Scientific forest management practices in Nepal: perceptions of forest users and the impact on their livelihoods

Abstract

ABSTRACTScientific Forestry Management (SciFM), an advanced silvicultural practice, was implemented from 2014 in the protection-oriented community forests (CFs) of Nepal, to advance national prosperity. However, in 2021, deforestation and rampant corruption led to criticism and the program was suspended. New policy formulations and discussions are developing among different actors in forest management. We, therefore, conducted a study to determine how CF users perceived the economic, social, and environmental aspects of SciFM and how it affects their livelihoods. We surveyed 290 households, interviewed key informants and conducted group discussions in the Terai and Hilly regions, where SciFM was implemented in CFs. All the users disagreed with the cessation of SciFM. Implementation of SciFM in CFs with sufficient reserve funds had a positive impact on income. However, those with fewer reserve funds incurred losses due to the initial investment required. 80% of CF users supported SciFM due to its economic benefits; 17% agreed on both economic and social benefits, while a mere 3% valued it for all three merits including resource conservation. SciFM was driven by the desire for financial upliftment, unaware of the corruption involved in its implementation. Policymakers emphasize the importance of addressing corruption issues and providing government support to implement advanced silviculture practices that are easily comprehensible to local forest users. The study’s findings underscore the need for policymakers to regain trust and gain public acceptance and support for regulations and management initiatives. This can be achieved by fostering transparent communication, consistent reliable actions, and active listening to stakeholders’ concerns and feedback.KEYWORDS: Community forestsScientific forest managementforest-dependent userslivelihoodsNepal AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the community forest user group members of studied community forests. We would like to thank Arvinda Panthee for his valuable comments on the manuscript.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData are not publicly available, though the data may be made available upon request from the corresponding author.Supplementary dataSupplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2023.2275901Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by Kakubun Suzuki Foundation for Environmental Conservation (No. R3-1-04).