Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2025/Climate change adaptation and mitigation through community forestry: A case study on Nepal

Abstract

Climate change presents critical challenges globally, with Nepal being particularly susceptible due to its varied ecosystems and topography, disproportionate impacts due to climate changeand limited resources (Kabir et al., 2023; Timilsina-Parajuli et al., 2014). This paper examines the role of Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal as a critical mechanism for climate adaptation and mitigation. Since the 1970s, Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) have expanded to manage approximately 40% of Nepal's forests, successfully reversing deforestation and sequestering over 180 million tonnes of carbon (Hobley & Malla, 2022; Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). CFUGs enhance local resilience through bioengineering, income generation, and watershed conservation (Acharya et al., 2025; Gautam et al., 2024). However, assessments reveal mixed results; benefits often fail to reach the most vulnerable households due to historical elite capture, and rapid afforestation may disrupt local water balances and biodiversity (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017; Gao et al., 2023). Furthermore, international mechanisms like REDD+ offer financial incentives but risk restricting traditional resource access (Pandey et al., 2016; Paudel et al., 2022). It is recommended that Nepal's CFs practice strengthened institutional collaboration, inclusive governance to prioritize marginalized voices, and policies that balance carbon markets with local subsistence needs (Gao et al., 2023; Ojha et al., 2022).

Keywords

Climate Change, Nepal, Community Forestry, Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation

Positionality

I am writing this case study as a 24-year-old man of Pakistani origin. Ethnically, I am of both Pashtun and Punjabi origin, and was raised in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. I spent multiple formative years in Austin, Texas, in the United States, as well as significant time in Ontario, Canada. I have never visited Nepal, and have no ties to it, but I come from a region with similar forest landscapes and threats from climate change. My background knowledge regarding community forestry has come from the master’s degree I am completing at the time of authoring this paper, which is a Master of International Forestry at the University of British Columbia. My prior knowledge in climate change adaptation and mitigation comes from my Bachelor of Bio-Resource Management from the University of Guelph, where I majored in Environmental Management and minored in Sustainable Business. This case study is written solely using published research articles, and all ideas in this case study are either my own or from the research cited.

Introduction

Climate Change

The World Meteorological Organization (n.d.) succinctly defines climate change as “changes in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the average and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer”. While natural processes may change the climate, the extent that we see today is due to anthropogenic factors, primarily exorbitant greenhouse gas emissions (World Meteorological Organization, n.d.). Climate change has gained widely accepted recognition for being one of the direst problems that the Earth and its inhabitants are currently facing (Kabir et al., 2023). The unparalleled breadth of climate change impacts continues to expand, and their effects are increasing in severity (World Meteorological Organization, n.d.). The largest impacts of climate change include unprecedented temperature increases, an increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, biodiversity and habitat loss, and several other interconnected aspects (Kabir et al., 2023). Although the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 instigated global policy efforts to combat climate change, targets are not being met at sufficient rates (Psistaki et al., 2024). In the Paris Agreement, which came out of the United Nations Climate Conference (COP21) of 2015, nearly 200 countries agreed and aimed to limit global warming to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures (Psistaki et al., 2024). However, by 2024, the mean temperature had already reached 1.55 °C above preindustrial temperatures (World Meteorological Organization, n.d.). With the current state of climate change, an irreversibly detrimental increase of global temperatures by 2.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures is projected by 2100 (Leman, 2025). However, during the most recent United Nations Climate Conference in 2025 (COP30), countries formally acknowledged this overshoot and reaffirmed their commitment to rigorously work towards the initial average of 1.5 °C by the end of the century (Leman, 2025). To meet this target, climate change adaptation and mitigation are both essential.

