Dil B. Khatri, Hemant R. Ojha, Krishna K.

Shrestha and Naya S. Paudel

World Congress on Agro-forestry,

February 10-13, New Delhi

Linking forest to food security is taking space on global debate (political and scholarly) i.e. RIO+ 20 and others

Scholars (re)asserts that forest ecosystem is critical to food production (Mohamed –Katerere and Smith 2013)

But, to what extent forest is contributing to food security? - Very limited!

So, why forest policy and institutions are restrictive to food security?

Forest and food security issues have always been linked in many parts of the world, but still limited research and policy attention!

Expansion of community forestry have posed restrictions on fodder production and grazing (Dhakal et al., 2010,, Thoms, 2008, Adhikari et al.).

Contributed to declined number of cattle per household (Dhakal et al., 2010, Thoms, 2008

Methodology:

Literature review Review of policy and

legal documents Case studies of

community forest user group (operational plans of six selected CFUGs)

Research in progress

Question:

How responsive are community forestry institutions in Nepal to the need of linking forest to food security?

Why?

Community Forestry management practices

Community Forestry management practices

Forest-farm interface for increased farm productivity

Forest-farm interface for increased farm productivity

Forest based income and employment

Forest based income and employment

Wild food/edible items

Wild food/edible items

Food security Food security

Mainstream forestry science focused on enhancing: bio-mass productivity, revenue and bio-diversity (Westoby, 1979, Kennedy et al. 2001)

Reflected in Nepal’s forest management: Declaration of 23% forest area as protected area, timber focused management (even in the community managed forests)

Undermined local concerns relating to forest for food security (Dhakal et al. 2010)

Broader policy framework focused on: revenue and expansion of FA through aforestation

Forest legislation prohibits use of forest land for agriculture production and no explicit focus on agroforestry and food security

Implementation framework more restrictive for food security (i.e. Forest Regulation prohibits to grow cash crops in forest land and requires too many steps to harvest and trade timber)

No explicit provision on production and use of wild food

Implementation framework

CF

Farm and AF

CFUG

Livestock group Agriculture

Group

DFO DADO DLDO

MOFSC/DOF MOAC/DOAMOAC/DOLD

RP

SC-ASC-L

National level

Village level

District level

Collection of ground grass

Grazing Fodder management

Grass collection is allowed in specified time period

Some CFUGs have provision to promote improved grass

Grazing is prohibited in most of the CFs and provision of fine if rules are violated

Provision of rotational grazing in 2 CFUGs in specified forest block

Provision to promote fodder but no explicit plan on it

Conventional forestry mindset foresters and local power relations prevail in CFUG rule making process (OP)

Three factors problem in forest-food links: forestry science, policy and legislative framework, and institutions

These three aspects needs to be dealt with simultaneously

Need for integrating forest, tree and agriculture production (Padoch and Sunderland 2013)

Adaptive-collaborative approach to learning and innovation for change (Colfer 2005, Prabhu et al 2007; Ojha et al 2013)

• Adaptive learning – action learning, reflections and innovations

• Bounding conflicts and fostering collaboration

• Cross-scale linkages

12

Thank You !

Australian Centre for International Agriculture

Research

Acknowledgement: Govinda Paudel and Mani Ram Banjade for contributing in paper.

For correspondence: dil@forestaction.org