Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

through afforestation/reforestation has
received little attention in Nepal’s forest sector
as existing community forests are not eligible
for the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) under the current Kyoto Protocol –
though if communities reforest or afforest on
a degraded land this could be accepted by
the CDM (see section 2.2.1 for details). Table
1 (below) shows the present status of carbon
in Nepal’s forests.
For any mitigation activities in the forest
sector to be effective, serious improvements
in forest governance will be necessary. These
are outlined in part 6. Below we address
specific institutional barriers and constraints
related to the forest sector mitigation schemes
either in effect or being proposed. Improving
forest governance, in addition to addressing
the constraints below, will create conditions
in which Nepal’s rural poor can benefit from
climate change mitigation mechanisms.
2.1. Reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD)
The proposed REDD scheme, which
offers an option to reward rural communities
for reducing deforestation and forest
degradation, is seen by many as a potential
solution for three of the biggest challenges
facing the world, and developing countries in
particular: climate change, biodiversity
conservation and socio-economic
development. In Nepal, especially in
community forestry (where donors and civil
society actors are concentrated), many hopes
are being pinned on the potential of REDD
schemes, which after 2012 will represent the
most likely route for bringing community
forests users into official climate change
mitigation measures. At present, existing
community forests are not eligible to benefit
from REDD, as these forests –sustainably
managed by communities - are not facing
deforestation or forest degradation. However,
if REDD was understood in the broader sense
of REDD+ (including enhancement of carbon,
restoration, and forest management) or
REDD++ (including also knowledge), as is
currently under negotiation in international
arenas, then existing community forests could
benefit. Potential benefits from a REDD based
carbon-financing system could however
become available to new community forests
established in degraded forests and those
experiencing deforestation, and indeed this
could provide an incentive to expand the area
currently under community forestry. However,
not everyone is convinced of their potential,
and some are pointing to the challenges
involved in ensuring both environmental gain
as well as livelihood benefits.
We concur with Ojha et al (2008), who
come to the conclusion that “looking at the
existence and potential growth of both
compliance (under REDD) and voluntary
market, and the recognition of COP 13 and
14 that local and indigenous rights are also a
key element of future REDD strategy, the
question is not whether Nepal’s forestry has
a potential for carbon financing, but to what
extent and under what conditions” (p.3).
These conditions are quite crucial, because
Nepal’s existing community forests, far from
being degraded and deforested, are in fact
regenerating already thanks to the significant
investments made by rural communities since
the 1980s. On the other hand, the existence
of a system of functional community forest
5