Forests and Climate Change

Forests retain a binary, highly reciprocal relationship with climate patterns. Forests are both severely affected by climate change and also have the ability to severely impact climate change (Council of Canadian Academies, 2021). Climate change affects forests in multiple ways, including limited tree regeneration capacity, altered species composition and diversity, and higher incidences of mortality at the behest of extreme weather events (Khaine, & Woo, 2014). Forests have the potential to contribute to climate change in two ways. Firstly, in areas of high forest disturbance (including deforestation or logging), forests can be carbon emitters and accelerate climate change (Council of Canadian Academies, 2021). However, forests are also the largest terrestrial carbon sink on Earth (Council of Canadian Academies, 2021). Forests store more than 650 billion tons of carbon, which is spread over biomass, soil, and dead wood and litter (Khaine, & Woo, 2014). As such, afforestation, reforestation, and forest conservation are now pivotal components globally of climate change mitigation strategies (Psistaki et al., 2024).

Nepal and its Forests

Forest Landscape Integrity Index 2019 map of Nepal.

Nepal is a mountainous, landlocked, sovereign state in South Asia, with China neighbouring it in the north, and India neighbouring it in the south, east, and west. Nepal is made up of unique landscapes, categorized into the Himalayan region, mid-hill region, and Tarai region (Nepal Tourism Board, 2025). Nepal occupies roughly 147,516 square kilometres of land and has a population of over 31.5 million people (Macrotrends, 2025; Nepal Tourism Board, 2025). Nepal has a hyper-diverse climate, from tropical monsoons in the southern Terai plains to an arctic-alpine climate in the Great Himalayan Range (World Atlas, 2025). Nepal has seen significant reforestation and afforestation in the past half-century (World Bank, 2025). In 1970, there was 26% forest cover, while by 2022, 46.8% of the total landmass was forest cover (World Bank, 2025). Currently, there are 5.96 million hectares of forest, with a large portion present in the mid-hill region (WWF Nepal, 2025). It is important to note that while the total area has increased, the average tree canopy height has decreased between 2018 and 2022, due to habitat fragmentation challenges (World Bank, 2025).

Forest Management in Nepal

The nation’s relationship with its forests was characterized by state-controlled extraction and isolationist policies (Ranjit, 2019). Since the unification of Nepal in the eighteenth century, to the ruling Rana regime in the nineteenth century, forests were viewed through an extractive and profit-oriented lens (Hobley & Malla, 2022). There was general disregard for customary land tenure systems and prioritization of revenue generation from forests, which continued into the early twentieth century (Ranjit, 2019). Large amounts of forest land were allotted to elite groups under the Birta and Kirpat tenure systems (Ranjit, 2019). In 1951, the Nepali Congress revolution took place, overthrowing the Rana regime, and instigating the creation of a community forestry policy draft between 1952-1953 (Hobley & Malla, 2022). This foundational document gave formal recognition to the necessity of partnership between local populations and the Forest Department and emphasized the reinvestment of forest-derived revenues into forests and local communities (Hobley & Malla, 2022). However, this progressive policy draft was superseded by the Private Forests Nationalization Act of 1957, which centralized control over revenue flows from forests (Ranjit, 2019). This nationalization led to property owners felling their own trees to avoid state acquisition, as well as deforestation within government forests to claim land as private agricultural land under the Land Reform Act of 1958 (Hobley & Malla, 2022). Despite these laws, local control over the forests that were left occasionally persisted where strong leadership excluded the government’s interference (Hobley & Malla, 2022).

The 1970s demarcated a significant forest policy shift in Nepal, with the formal establishment of Community Forestry (CF), with the intention of empowering local communities and formally enabling them to manage forests for collective benefit (Paudel et al., 2022). Community Forestry includes groups that manage smaller areas of forest, including over 7,000 Leasehold Forestry Groups, and 600,000 households involved in Collaborative Forest Management (World Bank, 2019). The most significant groups, however, are Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), which are the most dominant and widespread local institution in rural Nepal (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). By 2020, over 22,000 CFUGs were present in all 75 districts of Nepal and were involved in the direct management of roughly 40% of Nepal’s total forest area (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017; Hobley & Malla, 2022). Membership in CFUGs is formal, guided by both state policies and the constitutions of the user groups. Membership is frequently based on traditional use rights, which encompass nearly all neighbouring households (Gentle & Thwaites). However, the traditional rights recognized are typically only for certain caste groups that asserted private ownership of forest land before the 1975 Private Forests Nationalization Act (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017).

CFUGs function through complex institutional arrangements that bridge informal and formal structures to support collaboration (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). CFUGs also hold a stronger bundle of rights in comparison to Non-Community Forest Plots, as they allow timber and NTFP harvesting (Luintel et al., 2018). CFUGs operate under a progressive mandate requiring pro-poor fund allocation and attention beyond forest boundaries (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). This has proven effective in delivering both ecological and socioeconomic outcomes (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). National forest cover rose from 40% in 1994 to 45% in 2020 due to community protection (Hobley & Malla, 2022). CF management has enhanced the Leaf Area Index (LAI) and promotes regeneration, reduces illegal activities, and supports ecotourism (Gao et al., 2023). Community Forests have strengthened biodiversity conservation, reversed deforestation, and improved climate resilience (Gautam et al., 2024). CFUGs also serve as effective channels for implementing the Nepal National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) by mobilizing local climate action (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). They improve adaptive capacity by reducing climate-related risks and generating income (Gautam et al., 2024). With over USD 10 million disseminated annually, CFUGs act as a vital safety net for the poor (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017).

Threats of Climate Change to Nepal

Post forest-fire in a high altitude forest in Rasuwa, Nepal

Nepal is highly susceptible to the effects of climate change due to its steep topography, unstable geological features, and insufficient resource capacity (Timilsina-Parajuli et al., 2014). The adverse consequences of climate change are felt in sectors crucial for humans, such as agriculture, water resources, and the energy sector (Acharya et al., 2025). Local communities have reported experiencing climate impacts, including elevated temperatures, inconsistent precipitation, periods of drought, and increased frequency of floods and landslides (Timilsina-Parajuli et al., 2014). Specifically, locals have reported observing a shift in the timing of the monsoon season, a reduction in winter rainfall, depletion of water sources, and changes in typical flowering and fruiting timings (Timilsina-Parajuli et al., 2014). Forest-dependent communities face these challenges with a greater intensity (Gautam et al., 2024). Several pervasive threats to livelihoods and ecosystems have been identified, including droughts and chronic water shortages (Acharya et al., 2025). Additionally, there has been an increase in the incidence of pests and diseases in the forest, which poses a threat to forest health and productivity (Acharya et al., 2025; Gautam et al., 2024). Livelihoods have also been affected, with climate change-induced scarcity resulting in a lesser availability of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) (Poudel et al., 2022). This affected women disproportionately, as it has increased the daily workload of forest-dependent women by nearly 18 hours, specifically for collecting essential resources like fuelwood, grass, and fodder (Poudel et al., 2022).

Community Forestry to Combat Climate Change in Nepal

Most climate adaptation activities related to the forest sector are implemented within Community Forests by the Community Forest User Groups in Nepal (Gautam et al., 2024). These localized institutions are primarily responsible for assisting their members in increasing their ability to adapt to the effects of climate change (Gautam et al., 2024). Crucial functions of Community Forestry in neutralizing the impact of climate change involve increasing carbon sinks, stabilizing soil, and reducing the risk of natural hazards, including erosion and landslides (Gautam et al., 2024). CFUGs employ a multi-faceted approach to support both the forests and their surrounding communities in adapting to climate change, including the protection and management of forest commons and watershed conservation (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017; Gautam et al., 2024).

To address the physical challenges of climate variability, specific technical strategies have been observed, including the implementation of plantation activities and the construction of recharge ponds (Acharya et al., 2025). Communities are also adopting low-cost technologies and bioengineering techniques specifically to stabilize local environments (Acharya et al., 2025). These efforts are often integrated into broader ecological restoration projects that combine bioengineering with income-generating activities (Acharya et al., 2025). Beyond environmental protection, CFUGs support adaptation through income and employment generation, alongside the supply of forest products that contribute to rural livelihoods (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). The institutional mandate of Community Forests also includes targeting pro-poor investment to assist in poverty reduction and the systematic management of livestock grazing practices (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). They also contribute to infrastructure development and assist communities during the more extreme climate change impacts, through emergency relief and disaster risk reduction efforts (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017).

