session 6.1 managing community forest for food security, nepal
TRANSCRIPT
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: [email protected]