In Nepal, forest management priority is shifting to scientific management from conventional management. Though, the forest officials claims that scientific management is beneficial to the forest user groups, comparative financial assessment with conventional management remains unexplored. Following a case study approach, this study compares financial efficiency of two forest management systems in the community forests, focusing on benefit-cost ratio. The study conducted documents review, focus group discussions, and rapid survey to quantify costs and benefits from each forest management system. Conventional management gave a higher benefit-cost ratio to the forest user groups, irrespective of whether forest products are sold at a subsidized price or par with the market price. However, scientific management required high forest management costs and thus had a lower benefit-cost ratio. Sensitivity analysis between two systems revealed that conventional management gave a higher benefit-cost ratio in all cases. The study concludes that forest user groups would bear financial loss if they do not fix the price of the timber at par with the market in scientific management, and in such a case, the tagged price will be beyond affordability of the forest users. Furthermore, scientific management has discouraged kind contribution of users in managing forest. Besides, social and environmental consequences of scientific management cannot be ignored. Hence, the study argues for reconsidering current scientific management considering likely economic and social consequences to the forest user groups.
Scientific forestry involves managing forests based on the “principles of sustained yield” by conducting systematic surveys, developing management plans based on growth statistics, and annual sustained harvesting [
Nepal is among the first countries to devolve forest management rights to local communities to combat deforestation problems and environmental degradation in the late seventies [
Consequently, the then Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation of Nepal introduced the new form of forest management practice in 2014, popularly known as “Scientific Forest Management (SciFM).” SciFM is a systematic application of forestry science for the management of forests based on the assessment of attributes of forest crops to maximize and sustain benefits accrued from the forests, following the silvicultural systems [
In Nepal, community forestry is not only about commercial forest management but it also linked to rural livelihoods [
Rhetorically, two forms of forest management system exist in the community forests of Nepal, namely ConvFM and SciFM. Scholars argued that SciFM increases revenue from forests and enhances local employment while also improving the forest conditions [
The study identifies two forest management systems (Table
Comparison of two forest management systems.
Criteria | ConvFM | SciFM |
---|---|---|
Year of initiation | 2001 | 2014 |
Management objective | Meeting subsistence needs for forest products especially timber and firewood | Commercial production of forest products, especially timber and firewood |
Management principle | Precautionary, incremental harvesting in the prescribed block while in the forest | Sustained yield, following the silviculture system based on correct assessment of attributes of forest crops in prescribed coupes |
Forest area | Not specified | At least 100 ha (preferably 200 ha) |
Rotation period | Not defined | Guided by physical rotation, i.e., with the natural life of a species. For example, 80 years for Sal ( |
Management plan period | Not specified, generally for 5–10 years | Depends on the rotation period (dominant species of the forests), generally 80 years; a harvesting plan is prepared for 10 years |
Harvesting area | Not specified, selection felling either in one block or in the entire forest area every year not exceeding annual increment of the forests | Relatively small area or felling coupes, determined by rotation age of species (felling area is 1/80th of the forest if the rotation is 80 years) |
Silviculture system | Selection system | Irregular shelter wood system |
Harvesting technique | Selective felling, based on annual increment, generally harvesting of the dead, dying, diseased, decayed, and deformed trees | According to exploitable diameter (above 30 cm dbh) living few seed trees (10–25 trees/ha) |
Management plan preparation cost | Cheap (NRs 50,000–55,000 for 50 ha of forests) | Expensive (NRs 300,000–NRs 700,000 per community forest) |
Source: collated from the Community Forestry Inventory Guidelines, 2004, and Scientific Forest Management Guideline, 2014. Note: 1 US$ = equivalent to NRs 110 (on 1st August 2018).
ConvFM aims to maintain constant growing stock volume in the forests. The growing stock volume of the forests is not depleted, as only a certain percentage of annual increment of the growing stock volume is harvested. Likewise, limited silvicultural operations such as cleaning of harvesting plots, annual weeding, and forest protection measures are carried out by the user groups.
SciFM follows a silvicultural system (which is a set of operations applied to forestry crops so that it results in a distinct crop, which is characterized by intensity of felling of trees, pattern of felling, and mode of regeneration) [
The study was carried out in a midhill district of Nepal, which was randomly selected. Of the eight community forests implementing SciFM in the study district, an intensive case study was carried out in two community forests. The community forests were divided into two groups: the first group consisted of community forests with the area less than or equal to 50 ha, and second group consisted of community forests with the area above 50 ha. Then, one community forest from each group was randomly selected. The selected community forests were practicing ConvFM until 2013, whereas SciFM was initiated in 2014. Table
Characteristics of the studied community forests.
