evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape REDD+ Pilot — Community Forest Carbon Trust Funds (Nepal)

Nepal · Bharatpur · See the Nepal profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Nepal's first REDD+ pilot paid 112 community forest user groups across three watersheds (Dolakha, Chitwan, Gorkha) via new Forest Carbon Trust Funds — $285,000 distributed 2010-2013 to 16,000+ households, 60% of it weighted toward social-equity criteria.

343339 tCO2
Combined CO2 savings measured across three watersheds (2010-2013)
285000 USD
Total trust-fund payments disbursed (2010-2013)
112
Community forest user groups covered
16000+
Households reached
10000+ hectares
Area covered
Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape REDD+ Pilot — Community Forest Carbon Trust Funds (Nepal)

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
ANSAB (Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources) / ICIMOD / FECOFUN
Period
2009-2013 (pilot); trust funds ongoing
Keywords
community forestry, REDD+, carbon trust funds, watershed management

Context

Between 2009 and 2013, ANSAB, ICIMOD and FECOFUN piloted Nepal's first sub-national REDD+ payment scheme with 112 community forest user groups across three watersheds — Charnawati (Dolakha district), Kayarkhola (Chitwan district) and Ludikhola (Gorkha district) — covering over 10,000 hectares and reaching more than 16,000 households and roughly 89,000 forest-dependent people. A $100,000 seed grant from Norway's development agency (Norad) established Nepal's first Forest Carbon Trust Funds, with nested district monitoring committees and a central advisory committee overseeing disbursement.

Objectives

Test whether Nepal's community forestry system — which already manages roughly a third of the country's forests — could administer performance- and equity-based carbon payments transparently down to the household level, informing Nepal's national REDD+ readiness process.

Activities

Local forest user groups were trained to run annual carbon inventories across 570 permanent plots, following IPCC 2006 methodology and covering above- and below-ground biomass, litter and soil carbon. Trust funds disbursed payments using a formula weighting only 40% to measured carbon performance (24% stock, 16% enhancement) and 60% to social-equity criteria: indigenous populations (10%), Dalit households (15%), women (15%) and poor households (20%).

Results

Between 2010 and 2013 the three watersheds registered a combined carbon dioxide saving of 343,339 tonnes, with annual increments averaging 2.62-3.53 tonnes per hectare. The trust funds disbursed $285,000 in total over the three years, including $95,000 in the final year alone (Dolakha $45,535, Gorkha $27,560, Chitwan $21,905).

Conclusions

A 2014 peer-reviewed case study in the journal Forests flagged an unresolved "additionality" question — the community forests were already gaining carbon before the project began — and cautioned that payment-based incentives of this kind work only where payments exceed communities' additional management costs. A separate 2020 Environmental Research Letters assessment characterised the pilot's measured impact as incremental rather than transformative. The pilot nonetheless demonstrated that Nepal's community forestry system can administer performance- and equity-based carbon payments transparently, a model since referenced in Nepal's national REDD+ readiness process.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — $100,000 Norad seed grant established the trust funds; $285,000 disbursed to communities 2010-2013, weighted 40% carbon performance / 60% social equity.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Pilot ran 2009-2013 (payments disbursed 2010-2013); trust funds described as ongoing, but no update on continued disbursement scale beyond the pilot period was found.
Staffing & skills
ANSAB, ICIMOD, FECOFUN, trained community forest user group members conducting inventories, district monitoring committees, central advisory committee

Conditions for success

  • Existing community forestry institutions managing roughly a third of Nepal's forests providing the implementation backbone
  • Transparent, equity-weighted payment formula
  • Technical training of communities in carbon monitoring (IPCC method)
  • Nested trust-fund governance (district and central committees)

Common failure modes

  • Unresolved additionality question: the community forests were already gaining carbon before the project began
  • Long-term financial viability depends on payments exceeding communities' additional management costs, requiring sustained donor or carbon-market financing

Where it fits

Governance type
community forestry / nested trust-fund institutions
Scale
sub-national pilot (3 watersheds, 10,000+ ha)
Income level
low-income (Nepal)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful