The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of International Interventions on Community Based Forest Management for Global Environmental Conservation: A Critical Evaluation


This study reviewed the policies and outcomes of international support for forest management in Nepal and answered whether international support on forest management in developing countries resulted in positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes at local communities. The evaluation is based on the socio-ecological theory and synergies-tradeoff model of forestry ecosystems goods and services. The study shows that the international interventions influenced national policies and community forestry practices, which contributed to the remarkable increase of forest stock. The new forestry institutions increased timber product supplies to urban users and contributed to offsetting of greenhouse gas emission of affluent societies in overseas. However, the intervention spoiled centuries of old forestry practices, which had contributed to the evolvement of socio-ecological condition, sustained local economy and environment systems. The new forestry institutions and practices locked local opportunities of multipurpose uses of forest, worsened water yield and local knowledge, and hampered local economic activities. Consequently they affected habitat diversities for forest based species, and forest resource supplies for sustaining agrobiodiversities and local food security. In reality the interventions increased benefit to distant users (urban users in the country and affluent societies in overseas) and further marginalized local communities and particularly socially disadvantaged people. The paper shows that the international forestry policies and supports are technically wrong or poorly based on science which is against their promise of providing better technical supports and benefiting local communities in developing countries. It argues that the interventions created many complexities in forestry institutions and practices which require too costly endeavor to change and address the local socioeconomic and environmental problems. The paper has explained the root cause of the international policy problem on many schools of thought.


Share and Cite:

Dhakal, B. (2014). The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of International Interventions on Community Based Forest Management for Global Environmental Conservation: A Critical Evaluation. Open Journal of Forestry, 4, 58-69. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2014.41010.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Amato, A., Bradford, J., Fraver, S., & Palik, B. (2011). Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: Insights from long-term silviculture experiments. Forest Ecology and Management, 262, 803-816.
[2] Basnet, K. (2003). Transboundary biodiversity conservation initiative: An example from Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 17, 205-226.
[3] Bruijnzeel, L. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 185-228.
[4] CBS (2008). Environmental Statistics of Nepal 2008. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
[5] CBS (2011). Preliminary results of National Population Census 2011. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
[6] Christensen, M., & Heilmann, J. (2009). Forest biodiversity gradients and the human impact in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 2205-2221.
[7] Dhakal, B., Bigsby H., & Cullen, R. (2012). Socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies on heterogeneous agricultural households. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53, 73-95.
[8] Dhakal, B., Bigsby, H., & Cullen, R. (2007). The link between community forestry policies, and poverty and unemployment in rural Nepal. Mountain Research & Development, 27, 32-39.
[9] Dhakal, B., Bigsby, H., & Cullen, R. (2011). Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for small farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35, 86-115.
[10] Dong, S., Lassoie, J., Yan, Z., Sharma, E., Shrestha, K., & Pariyar, D. (2007). Indigenous rangeland resource management in the mountainous areas of northern Nepal: A case study from the Rasuwa District. The Rangeland Journal, 29, 149-160.
[11] Douglas, J., & Simula, M. (2010). The future of the world’s forests: Ideas vs ideologies. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
[12] Eckholm, E. (1975). The deterioration of mountain environments. Ecological stress in the highlands of Asia, Latin America, and Africa takes a mounting social toll. Science, 189, 764-770.
[13] Edmonds, E. (2003). Development assistance and the construction of government-initiated community institutions. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51, 897-930.
[14] FAO (1996). Shivapuri management plan: Technical recommendations and policy design for the protection and development of the Shivapuri Areas including the Participatory Management of Shivapuri Resources (GCP/NEP/048/NOR) Kathmandu. Rome: FAO.
[15] FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010—Nepal. Country Report, Rome: FAO.
[16] Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems (pp. 352-387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] Gartaula, H.N., Visser, L., & Niehof, A. (2012). Socio-cultural dispositions and wellbeing of the women left behind: A case of migrant households in Nepal. Social Indicators Research, 108, 401-420.
[18] GON (2012). REDD+ in Nepal: A brief introduction. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal Ministry of Forests & Soil Conservation REDD-Forestry and Climate Change Cell.
[19] Harrop, S.R. (2007). Traditional agricultural landscapes as protected areas in international law and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 296-307.
[20] Hobley, M. (1996). Participatory forestry: The process of change in India and Nepal. Londo: Rural Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute.
[21] Hrabovszky, J., & Miyan, K. (1987). Population growth and land use in Nepal “The Great Turnabout”. Mountain Research and Development, 7, 364-270.
[22] IUCN (2006). Policy brief 3: The costs and benefits of conserving Shivapuri National Park Catchment, Nepal. Colombo: IUCN.
[23] Ives, J., & Messerli, B. (1989). The Himalayan dilemma reconciling development and conservation. London & New York: The United Nations University and Routledge.
[24] Kala, C., & Shrivastava, R. (2004). Successional changes in Himalayan Alpine Vegetation: Two decades after removal of livestock grazing. Weed Technology, 18, 1210-1212.[1210:SCIHAV]2.0.CO;2
[25] Kanel, K., Shrestha, K., Tuladhar, A., & Regmi, M. (2012). A study on the demand and supply of wood products in different regions of Nepal. Kathmandu: REDD—Forestry Climate Change Cell Babarmahal.
[26] Kapos, V., et al. (2012). Impacts of forest and land management on biodiversity and carbon. In J. A. Parrotta, C. Wildburger, & S. Mansourian (Eds.), Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives (pp. 53-80). A Global Assessment Report, IUFRO World Series Vol 31, Vienna: IUFRO.
[27] Karky, B. S., Karki, S., Rana, E. B., & Kotru, R. (2012). Innovative intervention and strategies in Nepal for implementing REDD+ at the community level. Redefining Paradigms of Sustainable Development in South Asia, SDPI and SDC.
[28] Karsenty, A., & Ongolo, S. (2011). Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism. Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 38-45.
[29] Khadka, M., Karki, S., & Chapagain, A. (2012). Gender consideration in the REDD+ payment piloting in Nepal: Maintaining or challenging unequal gender power relations? The Bhutan+10 International Conference on Gender and Sustainable Mountain Development in a Changing World, Thimphu, 15-19 October 2012.
[30] Khanal, K. (2002). Under utilization in community forest management: A case study from Lalitpur District. Banko Janakari, 12, 26-32.
[31] Khanal, N., & Watanabe, T. (2006). Abandonment of agricultural land and its consequences: A case study in the Sikles Area, Gandaki Basin, Nepal Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development, 26, 32-40.[0032:AOALAI]2.0.CO;2
[32] Kharel, et al. (2005). Performance characteristics of the yak in Nepal and its crosses with mountain cattle.
[33] Khatri, D. B. (2011). Payments for ecosystem services in Kulekhani Watershed of Nepal: An institutional analysis of mechanisms for sharing hydroelectricity revenue. 13th International Association of Study of Commons Conference at Hyderabad, Hyderabad, 10-14 January 2011, 1-60.
[34] Lam, L.M., & Paul, S. (2013). Displacement and erosion of informal risk-sharing: Evidence from Nepal. World Development, in Press.
[35] MPFS (1988). Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal (MPFS) Main Report Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.
[36] Pandit, B., & Kumar, C. (2010). Factors influencing the integration of non-timber forest products into field crop cultivation: A case study from eastern Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29, 671-695.
[37] Phelps, J., Friess, D. A., & Webb, E. L. (2012). Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs. Biological Conservation, 154, 53-60.
[38] Project Idea Note (PIN) (2011). Project idea note for the Umiam Sub-watershed REDD+ Project. East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya, India. Plan Vivo.
[39] Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. B. (2003). Shifting Cultivation in the Mountains of South and Southeast Asia: Regional Patterns and Factors Influencing the Change. Land Degradation & Development, 14, 495-508.
[40] Raut, N., & Sitaula, B. K. (2012). Assessment of fertilizer policy, farmers’ perceptions and implications for future agricultural development in Nepal. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 1, 188-200.
[41] Robinson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 157-176.
[42] Rokaya, M, Münzbergová, Z., & Timsina, B. (2010). Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants from the Humla district of western Nepal. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 185, 485-504.
[43] Shrestha, K., & McManus P. (2008). The politics of community participation in natural resource management: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal. Australian Forestry, 71, 135-146.
[44] Shrestha, U., Shrestha, B., & Shrestha, S. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: Rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 2, 98-104
[45] Strassburg, B., et al. (2012). Social and economic considerations relevant to REDD+. In J. Parrotta, C. Wildburger, & S. Mansourian (Eds.), Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives. A Global Assessment Report, IUFRO World Series Vol.31, Vienna: IUFRO.
[46] Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Technical Series No. 43, Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
[47] Uprety, D., Luitel, H., & Bhandari, K. (2011). REDD+ and conflict: A case study of the REDD + projects in Nepal. Kathmandu: The Center for People and Forest (RECOFTC) and ForestAction Nepal.
[48] Vicker, B., Trines, E., & Pohnan, E. (2012). Community guidelines for assessing forestry volunteer carbon market. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and The Pacific.
[49] Vinding, D., & Kampbel, E. (2012). Indigenous women workers: With case studies from Bangladesh, Nepal and the Americas. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.