaborative forests jointly in collaboration with local people, local governments, and the District Forest Office, with clearly defined roles [and] responsibilities”. [1] Today, Nepal hosts more than 30,000 Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), each responsible for managing local forest areas and representing the interests of their members.[2]These forests are legally defined as common-pool resources (CPRs), intended to be collectively managed for the benefit of all users.

Vyacheslav Argenberg / http://www.vascoplanet.com/

To safeguard these shared resources and promote equitable outcomes, the Forest Act mandates specific guidelines for revenue distribution and social development. For example, communities are required to allocate at least 25% of forest income to forest development activities, while 50% of the remaining funds must be dedicated to poverty alleviation and women’s empowerment initiatives within the user group. [2]These directives help ensure that community forestry contributes not only to ecological sustainability but also to local socioeconomic development.

One of the most significant features of the Forest Act is the recognition of CFUGs as autonomous and self-governing institutions. These groups are authorized to develop operational plans, allocate resources, and enforce rules under a constitution approved by the federal government. [1]This autonomy provides communities with meaningful decision-making power and promotes long-term conservation by placing management responsibility in the hands of those most reliant on the forest for their livelihoods.

Although community forestry is often described as community-run, the system functions through a multi-tiered governance structure. At the district level, the District Forest Sector Coordination Committee (DFSCC) oversees planning, monitoring, and regulatory compliance (Cadman). To ensure coordination with the federal government, 84 District Forest Offices (DFOs) have been established under the Provincial Forestry Directorate and the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forest, and Environment. These offices provide technical, logistical, and administrative support to CFUGs, enabling them to effectively implement their management plans. [1]

The Nepalese community forests are divided into different types. Community Forests, Leasehold Forests, Collaborative Forests, Religious Forests, Protection Forest, and Buffer Zone Community Forest. Each type serves a different role in the overall management of the collective forests. [2]

Community Forests (CFs) are national forests formally handed over to local user groups for protection, management, and utilization. These Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) are responsible for preparing and implementing operational plans, regulating resource use, and ensuring sustainable harvesting. CFs represent the cornerstone of Nepal’s participatory forest management system and have been widely recognized for improving forest conditions and empowering local governance. [2]

Leasehold forests (LF) are national forests that have been leased for the specified purpose to a legally defined institution, forest-based industry or community. These forests are designed to improve the overall living conditions of user groups by allowing the sustainable harvest of resources such as timber and firewood from these leased forests. [2]

Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) combines elements of the community forestry model with traditional government-managed forestry. It was developed in response to disparities in the effectiveness of community forestry across geographic regions. For example, while CFs have been highly successful in some regions, others face challenges related to accountability and transparency. CFM seeks to address these issues by sharing authority among local communities, local governments, and the Department of Forests, which promotes more equitable and transparent management in areas where pure community management (CF) has struggled. [2]

Religious Forests are national forests handed over to religious bodies, community groups, or institutions for conservation, development, and use in accordance with religious or cultural traditions. Although these forests are typically limited in economic value, they play an important role in preserving cultural heritage, maintaining sacred landscapes, and supporting the spiritual practices of Indigenous and local communities. Their management focuses on safeguarding aesthetic, historical, and ceremonial attributes rather than resource extraction. [2]

Protection Forests are national forests or landscapes designated by the government for their ecological, cultural, scientific, or aesthetic significance. These areas receive elevated legal protection to conserve biodiversity, prevent environmental degradation, and preserve sites of national importance. Management priorities often include watershed stabilization, habitat conservation, and long-term ecological research. [2]

Buffer Zone Community Forests (BZCFs) are forest areas located at the periphery of national parks and wildlife reserves. These zones serve as transitional areas that help mitigate human–wildlife conflict, and reduce pressure on the park. By maintaining forest cover and controlled resource use along park boundaries, Buffer Zone Community Forests play a crucial role in protecting biodiversity and ensuring that wildlife wandering beyond park limits remains undisturbed. [2]

Despite its success, Nepal’s community forestry system has long faced challenges related to power distribution and representation. Research shows that marginalized groups, which include women, indigenous populations, and poorer households, have historically been underrepresented in CFUG leadership. This results in unequal access to forest benefits and limited influence over management decisions. [1]Often praised for its practical model and fair management system. These disparities highlight the fact that while the community forest system holds much merit in its fairness for user groups and effectiveness in sustainability, there is still more work that can be done to improve the governance and management to make the community forest model more equitable for all of its users. [2]

Benefits and Contributions

Community Forestry in Nepal has generated both social and environmental gains by linking sustainable resource management with local development. Through decentralized governance, communities have been able to access forest resources for their livelihoods while contributing to conservation and ecosystem restoration. The program’s benefits extend beyond environmental recovery to include improved household income, infrastructure development, and greater social inclusion, though persistent inequalities in class, caste, and gender continue to shape who benefits most.

