Community forestry policy and legal framework

Ganga Dahal, Yam Malla, Bharat K. Pokharel, Dil Raj Khanal, Popular Gentle, Dinesh Paudel

Research output: Book/ReportCommissioned report (public)

Abstract

Nepal’s community forest policies, acts and regulations provide unique example of policy and legal processes that have generated both positive and negative environmental and social outcomes. Community forestry policies and regulatory frameworks evolved substantially since its inception in the mid-1970s, and offer considerable insights for forest sector governance in Nepal and globally. This chapter analyses how the community forestry policy and regulatory framework evolved over the last 40 years or so and, in particular, how it continued to evolve under different political system –from absolute authoritarian monarchy and party-less panchayat political system (1957-1990), multi-party democratic system (1990-2006), and to the democratic federal republic system (since 2006). The chapter then postulates how the future of community forestry will hold in the new context of federalism with three spheres of government (federal, provincial and local) that bear certain exclusive and concurrent powers over forest governance. It also presents the situation whether or to what extent the policy and regulatory frameworks were responsive to address the evolving socio-economic, political and other environmental issues over time. Finally, it analyses the current regulatory framework, discusses the caveats in the framework and potential implications to community rights and forest health, and offers specific recommendations forestry policies and regulatory framework that deemed necessary for better future of community forestry in Nepal.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationKathmandu, Nepal
PublisherForestAction Nepal
Commissioning body ForestAction Nepal
Number of pages7
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2022

Publication series

NameRPS
Volume2022-01

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Community forestry policy and legal framework'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this