Changing Discourses in Forest Policy Arena and Current Status is a term paper presentation on forest policy, laws, and international conventions in Nepal. It discusses the historical shifts in Nepal's forest policy discourse from 1950 to present day across four periods: strict protection (1950-1975), resource creation for crisis management (1975-1986), participatory forestry (1986-2008), and broad-based global normative discourse (2008-onwards). The current status synthesizes these historical shifts and frames Nepal's forest policy with a focus on sustainable and participatory resource use, prosperity, and maintaining forest cover through cooperation across stakeholders.

1. Changing Discourses in Forest
Policy Arena and Current Status
(A term paper presentation on 601 BHS Forest Policy, Laws and International Conventions)
Presenter:
Amit Chaudhary
Faculty of Forestry
Agriculture and Forestry University

2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
2
 Introduction
 Historical Forest Policy Discourse
 Strict protection for resource conservation (1950-–
1975)
 Resource creation for crisis management (1975–
1986)
 Participatory forestry (1986–2008)
 Broad-based global normative discourse (2008
onwards)
 Synthesis: Current Status
NOAA
Mahato, 2010
Karki, 2017

3. INTRODUCTION
 Discourse is defined as a term "that encompasses not only the substantive content of ideas but also the interactive
processes by which ideas are conveyed" (Schmidt, 2008). In addition, discourse gives deeper insights into how ideas are
carried away at both the policy arena and the political sphere through the interactive process of argumentation and
coalition of actors forming dominant paradigms (Schmidt, 2008; Grant et al. 2001).
 Discursive institutionalization helps to document the institutional perspective of the social norms, policies, laws and
regulations that are supportive or against the dominant discourse (den Besten et al., 2014). It covers the social and
institutional dimension of participation, their discursive interaction and its influences in policy-making process.
 Nepal’s forest policy has been shaped by paradigm shift, international organizations and experts, and change in social
political dimensions. While the role of discursive practices at successive social and institutional contexts has been less
explored. Laudari, et al., (2019) assessed the historical development and shift in forest policies through detailed analysis of
discourse, discursive practices and institutionalization of such.
 No formal institutions were specifically assigned for forest conservation and management in Nepal until 1950 (Mahat et al.,
1986). The discussion of change in discourse will follow since1950s. 3

4. HISTORICAL FOREST POLICY DISCOURSE
 Nepal’s successive rulers from the ancient past used to encourage the conversion of forest land into agricultural
use for increasing both food production and revenue through land tax collection (Mahat et al., 1986). It continued
and culminated through the Rana regime (1846-1950).
 Since 1920s the discourse of managing forest for government revenue was augmented with the foreground practices
of clearing forest of undisturbed lowland Terai for expanding agriculture and exporting the timber to India for
collecting revenue (Joshi, 1993). Lands were distributed in forms of Birta and Jagir (Dahal, et al., 2017).
 It was institutionalized through establishment of the forest and timber administration units such as Forest
Inspection Unit (1880); Central Forest management Office (1924); and Department of Forests (1942) (Gautam,
2004; Koirala and Acharya, 2017).
 Major historical period and forestry discourses:
1. Strict protection period (1950-1975)
2. Resource creation for crisis management period (1975-1986)
3. Participatory forestry period (1986-2008)
4. Period of broad-based global normative discourse (2008 onwards) 4

5. STRICT PROTECTION PERIOD (1950-1975)
5
Framing People are a problem, excessive deforestation, insufficient government regulation
Narrative massive exploitation of privately-owned forests, forest encroachment
Discursive struggle resettlement in Terai versus halting deforestation
Normative argument delineate people from forest and abolish feudal land ownership
Cognitive argument Strict protection of forest through laws and institutions
Coordinative Sphere among very limited bureaucrats
Communicative
Sphere
not appropriately communicated to public arena
Discursive actors Democratic government, Forest Bureaucrats
Development
partners
UN-FAO, Australia,
Philosophical idea Forest as a national asset-Hariyo Ban Nepal ko Dhan
Policy idea prevent destruction of nation’s wealth, remove feudal land ownership through nationalization
Program ideas demarcation of national forest, fine and punishment for offenders.
Casual element of
change
Change in Political system.
Institutionalization
 Draft policy on Rural Forestry, 1953
 Private Forest Nationalization Act,
1957
 Establishment of Ministry of Forestry
in 1959
 Forest Act, 1961
 Forest Act (Special Provisions) 1967
 Ramsar Convention of Wetlands,
1971
 World Heritage Convention, 1972

