English | French | Home

End Notes and References

End Notes and References 1. Springate-Baginski et al. (2003) 'Community forest management in the middle hills of Nepal: the changing context', Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3 (1) July 2003.
2. http://www.ittis.org/profiles/profile_ap_ne.htm
3. as defined by FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FAO 2001).
4. UN (United Nations). 2003. Millennium Indicators Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, New York. [http://millenniumindicators.un.org]. March 2003; based on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
5. http://homepage.boku.ac.at/h0240699/ps.htm
6. http://homepage.boku.ac.at/h0240699/ps.htm
7. The HDI value is computed as unweighted average of values achieved in level of living, knowledge and health.
8. UNDP (2003) Human Development Report 2003. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9. Unless otherwise noted specifically, sources for figures in this section are taken mostly from: Population Census 2001, National Accounts of Nepal 2002, UNDP Human Development Report, 2003; World Bank Development Indicators Database, July 2003; and the National Planning Commission, Tenth Plan 2002-2007.
10. CBS (2001) Statistical Pocket Book Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. Also available at: http://npc.gov.np:8080/yearbook/contents/
11. Political situation in Nepal was compiled from various news reports from various dailies and weeklies of Nepal, mainly from the Rising Nepal, the Kathmandu Post, Kantipur, and Nepali Times. The summary of events was also extracted from http://www.ndi.org/worldwide/asia/nepal/nepal_pf.asp, and Nepali Times, 26 Dec- 1 January 2003, Isuue 176.
12. From 1846-1951, Nepal remained under oligarchic, autocratic Rana family regime, which pursued a deliberate policy of stagnation and isolation, building grand palaces for themselves while investing next to nothing in public works. In order to keep their grasp on power, they suppressed education. Thus, Nepalese people have had "all the troubles of colonialism with none of the benefits" (DFID 1999, p.14). In 1951, democracy was established in Nepal after 104 years of the so-called Rana era. DFID (1999) 'Top Down, bottom-up', Developments 5:14-17.
13. Dahal, D.R. (2001) Civil Society in Nepal: opening the ground for question. Centre for Development and Governance, Kathmandu.
14. Dahal, D.R. (2001).
15. Badu, KP (2004), The Kathmandu Post, 27 February 2004.
16. After the United States listed Maoists as a terrorist organization in May 2003, the rebels have hardened their anti-American stance (Nepali Times, 26 Dec- 1 January 2003, Isuue 176).
17. Acharya, K.P. (1998) A Review of Foreign Aid in Nepal. Citizen's Poverty Watch Forum, Kathmandu.
18. World Bank (2000) Nepal Public Expenditure Review, Vol. 1: PER Overview-The Main Report (No. 20211-NEP).
19. UNDP (2003).
20. Poffenberger, M. (ed) (2000). Community and Forest Management in South Asia (a regional profile of the working group on community involvement in forest management). Forests, People and Policies, IUCN.
21. ibid.
22. Poffenberger, M. (ed) (2000).
23. Chhetri, R.B., Sigdel, H. and Malla, Y. (2001) Country Profile Report for the Forum on the Role of Forestry in Poverty Alleviation: Nepal, Forestry Department-FAO, September 2001.
24. Gilmour, D.A. and R.J. Fisher (1991) Villagers, Forest and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.
25. Winrock (2002) Emerging Issues in Community Forestry in Nepal. Winrock International, Kathmandu.
26. Source: Community and Private Forest Division, Department of Forests (2003).
27. FUG Database- Department of Forests (2003).
28. Springate-Baginski et al. (2003).
29. http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Asia/Nepal.html
30. IFAD (2003), Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme Design Document- Inception, International Fund for Agriculture Development, September 2003 (REPORT No.1420-NP).
31. Ohler, F.M.J. (2000) The impacts of Leasehold Forestry on Livelihoods and Environment, Field Document 3/2000, Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project. FAO, Kathmandu.
32. IFAD (2003).
33. The Forest Act (1993) recognizes two types of forests on the basis of ownership: private forests and national forests. Private forests may include woodlots, private trees, private plantations, orchards etc. The national forests includes all state owned land area under forests/tree cover, shrublands, grasslands, unregistered lands surrounded or adjoining forests, as well as paths, ponds, lakes, rivers etc. within forest areas. For the purpose of management, national forest is further divided into five different categories: community forests, leasehold forests, religious forests, protected forest and government managed forests. The last category of forests consist of the forest area which has not yet been allocated for other four types of management (i.e. residual category). The first three types of forests come under the participatory management regime i.e. user groups are given the responsibilities and authority for protecting and managing such forests. Source: Chhetri, R.B., Sigdel, H. and Malla, Y. (2001).
34. Resources Nepal (1999) Protected Areas of Nepal. Resources Nepal, Kathmandu.
35. Sharma, U.R. (1999) Country Paper-Nepal. In Oli, K.P. (ed.) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in the Asian Region (Proceedings of a Workshop held in May 1998), IUCN-Nepal Kathmandu, 49-57 pp.
36. Winrock (2002).
37. ibid.
38. Nepali Times, 23-29 January 2004, Issue 180.
39. Winrock (2002).
40. Poffenberger, M. (ed) (2000).
41. Ojha, H.R. (2000) 'Terai Forestry and Possible Strategies for Management' Participation (A Nepalese Journal of Participatory Development), NEPAN, Kathmandu.
42. Springate-Baginski et al. (no date) Community Forestry in Nepal: A Policy Review. Livelihood Policy Relationship in South Asia Working Paper-3. Available at: www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/ prp/pdfdocs/nepalpolicy.pdf
43. Forest Resources of Nepal (1991-1992 data), Forests Resource Information System Project Publication No. 74, Kathmandu, Nepal.
44. Poffenberger, M. (ed) (2000).
45. www.recoftc.org/documents/Inter_Reps/ Cultivating_forests/Shrestha.pdf
46. Elder, J. et al. (1976), Planned Resettlement in Nepal's Terai: A Social Analysis of the Khajura/ Bardia Punarvas Project. Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu. p. 27, also see p. 134-147 for cases of illegal resettlements.
47. The Concept for Forest Management of Tarai, Churia and Inner Tarai (2000), HMG/Nepal.
48. See http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue158
49. A study supported by the World Bank recommended, among other things, that TCN be liquidated, however, a Cabinet decision in 2001 endorsed a recommendation to downsize TCN as an interim step rather than liquidate at this stage. Source: Mitchell, A., Bajracharya, P. and Baral, N. (2001) Nepal Fuelwood and Timber Marketing Study. Final Report. MFSC, HMG/N, February.
50. Under the plan, Enso International in conjunction with three Nepali companies were going to be handed over 32430 hectares of Sal forests in Bara. The plan was offered as a 'pilot project' with the goal of extending similar initiatives across the Terai belt- incorporating eventually, about 300000 hectares of Nepal's remaining hardwood forests (NK Shrestha and Charla Britt 1997). It was also reported that FINNIDA was threatening to withdraw their aid programmes if these forests areas were not handed over to the Finnish Company. The poor people who depend on the forest resources for their livelihoods were not consulted before the management agreement. Rather these poor people are the ones often blamed for forests degradation. For details on the issue, see Shrestha, N.K, and Britt, C. (1997) 'Another 'balanced overview: an equation with more than money'. FTTP Newsletter No. 32-33. Forest Trees and People Programme. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden.
51. News report, The Kathmandu Post, May 8 2002.
52. Nepali Times, 23-29 January 2004, Issue 180.
53. Nepali Times, 23-29 January 2004, Issue 180.
54. Having said that, it is to be noted that work by GTZ-funded Churia Hills Commmunity Forestry Project in the inner Terai has been effective in introducing community forestry into the Terai/Churia/Siwaliks. Currently, SNV, GTZ, DFID, CARE -Nepal and WWF-Nepal are working in the Terai, only three Terai districts have no project/donor support. DFID and SNV have been working on collaborative forest management by setting up committees in Terai districts who could help prioritise forestry issues. However, they have not got very far. Livelihood and Forestry Programme (LFP) funded by DFID is completing strategic distric forest plans in three Terai districts working with a District Forest Coordination Committee. WWF-Nepal is working with Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation on Terai Arc Landscape Programme from central Nepal to West of Nepal, which is a long-term programme with far reaching effects (Source: Personal Communication with Peter E. Neil, 2004).
55. The composition of Terai society is complex due to high migration and the heterogeneity of the villages. While settlers bought large tracts of valuable agricultural land, the indigenous people have become the minority and are marginalised in all spheres of life.
56. Springate-Baginski et al. (2003).
57. Personal Communication with Peter E. Neil, Livelihood Forestry Programme, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004.
58. http://www.ittis.org/profiles/profile_ap_ne.htm
59. The same period data for Malaysia for example is: 37,081 cu m (total roundwood production), 7,410 cu m (woodfuel) and 29, 670 cu m (industrial roundwood).
60. www.rwedp.org/acrobat/rm51.pdf
61. Edwards, D.M. (1996) 'The trade in non-timber forest products from Nepal', Mountain Research and Development 16(4): 383-394.
62. Ojha, H.R. (2000) 'Current policy issues in NTFP development in Nepal', Kathmandu: Asia Network for Small-scale Bio-resources (ANSAB), accessed at: http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ojhah00a.htm