Dil B. Khatri, Hemant R.
Ojha, Krishna K. Shrestha
and Naya S. Paudel

World Congress on Agroforestry, February 10-13,
New...


Linking forest to food security is taking space on global debate
(political and scholarly) i.e. RIO+ 20 and others



...
Forest and food security
issues have always been
linked in many parts of the
world, but still limited
research and policy
...
Expansion of community
forestry have posed restrictions
on fodder production and
grazing (Dhakal et al., 2010,,
Thoms, 200...
Question:

Methodology:

How responsive are
community forestry
institutions in Nepal
to the need of
linking forest to food...
Forest-farm
interface for
increased farm
productivity
Community
Forestry
management
practices

Forest based
income and
emp...


Mainstream forestry science
focused on enhancing: bio-mass
productivity, revenue and biodiversity (Westoby, 1979, Kenne...


Broader policy framework focused on: revenue and
expansion of FA through aforestation



Forest legislation prohibits ...
MOFSC/DOF

MOAC/DOA

MOAC/DOL
D

National
level

DFO

DADO

DLDO

District
level

RP
CF
SC-A

SC-L

Livestock
Agriculture ...
Collection of ground
grass

Grazing

Fodder management

Grass collection is
allowed in specified
time period

Grazing is p...


Three factors problem in forest-food links: forestry
science, policy and legislative framework, and institutions



Th...
Thank You !
Acknowledgement:
Govinda Paudel and Mani Ram Banjade for contributing in
paper.
Australian Centre for
Internat...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Session 6.1 Managing community forest for food security, nepal

378
-1

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
378
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session 6.1 Managing community forest for food security, nepal

  1. 1. Dil B. Khatri, Hemant R. Ojha, Krishna K. Shrestha and Naya S. Paudel World Congress on Agroforestry, February 10-13, New Delhi
  2. 2.  Linking forest to food security is taking space on global debate (political and scholarly) i.e. RIO+ 20 and others  Scholars (re)asserts that forest ecosystem is critical to food production (Mohamed –Katerere and Smith 2013)  But, to what extent forest is contributing to food security? - Very limited!  So, why forest policy and institutions are restrictive to food security?
  3. 3. Forest and food security issues have always been linked in many parts of the world, but still limited research and policy attention!
  4. 4. Expansion of community forestry have posed restrictions on fodder production and grazing (Dhakal et al., 2010,, Thoms, 2008, Adhikari et al.). Contributed to declined number of cattle per household (Dhakal et al., 2010, Thoms, 2008
  5. 5. Question: Methodology: How responsive are community forestry institutions in Nepal to the need of linking forest to food security?  Why?    Literature review Review of policy and legal documents Case studies of community forest user group (operational plans of six selected CFUGs) Research in progress
  6. 6. Forest-farm interface for increased farm productivity Community Forestry management practices Forest based income and employment Wild food/edible items Food security
  7. 7.  Mainstream forestry science focused on enhancing: bio-mass productivity, revenue and biodiversity (Westoby, 1979, Kennedy et al. 2001)  Reflected in Nepal’s forest management: Declaration of 23% forest area as protected area, timber focused management (even in the community managed forests)  Undermined local concerns relating to forest for food security
  8. 8.  Broader policy framework focused on: revenue and expansion of FA through aforestation  Forest legislation prohibits use of forest land for agriculture production and no explicit focus on agroforestry and food security  Implementation framework more restrictive for food security (i.e. Forest Regulation prohibits to grow cash crops in forest land and requires too many steps to harvest and trade timber)  No explicit provision on production and use of wild food
  9. 9. MOFSC/DOF MOAC/DOA MOAC/DOL D National level DFO DADO DLDO District level RP CF SC-A SC-L Livestock Agriculture Farm and AF group Group CFUG Village level
  10. 10. Collection of ground grass Grazing Fodder management Grass collection is allowed in specified time period Grazing is prohibited in most of the CFs and provision of fine if rules are violated Provision to promote fodder but no explicit plan on it Some CFUGs have provision to promote improved grass  Provision of rotational grazing in 2 CFUGs in specified forest block Conventional forestry mindset foresters and local power relations prevail in CFUG rule making process (OP)
  11. 11.  Three factors problem in forest-food links: forestry science, policy and legislative framework, and institutions  These three aspects needs to be dealt with simultaneously  Need for integrating forest, tree and agriculture production (Padoch and Sunderland 2013)  Adaptive-collaborative approach to learning and innovation for change (Colfer 2005, Prabhu et al 2007; Ojha et al 2013) • Adaptive learning – action learning, reflections and innovations • Bounding conflicts and fostering collaboration • Cross-scale linkages
  12. 12. Thank You ! Acknowledgement: Govinda Paudel and Mani Ram Banjade for contributing in paper. Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research For correspondence: dil@forestaction.org 12
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×