Social and Economic Benefits

Community forestry in Nepal was introduced to improve local well-being by ensuring access to basic forest products.[4] The approach is supported by several legal frameworks, including the Forest Act of 1993[5] and the Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Program of 2009, which outline community rights, responsibilities and management procedures. Forest-based enterprises, smallholder forestry programs and partnerships with local cooperatives have helped diversify income sources and improve standards of living.[4]

Biomass remains Nepal's dominant household energy source, accounting for approximately 77% of total energy consumption.[6]Community forests supply fuelwood, timber, leaf litter, and other forest products used for cooking, heating, livestock management and subsistence agriculture. Access to the resources can reduce household expenditures and strengthen rural livelihoods. For example, one study reported that improved fuelwood availability under community management reduced household energy costs by up to 18%.[6]

A review of 92 studies by Giri et al. found that, among 27 studies that quantified economic impacts, households saved an estimated NPR 4,500 to 8,000 annually due to decreased reliance on purchased forest products[6]. However, the same review noted ongoing challenges related to unequal access and elite capture, which can limit the distribution of benefits.

Community forestry has also been linked to broader development outcomes, with some assessments suggesting alignment with a wide range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).[7] Revenue from forest products is often reinvested into local infrastructure, such as schools, roads, and water systems, which supports rural livelihoods and connects communities to broader markets.[8] These investments are facilitated through Forest User Groups (CFUGs), which operate as local governance institutions that manage resources, organize plantations and rehabilitation programs, and oversee the allocation of funds.[8] While infrastructure development has improved access to basic services, challenges such as coordinated planning, environmental impacts, and unequal decision-making highlight the importance of participatory, inclusive, and environmentally informed governance within CFUGs.

In addition to broader governance challenges, gender equality remains a persistent concern. Despite efforts to promote gender equality in Nepal's community forestry, decision-making and benefit-sharing remain predominantly male-dominated. Women make up roughly 42% of CFUG members, but their participation in leadership and influence over decisions is limited, often constrained by social norms and socio-economic inequalities.[9] While affirmative policies and quotas have increased women's representation in executive committees, meaningful engagement and equitable access to forest resources for marginalized women remain limited, highlighting the gap between policy intentions and local realities.[9]

Ecosystem Services and Environmental Benefits

Community forests in Nepal have played a major role in restoring degraded landscapes, improving forest health, and supporting long-term ecological stability. Following extensive deforestation in the mid-20th century due to population growth, agricultural expansion, and heavy reliance on forest resources, community forestry programs were introduced to hand over government-managed forests to local communities for protection, management, and sustainable use.[3] Due to the impact of the community forest program, forest coverage increased from 29% to 44.74% between 1994 and 2016.[10]

In Nepal's mid-hills, forest user groups have helped reduce soil erosion and landslide risk by maintaining ground cover and regulating harvest levels.[11] Studies from across the country find that community forests regenerate faster, support healthier species composition, and maintain better overall condition compared to government-managed forests.[12][4]These improvements demonstrate how local stewardship strengthens ecological resilience while supporting communities that depend on forest resources for daily needs.

These forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Provisioning services include fuelwood, timber, fodder, leaf litter, and non-timber products such as medicinal herbs, wild fruits, and resin.[13] Regulating services include carbon storage, soil stabilization, improved water quality, and reduced erosion. Community forests also support cultural and spiritual practices, conserve biodiversity, and maintain the nutrient cycling needed for productive agriculture.[13]

Challenges and Limitations

Nepal's Community Forestry Program faces several challenges, mainly in regards to governance, equity, and management. Conflicts often arise between community forest user groups and state authorities over decision-making power and control. Although management rights are decentralized, the state maintains ownership, leading to disputes when government agencies restrict timber harvesting or impose bureaucratic requirements. [14]

Institutional and capacity restraints also often hinder effective management. Many community forest user groups (CFUGs) lack technical expertise, monitoring tools, and market-oriented forest management skills, often leading to limited forest-based income diversification and the long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems. [15]

Governance and Power Distribution

Multiple studies identify and highlight tensions between decentralized community rights and centralized state authority. Although CFUGs are legally responsible for forest management, the state continues to control key decisions such as harvesting approvals and operational plan revisions, through District Forest Offices and national-level regulations. [16] Such bureaucratic processes often delay CFUG plans for months.