Characteristics | Ram Janaki community forests | Ganga Ram community forests |
---|---|---|
Year of hand over | 1995 | 1995 |
Area | 45.92 hectare | 89.49 hectare |
Members | 61 households | 93 households |
ConvFM period | 2001–2014 | 2001–2014 |
SciFM period | 2015–2094 | 2015–2094 |
Forest conditions | Good regeneration, the domination of high-quality tree | Good regeneration, the domination of high-quality tree |
Forest type | Sal ( | Sal ( |
Data collection period for ConvFM | 2012–2014 | 2012–2014 |
Data collection period for SciFM | 2015–2017 | 2015–2017 |
The same community forests were taken as cases for analyzing the financial efficiency of both systems. This would minimize the biases on comparision, since forest conditions and growing stock volume would vary by forests, which would influence on the benefits and costs.
Both community forests were adopting ConvFM before SciFM. SciFM started in 2015 in both community forests. Data were collected for last three years for each forest management system. Hence, data on SciFM were collected from 2015–2017, whereas that for ConvFM, were collected before the implementation of SciFM, i.e.,(2012–2014).
The study largely relied on a review of secondary information to quantify the costs and benefits of both forest management systems, followed by focus group discussions/rapid survey and stakeholders’ interviews. The study reviewed audit reports and meeting minutes for collecting data for the ConvFM, followed by focus group discussions and rapid survey to quantify the amount and cost of forest products (especially timber) collected under each forest management system. The final cost also included labor contribution. Furthermore, the study relied on recall methods when secondary information was not available. This information was further validated based on interviews. The study conducted a semistructured interview with the forest officials (six persons), timber traders/collectors (five persons), and executive members of the community forests (eight people). The main purpose of these interviews was to validate the study findings. The study also validated the information collected from focus group discussions by reviewing CFUGs records, specifically on forest development expenses, administrative expenses, and harvesting records.
Costs and benefits of forest user groups, including their members, are estimated for the entire duration of the forest management system. The study had fixed the duration of the forest management system of 80 years, based on the rotation age of dominant species i.e., Sal (
The main priority of the community forests is to fulfill the subsistence needs of forest products of local communities, especially timber, firewood, fodder, and grasses, and sale surplus products in the market. Hence, the study only considered direct use values, such as timber, firewood, fodder, and grasses, for quantification of benefits. Surprisingly, none of the households were collecting non-timber forest products. This is mainly because of unavailability of the non-timber forest product species in the forests. The forests were dominated by the Sal tree, where forest users gave priority timber production. The study did not consider the non-use value such as soil conservation and carbon sequestration, since the purpose of the study was to assess the financial efficiency between the two systems. Nevertheless, the study considered other direct benefits from forests, which include wage employment during management plan preparation, harvesting and logging operations and other community development programs (Table
Methods followed for the estimation of benefits.
Benefit | ConvFM | SciFM |
---|---|---|
Timber | Computed from the management plan following community forestry inventory guidelines, 2004 | Computed from CFUGs harvesting records/management plan |
Firewood (green) | Sale records (2012–2014) | Sale records (2015–2017) |
Firewood (dry) | Focus group discussion/rapid surveys following a recall method, including validation of the results from focus group discussions and record review | |
Fodder (grasses) | ||
Wage (employment) |
The study conducted a total of six focus group discussions (three in each community forest) with the forest users. More than 72 members participated in the discussions, with whom rapid survey was also carried out. During the discussion, respondents were asked to list the main benefits and then prioritize different benefits from each forest management systems (Table
The study reviewed forest management plans of studied community forests to estimate the annual harvested quantity of forest products, especially timber and firewood. The current (SciFM) plan (2014–2024) estimated the annual growing stock volume and harvestable quantity of the timber and firewood. Hence, the study relied on the growing stock volume of the SciFM. The study computed the annual harvestable quantity in ConvFM following the Community Forestry Inventory Guidelines, 2004. The inventory data of SciFM was used as a reference data. In addition, the study also reviewed the harvesting records of the community forests to compare with the actual harvest. A review of the inventory results of the SciFM in studied community forests revealed that the forest condition falls under “good” category, according to DoF classification [
Forest user groups are making cash expenses, largely by mobilizing income received from the sale of the forest products and also making an in-kind contribution, mostly in the form of voluntary labor contribution in both systems. The study considered both kind and cash expenses in estimating costs of each forest management system. Table
Methods followed for the estimation of cost.
Cost | ConvFM | SciFM |
---|---|---|
Forest management | Audit report review (2012–2014)/focus group discussion | Audit report review (2015–2017)/focus group discussion |
Administrative | ||
Harvesting and logging | Focus group discussion/traders’ interview | Focus group discussion/traders’ interview |
Plan preparation and revision | Focus group discussion/semistructured interview | Records review/annual progress report |
Kind contribution (voluntary labor of forest user groups) | Rapid survey/focus group discussion | |
Transaction costs | Rapid survey/focus group discussion | |
Membership fee | Records/audit report review (2012–14) | Records/audit report review (2015–17) |
The study reviewed audit report/annual progress report of the studied community forests of the last six years (2012–2017) to compute administrative expenses and forest management expenses. The first three years (2012–2014) of the audit report were used for computation of administrative and forest management costs for ConvFM, whereas later three years (2015–2017) for the SciFM. Likewise, membership fee under each management system was computed based on a review of the records. Besides, harvesting and logging expenses were estimated based on the focus group discussions with the users, which were again validated by interacting with the timber traders.
During focus group discussion, each participant was asked about (a) number of days/hours worked on forestry operations voluntarily, (b) number of days/hours spent for participating in general assembly meetings/executive meeting, (c) days/hours spent to provide advisory support to members/committee, and (d) time spent on management and harvesting plan preparation including office and administrations. Local wage was NRs 800 per day (2018 price), which was used to quantify labor contribution of forest user groups’ users on forest management activities. Hence, this cost is additional to cash expenses of forest user groups.
In addition, the study also estimated timber production cost under each management system, which is ratio of total cost required under each management system, (minus value of subsistence benefits) to the total quantity of timber produced.
Cost and benefit analysis is a policy assessment method that quantifies the cost and benefits in monetary terms on consequences of public policy [
The standard criterion for deciding alternatives is the net present value, which is discounted monetized value of expected net benefits, i.e., benefits minus costs [
In Nepal, long-term debenture interest rate of the commercial bank is around 10% per annum, which is used as a discounting rate. Following formula is used to calculate the net present value (NPV) where, decision rule is to adopt policy where NPV is positive and maximum [
Financial efficiency is assessed using a benefit-cost ratio, which is ratio of present value of benefits to present value of cost. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) should be higher than one to became finacially efficent, revealing that benefits outweigh the costs. The decision rule is to adopt policy with higher BCR ratio.
The study further conducted a sensitivity analysis to understand the influence of uncertainty in four different situations. The BCR ratio under each scenario is computed, and decision rule is to adopt policy which have higher BCR ratio, under such uncertainaties. Computation of the costs and benefits remains same unless specified.
Market influence is assessed considering discount rate, daily wages and timber price. Change in discount rate: discount rate increases from 10% to 15% per annum. Change in daily wage: increased from NRs 800 to NRs 1000/per day. Change in timber price: decreased from NRs 1000/cft to NRs 700/cft.
Forest user groups are selling subsidized timber to users, which is NRs 100/cft. The study used following assumptions to understand financial efficiency between two systems. All timber are distributed within the users at the subsidized price. Forest user groups distribute half of the timber to the users at a subsidized price and sell the rest at market price. Forest user groups distribute three-fourth of the timber to the users at a subsidized price and sell the rest at the market price.
Review of the harvesting records of the community forests reveals that forest officials allowed to harvest 80% of their annual allowable timber harvest in the ConvFM. However, such proportion is nearly 64% in SciFM. Hence, the study used following assumptions to analyze the bureaucratic behavior. Harvesting of 80% of timber volume specified in the plan. Harvesting of 50% of timber volume specified in the plan.
It might be unrealistic to assume that benefits and costs will remain constant during the forest management plan period. Therefore, study assumed that benefits and costs would increase or decrease by 5% per annum.
Five main benefits from the community forests include timber, firewood, fodder, grasses, and wage/employment, which remained similar for both management systems (Table
Annual benefits per unit area (ha) by the forest management system.
