Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/assessment-of-sustainability-in-community-forests-a-study-from-dolakha-3X1t817RPU
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Hindawi Publishing Corporation
- ISSN
- 1687-9368
- eISSN
- 1687-9376
- DOI
- 10.1155/2023/8657985
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Hindawi International Journal of Forestry Research Volume 2023, Article ID 8657985, 13 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8657985 Research Article Assessment of Sustainability in Community Forests: A Study from Dolakha District, Nepal 1 2 1 K. C. Bishnu Bahadur, Ram Asheshwar Mandal , and K. C. Sumitra Ministry of Forest and Environment, Singhdurbar, Kathmandu, Nepal Pokhara Univrersity, Pokhara, School of Environmental Science and Management, Kathmandu, Nepal Correspondence should be addressed to Ram Asheshwar Mandal; ram.mandal@gmail.com Received 7 October 2022; Revised 8 March 2023; Accepted 29 March 2023; Published 12 April 2023 Academic Editor: Ranjeet Kumar Mishra Copyright © 2023 K. C. Bishnu Bahadur et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Sustainability in community forest (CF) is a very important issue but study regarding this is limited in Nepal. Tus, this research study was objectively conducted to assess the sustainability index including socioeconomic contribution and biodiversity status of tree species in Simpani, Bolde Setidevi, and Kalobhir community forests of Dolakha district. A total of 83 sample plots were established to collect the biophysical data. Te sustainability index for overall and individual criteria was assessed on the basis of scoring provided by the community forest user groups (CFUGs). Te study showed that there were 87% Braman and Chhetri in Simpani CF and their representation was 91% in the executive committee, and similar status was seen in Bolde Setidevi and Kalobhir CFs. Te highest number of households were 29 receiving benefts from the timber in 2016/17. Tey used roughly 164.9 m wood from Kalobhir CF. Te highest total income was US$1495 in 2016/17 in Simpani CF, but expenditure was the highest, US$1817 in 2017/18, in Bolde Setidevi CF. Tere was 6308 regeneration per ha in Simpani CF but growing stock was the highest, 177.7 m /ha, in Bolde Setidevi CF. Te Shannon Wiener index was the highest, 0.92± 0.087, in Bolde Setidevi CF. One-way ANOVA showed that there was no signifcant diference in values of the Shannon Wiener index and evenness index of the three community forests since p value is <0.05. Te importance value index (IVI) value of Schima wallichi (63.51), Rhododendron species (48.61), and Tsuga dumosa (81.50) was found to be the highest in the Simpani, Bolde Setidevi, and the Kalobhir community forest, respectively. Te overall sustainability index of Simpani, Bolde Setidevi, and Kalobhir CFs was found to be 0.61, 0.67, and 0.58, respectively. Te score of extent of forest resource was found to be highest (0.82) in Bolde Setidevi CF and this score of institutional framework and governance was the lowest (0.52) in Kalobhir CF. Tis research study will be used to determine the sustainability in community forests. these actions are guided by the theory of management of the 1. Introduction resource and people. Te theory of resource management, th th Climate action and life on land are the 13 and 14 sus- community, and sustainability are interconnected with each tainable goals of United Nations. Tese goals are intimately other thus, criteria, indicators, and verifers came as in- related to the sustainable management of natural resource trinsically important. especially the forest [1]. Tis linkage between the forest Tere are two main theories behind the natural resource environment and the people is important to save the life on management. Tese theories are “tragedy of commons” the earth and protect the environment. Terefore, the global postulated by Ells [3] and “sustainability of common policy actions such as the Convention on Biological Di- property” theorized by Forsyth and Johnson [4]. Both versity, Convention on International Trade in Endangered theories are still relevant in the world. Te basic principle of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and International the frst theory is that everybody is exploiting the common Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have been im- pools, so one relevant example of this is that, nobody care portantly functioning as major tools aiming to protect the about the range land management in himalayan areas. On environment to save the life on the earth [2]. Obviously, the other hand, there are several evidences about 2 International Journal of Forestry Research (ii) management of forest soils, water, and carbon stocks and sustainability of common property. Te model of community-based forest management in the world is carbon storage, (iii) protecting and enhancing the bio- diversity, (iv) supporting to maintain the resilience and a popular regime. In addition to collective forest manage- ment, community-based resource management practices are renewal capacity of forests, (v) assuring the food-security, the best examples of people’s participation in forest man- cultural, and livelihood needs of the forest-dependent agement in Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Philippines, Tan- communities particularly of the indigenous peoples, and zania, and Zambia. Social and joint forest management (vi) ensuring the equitable sharing of responsibilities in practices in India, community forest management, leasehold forest management and of the benefts arising from forest forest management, and collaborative forest management in use. Undeniably, application of these basic principles is mandatory for managing the forest by the community [12]. Nepal are the good examples of sustainability of common property such as the forest. Te main objective of these It is very important, when, sustainability is maintained in the forest management practices. Te basic principle of models of community managed forest is to meet the forest product demands and service of the local people and to community-based forest management is to manage the forest by the community, for the community, and to the protect the forest environment. Te sustainable forest management is a branch of for- community [13]. Tese community-based forest manage- estry which deals with the continuous supply of forest ment practices are functioning on the basis of a certain products without degrading the forest health. Te word criteria and indicator. Tese