A review of some literature

1. COMMERCIALIZATION IN COMMUNITY FOREST’S OF NEPAL
Presented to;
Forest Governance and Community Forestry Faculty
M. Sc. In NRM- RD, Kathmandu Forestry College
Institute of Forestry, Tribhuwan University
Presented by;
Reecha Basnet
Roll no; 15

2. Introduction
 Forest act, 1993 defined the term “community forestry” and recognized
user groups as legal entities that should develop, protect and manage
local forests for collective benefits (Kanel, 1995 cited in Iversen et. al.
2005)
 Nepal’s CF process has implied the devolution of powers to collect,
retain, and redistribute forest revenue from community forests products.
 Forest resources directly fulfill forest related subsistence needs of
women, poor and backward people as well as commercial needs of
well-off people.
 Economic and marketing opportunities for forest products and services
have been crucial in enhancing the forestry sector’s contribution to the
national economy and poverty reduction (Dhungana and Bhattrai.,2008.
1

3. Objectives
To discuss some policies of commercialization of
forest based commodities .
To reflect two narratives of commercialization viz.
positive and negative.
To know “How commercialization has helped in rural
livelihood upliftment ?”
2

4. Literature Review
 Nepal has witnessed substantial shifts in forest policy and
management approaches since the beginning of the twentieth
century when serious public concern regarding the use of the
country’s forest resources began (Gautam et. al. 2004).
 In 2008, Dhungana and Bhattrai stated that CBFM is
considered as subsequent resource for community
management and sharing of income obtained from
commercial sell of forest products from community forests.
 Involvement of communities in commercialization,
development agencies and government has been promoting a
public-private partnership model to encourage joint
investments by the forest user groups and private companies
(Subedi 2006 cited in Paudel et al., 2010)
3

5. Policies in commercialization of forest based commodities
 Since 2000s, RFSP 'conservation' and 'sustainable use’ of forest resources
came along.
 Likewise, MFSC in 2000 has made it mandatory to assess the growing stock of
all types of forest resources, and limit harvesting of forest products within the
mean annual increment and different management activities of resources should
be carried out with technical assistance of the official.
 Similarly, Herbs and NTFPs Development Policy 2004 realizes both in- country
marketing and export of herbs and NTFPs in a significant way that Nepal be
recognized as a huge store of NTFPs in the global arena by 2020 (GoN 2004
cited in Dhungana and Bhattrai, 2008)
 Furthermore, the revised Industrial Policy 1993, guides the overall industrial
sector, including forest- based industries which list out forest- based industries
comprising carpentry, wooden handicrafts, products made out of bamboo, rattan
and natural fibers, hand- made (Nepali) paper and its products, and sabai grass
as traditional cottage industries.
 Industrial Enterprise Act 2017, CFUGs and other community-based forest users
groups, as well as private forest owners themselves, can function as a forest
Findings and Discussions
4

6. Two narratives of commercialization
Positive
 Provides multiple benefits of rural livelihood
upliftment and ecological sustainability.
 Employment opportunities have been
created through the different forms of
commercialization.
 Commercialization has decreased the
burden of management cost to the CFUGs.
 Proper management of the forest opens up
the door to other forms commercialization
like carbon trade, PES, tourism and so on.
Negative
 Local elites who control over the resources
and leaving communities to low wages and
remaining of the harvest.
 To maintain the satisfaction of all
stakeholders eventually decreases the
income of the CF.
 Monetary powerful actors dominate the
market and are able to negotiate and
influence the rules of market which in return
leads to environmental destruction.
5

7. Rural livelihood upliftment through commercialization
 CF management practices have been enhanced to increase the production
and protection of forest based resources whereas land and trees provide
direct benefits by contributing to income and people’s sense of well-being
whereas the indirect benefits that they provide include nutrient cycling and
protection from disasters.
 Mandatory provisions on investment of revenue generated by CF, such as
at least 35% of its income should be invested on pro-poor activities, and
40% in forest community development which have positive impact upon the
livelihood of poor people living in the areas
 Developing an inclusive enterprise structure to allow poor people of CUFGs
to take ownership of the production has been seen in many CF.
 Various trainings and workshops for CFUG members provided by DFO on
FBSSE, ability to labor and so on has improved their skills on forest
management and overall in the livelihood of poor people as well.
6

8. Conclusion
Three decades of practice have clearly demonstrated success in terms of enhancing flow
of forest products, improving livelihoods opportunities for forest dependent people,
strengthening social capital and improving ecological conditions of forest.
Likewise, income generation through NTFPs cultivation, enterprise development and
marketing of forest products have been considered important for effective CF
management for livelihood enhancement of the forest- dependent poor.
So, the community forestry policy needs to explicitly address the issue of power
inequality that has characteristically limited the participation of poor and disadvantaged
groups in resource governance and their access to resources and benefits.
Thus, enabling policies, intensive forest management, tenure security, forest certification
and reward mechanism for environmental services are the crucial factors for harnessing
the economic and marketing opportunities for forest products and services.
7

9. References
A.P. Gautam, G. P. Shivakoti and E. L. Webb (2004). A review of forest policies institutions Nepal. A Review of Forest Policies,
Institutions, and Changes in the Resource Condition in Nepal, 6(2), 136.
Agrawal, A. (n.d.). Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
Awasthi, N., Bhandari, S. K., & Khanal, Y. (2012). Does scientific forest management promote plant species diversity and
regeneration in Sal. Banko Janakari, 20–29.
Dhungana, S. P., & Bhattarai, R. C. (2008). Exploring economic and market dimensions of forestry sector in Nepal. Journal of
Forest and Livelihood, 7(1), 58–69.
Gauli, K., & Hauser, M. (2011). Commercial management of non-timber forest products in Nepal’s community forest users groups:
who benefits? International Forestry Review, 13(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.13.1.35
Iversen, V., Chhetry, B., Francis, P., Gurung, M., Kafle, G., Pain, A., & Seeley, J. (2006). High value forests, hidden economies and
elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecological Economics, 58(1), 93–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.021
Khatri, D. B., Marquardt, K., Pain, A., & Ojha, H. (2018). Shifting regimes of management and uses of forests: What might REDD+
implementation mean for community forestry? Evidence from Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 92(June 2017), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.005
Paudel, D. (2012). In Search of Alternatives: Pro-Poor Entrepreneurship in Community Forestry. Journal of Development Studies,
48(11), 1649–1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.716152
Paudel, D. (2016). Re-inventing the commons: community forestry as accumulation without dispossession in Nepal. Journal of
Peasant Studies, 43(5), 989–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1130700
Paudel, D., Khatri, B., & Paudel, G. (2010). Corpo-bureaucratizing Community Forestry: Commercialization and the Increased
Financial Transaction in Community Forestry User Groups in Nepal. In Journal of Forest and Livelihood (Vol. 9, Issue 1).
8

10. 10