Scientific Forest Management (SciFM) practices in Nepal

The current debate about the implementation of scientific forest management practices in Nepal?

Scientific forest management involves the application of scientific methods to manage and conserve forests. In Nepal, the implementation of this program has been controversial since it was introduced in 2071. Recently, a parliamentary committee has recommended dismissing the program altogether, citing illegal cutting and supply of trees, lack of financial transparency, and negative impacts on biodiversity as the main reasons behind their decision.

Daman ©sumirsht

The parliamentary committee's recommendation has sparked mixed reactions among the public. Some believe that the program should be abolished due to the issues it has caused, while others argue that the scientific forest management program can be improved to address these concerns instead of being dismissed entirely. This debate highlights the importance of effective forest management practices that balance economic, social, and environmental objectives.  

Harvesting of Teak ©sumirsht

In 2013, the Nepalese government introduced the SciFM program, which was piloted in the Shorea Robusta forest in the Kapilvastu district. The program was earlier attempted in 1990 in the Bara district, but it was not successful. The concept of SciFM emerged in Nepal because the forest resources were not being used to their full potential. Instead, the forests were being managed for conservation purposes, leading to limited usage of resources and an inadequate supply of timber in the market, which increased imports. To minimize imports, supply timber to the market, create job opportunities and enable Forest User Groups (FUGs) to harvest timber, promoting the country's economy, the SciFM program was implemented.

Objectives of SciFM in Nepal:

1.  Shift the traditional way of utilizing the forest resources to the scientific way and promote the economy of the communities and, finally the country. 

2.  Enhancement of the knowledge and technology to manage the forest resources and build the capacity of FUGs to manage the resources and get maximum benefit. 

3.  Produce and harvest an adequate amount of timber and minimize the import. 

4.  Active participation of the local users to manage the resources and benefit sharing. 

5.  Biodiversity conservation through improved regeneration, improved forest health and young plants and timber.

Different issues are being raised regarding SciFM in Nepal:

1. Low level of understanding between forest officials and the local users: 

There is a huge gap between what the government wants to deliver to the local users and what knowledge and information the local users are actually getting. So, it is necessary to disseminate proper knowledge to the users in an effective way. 

2. Technical know-how of the forest officials and the users:  

Since the Nepalese stakeholders are used to in traditional way of using the forest resources, it is difficult for all well conduct the activities and get the expected results.

3. High implementation cost:  

The cost of implementation of SciFM is higher than the traditional methods, so the lack of investment money has created problems.

4. Involvement of the contractors and syndicate in practice: 

Instead of local users' contractors are involved in the harvesting and marketing and they impose syndicate in coordination with the forest officials; this has made local users demotivated towards SciFM. 

5. Financial transparency and discrimination between forest user groups: 

Firstly, there is a lack of transparency in economic transactions among the groups that have adopted SciFM. Secondly, forest officials tend to focus only on forests that generate higher financial transactions, ignoring the lower-income forests. This has resulted in demotivation among the local users who feel neglected and left out.  

6. Dilemma of Community Forestry Federation: 

The Federation of Community Forestry Users (FECOFUN) has not given any final opinion towards SciFM. They are still confusion and contradictions; so, the community forest user groups are in dilemma. Some officials of FECOFUN are positive towards SciFM while some are strong critics. So they should have a clear decision and circulate it to their members all over Nepal.

 Despite many challenges in the implementation of SciFM in Nepal, it is an effective way of managing the forest resources and enhancing the economic growth of the country.

Depot ©sumirsht

To end the debate and use forest resources effectively, these measures should be taken: 

1.  Knowledge dissemination and capacity building of the local forest users: 

The real knowledge and ideas of SciFM should be provided to the local forest users in the way they understand instead of confusing them in the name of technicality and they should be trained to run the activities in scientifically managed forests. 

2.  Adequate arrangement of the trained forest officials: 

There should be adequate support from the forest offices to the local forest users through skilled human resources and knowledge. 

3. Subsidy and loan arrangement to the forest user groups: 

One of the problems that affect the SciFM is the lack of funds to implement the program. So, the government should provide subsidies and make arrangements for the loans that the FUGs pay once they harvest the products and start to earn money. 

4. Involvement of local users in every aspect of SciFM: 

The roles of the users seem passive in practical whatever is mentioned in the policies, so people should be allowed to actively participate in all the aspects of the SciFM program like OP preparation, harvesting and marketing of products. Consent of FUGs should be taken to do all kinds of activities regarding the involvement of contractors too. 

5. Financial transparency and good governance: 

The good governance and transparency of the financial activities will obviously support to flourishing of the SciFM program. 

6. Policy reforms: 

If there are any arrangements in the policies that demotivate local users or the forest officials and third parties could play with and create problems, should be amended and made user-friendly. 

7. Healthy and effective discussion with FECOFUN: 

Since FECOFUN seems to be the strongest critic of SciFM, concerned authorities should discuss with officials and other stakeholders and doubts should be cleared; so that all the stakeholders come together to promote the SciFM program.

 #This blog is based on my perception, and it reflects my thinking. It has nothing to do with other's instinct knowledge.

©sumirshrestha2024