criteria and indicators prin- sustainable is widely used to describe three key pillars cipally emphasize to maintain sustainability in the supply specifcally fnancially viable, environmentally sound, and of forest products and services to the people without socially acceptable to keep the balance between the envi- degrading the forest condition and hence this practice is known as the sustainable forest management. Sustainable ronment and people [5–7]. Tus, the World Commission on Environment and Development emphasized to develop the forest management (SFM) is a globally accepted goal but many countries are facing big challenges to implement it idea of sustainable development in 1987, and this was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment conveniently [11]. Tese challenges are forest degradation, fragmentation, and conversion of forest into other lands and Development (UNCED) in 1992. Te application of sustainability is obviously practical in forestry sector and (agriculture, infrastructures, and settlement). In fact, hence the sustainable forest management is becoming more several options have been adopted to address these chal- like a scientifc tool in the forest management. According to lenges [14], and one of the best options is sustainable forest the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the management because it equally considers socially accept- sustainable forest management (SFM) can be defned as “the able, fnancially viable, and environmentally friendly process of management of forest in order to achieve one or management practice of the forest [5–7]. Te community forest management in Nepal is one of the noble idea of more logically stated aims of forest management for the production of a perpetuity fow of preferred products and people participation [13, 15] and it is also considered as one of the good practice of sustainability too. Nepal is a pioneer services without lessening its values and potential pro- ductivity thereby assuring no detrimental efects to both the of community forest management practice but sustainable social and physical environment” [8]. forest management is still a challenging issue [16, 17]. Sustainable forest management is considered as one of Forest is protected by the nearest community, and the the most important practices in forest management which products are utilized by them without reducing their helps to achieve the sustainable development objectives of quality, thereby developing and enhancing the forest the country through forest management practices [9]. Te continuously [18–20]. So, there are set of rules, regulation, concept of sustainable forest management often believe that, guideline, directives, manuals and plans. However, there it does not directly deal with the ecological system as the are several gaps in the study regarding the sustainability in the forest management. community infuence is more dominant in such forest management systems, but it is also true that forest, com- Worldwide, Nepal is famous for community forest management since it has been efectively engaging the munity, and environment cannot be separated from each other in an ecological function. Tis is an indication that the local people in forest management practices. Community use of forest products and environmental services man- forestry in Nepal started since 1970 aiming to manage the agement eventually depends upon the social, economical, forest in perpetuity basis [21]. Te community forest and environmental values of the forest resources [10]. management practices in Nepal can be divided into three In fact, sustainable forest management ofers a holistic main phase. Te frst phase was focused on forest en- approach to apply to forest activities [11]. Te main purpose hancement through plantation and regeneration pro- motion; second phase was emphasized on the protection of these activities is to maintain the sustainability in the socioeconomic and forest environment. Tus, sustainable of the forest while third phase is presently assumed as the sustainable management of the forest through meaningful forest management is considered as the supply of forest product and service demands to people without degrading participation of community forest users. So, this is the phase to implement sustainability in community forest the function of forest currently and in the future. In fact, there are six key benefts of sustainable forest management. efectively. In this context, the sustainability index and Tese are the following: (i) continuous fow of sufcient biodiversity assessment are important tools to evaluate goods and environmental services from forests to the people, sustainability in a community forest. In fact, Forestry International Journal of Forestry Research 3 Sector Strategy 2016 developed by Ministry of Forests and 2.2. Method of Data Collection. Socioeconomic data: data Environment targeted to manage about 25% of forests in was collected using focus group discussion and available report. A total of 3 small focus groups discussion were midhills and 50% of forests in the Terai including Siwalik under the sustainable forest management practice by conducted to collect the data regarding the contribution of 2025. Tus, this research study is important to show the users in community forest management practice. Te in- sustainability status of community forest through preset formation regarding revenue collection, supply of timber, criteria and indicator [22]. and frewood was reported from the audit reports and Te community forest management practice particularly minutes records available in the CFUG. Another purpose of in the hilly areas of Nepal is believed to be functioning well to the focus group discussion was to collect the data to assess follow the sustainability in the forest [8, 23]. In fact, without the sustainability in forest. evaluating the preset criteria, indicator, and verifer de- Resource inventory: data related to species diversity, veloped by the scientifc community, it cannot know the regeneration status, growing stock etc. was calculated from status of sustainability of the community forest in Nepal and sample plot measurement. Tus, stratifed systematic sam- pling with random stat was adopted for sample plot mea- no any management actions can be taken appropriately [24, 25]. Te biodiversity and ecological value (importance surement. A total of 83 sample plot were established to value index) of tree species in the forest as well as contri- measure the tree species. Te size of the sample plot was bution