Furthermore, ambiguity in legal language often leads to inconsistent interpretation by government officials, who may exercise their power inconsistently across regions. [17] Such inconsistencies contribute to conflict and often cause CFUGs to either under harvest or avoid commercial forestry altogether to minimize bureaucratic entanglements.

Internal governance also encounters challenges. Such problems such as elite capture, where influential households dominate committee positions, often shape operational plans in ways that benefit themselves, or control access to valuable forest products. [18] When decision-making becomes concentrated among a small group, marginalized members participate less, limiting the democratic integrity of the program. In some cases, meeting procedures, record-keeping, and financial transparency are weak, enabling poor management and a lack of accountability.

Equity and Inclusion

Despite policies requiring representation of women, Dalits, and other marginalized groups in executive committees, meaningful participation remains limited. Women’s ability to voice opinions, even when they hold leadership positions, are restricted due to social norms. [19] Furthermore, the Dalit and poor households often lack the resources, confidence, and free time to participate in lengthy meetings and forest duties, further stripping them of their influence.

These inequalities lead to practical consequences. For example, wealthier households secure priority access to timber and embezzle committee funds, while poorer members rely mainly on low-value products such as fuelwood and leaf litter, resulting in greater economic disparities between classes. [19]

Benefit-sharing rules are also inconsistently enforced, with some CFUGs reinvesting revenue effectively into community development, whilst other groups prioritize projects that the elite prefer, rather than needs identified by vulnerable groups. As a result, community forestry does not always function as an equitable institution.

Institutional and Technical Capacity

Many CFUGs struggle with technical limitations that hinder sustainable forest management. Silvicultural techniques such as thinning, selective harvesting, and stand improvement are not widely practiced due to limited training and insufficient technical support from forestry officials. [20] Monitoring systems for forest growth, biomass conditions, or biodiversity indicators are also minimal, making it difficult for user groups to track ecological changes or adjust management strategies accordingly.

Financial limitations are another challenge for CFUGs, as they depend on small membership fees and occasional timber sales. Without stable funding, they cannot invest in tools, various infrastructures, nurseries, or professional forestry services. Additionally, government training programs are unevenly distributed, with many rural CFUGs receiving little to no formal guidance.

Market access is another major problem that leads to economic limitation. With complex regulations already making timber trade slow and costly, problems such as extreme terrain make transportation difficult, and limited access to sawmills only further reduced economic output. [21] CFUGs frequently lack business planning skills, which prevents them from diversifying into non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such as eco-tourism, or value-added processing. As a result of the lower than projected income, economic incentive for sustainable management declines. [21]

Ecological and Sustainability Concerns

Although forest cover has improved in many community forest areas, ecological challenges still continue to emerge, with recent research showing that pre-monsoon forest fires and burned areas have increased in several regions of Nepal. These challenges pose risks to biodiversity, ecosystems, and community livelihoods. However, such patterns are caused by various anthropogenic factors, unstable climate, and topographic conditions, rather than by community forestry fire-suppression practices. [22]

Localized over-harvesting, grazing pressure, and forest degradation, pose ongoing challenges to regeneration and biodiversity. Climate-related stressors further complicate management. Increasing drought frequency, rising temperatures, and changing pre-monsoon conditions have heightened ecological vulnerability in many regions, yet many CFUGs lack the technical and institutional capacity to implement adaptive strategies responsive to these emerging environmental pressures. [22]

Ways To Improve

Improving Nepal’s community forestry system requires a combination of institutional, social, and technical reforms that strengthen both equity and long-term management capacity. Although community forestry has produced noteworthy environmental and social benefits, several recurring gaps continue to limit its full potential. Addressing these challenges in a thoughtful and inclusive way can help ensure that community-managed forests remain ecologically resilient, economically viable, and socially just for the groups that rely on them.

A first priority is to improve equity in participation and representation. While policies require the inclusion of women, Dalit households, and other marginalized groups in executive committees, meaningful involvement often remains limited in practice. Social norms, time constraints, and unequal access to information frequently discourage active participation from these groups. Establishing more supportive participation systems—such as flexible meeting times, local language outreach, or designated consultation sessions—could help ensure that diverse voices are heard during planning and decision-making. When a wider range of community members is involved, management priorities tend to reflect the needs of the entire user group rather than the preferences of a small set of leaders. This not only improves fairness but also strengthens the legitimacy of community-based governance.

A second area for improvement lies in expanding the technical and managerial capacity of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). Many groups continue to rely on informal knowledge or ad hoc management styles due to limited access to professional training. Practical instruction in silviculture, monitoring methods, mapping technologies, and business planning could significantly enhance community decision-making. Even basic tools such as handheld GPS units, periodic forest health assessments, or simplified growth models can help CFUGs make more informed harvesting and conservation decisions. In the long term, partnerships with universities, NGOs, or provincial forestry offices could establish more consistent training programs that reduce regional inequalities in technical capacity.

Another issue relates to financial management and transparency. Although regulations outline how revenue from community forests should be distributed, implementation varies widely. Clearer financial reporting, publicly accessible records, and community-approved budgeting processes can build trust within user groups. Transparent financial systems also help reduce opportunities for elite capture, in which influential members direct funds toward projects that primarily benefit themselves. When local people understand how revenue is collected and reinvested, their willingness to participate in forest maintenance or committee work generally increases. Ultimately, stronger accountability systems can support both equitable benefit-sharing and long-term community cohesion.

Market access represents an additional challenge that can be improved through policy and infrastructure support. Many CFUGs struggle to generate income due to restrictive regulations, low market prices, or difficulties transporting timber and non-timber forest products. Streamlined permitting processes, improved road access, and support for small-scale enterprises could help communities diversify their income sources. Encouraging value-added production—such as processing medicinal herbs or producing handicrafts—may also reduce dependence on raw timber extraction, thereby increasing both economic resilience and ecological sustainability.

Environmental resilience is another area that requires sustained attention. Climate change has increased the frequency of drought, forest fires, and unpredictable monsoon patterns, which amplify ecological risks for community forests. Strengthening fire management practices, promoting drought-resistant species, and integrating climate adaptation into operational plans can reduce vulnerability. Local groups could also benefit from simple monitoring systems that track changes in biodiversity, soil conditions, or forest regeneration rates. These measures would allow CFUGs to detect emerging ecological pressures and adjust their strategies before degradation becomes severe.

Lastly, improving coordination between local communities and the state can help resolve longstanding governance tensions. Although community forestry is designed to be decentralized, national agencies still control important approvals and regulatory decisions. Creating clearer guidelines, reducing bureaucratic delays, and fostering open communication channels can minimize conflict and uncertainty. When roles and expectations are transparent, both community groups and government officials can collaborate more effectively.

Taken together, these improvements—greater equity, stronger technical capacity, enhanced financial transparency, better market access, climate-resilient management, and clearer governance—represent realistic and achievable steps for strengthening Nepal’s community forestry model. By addressing these challenges proactively, Nepal can support a system that remains both environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive, providing long-term benefits for local communities and the ecosystems they depend on.

References

Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page. For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

