![Landscapes scaled decarbonization and wildlife conservation plan in Nepal [Source: [76]].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bhubaneswor-Dhakal/publication/362614332/figure/fig3/AS:11431281388412221@1745164710627/Landscapes-scaled-decarbonization-and-wildlife-conservation-plan-in-Nepal-Source-76_Q320.jpg)
![Protected areas are established mostly in the areas with the highest mountains [Source: Department of Wildlife Conservation [44]].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bhubaneswor-Dhakal/publication/362614332/figure/fig4/AS:11431281388364704@1745164711167/Protected-areas-are-established-mostly-in-the-areas-with-the-highest-mountains-Source_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from World
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Dhakal, B.; Chand, N.;
Shrestha, H.L.; Shrestha, A.; Dhakal,
N.; Adhikari, B.; Shrestha, S.K.; Karki,
K.B.; Bhandari, P. Paradoxes of
Aggravated Vulnerability,
Marginalization, and Peril of
Forest-Based Communities after
Increasing Conservative Forest and
Protected Areas in Nepal: A Policy
Lesson on Land-Based Climate
Change Mitigation. World 2022,3,
544–574. https://doi.org/10.3390/
world3030030
Academic Editor: Manfred
Max Bergman
Received: 16 June 2022
Accepted: 27 July 2022
Published: 8 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Paradoxes of Aggravated Vulnerability, Marginalization,
and Peril of Forest-Based Communities after Increasing
Conservative Forest and Protected Areas in Nepal: A Policy
Lesson on Land-Based Climate Change Mitigation
Bhubaneswor Dhakal 1, 2, * , Narendra Chand 3, Him Lal Shrestha 4, Anita Shrestha 5, Nischal Dhakal 6,
Bikash Adhikari 7, Shyam Krishna Shrestha 5, Krishna Bahadur Karki 2,8 and Padam Bhandari 9
1Christchurch Health and Development Study, Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch School,
University of Otago, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
2Support for Development New Zealand, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
3Foresters’ Association, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
4Department of Geographical Information Systems, Kathmandu Forestry College, Kathmandu 44800, Nepal
5Independent Researcher, Kathmandu 44608, Nepal
6Shrijalshil Samaj Sundarbazar-8, Lamjung 36611, Nepal
7Department of Social Forestry and Forest Management, Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University,
Pokhara 33700, Nepal
8Soil Department, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar 44700, Nepal
9Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Agriculture and Forestry
University (AFU) Rampur, Chitwan 42209, Nepal
*Correspondence: bhubaneswordhakal@gmail.com or bhubaneswor.dhakal@otago.ac.nz
Abstract:
Many measures of international policies and support have dictated developing countries to
upscale land areas of intact forestry, special biodiversity conservation site, and other wild reserves
to half the land territory of the nation by 2050 for resulting environmental, and other benefits to
global societies. The international initiations and work urged scholars to assess the potential impacts
of the aggressive policy on forest-based communities and especially those living in institutionally
and geo ecologically vulnerable areas. This study compiled the impacts of such international policy
interventions on diverse affairs of the local community and national economies in Nepal and drew
some conclusions on the well-being future of such forest-based communities. It explained that the
international interventions in managing community-based resources induced serious disturbances
in many local systems and resulted in vicious circles of emigration, income losses, social problems,
psychological stresses, and food insecurities. The interventions have placed some communities
and especially indigenous ethnic groups in the position either to be displaced from their ancestors’
homelands or suffer for generations. This study also explained some reinforcing phenomena that
emerged from the external interventions which have placed situations of the resource impacting local
communities adversely for years. It also investigated whether support of international agencies in
policy formation and implementation for resource management safeguards the well-being of the
resource-based communities. The agencies resulted in the best environmental and other benefits
to foreign societies which have aggravated the misery of local communities, particularly the poor
people, women, and indigenous ethnic communities. The adverse impacts on the local societies
are not repercussions (accidentally or unknowingly happened). All these findings infer that the
international policies of upscaling forests and wilderness areas or making conservation areas in half
of their land territory, especially in developing societies for the global benefit, may place the lives of
the forest-based communities in peril of suffering for generations or extirpating.
Keywords:
curse; carbon-forestry; indigenous-community; intervention-effect; land-use; tradeoff;
life-security
World 2022,3, 544–574. https://doi.org/10.3390/world3030030 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/world
World 2022,3545
1. Introduction
International environmentalists have campaigned and worked actively to upscale
intact forestlands, protected areas, and wild reserves to half of the earth’s territory by 2050
for climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and other global benefits [
1
–
5
].
They targeted and worked in establishing protected areas alone to 10% of earth territory
by 1992, and 17% by 2020 [
6
–
9
]. The current target is 30% land territory by 2030. Many
other policies and programs are also introduced to expand and protect forests wherever
possible, especially to offset the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are mainly produced
by developed nations and other highly industrialized countries [
10
–
13
]. Popular policies
and programs to increase the forest areas and their conditions include community forestry
development, carbon forestry or Reduced Emission from Forest Degradation and Defor-
estation (REDD), landscape-scale decarbonization, and the UN policy of upscaling forests
and ecological restoration. Strong sociopolitical and economic forces have made developed
countries costly to change their GHG emission-intensive practices or offset the national
emissions by afforesting their vast private land areas [
13
]. Environmental policy analysts
pursued international communities for considering global approaches and overseas sources
to address the emission offsetting and economic protection problems of the developed
countries [
10
–
13
]. Forest carbon sequestration in public lands especially protected areas and
other natural forests in developing countries are considered a reliable and cheaper strate-
gic approach to offset the GHG emission of developed countries [
11
,
14
]. Many incentive
policies including payment for carbon sequestration are offered and followed to increase
forestlands with an intact management system to offset the carbon emissions [
10
,
13
,
15
–
17
].
Commitments to adequately safeguarding the well-being of local communities while man-
aging the land resources for environmental conservation are well highlighted in policy
documents of most conservation organizations [
18
–
23
]. Many international agencies are
also actively involved in formulating and implementing resources management policies.
They have focused on addressing institutional capacity and bad governance-related prob-
lems for safeguarding welling of the local communities especially in institutionally weak
countries [
24
]. However, tradeoffs occur naturally between the production of many goods
or services that require meeting the need of local communities and contributing to global
environmental conservation [
23
,
25
,
26
]. The guidelines and agencies can be hardly helpful
in addressing the tradeoffs. The changes in land resource management, therefore, can
result in pervasive adverse impacts on local community wellbeing and various national
security affairs in institutionally weak countries. The impacts may be on many affairs of
forest-based communities and especially of indigenous ethnic groups who have lived in
marginal private lands by complementing resources from public forestlands [
27
,
28
]. A
deeper understanding of the adverse impacts of the aggressive international environmental
policies on land uses on local systems and other affairs of the forest-based communi-
ties might be helpful to decide on modalities of future policies to upscale forestry and
protected areas.