of forest to the socioeconomic status of the com- 25 m × 20 m for 10 m × 10 m for pole, 5 m × 5 m for sapling, munity forest users can be the major criteria to evaluate the and 2 m × 2 m for seedling measurement [29]. Diameter at sustainability [11, 26, 27]. Terefore, this research study was breast height (DBH) and height of tree, pole, and sapling objectively conducted to evaluate the socioeconomic con- were measured as well as and the species number of seedling tribution of community forest management, assess the were counted and recorded. growing stock, biodiversity status, and importance value To measure the sustainability, the study used indicators index of tree species in community forests and determine the and verifers developed for sustainable community-based sustainability index of community forest user groups. forest management practices in Nepal [30]. Tey have identifed 4 criteria, 26 indicators, and 60 verifers. Te criteria include (i) extent of forest resources, (ii) economic 2. Materials and Methods and social benefts, (iii) forest management practices, and (iv) institutional framework and governance. Forest con- 2.1. Study Area. Te total area of Dolakha district lies at ° ° ° ° dition, participation of people in forestry works, distribution 27 28′ to 28 0′N and 85 50′ to 86 32′E. Te elevation is of benefts, silvicultural operations, transparency, and ofce 732 meter to 7134 meter from mean sea level. Te tem- management are some of the important indicators. Te perature ranges from 2.8 (winter) to 15.1 C (summer) and number of indicators for diferent criteria ranges from 5 to 8. mean annual precipitation is 2043 mm. Pinus wallichiana, Similarly, the number of verifers for diferent indicators Pinus roxburghii, Alnus nepalensis, Rhododendron species, varies from 1 to 6. Local people perceive forest management and Quercus species are the common tree species of this as one of the main activities in community-based forestry district. Tere are 438 CFUGs which are managing and considers it as a criteria for sustainable community- 45487.32 ha forest area as a community forest in this based forest management [30]. district. Nardostachys jatamansi, Taxus wallichiana, Paris polyphylla, Daphne species, and Rheum austral etc. are common nontimber forest products (NTFPs). Muntiacus 2.3.DataAnalysis. Te analysis process of collected data was muntjak, Panther parades, Ursus thibetanus, Capricornis categorized into 4 main types. Tese were (i) analysis of sumatraensis, and Naemorhedus goral are some common socioeconomic contribution of forest product, (ii) sustain- wild life species which are commonly found in this ability analysis, (iii) biodiversity index analysis, and (iv) district [28]. statistical analysis. Te purposed study area was purposively selected in Kalobhir community forest user group Jiri 5, Bolde Setidevi 2.3.1. Analysis of Socioeconomic Contribution of Forest community forest user group Bhimeshowar 8, and Simpani Product. Socioeconomic data was analyzed using mean and community forest user group Bhimeshowar 6, and all three percentage analysis. abovementioned CFUGs are located in Dolakha district. Tese CFUG were selected from diferent location of Dolakha district. We tried to cover small to large community 2.3.2. Sustainability Analysis. Acquired information was forest of Dolakha district while selecting study area. Te categorized according to a predefned criteria and indicator. Each indicator was further assigned its ordinal value based forest certifcation project and Reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation (redd+) pilot projects on a suitable scale. Collected data regarding sustainability of the CFs were scaled using three points Likert’s scale were implemented to support the community forests to manage the sustainable forests. Tis was the main reason of (1 � poor, 2 � medium or fair, and 3 � good). Later, these selecting these community forests in Dolakha district. Te scores were converted to assess the sustainability index. Te location of the study area is shown in Figure 1. average score of verifer (ASV), the sustainability index for 4 International Journal of Forestry Research Figure 1: Map of study area. individual criteria (SIIC), and the overall sustainability index 2.3.3. Biodiversity Analysis. Shannon and Wiener in- (OSI) were calculated using the following formula: dependently derived the function which has become to be known as the Shannon index of diversity. Tis indeed as- Sum of score of all varifiers within a criteria sumes that individuals are randomly sampled from an in- ASV � , dependently large population and all the species are Number of verifiers in each criterion represented in the sample. Te Shannon index is calculated from the equation as follows: Average Score of varifiers within a criteria SIIC � , Maximum Score of a Verifier can obtain Shannon Wieners index H � − pi × logpi, (2) where pi is the relative abundance of each species, i.e., the Sum of weighted SIIC OSI � , proportion of individuals of a given species relative to the Maximum score of a verifier can obtain total number of individual in the community and Σ means (1) sum of all the (pi) , that is, one for each species in the community [31]. where asv stands for average score of verifers, siic stands for sustainability index of individual criteria, and osi stands for overall sustainability index 2.3.4. Statistical Analysis. Te descriptive statistics such as Te sustainability assessment of community-based forest mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum value was management practice toward achieving the goal of sus- calculated to show the variation in biodiversity indexes and tainability was judged based on OSI as follows: good, if inferential statistics such as one-way ANOVA was applied to OSI > 0.8; fair, if 0.6 < OSI < 0.8; and poor, if OSI < 0.6. [30]. compare the biodiversity index in the community forest. International Journal of Forestry Research 5 943 in 2019/20, and that spent on forest management ac- 3. Result tivities was around 28% but there is no consistency on 3.1. Socioeconomic Status of Community Forests expenditure in diferent years. Te trend of income and expenditure was fuctuating in the community forests 3.1.1. Social Status of Users in Community Forests. Te social (Table 4) and ethnic status of users varies according to community forests. Te study showed that there were 475 people of 86 households involved to manage the Simpani community 3.2. Status of Growing Stock and Biodiversity in Community forest. Te households of Braman and Chhetri were 87% and Forests 91% (10) of them were involved in the executive committee. 