6. Framing Himalayan crisis, ineffective laws and insufficient techno-bureaucrats
Narrative Severe shortage of forest resource, ecological crisis in mid-hills and Chure, rampant deforestation
in inaccessible area
Discursive struggle People’s participation in resource creation versus ignorance of indigenous forest management
Normative argument Communal institutions for managing common pool resources
Cognitive argument Engage local people in forest protection and in resource creation
Coordinative Sphere Limited only to elite politicians and techno-bureaucratic arena
Communicative
Sphere
limited to national level politician and local Panchayat government
Discursive actors Bureaucrats (Technical); Panchayat (Local)
Development partners Australia, World Bank Switzerland
Philosophical idea Crisis management through administrative efficiency and institutional reform
Policy idea Panchayat forest, Panchayat Protected Forest, and working Scheme for resource creation
Program ideas Afforestation, reforestation and plantation management
Casual element of
change
Paradigmatic change
RESOURCE CREATION PERIOD (1975-1986)
6
Institutionalization
 National Forestry Plan, 1976
 Amendment of Forest Act, 1961
 National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act,
1973
 Panchayat Forest Rules, 1978
 Panchayat Protected Forest Rules, 1978
 Decentralization Act, 1992

7. Framing Forestry for People
Narrative Decentralize Forest Management through ensuring local’s autonomy; forest management
through community development, livelihood improvement, Social inclusion
Discursive struggle Indigenous vs Scientific Forest Management Practice; Community vs Collaborative Forest
Normative argument Providing communal rights to real users ensure forest conservation and management
Cognitive argument Handover forest to local communities, capacity building of users for forest management
Coordinative Sphere Involved politicians and technicians with field-based reflection
Communicative Sphere Entered into public debating arena through civil society and their network, likeminded
techno-bureaucrats, recognized bottom-up planning
Discursive actors Government, Forest user group, NGOs, media, social activist, local government
Development partners UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia
Philosophical idea Resource management through decentralized authority
Policy idea Community forestry, collaborative forestry
Program ideas Long-term planning, capacity development, of forestry professionals and user group,
livelihoods and governance improvement.
Casual element of change Paradigm transformation
PARTICIPATORY FORESTRY(1986-2008)
7
Institutionalization
 Master Plan for Forestry Sector 1988/89
 Forest Act, 1993
 Forest Regulation, 1995
 Community Forestry Division under Department of
Forests
 First Amendment of Forest Act in 1999
 New Forest Policy, 2000
 Collaborative Forest Management Directive, 2003
 Community Forest Development Guideline, 1993, 1998
 IEE/EIA Guideline for Forestry Sector 2003
 Wetland Policy, 2003
 NTFP Policy, 2004
 UNFCCC, 1992

8. BROAD-BASED FORESTRY(2008-2019)
8
Framing Forest for Ecosystem Services
Narrative Ecosystem goods, services, including carbon partnership approach in Forest management
Discursive struggle Forest for economic returns vs forest for ecosystem services
Normative argument Forest is prerequisite for development, climate change mitigation and perpetuity of ecosystem
goods and services
Cognitive argument Sustainable forest management, climate change mitigation and adaptation programs,
inclusive forestry governance, promotion of ecosystem goods and services
Coordinative Sphere Growing coordination among international, national and local actors
Communicative Sphere Increasing recognition of multi-stakeholder consultation in policy dialogue
Discursive actors Government, local communities, Civil societies (NGOs), Media, Social activists (network and
alliance); Local governments, Indigenous peoples, Experts, Private sector
Development partners World Bank
Philosophical idea Broad-based forestry for sustainable development
Policy idea REDD+; Scientific Forest Management, Climate Change Adaptation, Nature-based
Solutions to environmental problem, accounting of ecosystem goods and services
Program ideas Private sector engagement, ecosystem-based adaptation, ecotourism promotion, gender and
social inclusion, improving forestry governance human resource development
Casual element of change Incremental Coverage
Institutionalization
 Establishment of REDD Forestry and Clim
Change Cell (now REDD Implementation
in 2009
 Climate Change Policy 2011
 Scientific Forest Management Guideline
 Community Forestry Development Guid
2015
 Forest Sector Strategy 2016- 2025
 Forest Policy 2015
 Land use Policy, 2015
 The Second Amendment of Forest Act, 1
 National REDD+ Strategy 2018
 CITES Act, 2017

9. SYNTHESIS: CURRENT STATUS
9
Framing Prosperity through sustainable and participatory use of forest resource
Narrative Defining roles of the forest stakeholders and enhancing clarity
Discursive struggle Balancing development vs forest cover maintenance; Administrative management vs Technical
Management
Normative argument Maintain forest cover; Promotion of Private forest and Urban forest; Distant forest users; Green
Enterprises; Climate Resiliency, Inclusiveness
Cognitive argument Silviculture based forest management, Forest Enterprise friendly forest management,
Landscape level conservation, Integrated Watershed Management
Coordinative Sphere Enhancing coordination in three tires of government and the national, international stakeholders
Communicative Sphere Emphasis on multi-level consultation in policy dialogue
Discursive actors Government, Technical experts, Local communities, Civil societies (NGOs), Media, Social
activists (network and alliance); Local governments, Indigenous peoples, Private sector
Development partners World Bank, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Global Environment Facility
Philosophical idea Silviculture based Sustainable Forest Management under different regimes
Policy idea Silviculture based sustainable forest management, Private forest product utilization, Urban
forestry and on public lands, Green enterprises; Reducing GHG Emission
Program ideas Coordination in between different tiers, Ecotourism development, Forest workers, Zoning
and developing pocket areas for NTFPs, Agroforestry, Chure Conservation
Casual element of change State Restructuring/ Power and Benefit sharing
Institutionalization
 Forest Act, 2019
 Forest Regulation, 2022
 Forest Policy, 2019
 Environment Protection Act, 2019
 Environment Protection Regulation, 2020
 National Environment Policy, 2019
 National Climate Change Policy, 2019
 National Agroforestry Policy, 2019
 Nepal’s Long-term Strategy for Net-Zero
Emission, 2021
 Provincial and Local acts and laws.