Some studies explained the potential adverse impacts of the conservation-oriented
aggressive land use policies and practices on local communities. Bushcher et al. (2016)
argued that the policy of expanding protected areas to a half part of the earth is a radical
and unsustainable idea [
1
]. The policy occupies lands mostly of poor communities which
escalates poverty, social inequality, and public unrest. It leaves the societies who are the
real culprits of creating current environmental problems. Pimm et al. (2018) also argued the
use of half part of the earth for biodiversity conservation is an illogical and socially harmful
idea because over 85% of plant species occur in one-third of the earth’s land surface [
3
].
Ellis and Mehrabi (2019) argued that current global initiatives of excessive land use for
environmental conservation hampered communities to practice nature-based solutions
for sustainable living and adapting to climate change [
2
]. Duffy (2014) and many other
studies cited cases of militarization and social violence or conflicts in Africa and South
American countries when local people lost their livelihoods after establishing or expanding
protected areas [
18
,
20
,
29
–
31
]. Studies also explained the passively suffering of African
World 2022,3546
people from food scarcity and poverty after land dispossession by European countries for
biofuel and plantation [
32
,
33
]. These findings are based on theories or scholarly arguments
and are limited to common problems. Adverse impacts could occur in many other affairs of
forest-based communities. They could be also different than what the literature explained.
Such adverse impacts could be better identified in Nepal where communities, espe-
cially in the mountain region, require using forest products and services to complement
private resources for sustaining their livelihoods and other affairs of life. Mountainous
factors especially geo-ecological sensitive systems and physical barriers have constrained
the communities to practice modern technologies and other facilities and have no ade-
quate access to private lands for basic livelihoods [
34
,
35
]. The disadvantaged communities
have followed the forest resource-based unique livelihood systems with millennium-long
practices and experiences for adapting to harsh geo-ecological conditions [
34
,
36
–
38
]. Nowa-
days, forests and other public lands traditionally used by local communities are primarily
managed for environmental conservation and other benefits of outsiders. The government
has managed the resources by following policy guidance, technical support, and financial
assistance from international agencies since the 1970s [
39
–
43
]. The forests and protected
areas have now covered over half the areas of the nation’s territory [
24
,
44
]. A substantial
period has lapsed from the time of the excessive conservative land uses. The land use
practices might have resulted in some critical adverse impacts on local communities and
the national level. Studies investigating impacts of the excessive land use in protected
areas discussed only livelihood issues of local communities [
45
,
46
]. Studies on potential
impacts of forest carbon sequestration and trading policies pointed to the issue of com-
munity deprivation of rights to access and control over the local forest resources [
47
,
48
].
Most other studies in Nepal investigated direct and immediate effects (availability of prod-
ucts and services and disparity in benefit distribution) of prevailing conservation policies
at the household level [
27
,
28
,
39
–
41
,
49
–
54
]. A few studies, however, reported increasing
in conservative forest and protected areas resulted in more household income and less
community income inequalities [
55
,
56
]. The findings are highly contestable and probably
caused by methodological flaw or spurious relationship. The conservative land use policies
and practices have rather dispossessed many poor communities to use the resources for
meeting products and services of their daily and other needs [
51
,
52
,
57
]. The above facts
motivated the authors to investigate the adverse impacts of the aggressively conservative
land use policies and practices on local communities and national securities in Nepal.
This study attempted to contribute additional knowledge by answering the following
questions. What are the main social, psychological, economic, and environmental impacts
on the forest-based communities resulting from deliberate changes in public land resource
management for increasing environmental and other benefits to global societies? What is
the prospect of lasting the adverse impacts on forest-based communities for the long term?
Whether supports of international development agencies safeguard the well-being of the
forest-based communities while managing the land resources for global environmental
conservation and other benefits to outsiders?
The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows. The next section provides
a brief review of the literature and a snapshot of a conceptual model to answer these
questions. Then, the study methods and materials are explained. Another section described
the achievements of the intervention objectives, dimensions of community marginalization,
and prospects of persisting the marginalization. The results are discussed and concluded
in the last section.
2. Theories and Models for the Study
2.1. Institutional Theory of Marginalization
Social science literature considered marginalization as a process of depriving people
of full participation in social, economic, and political affairs relative to other members of
the society [
58
]. It is also an institutional process of denying access to the resources or other
opportunities that the victims deserve based on natural, human, legal, and cultural rights.
World 2022,3547
The denial can place an individual, family, or society in both vulnerable and disadvantaged
positions. The vulnerable subject consists of a critically low capability to tolerate, cope
with, and recover from shocks. They get a serious degree of sufferings from an elementary
change in social, economic, or environmental systems [
59
]. Most people have been vul-
nerable or suffered more from institutional (humanly devised) phenomena than naturally
occurring phenomena [60,61].
Institutions are social structures that regulate the behavior of people and determine
the production and distribution of goods and services in society [
60
,
61
]. The institutional
change with a legitimate scientific process and benevolent intention modify social, eco-
nomic, and environmental systems which result in better outcomes for society [
62
]. The
principle of development intervention is to enrich or re-strengthen the existing state of
environmental, physical, economic, institutional, organizational, behavioral, mental, and
emotion-related asset(s) for reducing the vulnerability and suffering of the targeted indi-
vidual or society [
63
]. However, the institution-change agents with antagonistic interests
generally shape the institutions to result in the best outcome of resources for meeting their
vested interests. The induced institutions can destroy or weaken the assets or opportunities
of the other societies sharing the resources [24,27,34,36,64].
The literature also explains that induced institutions alter social and economic phenom-
ena and incentives. The alteration makes the institutional reformation costly for addressing
new social, economic, and environmental problems [
62
]. Some secondary institutions can be
evolved in response to deliberate institutional changes which can play reinforcing roles [61].
Studies well explained that institutional changes to manage land resources result in
substantial tradeoffs in production between goods and services in time and space. The
impacts of the changes in production benefit some groups or systems or disadvantage oth-
ers [
23
,
25
,
26
]. Many studies stated that global environmental politics changed the production
states of the resources and exacerbated peripheral marginalization [64]. Politics has changed
management practices, social-ecological systems, stocks and flows, and regulative institutions
of land resources [
24
,
27
,
41
,
53
,
65
]. The changes marginalize local communities in different
pathways and dimensions [
27
,
64
,
66
–
72
]. Studies explained marginalization pathways and
dimensions specific to their study contexts. Popular marginalization can be grouped into
psychological, social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental dimensions.
2.2. The Phenomena of Tradeoffs Outcomes: The Investigation Model
Following the above literature, potential relationships or phenomena of marginalizing
local communities associated with external interventions in land resources management are
depicted in Figure 1. The arrows with blue color indicate direct effects whereas the arrows
with red color indicate indirect effects from the feedback loop. The two directional arrows
show potential trade-off outcomes for local and global beneficiaries from changes in the
management of land resources. The inputs include interventions and reinforcement from
feedback. The interventions are international and national policies and supports. These
inputs are assumed to alter management, social-ecological systems, regulative institutions,
and other conditions of the land resources as depicted in the inputs box. The alterations
can enhance the products and services of global environmental and other gains for distance
beneficiaries. In turn, they result in declining production and availability of products and
services of the resources essential for functioning social, economic, and ecological systems
and activities vital for local community wellbeing. The interventions are proactive activities
of international and national agencies responsible for resource management. International
aid agencies are one of the actors to facilitate resource management for resulting in fair local
and global outcomes. The agencies have also inherited some risks to lead to inappropriate
management of the resource. It is hypothesized that inappropriate management of the
resources distorts the local systems and results in knock-on effects in the economically
and geo-ecologically vulnerable systems. Local communities, thus, can be marginalized in
multiple dimensions.
