A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, School of Environment, Resources and Development

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Asian Institute of Technology

The concept of community forestry was incorporated in Nepal's 1st National Forestry Plan (1976), and its related forest legislation of 1977. This legislation, the rules and regulations framed under it and further modifications of these, and the ensuring programs have made it possible for development of community forestry in Nepal. Substantial success has been achieved in the development of community forestry in the country. The CF model has been successful in the hilly region in order to established number of FUGs, but initial difficulties have arises in the Terai. This is due to the CF program staiied in the hills few decades ago and only at a late hours reached to the lowlands. The donor supported the CF projects widely in the hills, but the lowland still waiting for effective CF program. The problems of Terai should not be underestimated and a proper analysis is of most importance. Therefore, the objective of the study is contemplated to explore those limitations by a comparative study of components of community forestry such as socioeconomic, institutional and biophysical aspects of both regions Hills and Terai. It is widely believed that community forestry has shown promising results in biological, economic and social fronts, and is leading towards desired outcomes. The findings of socioeconomic concern reveals that the major factors influencing the community forestry are; size and condition of forest area, village structures and demographic situations and historical back ground. Basically there are two reasons for the slow progress of community forestry program in the Terai. They are; the participatory forestry concept for the Terai is still unclear and the hill community forestry concept cannot be directly replicated in the Terai. The Terai have more specific surroundings and problems than the hills. The institutional parts are devoted to the analysis of the forest user groups. The HMGN and donor agencies play key role for promotion of FUG institutions. The study concludes that the user group of hills is more motivated and moving forward in participatory approaches in community forestry performance than the Terai. The forest resources of the Terai region are more valuable than hills due to accessibility and transportation facilities. The horizontal type of landscape provide advantageous surroundings to the Terai, but the hilly and rugged geomorphology of hills made the accessibility difficult and consequently the transportation facilities become hard. The forest products of Terai community forest has access to market all over the country, but in hills it is very hard to extract the forest product and transact it to desired destinations. At last, Community forestry is needed in the Terai, and the FUGs should be given training and guidance to be able to manage the valuable forest resources growing in the area as the Terai villages have a weak tradition in forest management. Firstly there is a need to further adjust the CF concept to suit the Terai conditions. Criteria have to be developed and guidelines should be given. Here, the projects are most inevitable in Terai and have an important role to play, and there are an urgent need of further investment in the community forestry concept in the area.