Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

that capacity building be understood as a
longer term process, in order to provide the
space to ensure that all social groups have
effective access to capacity building. The
results, while available later, will be more
inclusive.
1.2. Recommendations on generating
and documenting practical experiences
With regards to our second lesson
learned, our study has found that there is little
ground level evidence and experience in
Nepal on community based carbon trade,
adaptation, forest monitoring, regulating and
paying for the ecosystem services of forests
(with one or two notable exceptions). We
believe that it is important to demonstrate in
practice and on the ground how community
based carbon forestry can become an
integrated part of an equitable and effective
instrument for improving livelihoods.
Therefore, we concur with Ojha et al (2008)’s
recommendation that piloting and action
research should be immediately started in at
least in four areas:
-community carbon monitoring and
participation in the baseline/reference line
definition,
-accessing voluntary markets,
-payment for the ecosystem services
provided by sustainably managed forests at
watershed/landscape level combining a
number of CFUGs and local governments
-CFUG based adaptation and reducing
vulnerabilities of the poor.
Such ground level practical experience
will provide a necessary and sound basis for
policy development and positioning in
international negotiations. This kind of
documentation of evidence is important
because it is not immediately clear that
Nepal’s community forests would be in a
position to benefit from REDD, for the reasons
outlined above. It is important for Nepal’s
policy makers to be aware of the relative
benefits and disadvantages of the various
REDD(+) proposals and to build alliances with
like-minded countries, such as those with
strong community forestry programmes, or
mountainous geographies, for addressing
these issues in international negotiations. As
Ojha et al (2008) point out, the unique
opportunity for Nepal’s community forestry is
found in marketing the performance of
credible and resilient community based
institutions for forest management, adaptation
and poverty reduction. Thus it would be in
Nepal’s interest to advocate a comprehensive
reward package that supports policy,
institutions, procedures and sustainable
management of forests, rather than simple
carbon payments. As a kind of “moral leader”,
Nepal has an opportunity to lead other
countries with strong community forestry
programmes to advance such an agenda in
the international negotiations. However, in
order to do this, it will need to have
documented evidence in hand to prove
exactly how such a system could work, what
it would cost, and what would be the
benefits. Furthermore, whatever direction
the international negotiations take, and we
should be realistic about the balance of
power in such negotiations, Nepal should
be prepared for implementation at a national
level, and this as well will require having
documented evidence on which to base
policy decisions.
Our review of the literature being
39