World 2022,3548
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 5
ports. These inputs are assumed to alter management, social-ecological systems, regula-
tive institutions, and other conditions of the land resources as depicted in the inputs box.
The alterations can enhance the products and services of global environmental and other
gains for distance beneficiaries. In turn, they result in declining production and availabil-
ity of products and services of the resources essential for functioning social, economic,
and ecological systems and activities vital for local community wellbeing. The interven-
tions are proactive activities of international and national agencies responsible for re-
source management. International aid agencies are one of the actors to facilitate resource
management for resulting in fair local and global outcomes. The agencies have also inher-
ited some risks to lead to inappropriate management of the resource. It is hypothesized
that inappropriate management of the resources distorts the local systems and results in
knock-on effects in the economically and geo-ecologically vulnerable systems. Local com-
munities, thus, can be marginalized in multiple dimensions.
Figure 1 also shows potential elements for reinforcing resource management in the
current path. The elements are changes in resource conditions, the emergence of complex
institutional conditions, and the intensification of new beneficiaries’ stakes on the re-
sources. The reinforcement may put back the resource management on the current path
and place the communities persisting in the disadvantaged or marginalized position.
Our study has considered that community lands including forests are communal or-
chards to produce many goods and services for meeting daily household and other needs
of local people and especially during farm resource scarcity seasons. The resource-based
communities require multipurpose goods and services from the lands which complement
resources from private land and sustain their livelihoods. The products and services make
many local systems functional which vitalizes livelihood opportunities and other affairs
of local communities.
Figure 1. Phenomena and tradeoff outcomes resulted from external interventions in the manage-
ment of local land resources for global benefits.
3. Study Data and Methods
This study is based mostly on qualitative and secondary data. The main sources of
the data are as follows.
• Major policy documents including national plans, laws statistics, acts, and maps;
• Fieldwork based on published materials of concerned authorities;
• Work progress reports;
Figure 1.
Phenomena and tradeoff outcomes resulted from external interventions in the management
of local land resources for global benefits.
Figure 1also shows potential elements for reinforcing resource management in the
current path. The elements are changes in resource conditions, the emergence of complex
institutional conditions, and the intensification of new beneficiaries’ stakes on the resources.
The reinforcement may put back the resource management on the current path and place
the communities persisting in the disadvantaged or marginalized position.
Our study has considered that community lands including forests are communal
orchards to produce many goods and services for meeting daily household and other needs
of local people and especially during farm resource scarcity seasons. The resource-based
communities require multipurpose goods and services from the lands which complement
resources from private land and sustain their livelihoods. The products and services make
many local systems functional which vitalizes livelihood opportunities and other affairs of
local communities.
3. Study Data and Methods
This study is based mostly on qualitative and secondary data. The main sources of the
data are as follows.
•Major policy documents including national plans, laws statistics, acts, and maps;
•Fieldwork based on published materials of concerned authorities;
•Work progress reports;
•Materials published in journals and other authentic sources;
•
Knowledge acquired by the authors while working in the community for forestry and
other environmental fields in Nepal and abroad.
The main sources of the materials are global statistical databases, the central bureau
of statistics in Nepal, government official documents, and public websites [
22
,
24
,
73
–
84
].
The relevant materials were purposefully searched and collected from the internet, library,
or personal contact based on easier access. Combinations of thematic words and phrases
related to the subject matter of the study were used to get relevant materials and collect the
information from websites and digital library sources. The thematic keywords and phrases
were taken mainly related to economic, social, and mental wellbeing and stresses from the
forest, climate change, and wildlife management. The main keywords were forest, benefit-
sharing, exclusion, forest product availability, use, and indigenous ethnic communities.
Others were emigration, damage or harm, bureaucratic hassle, forest management plan,
World 2022,3549
and user group. The terms Nepal, community forest, and protected areas or national park
were combined in most searches.
Some official online maps are used to provide support for arguments. The photos with
no courtesy acknowledgments are taken from the field by the authors. The information of
historical officials’ documents and published literature were followed for case studies. In
addition, information that the authors observed or experienced in community and profes-
sional worksites is used to justify the statement and data of the literature. Previous studies
well followed such mixed data-based analysis to assess high-level policy problems [85].
This study followed qualitative data and methods. It presented a statement followed
by evidence and scholarly arguments. The literature often called the approach a common
evidence synthesis approach. Impact assessment studies measure the impacts at the
outcome, effect (intermediate), and impact (end) stages [
85
]. The distinction of vulnerability
or marginalization measurement attributes between effect and impact levels is often bluer
or more complex. Therefore, this study used convenient measures commonly followed in
similar previous studies.
4. Outcomes of Conservation Interventions
4.1. Environment Conservation Outcomes
4.1.1. Forest Carbon Sequestration and GHG Emission Reduction
Community forest policy contributed to the formation of 22,266 forest user groups
with 2,907,871 households from 1990 to 2016 [
44
]. The groups have taken responsibility
to develop and protect about 34% of the national forest area. As targeted in the national
forestry plans, the policy has reduced forest-based livestock holding by doing afforestation
in community pasturelands and restricting grazing in the forests [
39
]. Figure 2provides an
example of the establishment of planted forests in community pasturelands with excellent
conservation status. The community forests are also well protected. Trees in many forests
have been overstocked and underutilized [52,86]. Based on theories in the scientific litera-
ture [
87
,
88
], tree accumulation has naturally resulted in more forest carbon sequestration
whereas reduction of livestock holding has reduced GHG emissions in the communities.
According to the government record for 2017 and 2018, about 1,066,251 m
3
of logged woods
usable for construction activities were decaying on the forest floor [
50
]. The woods have
served forest carbon sequestration which can be considered a voluntary contribution of the
country to climate change mitigation. Conservative forest policies have increased the trend
of timber import for domestic uses from overseas including the USA, New Zealand, Myan-
mar, Malaysia, and India [
50
,
86
,
89
]. The import has further increased the forest carbon pool
in the country. The forests are now well managed to trade the forest carbon credits with
overseas agencies. The forestry program for forest carbon sequestration and trading is ex-
tended in almost all districts which is well reported in the progress report of Forest 2016 of
the Carbon Facility Fund (FCF): “
. . . . . .
wide-sweeping and transformative policy reforms
were carried out in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nepal” ([
73
], p. 15).
. . .
“In Nepal, REDD+
desks are being established at the district level in a phased manner. In the first phase,
43 districts were provided government financing to establish rudimentary institutional
structures for REDD+, mirroring existing structures at the national level. Twenty districts
have already established these institutional setups. More robust REDD+ implementation
structures are being established in the 12 districts participating in the emission reductions
program in the Terai Arc Landscape.” [
73
], p. 43. The government has done the forest
carbon credits selling agreements with the World Bank and LEAF and brought foreign
currency [
27
]. The trade may have offset GHG emissions of developed countries and
protected their emission-intensive industries as intended by international policies on global
environmental conservation [10].
World 2022,3550
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 7
carried out in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nepal” ([73]: p15). …“In Nepal, REDD+ desks are
being established at the district level in a phased manner. In the first phase, 43 districts were pro-
vided government financing to establish rudimentary institutional structures for REDD+, mirroring
existing structures at the national level. Twenty districts have already established these institutional
setups. More robust REDD+ implementation structures are being established in the 12 districts par-
ticipating in the emission reductions program in the Terai Arc Landscape.” [73]: p43. The govern-
ment has done the forest carbon credits selling agreements with the World Bank and LEAF
and brought foreign currency [27]. The trade may have offset GHG emissions of devel-
oped countries and protected their emission-intensive industries as intended by interna-
tional policies on global environmental conservation [10].
Figure 2. Overstocked underutilized forests were established in community pasturelands with the
technical advice and financial support of the Swiss Development Agency.
Protected areas are established and extended over 24% of the national territory [44].
[44,52,90,91]. The wildlife population is substantially increased. The population of tigers,
for example, is nearly tripled from 2010 to 2022 despite the target of doubling [90]. The
government is still working to occupy community forests in many districts and make the
protected areas over 30% of national areas by 2030 [27]. The protected areas represent
many statuses of biodiversity areas including the IUCN categories [92]. Some of the areas
are considered global biodiversity hotspots [93]. The forest resources in the protected ar-
eas are being strictly conserved. Livestock populations in and around the protected areas
are also substantially reduced with the conservation actions. The protected areas policies
and programs have also increased carbon sequestration as well as reduced local GHG
emissions. In addition, the government has followed the international policy of landscape-
scale decarbonization and developed its implementation national plan as advised by in-
ternational agencies [16,76,94]. Figure 3 shows the national wide zoning to implement the
policy. Some international agencies have already developed such programs and started
the plan implementation. The programs are designed to reduce forest-based livestock
holding and abolish indigenous livestock breeds of communities [22]. The plan and pro-
gram have contributed to forest carbon sequestration and GHG emission reduction. In
addition, positive feedback effects of establishing and expanding the protected areas re-
sulted in the displacement of the population which increased land areas more forests and
the status of forest conservation.
Figure 2.
An overstocked and underutilized forest (Khorthali Charikot). An international aid agency
provided technical and financial support to establish it in the community pastureland with hidden
interest for dumping GHG emissions and reducing livestock (a source of GHG emissions).
Protected areas are established and extended over 24% of the national territory [
44
,
52
,
90
,
91
].
The wildlife population is substantially increased. The population of tigers, for example, is nearly
tripled from 2010 to 2022 despite the target of doubling [
90
]. The government is still working to
occupy community forests in many districts and make the protected areas over 30% of national
areas by 2030 [
27
]. The protected areas represent many statuses of biodiversity areas including
the IUCN categories [
92
]. Some of the areas are considered global biodiversity hotspots [
93
]. The
forest resources in the protected areas are being strictly conserved. Livestock populations in and
around the protected areas are also substantially reduced with the conservation actions. The
protected areas policies and programs have also increased carbon sequestration as well as
reduced local GHG emissions. In addition, the government has followed the international
policy of landscape-scale decarbonization and developed its implementation national plan
as advised by international agencies [
16
,
76
,
94
]. Figure 3shows the national wide zoning to
implement the policy. Some international agencies have already developed such programs
and started the plan implementation. The programs are designed to reduce forest-based
livestock holding and abolish indigenous livestock breeds of communities [
22
]. The plan
and program have contributed to forest carbon sequestration and GHG emission reduction.
In addition, positive feedback effects of establishing and expanding the protected areas
resulted in the displacement of the population which increased land areas more forests and
the status of forest conservation.
4.1.2. Protected Area Expansion and Recreation Site Development
Nepal started establishing special areas for wildlife protection in the late 1970s [
92
,
95
].
The country increased the protected areas according to the international targets. It established
the conservation areas in 11% of the national territory in 1993 to 23.67% in 2019 [
13
,
96
]. The
global targets of the protected area were 10% global land territory by 1992 and 17% by 2020.
The current global average is under 14.6% [
13
]. Although the neighboring country, India,
started establishing protected areas in 1936 (British colonial period), it increased the protected
areas from 4% land territory in 1993 to hardly 6% in 2019. Following a recent plan of the UN
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), ex-Prime Minister Khadga
Prasad Sharma Oli declared to expand it to 30% of national by 2030. Many policy works are
undergoing to make the protected areas 30% by then. People have protected all wild animal
species in their forests and farms outside the protected areas even if they are abundant in
number and have harmed crops and animals.
Most of the protected areas are established in areas with special recreational values as
illustrated in the locations in Figure 4. They are established mostly in higher altitude regions
which are special interest sites of adventurous groups, particularly western tourists [
92
,
95
,
97
,
98
].
According to Shrestha et al. (2010), the high mountain region shares only about 24% of the
national territory but covers two-thirds of protected areas [
92
]. The lower hill shares nearly 30%
World 2022,3551
of national areas and possesses higher threats of human activities for wild species extinction
but the area has less than 2% of areas [
92
]. Forest biodiversity including wild animals in the
region is in a less endangered position relative to other regions due to difficult terrains for
walking, low modern development facilities, and sparse human population. The natural
barriers have also placed the wild species easier to be escaped from threat activities or
situations. In addition, most inhabitants of the area are indigenous ethnic communities
who have much more wildlife and friendlier cultural and land-use practices than those of
other communities.
The hidden interest to establish the protected areas there is to manage the mountain
forests in an intact condition which makes them incredible and dream sites for tourists’
recreation [
83
]. The adventurous people hold strong desires to wander, explore, experience,
and indulge in the fascinating and tranquil forest environment with stunning snowing
mountains in the surroundings. The recreation helps them to recover from cognitive over-
load and other mental stresses resulting from their strong desire, work, and lifestyles [
99
].
Hiking in a challenging mountain environment builds confidence to cope with physical
stresses and provides joyfulness and glory. Visits to natural forests also fulfill the visitors’
strong craving and curiosity of sighting wild creatures in their natural habitat [
99
–
101
].
The victors get adventurous experiences visiting parks and other protected areas. The
foods and cultures of indigenous and other local communities are also mostly uniquely
different from their daily luxurious or other affluent lifestyles. The visits to the communities
provide them the opportunities of experiencing tastes of the foods tastes and cultures of
the societies. Therefore, people with affluent and luxurious lifestyles come to visit na-
tional parks, climb the Himalayas, and live in indigenous communities, despite having
life-threatening challenges or some uncomfortable living environments there. With the as-
surance of development grants from international agencies, the government agencies have
worked for extending protected areas further and especially in community forests around
a day recreational trip distance from the capital and other urban areas [
27
]. Establishing
protected areas in community forest also make the forest carbon sequestration more secure.
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 8
Figure 3. Landscapes scaled decarbonization and wildlife conservation plan in Nepal [Source: [76]].
4.2.2. Protected Area Expansion and Recreation Site Development
Nepal started establishing special areas for wildlife protection in the late 1970s
[92,95]. The country increased the protected areas according to the international targets.
It established the conservation areas in 11% of the national territory in 1993 to 23.67% in
2019 [13,96]. The global targets of the protected area were 10% global land territory by
1992 and 17% by 2020. The current global average is under 14.6% [13]. Although the neigh-
boring country, India, started establishing protected areas in 1936 (British colonial period),
it increased the protected areas from 4% land territory in 1993 to hardly 6% in 2019. Fol-
lowing a recent plan of the UN Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(SCBD), ex-Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli declared to expand it to 30% of
national by 2030. Many policy works are undergoing to make the protected areas 30% by
then. People have protected all wild animal species in their forests and farms outside the
protected areas even if they are abundant in number and have harmed crops and animals.
Most of the protected areas are established in areas with special recreational values
as illustrated in the locations in Figure 4. They are established mostly in higher altitude
regions which are special interest sites of adventurous groups, particularly western tour-
ists [92,95,97,98]. According to Shrestha et al. (2010), the high mountain region shares only
about 24 % of the national territory but covers two-thirds of protected areas [92]. The
lower hill shares nearly 30 % of national areas and possesses higher threats of human
activities for wild species extinction but the area has less than 2 % of areas [92]. Forest
biodiversity including wild animals in the region is in a less endangered position relative
to other regions due to difficult terrains for walking, low modern development facilities,
and sparse human population. The natural barriers have placed the wild species easier to
be escaped from threat activities or situations. In addition, most inhabitants of the area are
indigenous ethnic communities who have much more wildlife and friendlier cultural and
land-use practices than those of other communities. However, intact forests in the moun-
tains are incredible sites of dream recreation for tourists [83]. The adventurous people
hold strong desires to wander, explore, experience, and indulge in the fascinating and
tranquil forest environment with stunning snowing mountains in the surroundings. The
Figure 3.
Landscapes scaled decarbonization and wildlife conservation plan in Nepal [Source: [
76
]].
World 2022,3552
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 9
recreation helps them to recover from cognitive overload and other mental stresses result-
ing from their strong desire, work, and lifestyles [99]. Hiking in a challenging mountain
environment builds confidence to cope with physical stresses and provides joyfulness and
glory. Visits to natural forests also fulfill the visitors’ strong craving and curiosity of sight-
ing wild creatures in their natural habitat [99–101]. The victors get adventurous experi-
ences visiting parks and other protected areas. The foods and cultures of indigenous and
other local communities are also mostly uniquely different from their daily luxurious or
other affluent lifestyles. The visits to the communities provide them the opportunities of
experiencing tastes of the foods tastes and cultures of the societies. Therefore, people with
affluent and luxurious lifestyles come to visit national parks, climb the Himalayas, and
live in indigenous communities, despite having life-threatening challenges or some un-
comfortable living environments there. With the assurance of development grants from
international agencies, they have worked for extending protected areas further and espe-
cially in community forests around a day recreational trip distance from the capital and
other urban areas [27].
Figure 4. Protected areas are established mostly in the areas with the highest mountains [Source:
Department of Wildlife Conservation [44]].
5. Adverse Local Impacts
5.1. Natural Capital Dimension
5.1.1. Harm to Indigenous Species and Social-Ecological Systems
The interventions in land resource management practices of the local communities
have drastically changed the human-developed ecosystems. They dictated the resource
management in natural intact conditions. The management spoiled the millenniums’ old
human-modified ecosystems in the mountain forest landscapes that were characterized
by moderately open tree cover forest conditions. The forest with the traditional manage-
ment system had provided considerable space and light for growing many species with
biodiversity conservation, foods, and other economic use-values [102]. The degradation
of the indigenous social-ecological systems has reduced the availability of multiple prod-
ucts and services and hampered the forest resource environment to coexist community
Figure 4.
Protected areas are established mostly in the areas with the highest mountains [Source:
Department of Wildlife Conservation [44]].
5. Adverse Local Impacts
5.1. Natural Capital Dimension
5.1.1. Harm to Indigenous Species and Social-Ecological Systems
The interventions in land resource management practices of the local communities
have drastically changed the human-developed ecosystems. They dictated the resource
management in natural intact conditions. The management spoiled the millenniums’ old
human-modified ecosystems in the mountain forest landscapes that were characterized
by moderately open tree cover forest conditions. The forest with the traditional manage-
ment system had provided considerable space and light for growing many species with
biodiversity conservation, foods, and other economic use-values [
102
]. The degradation of
the indigenous social-ecological systems has reduced the availability of multiple products
and services and hampered the forest resource environment to coexist community need
products, wildlife, and multiple plant species in overlapping space. Human activities in
the forest and community practices of using forest products are hugely declined in most
forests [
103
]. The changes in the forestry practices have substantially eroded indigenous
knowledge systems of forestry due to restricting regular visits and decreasing the products
and services availability [
104
]. The knowledge systems are vital for many communities,
especially in institutionally disadvantaged localities to alleviate their farming, health, and
other problems by practicing the products and services locally. Forest resource-based
farming and other household activities are also a part of the cultural lifestyle of many in-
digenous ethnic communities. The foreign interventions in the forest resource management
have hampered systems of the indigenous forestry knowledge and skill updating and their
intergenerational transfer. The forest-based communities are deprived not only by the loss
of opportunity for cultural lifestyles. It has also eroded the local knowledge and skills
that the community would use to hedge their lives and livelihoods during the market and
environmental crisis seasons and other harsh conditions [104].
Current conservation-oriented forest management has resulted in a full tree canopy
which has reduced light essential conditions for biodiversity richness in the mountain [
105
].
World 2022,3553
It has fostered undesirable aggressive species, reduced spaces for sustaining locally impor-
tant forest biodiversity, and hampered the environment for growing economically valuable
non-timber forest products [
42
]. Loss of open space for light and adequate food resulted
in decreasing forest plant species diversity and compelled many wild animals to go into
forest margins, crop fields, and human residences. The species have made big problems
for the local farmers. For example, many local governments have received complaints
from farmers that the incidence of monkeys in their field crops and houses intolerably
increased. The destructive species of the monkey in Nepal prefer to live on tree fruits and
play in open spaces of forests. Current forest conservation policies have degraded the forest
conditions that the monkeys prefer. Despite foreign agencies’ support, the problems of
bad governance and institutional capacity are still in a critically bad stage to recognize
and address the growing problems of the forest ecological conditions. The looming global
climate change undoubtedly aggravates the aggressive forest species and further degrades
the locally beneficial forest conditions.
The external intervention dictated the management of the forest in the naturally intact
management system and the multiplication of wild mammals in full carrying capacity in
the community-based forests [
27
,
90
]. The spilling over of the wild animals from forests into
farm crops and human residences is increasing with the increase in their number. These
animals have not only destroyed crops and predated animals but also attacked farmers.
The annual rate of animal attack-related deaths of people is increasing in trend. The animals
attacked the people while working on farms, grazing livestock, and collecting wild foods
from rivers and forest margins. People have increased unsecured feeling to do their daily
living activities. The conservation activities, thus, have hampered the local communities’
freedom of working and living in their homelands and kept them suffering from wild
animals for generations. The victims are mostly people from indigenous communities.
The human casualties and loss of social freedoms or community sovereignty are not
subject to financial compensation [
27
]. The alternative income generation activities so far
suggested and practiced by the conservation agencies are little reliable. The programs are
proven window dressing for calming the gullible communities which are discussed in the
following sections.
5.1.2. Loss of Invaluable Indigenous Farming Assets
The biggest adverse impact of excessive land use in conservation, directly and in-
directly, resulted from harming livestock farming. The land use has hugely destructed
community practices of livestock farming. Many households would increase livestock
holding especially of indigenous breeds if they had convenient access to adequate forage
products in their forests. The indigenous breeds are developed with millennium older
community practices and have been well adaptable to low-nutrition foods, steps terrains
of mountains, and wild beasts. Poor households and disadvantaged communities prefer
them because the breeds can be managed at low cost: sustain on forest fodder and low
quantity and require low care including modern veterinary services. Although the business
running involves soily and hectic activities with low profit, it provides the forest-based
communities income and food security directly and indirectly. It is also a crucial means of
livelihood, lifestyle, and farming culture. The conservation interventions have introduced
tactical programs to displace the forest-based livestock farming practices and the indige-
nous breeds to increase forest carbon sequestration and wildlife [
27
]. Social-ecological
environment to keep the indigenous breeds is spoiled in many localities. Sadly, the business
supporting the basic living of the disadvantaged communities is destroyed to protect the
economies and luxurious lifestyle of an affluent society overseas. The forest resource uses
focusing on global environmental conservation can be considered an inexcusable attack on
the cultures and life-supporting resources of disadvantaged social groups and indigenous
ethnic communities.
The externally induced forest resource management has also contributed to destroying
indigenous crop varieties that could reasonably thrive in poor quality soil, withstand
World 2022,3554
abiotic and biotic stress events, and easily regenerate with local practices. The important
varieties were sustained in farmyard manure and mainly of forest-based livestock. Some
varieties had special medical and cultural values. Many of them had properties of growing
in marginal lands and specific geo-ecological systems of the mountain regions. Dhakal et al.
(2022) provided detailed accounts of the harm and destruction processes of the intervening
agencies [
27
]. The destruction of them has made farmers dependent on multinational
companies or other import sources for farming inputs. Many communities even in urban
proximity also regretted the loss of the indigenous resources during the resource crisis of
the
COVID-19
pandemic when they could not get modern agricultural inputs (exotic crop
seed and chemical fertilizer) from the market. The indigenous resources conserved in their
gene banks, museums, urban veranda, or digital libraries could not be available for farmers
during critical need times [104].
5.1.3. Aggravated Fire Risk
The forestland managed for carbon sequestration and wild species conservation has
increased plant stocks or fuel load on forest floors which has increased the risk of a serious
degree of forest fire harm. The chances of catching fire in the mountain forests are also high
due to the location of most of the forest areas around human settlements
(Figures 2and 5)
.
Public activities in and around the forest areas cannot be prohibited. The land gradients
have also advantaged the fires to spread quickly and fiercely. Over 5000 forest fire incidents
occurred in 2016 alone [
106
]. NASA recorded more than 479 forest fires on 27 March 2021
alone and mostly in carbon forestry program areas. There were over 2000 uncontrolled
forest fire events that occurred from mid-November 2020 to 25 March 2021 in such a
small country. The government required a declaration of environmental emergency and
shutting down schools nationwide for 4 days in the last week of March 2021. The forest fire
affected school activities for many weeks in forest-rich regions. The regulated fire-based
management of forests is essential for users’ working security in some forests (e.g., pine
species dominated community forests, especially in the far western part of the country) and
increasing productivity of some products (grasses and some other species). Controlling a
large blaze of forest fire and serious destruction of forest and biodiversity resources is little
possible without allowing local communities optimal uses of forages and other residual
tree products. The risk of fire ignition and spread has increased with global climate change.
However, the fire used for community forest management is criminalized to retain forest
carbon. Once a fire ignites in such fuel-load-rich forests, the fire lasts a longer period
(over a couple of months in some areas) and causes serious harm to wild animals and
other biodiversity resources during severe drought years. It has placed human life, crop,
livestock, and property securities around the forests under threat. Facilities of advanced
technologies to control fire are not available and have limited uses in the mountain. The
traditional practice of controlling the forest fire in community collective effort has been
dysfunctional due to the living of only the elderly, children, and child-caring mothers in
the mountain communities [
107
,
108
]. The fire controlling cases in the USA and Australia
proved the limited success of advanced techniques and tools to control forest fires [
109
]. In
addition, the factors of forest distribution, institutional capacity, and geophysical conditions
have made an extremely low prospect of applicability and success of the advanced tools
and techniques in Nepal.
5.2. Marginalization in the Economic Dimension
5.2.1. Loss of Land Space for Livelihood Security
The land use policies for global environmental conservation have also aggravated the
scarcity of private land that has only a small share of total national land. Table 1shows
the comparative private land access position of Nepal relative to neighboring countries
and forest conservation aid-providing countries. Nepal has 0.08 ha per capita arable
landholding which is the third least per capita land-holding country. Moreover, many land
areas of the country lie in the mountain and have marginal productivity. The statistics
World 2022,3555
show the share of arable land is 14% of national territory but a significant proportion of
the land is increasingly used in development activities, urban development, and other
residential uses. Of the 28% cropland figure, above 10% account for the public lands with
herbaceous and sparse tree cover areas in residential localities and managed for communal
uses. Most permanent pasturelands are located in alpine regions which are inaccessible
or seasonal in use. In addition, a significant portion of the arable land areas is abandoned
for farming due to negative externalities from forest conservation and other associated
problems [
107
,
110
]. The land areas occupied for global environmental conservation are less
likely to be available for farming and other economic uses due to the growing enforcement
of national and international policies and social pressures.
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 12
in the mountain. The traditional practice of controlling the forest fire in community col-
lective effort has been dysfunctional due to the living of only the elderly, children, and
child-caring mothers in the mountain communities [107,108]. The fire controlling cases in
the USA and Australia proved the limited success of advanced techniques and tools to
control forest fires [109]. In addition, the factors of forest distribution, institutional capac-
ity, and geophysical conditions have made an extremely low prospect of applicability and
success of the advanced tools and techniques in Nepal.
Figure 5. The landscapes indicate more risk to communities from fire events of carbon forestry
(Source: DLUS 2022).
5.2. Marginalization in the Economic Dimension
5.2.1. Loss of Land Space for Livelihood Security
The land use policies for global environmental conservation have also aggravated the
scarcity of private land that has only a small share of total national land. Table 1 shows
the comparative private land access position of Nepal relative to neighboring countries
and forest conservation aid-providing countries. Nepal has 0.08 ha per capita arable land-
holding which is the third least per capita land-holding country. Moreover, many land
areas of the country lie in the mountain and have marginal productivity. The statistics
show the share of arable land is 14% of national territory but a significant proportion of
the land is increasingly used in development activities, urban development, and other
residential uses. Of the 28% cropland figure, above 10% account for the public lands with
herbaceous and sparse tree cover areas in residential localities and managed for commu-
nal uses. Most permanent pasturelands are located in alpine regions which are inaccessi-
ble or seasonal in use. In addition, a significant portion of the arable land areas is aban-
doned for farming due to negative externalities from forest conservation and other asso-
ciated problems [107,110]. The land areas occupied for global environmental conservation
are less likely to be available for farming and other economic uses due to the growing
enforcement of national and international policies and social pressures.
Figure 5.
The landscapes indicate more risk to communities from fire events of carbon forestry
(Source: DLUS 2022).
Table 1.
Comparative resource access position of Nepalese people relative to neighboring countries
and some developed countries [Source: [13,44,111]].
Country Rural Population
%Per Capita (ha)
Percentage of the Total Land of the Nation
Agricultural
Land Total ˆ Arable Land Forest Area Protected Area
Bhutan 59.8 0.14 13.8 2.6 72.5 48.0
Nepal # 80.7 0.08 28.8 # 14.8 # 45.3 >23.6 α
Sri Lanka * 81.6 0.06 43.7 20.7 32.9 29.9
Pakistan * 63.3 0.15 47.0 40.3 1.9 12.3
China * 42.0 0.09 56.2 12.7 22.4 17.1
India * 66.4 0.12 60.5 52.6 23.8 6.0
Bangladesh * 64.1 0.05 70.4 59.4 11.0 4.6
Norway * 18.1 0.16 2.7 2.2 33.2 17.0
Finland * 14.7 0.41 7.5 7.4 73.1 14.9
Switzerland 26.2 0.05 38.4 10.1 31.8 9.7
USA * 17.8 0.47 44.4 16.7 33.9 13.0
Australia * 14.1 1.90 47.6 6.0 16.3 17.0
Germany * 22.7 0.15 48.0 34.0 37.7 23.7
Denmark * 12.2 0.41 62.2 56.0 14.7 17.6
UK * 30.8 0.09 70.8 24.9 13.1 28.2
New Zealand * 13.5 0.10 40.5 2.2 38.6 32.6
Note: * = Countries with access to ocean resources for livelihoods of people and national economies.
ˆ = Agricultural land comprises mainly arable lands, permanent pasturelands, and other permanent croplands.
# = Studies reported a wide variation figure (7.9% to 29.8%) of the agricultural land use in Nepal despite deriving
from the same satellite maps [
112
,
113
].
α
= The protected area figure does not account for the areas that the
government has recently declared protected areas to make it 30% of the national territory by 2030.
World 2022,3556
5.2.2. National Economic Security Problem
Despite increasing the forest land areas to almost 45% of the national territory, commu-
nities have experienced forest product shortages for livelihoods and other household uses.
The environment conservation-oriented forest management has resulted in overstocking
and decaying (wasted many folds of domestic need amount) in the forest floors but the
country imports timber over 40% of its national demands for domestic uses [
50
,
52
,
114
]. The
imported woods often share 80% of domestic consumption in some years. Nepal’s spending
on importing 830,941 m
3
of wood for domestic consumption is estimated to be about the
US $75 million in equivalent foreign currency in 2017 and 2018. The country spent the US
$1.19 billion to import 3,681,190 m
3
of wood to rebuild infrastructures and house damages
from the mega earthquake in 2015 which killed about 8800 people [
86
]. The government
authority followed the environmental conservation forest policies and norms and blocked
the desperate communities to utilize the overstocked woods even after such a mega-crisis
in the nation. On one side, some international agencies including the World Bank advised
and funded occupying the forests providing food and other livelihood securities locally for
marginalized and indigenous people, and managing them for forest carbon sequestration
and wild animal protection [
22
,
27
,
84
]. On the other, they offered government loans for
green, resilient, and inclusive development in the communities especially for adapting
to adverse effects of climate change. The government has got financial pressure to pay
the past foreign loans due to requiring paying them with an annually increasing share
of the government budget. Some of the loans were taken for forestation in community
pasturelands and the development of the national park for increasing wild animals [
65
,
81
].
The decline of foreign currency reserves has compelled the government to practice import
restrictions on many goods and follow hard economic measures for minimizing economic
bankrupt risk [
115
]. Even if the country gets forest carbon income, the payment for the
carbon credits is not annual or repetitive. The credits get retired after a one-off payment
despite requiring saving the carbon in the forest for years. The conservative forest policy
already slashed forestry’s contribution to GDP from 4.4% in the early 1990s to 3.5% in the
early 2000s [
116
]. The GDP contribution may have further decreased due to the increasing
of strict conservation policies and reduction uses with the high exodus of the rural popu-
lation [
117
]. The income contributes to GDP only for a few years. According to the forest
carbon trading agreement, Nepal requires increasing tree plantation in more land areas
including private lands [118].
Expansion of protected areas also makes little difference in tourism earnings in the
mountain regions because the tourists are attracted mostly by extraordinarily natural gifts,
little by the human-constructed quality of the forests. Most visitors do not go beyond
common routes or off-track communities for security reasons, resource and time limitations,
and selective activity of visiting interests. But the government agency expanded the pro-
tected areas with the advice of vested interest foreign agencies, irrespective of considering
holistic national cost and benefit.
5.2.3. Exacerbated Food Security Problem
Declining local food security is one of the critical consequences of excessive land use in
conservation. Most of the mountain households own less than 0.5 ha of land with multiple
parcels (average 0.2 ha) and marginal productivity which is not adequate for managing
livestock enough to sustain a family living [
119
]. When the forest conservation policies and
programs banned forest fodder collection and grazing, the community gave up the forest
resource-based business and downsized their livestock holding to the level sustained by
private land resources [
39
]. The household labor force has left their farms to get income for
family needs from cities or overseas.
The exodus of farm labor resulted in farming labor force shortages and increased
food production costs in the mountain communities. The physical barrier has a limited
scope of practicing farm mechanization and other technologies. Mountain farming is still a
livelihood option for people who are frustrated with community jobs and retired from other
World 2022,3557
jobs. They used to return to the community for doing lifestyle farming with small-scale
livestock businesses. The restriction of forest products and services used for livestock has
diverted the people to other areas or businesses or keep suffering from existing problems. In
addition, the reduction of livestock holdings resulted in the loss of farm manure production
which was a vital resource for restoring organic matters and other nutrients washed away
from farming terrains. The harm in farm manure production cannot be compensated by
payment for ecosystem services or subsidies on chemical fertilizer prices. The forestry
protection also reduced human activities in the forest and increased incidences of wildlife
population on crops [
110
]. These problems have increased the farming costs of the other
farmers. Consequently, most farming land pockets surrounded by forests have been
abandoned from farming and especially maize crops. The interventions in indigenous
forestry have resulted in a vicious circle of farming problems: organic manure scarcity,
farm labor shortage, crop harm by wild animals, underutilization and abandonment of
arable lands, and food security problems [107,110,120]. Livestock and cereal crop imports
are skyrocketed in the agriculture-based country [
39
,
114
]. Over 64% of households are
estimated to have been actively involved in farming, but the country has been import-
dependent on foods and other agricultural products. The forest development activities
have affected agricultural production and import-dependency directly and indirectly.