Items | Unit | Market price (NRs) | SciFM | ConvFM | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantity | Value (NRs/ha) | Quantity | Value (NRs/ha) | |||
(a) Market price | ||||||
Timber | cft/ha | 1000 | 142.0 | 141,986.6 | 87.5 | 87,502.8 |
Firewood (green) | Kg/ha | 10 | 4,212.7 | 42,126.7 | 1,123.4 | 11,234.2 |
Firewood (dry) | Kg/ha | 3 | 6,426.0 | 19,278.0 | 6,811.7 | 20,435.1 |
Grasses | Kg/ha | 3 | 17,125.7 | 34,251.4 | 19,247.1 | 38,494.2 |
Fodder/litter | Days/ha | 2 | 509.1 | 1,018.3 | 1,164.9 | 2,329.7 |
Wage/employment | Days/ha | 800 | 3.9 | 3,137.1 | 1.9 | 1,525.7 |
(b) Subsidized price (forest user groups present selling price ) | ||||||
Timber | cft/ha | 100 | 142.0 | 14,198.7 | 87.5 | 87,50.3 |
Firewood (green) | Kg/ha | 5 | 4,212.7 | 21,063.4 | 1,123.4 | 5,617.1 |
Firewood (dry) | Kg/ha | 3 | 6,426.0 | 19,278.0 | 6,811.7 | 20,435.1 |
Grasses | Kg/ha | 3 | 17,125.7 | 34,251.4 | 19,247.1 | 38,494.2 |
Fodder/litter | Days/ha | 2 | 509.1 | 1,018.3 | 1,164.9 | 2,329.7 |
Wage/employment | Days/ha | 800 | 3.9 | 3,137.1 | 1.9 | 1,525.7 |
At the market price, annual benefits from SciFM was NRs 241,798.1/ha, which is almost 1.5 times higher to the ConvFM (NRs 161,521.7/ha). Likewise, SciFM gives higher benefit at subsidized price as well, which is because of high quantity of timber and firewood production. In both forest management systems, timber alone contributed to more than half of the benefits’ followed by firewood and grasses. Subsistence benefits such as dry firewood, grasses, and fodder contributed to nearly one-third of the benefits, revealing a high dependency of rural communities on community forests.
The cost fluctuates by the forest management system. The review of the records and interactions with the participants revealed the following:
The SciFM preparation cost was NRs 600,000 for each community forest, in addition to harvesting plan preparation cost of NRs 10,000 per ha for every ten years. The cost was annualized per ha per year, which was NRs 1,110.8 per ha for SciFM. Similarly, ConvFM plan preparation cost was NRs 50,000 for every ten years or NRs 73.8 per ha per year.
This includes direct cash expenses made by forest user groups, such as payment of wages, salary, purchase of equipments, and services. This also includes expenses to reduce dependency on the forests, such as the cooking gas cylinder and electric pole distribution, construction of erosion control measures. The review of the audit reports during ConvFM period (2012–2014) revealed that forest management expenses 23.1% of their gross income. In case of SciFM, the study reviewed the SciFM plan together with audit reports (2015–2017) to estimate forest management related expenses. According to the plan, forest management expenses are estimated at NRs 60,652.4/ha per year (excluding voluntary labor), whereas audit reports showed a slightly higher expense than the plan provisions with the average expense of NRs 61,543.2/ha per year in the last three years (2015–2017). Forest management cost at the subsidized price would be NRs 17,822.1 per ha in ConvFM, whereas it would be the same for the SciFM.
Interaction with the traders, and review of records reveals that harvesting cost in SciFM and ConvFM was NRs 150/cft and NRs170/cft, respectively. ConvFM has higher cost because harvesting plots are scattered, and thus required more human labor. Harvesting cost would be same for both systems, irrespective of timber selling price within the group or distributed outside.
The review of audit reports revealed that administrative expense was 4.0% of the total income in ConvFM, whereas such proportion was 6.5% in SciFM. The high expense on SciFM is mainly because forest user groups’ members were traveling to the district headquarters/concerned office frequently to seek support from forest officials. The cost also included administrative expenses for record keeping and auditing.
Each user was contributing voluntary labor for forest patrolling, planting, cleaning, and weeding of harvested blocks. Voluntary labor contribution was 22.7 days/ha in SciFM, whereas it was 19.6 days/ha in ConvFM.
