Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

evenues is likely to exacerbate these tensions. Clarification of carbon rights, which are not currently
delineated under community forestry law, will likely be a crucial point of debate in this context. This point
was voiced repeatedly by community stakeholders interviewed for this case study who felt strongly that
communities should be entitled to the majority, if not all, of the revenues generated from the sale of carbon
from the forests they legally manage. 131
A more significant challenge is faced by communities who lack clear tenure rights. Approximately 60 percent
of Nepal‘s forest area, mostly found in the Terai, remains officially government managed. The government
has cited several reasons for not expanding Community Forestry to the Terai, including the greater value and
size of forests in the Terai (therefore requiring more sophisticated management plans), the heterogeneity of
local forest users (therefore making it difficult to form CFUGs), and the need to carve out a more substantial
role for local government. Many experiments with Community Forestry in the Terai have proven
unsuccessful for these reasons (Ebregt et.al., 2007).
BOX 4.1. PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT REGIMES IN NEPAL
Community Forestry: Established by the Forestry Act (1993), CF is the most widespread system and
exists predominantly in the Middle Hills region. CF spans approximately one-quarter of the total
forest area of Nepal and involves over one-third of the total population of the country (Chapagain &
Banjade, 2009). It involves the full transfer of forest management rights and responsibilities to local
users, who organize as legally recognized Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). CF is widely
believed to be responsible for the extensive regeneration of previously degraded forests in the
Middle Hills.
Buffer Zone Community Forestry: Created by the Wildlife Conservation Act (1993), this form of
participatory management gives the national parks department power to establish buffer zones in and
around national parks where forest resources are used by communities. Communities form Buffer
Zone Management Committees and are allowed to managed, extract, and sell certain forest products
according to the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, and under the supervision of the Park
Warden.
Collaborative Forest Management: CFM was introduced by the 2000 National Forest Policy with the
objective of sharing management responsibility for large blocks of national forest in the Terai region
between state and local institutions. CFM was established following the general perception within
government that CF is unsuitable in the Terai, for reasons including the large size and value of
forests, the heterogeneity of local forest users, and the need to carve out a more substantial role for
local government. More cynical perspectives assert that government is unwilling to hand over its only
major source of forest revenue to local communities. CFM remains in a pilot stage and accounts for
less than 0.2 percent of forest area in Nepal (Government of Nepal, 2010).
area in hectares % of total forest
Community Forestry (includes buffer zone) 1,229,681 21.10
Collaborative Forest Management 10,676 0.18
Source: Nepal’s R-PP
Forests in the Terai are generally treated as a de facto open access resource by local users due to weak
government capacity to manage and enforce the area. Furthermore, conflicts over resource access have arisen
between forest adjacent communities and those occupying the southern belt of the Terai (often referred to as
131 Interviews with Watershed REDD+ Network members in Chitwan and Ghorka districts.
PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER 75