There is a demonstrated direct correlation between community forestry and increased climate mitigation that influences Nepal's regional and global climate systems (Gao et al., 2023). CFs have been identified as the primary driver of land greening in Nepal, accounting for a significant portion of the temporal variability in Leaf Area Index (LAI) (Gao et al., 2023). Studies have recorded a 21% increase in forest biomass over 14 years across all community forests in the country (Anup et al., 2013). Research indicates that these forests are actively sequestering carbon at an annual rate of 0.45 tons per hectare (Anup et al., 2013). The expansion of community forest management has led to land-use changes, supported by forest land increasing between 1.6% and 3.1% in certain regions (Niraula & Pokharel, 2016). Simultaneously, agricultural land has decreased marginally, by 0.04% to 0.7%, in these same areas (Niraula & Pokharel, 2016). In terms of quantifiable storage, Community Forests have successfully sequestered substantial amounts of carbon stock, ranging from 48.2 to 129.9 MgC/ha, depending on the specific type of vegetation (Pandey et al., 2016). This significant range in estimated carbon storage highlights the potential for these forests to further increase their carbon stock over time (Pandey et al., 2016). Cumulatively, these national conservation efforts have resulted in the sequestration of more than 180 million tonnes of carbon within Nepal’s Community Forests (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). Ecological assessments have further shown that biodiversity in Community Forest Plots (CFP) is significantly (p<0.05) higher than in non-CFP plots within the overall forest (Luintel et al., 2019). Maintaining biodiversity, maintains and promotes ecosystem services that strengthen forests against climate change and its impacts (Luintel et al., 2019).

Assessment

The role of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) in climate change mitigation has been supported by the significant enhancement of carbon sinks. Community Forests have successfully sequestered over 180 million tonnes of carbon, with specific sequestration rates recorded at 0.45 tons per hectare (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017; Anup et al., 2013). These figures reaffirm the direct correlation between community management and increased climate mitigation capacity (Anup et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2023). However, it is important to note that rapid afforestation/reforestation did not occur without trade-offs. There is an intricate relationship between forests and water, as greening effects have the potential to disrupt the local water balance (Gao et al., 2023). Furthermore, specific community forest projects aimed at adaptation and mitigation have resulted in negative impacts, such as straining regional water supplies, disturbing animal behavior and breeding, and increasing wildlife mortality (Gao et al., 2023).

In terms of adaptation, CFUGs have achieved success in reducing risks and vulnerabilities at the community level through the application of forest protection, fire and grazing control, and watershed management activities (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). However, the efficacy of these benefits is uneven at the household level, with very few examples of reduced individual and household-level risks and vulnerabilities amongst the most vulnerable populations (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). This indicates disproportionate distribution of climate change adaptive forest efforts to benefit specific communities. Historically, elite-led CFUGs have used Community Forests to maintain traditional power and feudal legacies by creating rules that favor themselves. As well as developing biased implementation strategies, discriminating against lower-income members (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). Although this trend of elite capture is noted to be changing, it historically limited the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups (Gentle & Thwaites, 2017). Despite efforts to mainstream climate change in policy, a declining dependency on forests for livelihoods are critical recent developments that affect the relevance of current management objectives (Poudel et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the integration of international climate mechanisms like REDD+ present both opportunity and risk for Community Forestry. REDD+ can enable local communities to benefit from the sale of forest carbon in international markets as carbon credits while maintaining access to forest products (Pandey et al., 2016). However, REDD+ programs have tended to impose restrictions on communities regarding the harvesting of forest products and grazing, which undermines the traditional rights of forest-dependent communities (Paudel et al., 2022). Therefore, REDD+ and other climate policies can conflict with traditional community forestry practices because they restrict resource use and may overlook local needs (Poudel et al., 2022).

Recommendations

To mitigate risks associated with the isolation of some management decisions, an integrated approach is necessary. Governments, civil society, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations should collaborate more with CFUGs to address emerging challenges in regards to climate change (Gao et al., 2023). Although recent studies show improvement, there is a continued need for more resources, specifically the dissemination of information to CFs regarding specific mitigation and adaptation practices they can adopt (Gao et al., 2023). With this information, Community Forestry efforts in climate change adaptation and mitigation would avoid imposing other ecological problems, such as distressed wildlife and watersheds. Local implementation of ecological restorations demands careful consideration to avoid straining regional water supplies or disrupting local biodiversity (Gao et al., 2023).  

To address the disparity between collective risk reduction and household vulnerability, governance structures must evolve to be more inclusive and less concentrated. There is a critical need for more involvement and prioritization of the voices of more marginalized communities working within CFs, especially those working to combat climate change. Ensuring that these voices are heard in decision-making will help ensure a more equal distribution of benefits and efforts.

Future policies need to navigate the tension between international carbon markets and local subsistence needs. There is great opportunity for CF to contribute to the resilience of social and ecological systems through market-based economic incentives that boost practices of sustainable resources management (Ojha et al., 2022 Management objectives must shift to a model that accommodates changing the commercial aspirations of users, ensuring that carbon credit programs like REDD+ do not disenfranchise the communities they are meant to support (Paudel et al., 2022). This must be done while still providing incentives to CFs to employ more climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.

References

Acharya, G. R., Tiwari, K. R., & Acharya, S. (2025). Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Community Forest User Groups of Dang District, Nepal. Banko Janakari, 35(2), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v35i2.61976

Anup, K. C., Bhandari, G., Joshi, G. R., & Aryal, S. (2013). Climate change mitigation potential from carbon sequestration of community forest in mid hill region of Nepal. International Journal of Environmental Protection, 3(7), 33. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anup-K-C/publication/262185837_Climate_Change_Mitigation_Potential_from_Carbon_Sequestration_of_Community_Forest_in_Mid_Hill_Region_of_Nepal/links/551d0acf0cf20d5fbde56513/Climate-Change-Mitigation-Potential-from-Carbon-Sequestration-of-Community-Forest-in-Mid-Hill-Region-of-Nepal.pdf

Council of Canadian Academies. (2021). Forests. In Nature-based solutions for climate change in Canada (pp. 40–77). https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Carbon-Sinks_EN_CH-3_Forests.pdf

Gao, S., Wang, L., Hao, L., & Sun, G. (2023). Community forestry dominates the recent land greening amid climate change in Nepal. Environmental Research Letters, 18(10), 104014. https://www.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acf8de

Gautam, N. P., Bhusal, P., Raut, N., & Wu, P. (2024). Community Forestry in Nepal: A Review of Socioeconomic Contribution to Forest-Dependents in a Changing Climate. Journal of Forest and Natural Resource Management, 4(1), 82-99. https://doi.org/10.3126/jfnrm.v4i1.74228

Gentle, P., & Thwaites, R. (2017). Community forestry and pro-poor climate change adaptation: A case study from Nepal. In Community Forestry in Nepal (pp. 127-146). Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315445168-7/community-forestry-pro-poor-climate-change-adaptation-popular-gentle-richard-thwaites

Hobley, M., & Malla, Y. B. (2022). Community forestry in the changing political and social context of Nepal. In Routledge Handbook of Community Forestry (pp. 477-490). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780367488710-36/community-forestry-changing-political-social-context-nepal-mary-hobley-yam-malla

Kabir, M., Habiba, U. E., Khan, W., Shah, A., Rahim, S., De los Rios-Escalante, P. R., ... & Shafiq, M. (2023). Climate change due to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and its impacts on environment in 21st century; a mini review. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 35(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102693

Khaine, I., & Woo, S. Y. (2014). An overview of interrelationship between climate change and forests. Forest Science and Technology, 11(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2014.932718