Time spent on meetings and assemblies was 1.6 and 2.2 labor days per ha per year in ConvFM and SciFM, respectively.
Users were making annual payment for membership renewal, along with a one-time membership fee. They were also making payments for obtaining permits to collect dry firewood, fodder, litter, and grasses from forests. The membership fee remained same in both projects.
Table
Annual costs per unit area (ha) by the forest management system.
Items | Unit | SciFM (NRs/ha/year) | ConvFM (NRs/ha/year) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantity | Rate (NRs/ha) | Amount | Quantity | Rate (NRs/ha) | Amount | ||
(a) Market price | |||||||
Plan preparation and revision | ha/year | 1.0 | 1,110.8 | 1,110.8 | 1.0 | 73.8 | 73.8 |
Forest management | ha/year | 1.0 | 60,652.4 | 60,652.4 | 1.0 | 37,311.5 | 37,311.5 |
Harvesting and logging | ha/year | 1.0 | 21,298.0 | 21,298.0 | 1.0 | 14,875.5 | 14,875.5 |
Administrative | ha/year | 1.0 | 15,716.9 | 15,716.9 | 1.0 | 6,460.9 | 6,460.9 |
Kind (labor) contribution | Day/ha/year | 22.7 | 800.0 | 18,188.5 | 19.6 | 800.0 | 15,711.4 |
Transaction costs | Day/ha/year | 2.2 | 800.0 | 1,782.9 | 1.6 | 800.0 | 1,320.0 |
Fees | ha/year | 1.0 | 15.7 | 15.7 | 1.0 | 15.7 | 15.7 |
(b) Subsidized price | |||||||
Plan preparation and revision | ha/year | 1.0 | 1,110.8 | 1,110.8 | 1.0 | 73.8 | 73.8 |
Forest management | ha/year | 1.0 | 60,652.4 | 60,652.4 | 1.0 | 17,822.1 | 17,822.1 |
Harvesting and logging | ha/year | 1.0 | 21,298.0 | 21,298.0 | 1.0 | 14,875.5 | 14,875.5 |
Administrative | ha/year | 1.0 | 6041.5 | 6041.5 | 1.0 | 3,086.1 | 3,086.1 |
Kind (labor) contribution | Day/ha/year | 22.7 | 800.0 | 18,188.5 | 19.6 | 800.0 | 15,711.4 |
Transaction costs | Day/ha/year | 2.2 | 800.0 | 1,782.9 | 1.6 | 800.0 | 1,320.0 |
Fees | ha/year | 1.0 | 15.7 | 15.7 | 1.0 | 15.7 | 15.7 |
Table
Financial analysis of two forest management system.
Present value | Market price | Subsidized price | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SciFM | ConvFM | SciFM | ConvFM | |
Benefits (a) | 2,658,480 | 1,775,872 | 712,581 | 591,490 |
Cost (b) | 1,319,322 | 833,470 | 850,464 | 405,768 |
Net present value (a-b) | 942,401 | (134,107) | ||
Unit: NRs/ha.
Figure
Timber production cost in two forest management systems.
Sensitivity analysis was carried out in four different scenarios, namely market influences, forest user groups behavior during timber distribution, bureaucratic behavior in regulating timber harvest, and fluctuating annual benefits and costs (Table
Sensitivity analysis of two forest management systems.
