evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Nepal's Community Forestry Programme — Devolved Forest Management by Community Forest User Groups

Nepal · Kathmandu · See the Nepal profile · See the Kathmandu profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 39% 53/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since Nepal's 1993 Forestry Act, 22,000+ Community Forest User Groups manage 2.3 million hectares — a third of national forest. NASA/Landsat data shows cover nearly doubled (26%→45%, 1992–2016), though a matched study finds mixed, region-dependent carbon effects.

>22,000
Registered Community Forest User Groups
~2.3 million ha (about a third of national forest)
Forest area under community management
~3 million
Households involved
26% → 45%
National forest cover (1992-2016)
12% → 92%
Kabhrepalanchok district forest cover (case study) (1988-2016)
+25-26 Mg C/ha
Aboveground carbon gain (lower slopes, open-canopy forests)
Nepal's Community Forestry Programme — Devolved Forest Management by Community Forest User Groups

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment
Period
1993–present
Keywords
forestry, community governance, carbon, biodiversity

Context

Nepal's 1993 Forestry Act devolved management of national forest land to local Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), granting communities defined-term rights to manage, protect and harvest forest products in exchange for conservation and equitable benefit-sharing obligations.

Activities

The programme has become one of the world's largest and longest-running examples of community-based natural resource management: government figures put the number of registered CFUGs above 22,000, covering roughly 2.3 million hectares (about a third of Nepal's total forest area) and involving some 3 million households.

Results

NASA-funded Landsat-based remote sensing analysis found that national forest cover rose from about 26% in 1992 to 45% in 2016 — a near-doubling — with the largest gains concentrated in districts with the highest density of community forests; one studied community forest in Kabhrepalanchok district grew from 12% cover in 1988 to 92% by 2016. A separate quasi-experimental study (620 matched forest plots across 42 districts, controlling for 16 confounders, published in Global Environmental Change) found aboveground carbon gains were significant and robust on lower slopes and in open-canopy forests (+25–26 Mg C/ha), while the same study found carbon losses at higher altitudes and on steeper slopes.

Conclusions

Independent researchers note the programme's benefits are not uniform: gains concentrate in accessible, lower-elevation forests, and studies documenting positive outcomes still flag unresolved questions around potential leakage (deforestation displaced to non-community forest) and elite capture within some user groups. The programme nonetheless remains one of the most rigorously studied forest-tenure interventions globally, sustained continuously for more than three decades under a stable legal framework.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Community Forest User Groups (elected local bodies), Ministry of Forests and Environment (national legal and regulatory framework)

Conditions for success

  • Stable legal framework (1993 Forestry Act) sustained continuously for more than three decades
  • Defined-term community rights tied to conservation and equitable benefit-sharing obligations
  • Gains concentrate in accessible, lower-elevation, open-canopy forests

Common failure modes

  • Deforestation leakage displaced to non-community forest
  • Elite capture within some user groups
  • Carbon losses observed at higher altitudes and on steeper slopes

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