3.2.1. Status of Growing Stock in Community Forests. Te Te male percentage was 54% and the remaining were fe- study showed that Pinus roxburghii, Alnus nepalensis, and male. Similarly, there were 677 people of 228 household in shima wallichi were dominant tree species of the Simpani Bolde Setidevi community forest. Tere were 54% Braman community forest. It was a mixed forest of pine and broad and Chhetri and their representation was about 55% in leaved species. In pole and tree stage Pinus roxburghii was executive committee. In case of Kalobhir CF, there were 83% most dominant tree species which occupied 29 and 68 Braman and Chhetri and their representation was 77% in the percent of the forest, respectively. Tere was 6308 re- executive committee. So, social representation in commu- generation per ha, 480 pole + tree per ha, and the growing nity forests according to ethnicity was varying but somehow stock was 137.2 m /ha which showed a fair condition. In case it was a good representation of Indigenous and Dalit people of Bolde Setidevi community forest, it was 3754 regeneration as well (Tables 1 and 2). per ha, 441 tree + poles per ha, and the growing stock (volume) was 177.7 m /ha which showed a good condition. Similarly, in Kalobhir CF, it was 4500 regeneration per ha, 3.1.2. Benefted Households Using Forest Product in Com- 175 tree + poles per ha, and the growing stock (volume) was munity Forests. Te study showed that most of the 81.79 m /ha, and it indicated a fair condition (Table 5). households directly beneftted from using timber, frewood, fodder, and bedding material in community forests. Te results showed that maximum beneftted households was 5 3.2.2. Status of Biodiversity Indexes in Community Forests. using around 6 m timber; this was about 47 households Te Shannon–Wiener index, evenness index, species rich- using 1050 Bhari frewood as well as fodder while this was 45 ness index, and the important value index was varying in households receiving 4480 Bhari bedding material in 2016/ community forests. Te Shannon–Wiener index was the 17 from Simpani CF. Looking to the employment in 2016/17, highest, 0.92 ± 0.087, in Bolde Setidevi CF while it was the it was maximum 3450 people from this community forest. lowest, 0.75 ± 0.05, in Simpani C.F. Te value of evenness Similarly, the maximum number of households was 22 using was the highest in Bolde CF, 0.46 + 0.04, and lowest in 72.1 m timber in 2018/19 from Bolde Setidevi CF. More- Simpani CF, 0.45 + 0.05, and the species richness was the over, this was 29 (highest) households receiving the beneft highest in Bolde Setidevi with a score of 12 which was using 164.9 m timber in 2016/17 from Kalobhir CF (Ta- followed by Kalobhir and the lowest value with a score of 7 ble 3). Te trend showed that there was fuctuation in was found in Simpani CF. Te higher the Shannon–Wiener collection of forest product especially timber in community index value, the higher the diversitys (Table 6). forests. One-way ANOVA showed that, there was no signifcant diference in value of the Shannon–Wiener index and evenness index of the three community forests since p value 3.1.3. Economic Contribution in CF (Income and was >0.05. Te p value was 0.34 for Shannon–Wiener index Expenditure). Te income source and expenditure items and 0.107 for evenness index. Te detail statistic of one way varies in community forests. Te main income sources were ANOVA test is shown in Table 7. timber/fuel wood, NTFP, bank interest. and others. More- over, the record showed that for administrative and other sector more budgets were spent in comparison to the forest 3.2.3. Important Value Index and Preference Rank of Tree management and propoor program. Te highest total in- Species Available in CFs. Te IVI value of diferent species of come was US$1495 in 2016/17 and it was the lowest about forest varies in the community forests. Te study showed US$572.78 in 2020/21 in Simpani CF. Te highest expen- that the highest values was observed for IVI Schima wallichi diture was about US$776.18 in 2016/17 in Simpani CF. (63.51) followed by Pinus roxburghii (57.44), and the lowest Tough, there is a legal provision to spend a minimum of was observed in IVI of Rhododendron sp (4.35) in Simpani 25% income in forest management activities but only 10% CF. Te preference ranking by the users had given no 1 rank was on this work. Similarly, in case of Bolde Setidevi CFUG, for Pinus ruxburghii followed by Alnus nepalensis and least the highest annual income was US$1452 in 2020/21 and the preference was given to Miliusa velutina ranking as no 7. Te expenditure was the highest US$1817 in 2017/18. Here, study shows that there was no big diference between pre- about 50% budget was spent on the forest management ferred species and ecologically abundance species. Te es- activities. Te highest income of Kalobhir CFUG was found timated highest IVI was about (44.37) of Rhododendron to be US$1715 in 2017/18 and the highest expenditure was species which was ranked as 7 but the lowest record of IVI 6 International Journal of Forestry Research Table 1: Social status of users in community forests (household & population). Population gender Ethnic group/caste No. of HH Male Female Social composition in Simpani CFUG Braman/Chhetri 75 (87%) 202 215 Indigenous (Janajati) 9 (10%) 21 26 Dalit 2 (3%) 5 6 Social composition in Bolde Setidevi CFUG Braman/Chhetri 123 (54%) 368 366 Indigenous (Janajati) 105 (46%) 303 311 Social composition in Kalobhir CFUG Braman/Chhetri 83 (35%) 44 39 Indigenous (Janajati) 145 (61%) 530 527 Dalit 10 (4%) 23 18 Table 2: Social composition in executive committee. Social composition in executive committee Gender in executive committee Year Braman/Chhetri Indigenous (Janajati) Dalit Male Female Social composition in Simpani CFUG 2022 10 (91%) 1 (9%) 0 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 2019 11 (100%) 0 0 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 2017 9 (82%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 7 (63.6%) 4 (36.4%) Social composition in Bolde Setidevi CFUG 2022 5 (45%) 6 (55) 0 5 (45) 6 (55) 2019 6 (55%) 5 (45) 0 6 (55) 5 (45) 2017 7 (64) 4 (36) Social composition in Kalobhir CFUG 2015 3 (23%) 10 (77%) 0 10 (77%) 3 (23%) 2017 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 0 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 2019 0 7 (100%) 0 4 (57%) 3 (43%) was (6.51) of Lyonia ovalifolia with ranked 12 in Bolde 0.52, 0.61, and 0.54, respectively. Te overall sustainability Setidevi CF. Similarly, the IVI of Tsuga dumosa was (81.5) index was found to be 0.61, 0.67, and 0.58 in Simpani, Bolde having ranked 3 in Kalobhir CF but the IVI of Ficus nerifolia Setidevi, and Kalobhir CF (Table 8). was (1.98) which ranked as 5 in this community forest. Te preference ranking by the users importance value index 4. Discussion which contributes to ecology were mismatching in the Most of the households directly beneftted from the use of community forests (Table 7). forest products such as timber, frewood, fodder, and bedding material in the community forests. Tey used timber for 3.3. Sustainability in Community Forest Management construction of their houses and frewood for cooking and Practice. Te sustainability index varies according to heating purposes. Tis result is also supported by several au- community forests. Te result showed that SIIC for the thors who showed that community forest management criteria, extent of forest resources, economic and social practices have been supporting the local users in Nepal, and beneft, forest management and institutional framework, they have been using the forest products and also increasing and governance was found to be 0.82, 0.59, 0.58, and 0.56, their household income which contribute to reduce the respectively, in Simpani CF (Figure 2). proverty [15, 30]. Other researches also revealed that the users Similarly, criteria extent of forest resource was the are getting the forest product from the community so their highest with score 0.87 in Bolde Setidevi CF. Te values of action in forest management is worth full [32–34]. Tus, this the other two criteria, namely, forest management practice research study is one of the important relevant evidence. and economic and social beneft were 0.76 and 0.61, re- Te selling of timber, frewood, nontimber forest spectively, but the criterion of institutional framework and products (NTFP), bank interest, and others sources are the governance was the least, that is, 0.59. Moreover, the value of major sources of income in Simpani, Bolde Setidevi, and criteria extent of forest resource was found to be highest with Kalobhir CF. Similarly, forest management activities, pro- score 0.79 in Kalobhir CF. Te scores of other three criteria, poor support, social development, and administrative costs namely, institutional framework and governance, forest are the main expenditure in the community forest. Studies management practice, and economic and social beneft were conducted in the high altitude CFs of Darchula showed that, International Journal of Forestry Research 7 Table 3: Trend of forest products extraction and employment. No. No. No. No. Employment of Bedding of HHs Fiscal Timber Firewood of HHs Fodder of HHs generated HHs material collected year (m ) (bhari) collected (bhari) collected (man got (bhari) bedding frewood fodder days/year) timber material Benefts to CFUGs in Simpani CF 2016/ 6 5 1410 47 1050 35 4480 45 3953 2017/ 5.7 5 1110 37 810 27 4460 42 3406 2018/ 1050 35 660 22 4550 45 3226 2019/ 3.1 3 1110 37 840 28 4500 46 3450 2020/ 1050 35 690 23 4410 40 3210 Benefts to CFUGs in Bolde Setidevi CF 2016/ 43.2 16 1054 68 4630 91 6840 95 4179 2017/ 108 27 920 65 4800 89 5990 104 3913 2018/ 72.1 22 910 71 4810 96 5630 98 3790 2019/ 1.6 2 936 79 4860 91 6050 95 3950 2020/ 61.2 17 840 74 4520 94 5510 101 3629 Benefts to CFUGs in Kalobhir CF 2016/ 164.9 29 4200 130 3610 96 8250 125 5379 2017/ 120 25 4490 130 3460 95 8340 135 5721 2018/ 4.02 3 4500 135 4625 98 7125 143 5499 2019/ 64.45 23 4430 134 4600 96 7420 129 5428 2020/ 41.08 16 4220 146 4750 102 8150 143 5452 Note: 1 bhari equals to 30 kg. there were many sources of income in the community forest community forest of Dolakha district 2021 showed that, the and selling NTFP was one of the important one [26]. Trade average growing stock of community forest of Dolakha of timber and nontimber forest products ar the major in- district was 70.75 m /ha. It indicates that the status of come source of local users in community forest [35–37] growing stock of the study area was above the average for while the major expenditure items are cost for activites like community forest of Dolakha district. Te reason behind forest management, livelihood support for local people and this was more participation, better management, and social development [8, 38, 39]. priority protection of forest in the selected community Te research showed that, the growing stock of pole and forests [28]. A similar kind of study was conducted in 3 3 3 tree of 81.79 m /ha, 177.78 m /ha, and 137.2 m /ha and Gaukhureshwar CF of Kavre district which showed that the Shannon–Wiener index was 0.86 ± 0.036, 0.92 ± 0.087, and Shannon–Wiener index was 0.96 [44]. Te result of this study was almost similar with the result of Gaukhureshwar 0.75 ± 0.05 in Kalobhir, Bolde Setidevi, and Simpani community forest (CF), respectively. Te growing stock of CF of Kavre district. Tis might be the reason of similar Churia forest was 114.28 m /ha [40]. Tis value difered kind of physiographic and climatic condition between from this research study, and the reason may because of the these study areas. biotic and abiotic factors [41, 42]. A similar study was Te study showed highest Importance Value Index (IVI) conducted in Janata, Shiva, and Ambika CF of Surkhet of Tsuga dumosa, Rhododendron species, and Shima district which showed that the Shannon–Wiener index of wallichi was the highest in Kalobhir, Bolde Setidevi, and the CF were 0.292 ± 0.071, 0.628 ± 0.067, and 0.742 ± 0.058, Simpani CF respectively because these are the most pre- respectively [43]. Te annual monitoring report of ferred species of users group. Te Rhododendron spp, Abies 8 International Journal of Forestry Research Table 4: Income and expenditure trend in community forests. Timber/ Bank Forest Social Administrative Fiscal fuel NTFP Others Total Propoor Total interest management development and others year wood (US$) (US$) (US$) support (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) Income of Simpani CF Expenditure of Simpani CF 2016/ 40.98 0 538.92 910.34 1495 0 0 776.18 776.18 2017/ 34.43 0 491.96 142.46 673.16 153.69 0 341.56 496.51 2018/ 0 0 542.43 100.61 647.5 0 0 126.23 358.18 485.44 2019/ 22.13 0 468.56 410.32 905.03 127.05 0 499.3 104.1 735.58 2020/ 0 0 257.15 313.52 572.78 0 0 109.02 342.99 452.9 Income of Bolde Setidevi CF Expenditure of Bolde Setidevi CF 2016/ 500 115 9 197 825 180 0 66 76 321 2017/ 1246 33 8 0 1297 1147 492 0 179 1817 2018/ 834 189 16 4 1052 