Particulars | Benefit-cost ratio | |
---|---|---|
SciFM | ConvFM | |
(a) | ||
(1) Discounting at 15% per annum | 2.00 | |
(2) The daily wage of NRs 1000/day | 1.94 | |
(3) Timber price of NRs 700/cft | 1.70 | |
(4) All three occurred together | 1.63 | |
(b) | ||
(1) All timber sold at a subsidized price (NRs 100/cft) | 0.84 | |
(2) Two-thirds of timber sold at a subsidized price (75%) and rest in the market price (25%) | 1.11 | |
(3) Half of the forest products sold at a subsidized price (50%) and rest in the market price (50%) | 1.54 | |
(c) | ||
(1) 80% of the volume specified in the plan was allowed for harvesting | 1.81 | |
(2) 50% of the volume specified in the plan was allowed for harvesting | 1.45 | |
(d) | ||
(1) Both cost and benefits increased by 5% annually | 1.77 | |
(2) Both cost and benefits decreased by 5% annually | 1.77 |
The market influence was assessed, focusing on changes in the discount rate, daily wage rate, timber price, and all three happened together. The benefit-cost ratio was higher in ConvFM in all cases (Table
The forest user groups were distributing more than four-fifths of the timber within the group at the subsidized price, i.e., NRs 100/cft and selling the rest in the market. If forest user groups distributed all the timber within the group, benefit-cost ratio is less than one in SciFM (Table
Both ConvFM and SciFM were beneficial to forest user groups, and even harvesting quantity of the timber was reduced. However, benefit-cost ratio was higher in the ConvFM compared to SciFM for both cases (Table
In constantly changing annual benefits and costs, the benefit-cost ratio was greater than one for both cases, irrespective of the annual changes. However, ConvFM gave a high benefit-cost ratio compared to SciFM (Table
This paper compares financial efficiency of two forest management systems. Between two systems, SciFM is utterly uneconomical to forest user groups, if timber is distributed at subsidized price. It will only be beneficial to forest user groups if they sell forest products, especially timber, at par with the market price. In contrast, net present value is positive in ConvFM, even timber is distributed at subsidized prices. Hence, new management interventions may not necessarily bring additional benefits to the forest user group, which echoes with the findings of Pandey [
The cost of timber production in the SciFM and ConvFM is NRs 427.3 and NRs 173.4 per cft, respectively. However, current selling price of the timber is NRs 100/cft. Hence, forest user groups are distributing timber far below the cost of production. Currently, forest user groups are able to keep the price of timber low because of their voluntary labor (kind) contribution to forest management activities. Voluntary labor contributed to 15.3% and 20.7% on the total cost in SciFM and ConvFM respectively. Likewise, forest user groups are distributing timber at subsidized prices as an incentive to kind (voluntary labor) contribution. This echoes with Rai et al. [
Currently, forest user groups are not allowed to harvest according to the SciFM plan, thus resulting in fewer benefits. Forest user groups were harvesting only two-thirds of the timber volume specified in the plan. Earlier, ConvFM had faced the same paradox, which was used as a justification for promoting SciFM [
Technically, investment shall be made in the management system, which generated a higher net present value [
SciFM was introduced in those community forests, which have commercial potential and high-value forests. Neither area of the forests nor forest conditions were decisive criteria in selection. Likewise, interests of the forest user group or management objective of the forests were never considered. Our analysis reveals that SciFM is beneficial if promoted for commercial purposes, whereas ConvFM for subsistence use. As community forestry was mostly promoted for fulfilling subsistence need of the local communities, relavancy of the SciFM in present context is highly contested. Basnyat [
Decision-makers should not rely on benefit-cost ratios but, instead, use it as one of the several criteria and discuss relationship between the benefit-cost analysis and any “unquantified environmental impacts,” values, and amenities, while making such investment decisions [
In rhetoric, SciFM is beneficial to forest user groups, since net present value is positive and high compared to ConvFM. However, reality is completely different because benefits are computed at the market price. On the contrary, forest user groups were distributing timber at highly subsidized prices, which is ten times lower than the market price. SciFM may not be beneficial to the forest user groups if they continue to distribute timber at the subsidized price. The forest users were neither aware on the cost of timber production nor were in favour of increasing timber prices to finance SciFM. Likewise, their current investment is far below the investment requirement of the SciFM. Hence, financially efficient SciFM is only a virtual reality. Nevertheless, SciFM can recover the management cost, if one-fourth of the timber is sold at par with the market prices. Hence, SciFM encourages commercialization of community forests. In contrast, ConvFM has not only generated a higher benefit-cost ratio compared to SciFM but also has a positive net present value even when timber was distributed at the subsidized prices. Currenlty, SciFM is justified on economic ground, which included quantity of timber production, fund generation, and employment creation from forests. The selection of forest management system should not only be guided by financial analysis but other factors should be taken into account. In the present situation, ConvFM seems more beneficial considering limited environmental impacts, poor investment capacity of the users, and management of the forests based on the precautionary principle.
In Nepal, most of the community forests are small in size (less than 50 ha) and largely managed for subsistence use, hence promoting SciFM might not be financially viable nor required [
The data used to support this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
The author thanks the “Science and Power in Participatory Forestry” (13-05KU) funded by the Consultative Research Committee for Development Research under the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.