Leman, M. (2025, November 18). At COP30, the 1.5°C climate limit can still be saved. Greenpeace.https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/79810/at-cop30-the-1-5c-climate-limit-can-still-be-saved/

Luintel, H., Bluffstone, R. A., & Scheller, R. M. (2018). The effects of the Nepal community forestry program on biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. PLoS One, 13(6), e0199526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199526

Macrotrends. (2025). Nepal population 1950-2025. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/npl/nepal/population

Nepal Tourism Board. (2025). Geography of Nepal. https://ntb.gov.np/plan-your-trip/about-nepal/geography

Niraula, R. R., & Pokharel, B. K. (2016). Community forest management as climate change adaptation measure in Nepal’s Himalaya. In Climate Change Adaptation Strategies–An Upstream-downstream Perspective (pp. 101-120). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40773-9_6

Ojha, H., Paudel, N. S., Timsina, J., Chaudhary, S., & Baral, H. (2022). Ecosystems services from community forestry: Prospects and challenges for improving local livelihoods in Nepal. Agriculture, Natural Resources and Food Security: Lessons from Nepal, 337-356. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-09555-9_19

Pandey, S. S., Cockfield, G., & Maraseni, T. N. (2016). Assessing the roles of community forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation: A case study from Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management, 360, 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.040

Paudel, G., Carr, J., & Munro, P. G. (2022). Community forestry in Nepal: a critical review. International Forestry Review, 24(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554822835224810

Poudel, M., Rana, E., Poudyal, B. H., Tiwari, K. R., & Shrestha, H. L. (2022). Climate change and community forestry in Nepal. Revitalising Community Forestry in the Changing Socioeconomic Context of Nepal. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Popular-Gentle/publication/359500990_Community_forestry_policy_and_legal_framework_IN_Paudel_NS_Ojha_H_Banjade_MR_Karki_R_and_Tamang_S_Eds_Revitalising_community_forestry_in_the_changing_socioeconomic_context_of_Nepal_Kathmandu_EnLiFT2_p/links/623fc9bc7931cc7ccffc7fee/Community-forestry-policy-and-legal-framework-IN-Paudel-NS-Ojha-H-Banjade-MR-Karki-R-and-Tamang-S-Eds-Revitalising-community-forestry-in-the-changing-socioeconomic-context-of-Nepal-Kathmandu-E.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=k8iW7WM4F0TcV4VsFLAQIO6bv50wbv29S2yCQQWQZiE-1760725683-1.0.1.1-UJhTfUUIbsMGJNTca5IJr6Ou1dbrXc0VBsO1PDiliq8#page=43

Psistaki, K., Tsantopoulos, G., & Paschalidou, A. K. (2024). An Overview of the Role of Forests in Climate Change Mitigation. Sustainability, 16(14), 6089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146089

Ranjit, M. (2019). History of forest management in Nepal: An analysis of political and economic perspective. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350423480_History_of_Forest_Management_in_Nepal_An_Analysis_of_Political_and_Economic_Perspective

Timilsina-Parajuli, L., Timilsina, Y., & Parajuli, R. (2014). Climate change and community forestry in Nepal: local people’s perception. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.12691/env-2-1-1

World Meteorological Organization. (n.d.). “Climate change”. https://wmo.int/topics/climate-change

World Atlas. (2025). What type of climate does Nepal have? https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-type-of-climate-does-nepal-have.html

World Bank. (2019). Nepal environment sector diagnostic: Path to sustainable growth under federalism (Country Environmental Analysis). Washington, DC: The World Bank.https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/141591574193407696/pdf/Nepal-Environment-Sector-Diagnostic-Path-to-Sustainable-Growth-under-Federalism.pdf

World Bank. (2025, November 20). From data to action: Enabling sustainable forest management in Nepal. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2025/11/20/from-data-to-action-enabling-sustainable-forest-management-in-nepal

WWF Nepal. (2025). Forests. https://www.wwfnepal.org/our_work_/forests/