Note: Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in Wikipedia: Writing better articles.[23]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Cadman, Timothy (16 Febuary, 2023). "Forest Governance in Nepal concerning Sustainable Community Forest Management and Red Panda Conservation". MDPI.com. Retrieved 5 Dec, 2025. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 Ghimire, Pramod (22 June, 2020). "Community Based Forest Management in Nepal: Current Status, Successes and Challenges" (PDF). Grassroots institute. 3: 16–29 – via Creative Commons. line feed character in |title= at position 60 (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Shrestha, S., Shrestha, U.B., Amatya, S.M., Kharel, R. & Baral, S. (2025) Community forestry ecologies: Forest dynamics, biodiversity, and emerging challenges. Ojha, H., Shrestha, K.K., Paudel, N.S., Karki, R., Khatri, D., Baral, S., Banjade, M.R. & Nuberg, I. (Ed.) Restoring Forest and Improving Livelihoods in Nepal: Four Decades of Community Forestry (pp. 169-186). https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/106157/9781040447208.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D., & Chettri, N. (2018). Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 29, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020
  5. ↑ Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. (1995). Forest Act 2049 (Law Books Management Board/HMGN, Trans.). Government of Nepal (1993).https://www.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/document/forest-act--2049-1993_html/Forest_Act_1993_Rules_1995.pdf
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Giri, P. B., Ghimire, H. P., Giri, B. R., & Pokhrel, T. (2025). Meeting Household Energy Needs through Community Forestry: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Nepal. Indian Journal of Energy and Energy Resources (IJEER), 5(1), 1-8.
  7. ↑ Aryal, K., Laudari, H.K., Ojha, H.R., 2019. To what extent is Nepal’s community for-estry contributing to the sustainable development goals? An institutional interaction perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology0, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1627681
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Aryal, Kishor. (2025) Beyond natural capital: Leveraging community forestry for livelihoods and local economies. Ojha, H., Shrestha, K.K., Paudel, N.S., Karki, R., Khatri, D., Baral, S., Banjade, M.R. & Nuberg, I. (Ed.) Restoring Forest and Improving Livelihoods in Nepal: Four Decades of Community Forestry (pp. 277-291). https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/106157/9781040447208.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Baral, S., Shrestha, K.K., Tiwari, S., Rana, S.A. & Koju, U. (2025) Beyond tokenism: Women's leadership and the struggle for inclusive participation in community forestry. Ojha, H., Shrestha, K.K., Paudel, N.S., Karki, R., Khatri, D., Baral, S., Banjade, M.R. & Nuberg, I. (Ed.) Restoring Forests and Improving Livelihoods in Nepal: Four Decades of Community Forestry (pp. 272-308). https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/106157/9781040447208.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  10. ↑ DFRS, 2015. State of Nepal's Forests. Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) Nepal, Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS). Kathmandu, Nepal.
  11. ↑ Pokhrel, B., Branney, P., Nurse, M., & Malla, Y. (2005). Community forestry: Conserving forests, sustaining livelihoods and strengthening democracy. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 4(1), 8–19.
  12. ↑ Laudari, H. K., Sapkota, L. M., Maraseni, T., Subedi, P., Pariyar, S., Kaini, T. R., Lopchan, S. B., Weston, C., & Volkova, L. (2024). Community forestry in a changing context: A perspective from Nepal’s mid-hills. Land Use Policy, 138, 107018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107018
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D., & Chettri, N. (2018). Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 29, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020
  14. ↑ Laudari, H. K.; Sapkota, L. M.; Maraseni, T.; Subedi, P.; Pariyar, S.; Kaini, T. R.; Lopchan, S. B.; Weston, C.; Volkova, L. (2024). "Community forestry in a changing context: A perspective from Nepal's mid-hills". Land Use Policy. 138: 107018. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107018.
  15. ↑ Dhungana, N.; Lee, C.-H.; Khadka, C.; Adhikari, S.; Pudasaini, N.; Ghimire, P. (2024). "Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs): Indicators, performance and challenges". Sustainability. 16 (11): 4471. doi:10.3390/su16114471.
  16. ↑ Agrawal, Arun; Ostrom, Elinor (2001). "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in Nepal". World Development. 29 (10): 1641–1658. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3.
  17. ↑ Paudel, N. S.; Ojha, H.; Khatri, D. B.; McDougall, C. (2012). "Contestation and Conflicts in Community Forestry". Forest Policy and Economics. 14 (1): 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006.
  18. ↑ Tole, Lise (2010). "Reforms from the Ground Up: Community-Based Forestry in Nepal". Journal of Forestry. 108 (3): 123–128. doi:10.1093/jof/108.3.123.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Agarwal, Bina (2009). "Gender and Forest Conservation: The Impact of Women's Participation in Community Forest Governance". Ecological Economics. 68 (11): 2785–2799. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.022.
  20. ↑ Kanel, K. R.; Dahal, G. R. (2008). "Community Forestry Policy and Institutional Reforms". Journal of Forest and Livelihood. 7 (1): 5–18.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Pokharel, Bishnu; Byrne, Sarah (2009). "Climate Change Mitigation and Livelihoods in Nepal's Community Forests". Forest Ecology and Management. 257 (10): 2343–2349. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.026.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Joshi, Khagendra Prasad; Giri, Susma; Kuinkel, Dipesh; Kuinkel, Sajesh; Devkota, Rohini; Pradhananga, Dhiraj; Marahatta, Suresh; Pokharel, Binod (2025). "Forest Fire Dynamics in Nepal: Regional Trends and Socio-Ecological Drivers". Trees, Forests and People. 21: 100942. doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2025.100942.
  23. ↑ En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Writing better articles. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Community_forest_in_Nepal:_success,_challenges_and_way_forward&oldid=881931"