229 0 424 212 864 2019/ 198 201 27 4 433 444 0 164 376 984 2020/ 380 1025 35 0 1452 412 0 139 274 825 Income of Kalobhir CFUG Expenditure of Kalobhir CFUG 2020/ 318 542 589 10 1471 247 0 81 201 531 2019/ 152 845 613 5 1627 254 492 0 190 943 2018/ 221 123 551 4 906 0 0 0 385 385 2017/ 855 263 427 158 1715 282 33 0 487 804 2016/ 661 296 310 148 1426 88 123 0 164 377 Note: 1US$ � 122 NPR. Table 5: Status of tree species density and growing stock in community forests. Simpani CF Bolde Setidevi CF Kalobhir CF Scientifc Growing Growing Growing Regeneration Pole + tree Regeneration Pole + tree Regeneration Pole + tree name stock stock stock (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) 3 3 3 (m /ha) (m /ha) (m /ha) Abies spectabilis 157 7 8.64 Alnus nepalensis 2238 107 1.23 55 2 0.43 Daphniphyllum 111 8 1.42 himalense Eurya 897 50 3 103 4 1.08 acuminata Ficus neriifolia 47 2 0.44 Litsea cubeba 229 29 6.12 429 8 1.65 Lyonia ovalifolia 104 3 0.67 Madhuca indica 1671 88 1.61 Miliusa velutina 206 12 0.43 Osmanthus 244 11 4.1 fragrans International Journal of Forestry Research 9 Table 5: Continued. Simpani CF Bolde Setidevi CF Kalobhir CF Scientifc Growing Growing Growing Regeneration Pole + tree Regeneration Pole + tree Regeneration Pole + tree name stock stock stock (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) (N/ha) 3 3 3 (m /ha) (m /ha) (m /ha) Pinus patula 251 42 41.73 95 5 3.77 Pinus roxburghii 696 157 61.85 Pinus 452 37 41.72 wallichiana Quercus 137 14 4.67 lamellosa Quercus 192 40 15.19 663 36 11.42 semecarpifolia Rhododendron 0 7 29.83 749 155 34.01 847 27 4.8 Species Schima wallichi 1497 107 30.3 Symplocos 0 16 4.51 1135 30 9.54 pyrifolia Symplocos 499 41 10.59 racemosa Terminalia 0 2 11.96 chebula Tsuga dumosa 0 3 11.39 858 46 38.6 Total 6308 480 137.21 3754 441 177.7 4500 175 81.79 Table 6: Values of biodiversity indexes in CFs. Index Descriptive statistics Simpani CF Bolde Setidevi CF Kalobhir CF Mean ± SE 0.75 ± 0.05 0.92 ± 0.087 0.86 ± 0.036 Standard deviation 0.17 0.38 0.25 Shannon–Wiener diversity index Minimum 0.56 0.35 0.35 Maximum 1.12 1.61 1.35 Mean ± SE 0.28 ± 0.03 0.46 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.01 Sd 0.09 0.05 0.08 Evenness diversity index Minimum 0.05 0.17 0.17 Maximum 0.34 0.36 0.68 Species richness 7 12 11 spectabilis and Juniper spp are dominating tree species in institutional framework and economic and social beneft is high altitude area [45, 46] but Schima wallichi is dominant below standard, which means that institutional set up, species in midhills [47, 48]. Te IVI is determined the by governance, and beneft sharing mechanism of the com- species dominance. munity forest management practice of the study area was Te highest score of sustainability index indicates that obviously poor. A similar kind of study showed that the the forest growth and condition is good enough to achieve overall sustainability index of Sapankot Odare and Kya- the objective of sustainable forest management. Similarly, minHariyali CFUG were 0.50 and 0.51, respectively [30]. the second highest score was obtained by the forest man- Similarly, another showed that overall sustainability index of agement criteria which indicate that the forest management the Tilaulakot collaborative forest was 0.53 [41]. Tese values activities conducted by the CFUG is important to achieve the were relatively lower than the OSI of Simpani, Bolde Seti- objective of sustainable forest management; however, it is devi, and Kalobhir which were 0.61, 0.67, and 0.58, re- spectively. Te higher OSI of this study area of the three not enough. On the other hand, the score of criteria such as 10 International Journal of Forestry Research Table 7: Importance value index and preference rank of tree species in CFs. Simpani CF Bolde Setidevi CF Kalobhir CF Scientifc name IVI Preference rank IVI Preference rank IVI Preference rank Abies spectabilis 23.92 2 Alnus nepalensis 41.97 2 Alnus nepalensis 11.46 6 Daphniphyllum himalense 7.66 10 Eurya acuminata 7.03 11 Ficus neriifolia 1.98 5 Litsea cubeba 19.03 1 Litsea cubeba 12.92 1 Lyonia ovalifolia 6.51 12 Madhuca indica 31.34 6 Miliusa velutina 10.63 7 Murraya koenigii 11.7 11 Osmanthus fragrans 11.71 9 Pinus patula 23.06 6 Pinus patula 15.59 8 Pinus roxburghii 57.44 1 Pinus wallichiana 17.88 4 Quercus lamellosa 6.12 5 Quercus semecarpifolia 24.05 3 Quercus semecarpifolia 48.12 4 Rhododendron species 48.61 7 Rhododendron species 4.35 5 44.37 7 Schima wallichi 63.51 4 Symplocos pyrifolia 7.03 10 Symplocos racemosa 23.65 8 Symplocos racemosa 45.47 9 Terminalia chebula 4.57 3 Tsuga dumosa 7.65 2 Tsuga dumosa 81.5 3 1 Extent of 1 Extent of forest forest 1 Extent of resources resources forest 0.82 1.00 0.87 resources 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.60 4 4 0.79 4 0.50 0.40 0.50 Institutional 2 Economic Institutional 2 Economic Institutional 2 Economic 0.20 0.00 frame and social frame and social 0.59 0.00 0.61 frame work and social 0.56 0.00 0.59 0.54 0.52 work and benefits work and benefits and benefits governance governance governance 0.61 0.58 0.76 3 Forest management 3 Forest 3 Forest Practices management management Practices Practices SSIC SSIC SSIC (a) (b) (c) Figure 2: Spider web diagram of sustainability index of community forest. (a) Sustainability index of Simpani CFUG. (b) Sustainability index of Bolde Setidevi CF. (c) Sustainability index of Kalobhir CF. International Journal of Forestry Research 11 Table 8: Sustainability index of Simpani, Bolde Setidevi, and Kalobhir CF. Sum of Average scores Weightage No. of SIIC Weighted SIIC OSI Criteria scores of of to each verifer (d/3) (d × e) (g/3) verifers verifers (c/b) indicator A b c d e f g h Simpani CF Extent of forest resources 13 32 2.46 0.15 0.82 0.369 Economic and social benefts 18 32 1.78 0.2 0.59 0.356 Forest management practices 11 19 1.73 0.25 0.58 0.432 0.61 Institutional frame work and 18 30 1.67 0.4 0.56 0.667 governance Bolde Setidevi CF Extent of forest resources 13 32 2.61 0.15 0.82 0.37 Economic and social benefts 18 33 1.83 0.2 0.61 0.37 Forest management practices 11 25 2.27 0.25 0.76 0.57 0.67 Institutional frame work and 18 32 1.77 0.4 0.59 0.71 governance Kalobhir CF Extent of forest resources 13 31 2.38 0.15 0.79 0.36 Economic and social benefts 18 29 1.61 0.2 0.54 0.32 Forest management practices 11 20 1.82 0.25 0.61 0.45 0.58 Institutional frame work and 18 28 1.56 0.4 0.52 0.62 governance (ii) To improve the overall sustainability of community community forest might be due to more support from the Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources forest management practice, institutional frame- work and governance system should be improved (ANSAB), Federation of community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN), and the Divisional Forest Ofce Dolakha for (iii) To meet the demand of local users, locally preferred forest certifcation process in the previous year [42, 43]. species should be promoted to balance the species composition of other ecologically importance 5. Conclusion and Recommendation species (iv) To ensure the long-term sustainability of commu- Tere were more than ffty percent households directly nity forestry models, a collaborative efort between depended on the CF for their daily needs. Executive com- government forestry ofcials, concerned stake- mittee composition was inclusive in structure but need and holders, and local people is required interests of propoor were not addressed. A large amount of budget was spent on social and other administrative sector. Data Availability Te growing stock and regeneration of community forest was increased before the previous years. Te Shan- Tis research work is basically prepared based on the pri- non–Wiener index was the highest in Bolde Setidevi CF and mary source of data and secondary source as well. Te lowest in Simpani community forest. Te importance value authors collected the biophysical and socioeconomic data index of Schima wallichii, Rhododendron species, and Tsuga directly from the feld. Te secondary information was dumosa was found to be the highest in Simpani, Bolde gathered from community forests and division forest ofce, Setidevi, and Kalobhir community forest, respectively, but Dolakha Nepal. number and growing stock of locally preferred species such as Litsea cubeba was poor. Te overall sustainability index Conflicts of Interest was the highest in Bolde Setidevi community forest users group but it was the lowest in Kalobhir community forest Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. users group. Te sustainability index of individual criteria of extent of forest resource was good in all community forests Acknowledgments but the index of institutional framework and governance was poor in all community forests. Te index presented a clear Te authors acknowledge the users of group of community image of the forest management practices, indicating where forest and division forest ofce, Dolakha for supporting this they are headed in terms of sustainability, as well as research work. informing users about problems to be considered in order to improve the sustainability of their forests. References (i) Provision made in operational forest management plan for expenditure of budget should be strictly [1] D. Ghosh and S. K. Maiti, “Biochar-assisted eco-restoration of followed coal mine degraded land to meet United Nation Sustainable 12 International Journal of Forestry Research Development Goals,” Land Degradation & Development, [17] T. R. Gurung, Community-based Non-Wood Forest Products vol. 32, no. 16, pp. 4494–4508, 2021. Enterprise: A Sustainable Business Model, SAARC Agriculture [2] C. Corson and K. I. MacDonald, “Enclosing the global Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2017. commons: the convention on biological diversity and green [18] B. K. Pokharel and M. Nurse, “Forests and people’s livelihood: benefting the poor from community forestry,” Journal of grabbing,” Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, Forest and Livelihood, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 19–29, 2004. pp. 263–283, 2012. [19] D. B. Bray, L. Merino-Perez, ´ and D. Barry, Eds., Te Com- [3] K. Ells, “Ecological rhetoric through vicarious narrative: the munity Forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Land- enduring signifcance of Garrett hardin’s the tragedy of the scapes, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, USA, 2005. commons,” Environmental Communication, vol. 2, no. 3, [20] P. Cronkleton, D. B. Bray, and G. Medina, “Community forest pp. 320–339, 2008. management and the emergence of multi-scale governance [4] T. Forsyth and C. Johnson, “Elinor Ostrom’s legacy: gov- institutions: lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, erning the commons, and the rational choice controversy,” Brazil and Bolivia,” Forests, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 451–473, 2011. Development and Change, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1093–1110, 2014. [21] K. P. Acharya and P. Gentle, Improving the Efectiveness of [5] V. Gulca and R. Deal, “Sustainable Forest Management in Collective Action: Sharing Experiences from Community Moldova: a guiding principle to integrate public and private Forestry in Nepal(No. 577-2016-39227, International Food forestry sectors,” Legal Aspects of European Forest Sustainable Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. USA, Development, vol. 112, 2011. [6] A. Mishra, A. N. Appadurai, D. Choudhury et al., “Adaptation [22] MoFE, Forestry Sector Strategy (2016-25), Ministry of Forests to climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: stronger and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal Singhdurbar, action urgently needed,” in Te Hindu Kush Himalaya Kathmndu, Nepal, 2016. AssessmentSpringer, Berlin, Germany, 2019. [23] C. A. Toms, “Community control of resources and the [7] Y. Yasmi, B. J. M. Arts, and M. A. Hoogstra-Klein, Forest challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examina- Futures: Sustainable Pathways for Forests, Landscapes and tion of community forestry in Nepal,” Geoforum, vol. 39, People in the Asia-Pacifc Region: Asia-Pacifc Forest Secor no. 3, pp. 1452–1465, 2008. Outlook Study III, FAO, Rome, Italy, 2019, http://www.fao. [24] J. Xu, R. Badola, N. Chettri et al., “Sustaining biodiversity and org/3/ca4627en/ca4627en.pdf. ecosystem services in the hindu kush himalaya,” in Te Hindu [8] T. Murray Li, “Practices of assemblage and community forest Kush Himalaya AssessmentSpringer, Berlin, Germany, 2019. management,” Economy and Society, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 263– [25] R. K. Pokharel, P. R. Neupane, K. R. Tiwari, and M. Kohl, ¨ 293, 2007. “Assessing the sustainability in community based forestry: [9] E. Rametsteiner and M. Simula, “Forest certifcation—an a case from Nepal,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 58, instrument to promote sustainable forest management?” pp. 75–84, 2015. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 67, no. 1, [26] I. Stupak, B. Lattimore, B. D. Titus, and C. Tattersall Smith, pp. 87–98, 2003. “Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest fuel production [10] P. C. Kotwal, M. D. Omprakash, S. Gairola, and D. Dugaya, and harvesting: a review of current standards for sustainable “Ecological indicators: imperative to sustainable forest forest management,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, no. 8, management,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 104–107, pp. 3287–3308, 2011. [27] A. Jafari, H. Sadeghi Kaji, H. Azadi, K. Gebrehiwot, [11] D. S. Dahal and S. Cao, “Sustainability assessment of com- F. Aghamir, and S. Van Passel, “Assessing the sustainability of munity forestry practices in Nepal: literature review and community forest management: a case study from Iran,” recommendations to improve community management,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 96, pp. 1–8, 2018. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India - [28] Dfo, Annual Progress Report of Dolkha District, Division Section B: Biological Sciences, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2017. Forest Ofce, Dolkha, Nepal, 2021. [12] S. Linser, B. Wolfslehner, S. R. Bridge et al., “25 years of [29] MoFSC, Community Forestry Inventory Guideline, Ministry of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004. how intergovernmental C&I processes have made a difer- [30] R. Pokharel and K. Tiwari, “Locally identifed criteria, in- ence,” Forests, vol. 9, no. 9, 2018. dicators and verifers for evaluating sustainable community [13] S. Adhikari, T. Kingi, and S. Ganesh, “Incentives for com- based forestry: a case from Nepal,” Banko Janakari, vol. 28, munity participation in the governance and management of no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2018. common property resources: the case of community forest [31] D. B. Zobel, P. K. Jha, U. K. Yadav, and M. J. A. Behan, management in Nepal,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 44, Practical Manual for the Ecology, Ratna Book Distributors, pp. 1–9, 2014. Kathmandu, Nepal, 1987. [14] S. K. Patel, A. Sharma, and G. S. Singh, “Traditional agri- [32] G. Varughese and E. Ostrom, “Te contested role of het- cultural practices in India: an approach for environmental erogeneity in collective action: some evidence from com- sustainability and food security,” Energy, Ecology and Envi- munity forestry in Nepal,” World Development, vol. 29, no. 5, ronment, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 253–271, 2020. pp. 747–765, 2001. [15] M. Kumar, S. N. Phukon, and H. Singh, “Te role of com- [33] K. R. Kanel and D. R. Niraula, “Can rural livelihood be munities in sustainable land and forest management,” in improved in Nepal through community forestry?” Banko Forest Resources Resilience and ConfictsElsevier, Amsterdam, Janakari, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 2017. Netherlands, 2021. [34] M. Dhakal and M. Masuda, “Local pricing system of forest [16] V. Maskey, T. G. Gebremedhin, and T. J. Dalton, “Social and products and its relations to equitable beneft sharing and cultural determinants of collective management of commu- livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry nity forest in Nepal,” Journal of Forest Economics, vol. 11, program in Nepal,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 11, no. 4, no. 4, pp. 261–274, 2006. pp. 221–229, 2009. International Journal of Forestry Research 13 [35] B. Belcher and K. Schreckenberg, “Commercialisation of non- timber forest products: a reality check,” Development Policy Review, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 355–377, 2007. [36] K. Gauli and M. Hauser, “Pro-poor commercial management of non-timber forest products in Nepal’s community forest user groups: factors for success,” Mountain Research and Development, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 298–307, 2009. [37] P. Phumee and A. Pagdee, “From subsistence to market- driven: the role of non-timber forest products at community forests in Northeast Tailand,” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 151–168, 2021. [38] M. Dhakal and M. Masuda, “Generation and utilization of community fund in small-scale community forest manage- ment in the Terai region of Nepal,” Banko Janakari, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 55–61, 1970. [39] B. K. Pokharel, P. Branney, M. Nurse, and Y. B. Malla, “Community forestry: conserving forests, sustaining liveli- hoods and strengthening democracy,” Journal of Forest and Livelihood, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 8–19, 2007. [40] Frtc, Churia Forests of Nepal, 2022, Forest Research and Training Centre (FRTC), Kathmandu, Nepal, 2022. [41] I. N. Pavlov, “Biotic and abiotic factors as causes of coniferous forests dieback in Siberia and Far East,” Contemporary problems of ecology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 440–456, 2015. [42] T. Zhou, J. Zhang, Y. Qin, M. Jiang, and X. Qiao, “Te efects of biotic and abiotic factors on the community dynamics in a mountain subtropical forest,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 4, 2021. [43] S. Lamichane, “Sustainability livelihood security in commu- nity forest in Surkhet district, Nepal,” Annals of Forest Science, vol. 4, 2019. [44] S. K. Baral and K. Katzensteiner, “Diversity of vascular plant communities along a disturbance gradient in a central mid- hill community forest of Nepal,” Banko Janakari, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 1970. [45] P. K. Chhetri and D. M. Cairns, “Contemporary and historic population structure of Abies spectabilis at treeline in Barun valley, eastern Nepal Himalaya,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 558–570, 2015. [46] J. Ollerton, N. P. Koju, S. R. Maharjan, and B. Bashyal, “Interactions between birds and fowers of Rhododendron spp., and their implications for mountain communities in Nepal,” Plants, People, Planet, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 320–325, 2020. [47] B. Bhandari and S. K. Jha, “Comparative study of macrofungi in diferent patches of boshan community forest in kath- mandu, Central Nepal,” Botanica Orientalis: Journal of Plant Science, vol. 11, pp. 43–48, 2018. [48] H. P. Pandey and S. Pokhrel, “Stocking density and DBH distribution of community forests in Nepal,” Small-scale Forestry, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 145–159, 2021.
Journal
International Journal of Forestry Research – Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Published: Apr 12, 2023