10. 10
Forest Sector Policy and Program for F.Y. 2079/80
of Bagmati Province

11. DISCUSSION
 Any policies limited in discussion such as the Private forest nationalization in 1950s and others in its
periphery were misinterpreted by the public and hence the policy framework ended up as dead policy while
causing detrimental consequences (Joshi, 1993).
 Deinstitutionalization of stringent law and feudal control of forest resource while quick institutionalization
of ecological measures to combat Himalayan crisis indicates that framing of ideas and discourse and its
interaction at various discursive spheres are key to de/institutionalization of forest policies (Laudari, 2019).
 The argumentative turn in the ideas and participatory forest management discourse led to a paradigmatic
change in forest management approach from state government to local government-centric approach
institutionalizing Panchayat Forests in 1978 (Ojha, et al., 2014).
 Similar turn reinforced by the policy and program ideas of MPFS led to paradigmatic transformation in
forest policy of Nepal with discourse that only an autonomous community user groups can effectively
conserve and manage Nepal’s forest resources institutionalized in Forest Act, 1993 (Dahal et al., 2017).
 Political institutions and their embedded subsystems always act as casual factors for policy reproduction. 11

12. DISCUSSION
 In recent decades, the debate of managing forest for local benefits or for wider ecosystem services like carbon
sequestration, water recharge has become important part of discussion (Chaudhary et al., 2018).
 As impact of global normative discourse accompanied by legally binding and non-binding global policy
instruments (CBD, CITES, Paris Agreement) and associated international actors, has increasingly shaping
Nepal’s forest and environmental policies (Baniya et al., 2021; Chaudhary et al., 2018).
 The major forces of change in Nepal’s forest policy has been attributed to how the national socio-political context
and communities development aspirations are framed and articulated in a wider policy-making discursive spheres
(Laudari, 2019;Wagle et al., 2020). In this course new policy entrepreneurs like the private sectors, community
organizations as well as systemic perturbations are likely to change forest policy goals.
 Current Forest policy has greater focus on improving forestry governance and forest productivity, and
expediting climate actions at various levels. Global discourse of maintaining forest cover and restoration has
been well reflected in the policy and the acts and regulatory laws as well (Aryal, 2021).
12

13. CONCLUSION
The historical development and shift in country’s forest policy followed discursive practices in coordinative
and communicative spheres; largely influenced by domestic sociopolitical changes and global discourse.
Restrictive policy period (1950-1975) were ineffective and aggravated distrust among forest stakeholders.
Technical solution, as plantation drive (1975-1986) were not sufficient to be in line with local social needs.
Participatory forestry as Community and Collaborative Forestry developed (1986-2008) resulted in
increasing forest cover and also capacity building of community involved.
Beyond 2008, global discourse pushed forestry discourse to broader prospects of environmental change like
ecosystem services and climate change adaptation.
Current status is institutionalization of these broader aspect with benefit sharing from global dialogue to the
local levels being more clarified along with recognition of sustainable forest management form.
13

14. Nash, et al. 2019
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Requesting your valuable
feedback
14
References
1. Aryal, K., Laudari, H. K., Neupane, P. R., & Maraseni, T. (2021). Who shapes the environmental policy in the global
south? Unpacking the reality of Nepal. Environmental Science & Policy, 121, 78-88.
2. Baniya, B., Giurco, D., & Kelly, S. (2021). Changing policy paradigms: How are the climate change mitigation-oriented
policies evolving in Nepal and Bangladesh?. Environmental Science & Policy, 124, 423-432.
3. Chaudhary, S., & McGregor, A. (2018). A critical analysis of global ecosystem services (Paristhitiki sewa) discourse in
Nepal. Land Use Policy, 75, 364-374.
4. Dahal, G.R., Pokharel, B.K., Khanal, D.R., Pokhrel, P.R., 2017. Why does tenure security matter in community forestry?
A critical reflection from Nepal. J. For. Livelihood 15, 15–26
5. Joshi, A.L., 1993. Effects on administration of changed forest policies in Nepal. Policy and Legislation in Community
Forestry. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand
6. Laudari, H. K., Aryal, K., & Maraseni, T. (2020). A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal. Land use policy, 91,
104338.
7. Mahat, T.B.S., Griffin, D.M., Shepherd, K.R., 1986. Human impact on some forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal 1.
Forestry in the context of the traditional resources of the state. Res. Dev. 6, 223–23
8. Ojha, H.R., Banjade, M.R., Sunam, R.K., Bhattarai, B., Jana, S., Goutam, K.R., Dhungana, S., 2014. Can authority change