Suchergebnisse

The Community Forestry Program in Nepal is a global innovation in participatory environmental governance that encompasses well-defined policies, institutions, and practices. The program addresses the twin goals of forest conservation and poverty reduction. As more than 70 percent of Nepal's population depends on agriculture for their livelihood, community management of forests has been a critically important intervention. Through legislative developments and operational innovations over three decades, the program has evolved from a protection-oriented, conservation-focused agenda to a much more broadbased strategy for forest use, enterprise development, and livelihood improvement. By April 2009, onethird of Nepal's population was participating in the program, directly managing more than one-fourth of Nepal's forest area. The immediate livelihood benefits derived by rural households bolster strong collective action wherein local communities actively and sustainably manage forest resources. Community forests also became the source of diversified investment capital and raw material for new market-oriented livelihoods. Community forestry shows traits of political, financial, and ecological sustainability, including emergence of a strong legal and regulatory framework, and robust civil society institutions and networks. However, a continuing challenge is to ensure equitable distribution of benefits to women and marginalized groups. Lessons for replication emphasize experiential learning, establishment of a strong civil society network, flexible regulation to encourage diverse institutional modalities, and responsiveness of government and policymakers to a multistakeholder collaborative learning process.

This paper describes the emergence of community forestry in Nepal. Community forestry implies that the state cedes forest land under its control to cultural communities. These communities become the primary caretakers and beneficiaries of the natural forests, with the state providing varying degrees of guidance and support through public policies and programmes. While community forestry in Nepal have directly contributed to improving rural welfare by increasing household access to both food and income sources, it is the indirect impact of these programmes that are the underlying success. Community forestry in Nepal illustrates the vital importance of 'getting the governance right' or providing the poor with the capacity to own and manage their natural resources.

Strict protected areas are a critical component in global biodiversity conservation, but the future of biodiversity conservation may well depend upon the ability to experiment successfully with a range of institutional forms, including those that permit human use. Here, we focus on forest commons in human-dominated landscapes and their role in biodiversity conservation at the same time as they provide livelihood benefits to users. Using a dataset of 59 forest commons located in Bhutan, India, and Nepal, we estimated tree species richness from plot vegetation data collected in each forest, and drew on interview data to calculate a livelihoods index indicating the overall contribution of each forest to villager livelihoods for firewood, fodder, and timber. We found that tree species richness and livelihoods were positively and significantly correlated (rho=.41, p<0.001, N=59). This relationship held regardless of forest type or country, though significance varied somewhat across these two factors. Further, both benefits were similarly associated with several drivers of social-ecological change (e.g., occupational diversity of forest users, total number of users, and forest size), suggesting identification of potential synergies and complexes of causal mechanisms for future attention. Our analysis shows that forest commons in South Asia, explicitly managed to provide livelihoods for local populations, also provide biodiversity benefits. More broadly, our findings suggest that although strict protected areas are effective tools for biodiversity conservation, a singular focus on them risks ignoring other resource governance approaches that can fruitfully complement existing conservation regimes.