5.3. Marginalization in a Social Dimension
5.3.1. Emigration Exodus
Population distribution imbalances associated with land use changes are getting
to be a serious problem. In the old days, the population was distributed reasonably
well in most parts of the country. Easier access to forest resources made them sustain
their livelihoods with scanty and marginal quality private lands. Figure 6shows that
population growth is still higher in the regions with low activities of land uses for global
environmental conservation. The northeast part of the country has the highest exodus. The
recent population census also supports this [
121
]. The forest areas of the high migration
region are dominated by broadleaves species where the activities of the conservation
agencies are much higher. The population growth in the north-western part of the country
is positive even though the region is much more remote from development centers, geo-
ecologically harsh, and dominated by poor communities. The forests in the north-western
part are also dominated by pine species where conservation agencies have done low
interventions. The low interventions provided opportunities for the forests to remain
in moderately mixed space conditions and to be used in indigenous systems by local
communities. The effect of armed conflict on the emigration in those areas was less as the
activities targeted major towns and surrounding areas.
Seasonal emigration of males by leaving families in the community for cash earning
was a common practice in the past. The families used to engage in the farm by getting
resources from the forest and other public lands. Most of the emigrants are low-skill
workers who have received much less income in other areas than what they could earn
locally and living with families. The male household head used to resume farming jobs
after 40 years or so (active working life after retiring from other jobs). However, the
conservation policies and practices have created many direct and indirect problems to
make the income working in the farming sector. The external interventions in the forestry
sector have seized the opportunities of using the forest products and services and made it
for the families difficult to be sustained themselves in the communities. The trend of many
seasonal immigrants to resume farming after retiring from other jobs is hugely declined.
The people have rather emigrate with whole families for good.
World 2022,3558
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 15
most parts of the country. Easier access to forest resources made them sustain their liveli-
hoods with scanty and marginal quality private lands. Figure 6 shows that population
growth is still higher in the regions with low activities of land uses for global environmen-
tal conservation. The northeast part of the country has the highest exodus. The recent pop-
ulation census also supports this [121]. The forest areas of the high migration region are
dominated by broadleaves species where the activities of the conservation agencies are
much higher. The population growth in the north-western part of the country is positive
even though the region is much more remote from development centers, geo-ecologically
harsh, and dominated by poor communities. The forests in the north-western part are also
dominated by pine species where conservation agencies have done low interventions. The
low interventions provided opportunities for the forests to remain in moderately mixed
space conditions and to be used in indigenous systems by local communities. The effect
of armed conflict on the emigration in those areas was less as the activities targeted major
towns and surrounding areas.
Seasonal emigration of males by leaving families in the community for cash earning
was a common practice in the past. The families used to engage in the farm by getting
resources from the forest and other public lands. Most of the emigrants are low-skill work-
ers who have received much less income in other areas than what they could earn locally
and living with families. The male household head used to resume farming jobs after 40
years or so (active working life after retiring from other jobs). However, the conservation
policies and practices have created many direct and indirect problems to make the income
working in the farming sector. The external interventions in the forestry sector have seized
the opportunities of using the forest products and services and made it for the families
difficult to be sustained themselves in the communities. The trend of many seasonal im-
migrants to resume farming after retiring from other jobs is hugely declined. The people
have rather emigrate with whole families for good.
Figure 6. Nepal’s regional human population changed between 2001 and 2011 census times [Source:
[122]].
Figure 6.
Nepal’s regional human population changed between 2001 and 2011 census times
[Source: [122]].
Emigration has also a big adverse impact on local development activities. Community
support including the labor force has special importance to sustain farming and other
development activities in the mountain region due to constraints of using machinery. The
emigration problem has created a shortage of community labor force for securities of
human life, crop, livestock, and property for the remaining households [
107
,
110
]. The
growing number of historical residential localities is getting devoid of humans [
123
]. The
government has given low priorities to providing development support in the region with
lower populations or declining populations in the declining region. It has also withdrawn
some development service centers including schools and health posts from the areas due
to high costs based on the number of beneficiaries. Once displaced, the households do
not tend to return to the disadvantaged areas due to the loss of indigenous knowledge
for adapting, and psychosocial, social, and economic ties there. Some authors visited
some communities with high emigration and found that the people unable to emigrate
have a growing feeling of isolation, poorness, laggardness, and helplessness. Studies
showed that immigration also affected the reproduction loss of reproductive capability of
remaining members [
123
,
124
]. The settlement of many in-country migrants is concentrated
in development centers (towns) that are established in narrow strip ridges or foothills.
It has increased high-pressure resource extraction in the development center and their
resource supply areas.
5.3.2. Institutionalized External Control and Exploitation
Increasing external control including the militarization of local resources has eroded
communities’ control over local resources. New forestry policies and laws are developed
or amended giving priority to addressing international agreements and directives. The
policies have made the resources, traditionally used by local communities, as defacto
international properties. The Sagarmatha and Chitawan National Parks are, for example,
declared UNESCO heritage sites where local communities have little say on resource
World 2022,3559
management and use. Local communities have lost the property rights on the forests of all
protected areas and have been placed in the position of suffering for generations or being
displaced for goods [
27
,
35
]. Under the international climate forestry policy, the government
must retain the traded quantity of forest carbon in the forest site indefinitely, otherwise,
the trading makes no sense in climate change mitigation. The policy has compelled local
communities to give up using the forest resources that the community needs for basic
survival purposes [
41
,
43
]. Using the forests for trading forest carbon with foreign agencies
and protected areas can be considered a compromise of national sovereignty [125].
Extension of protected areas has bound local communities to follow international
policies and procedures of biodiversity conservation for their daily business and local
development [
126
]. The government, for example, has introduced laws to enforce the
guidelines of the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species (CITIES). It
has increased legal processes and checking of farm products transportation to market.
Regulating agencies very often hold the vehicles carrying the products in the checking
posts for weeks unless they get bribes or pressures from politically powerful people [
127
].
The conservation policy has made environmental impact assessment (EIA) mandatory for
carrying out any local development activities [
126
]. Completing the EIA is a big hurdle for
communities for local development due to the difficulty in dealing with conservative and
corrupt forestry bureaucrats. International agencies intervene in national policy decisions
if the procedures are not properly followed and managed the resources for alternative
uses including for local community benefits. Biodiversity resources with international
agencies’ interests are present in almost all localities in the highly mountainous country.
The international policies, therefore, have been disadvantaged in most parts of the country.
It has the hardest hit in remote communities due a lack of many development facilities
and no alternative livelihood opportunities. The policies have hindered the country to
compromise the national freedom of managing the land resources for national security
including the well-being of the citizens.
The institutions introduced for managing community forests have controlled and
exploited the local communities. Under the new forest policies, local people must be
organized under legally registered community forest user group institutions to get rights
on using products of local forests. They require forest management plans prepared under
the guidance of forest technicians and approved by government agencies to use products
and services, even residual ones of their forest. The government introduced the institutions
by following the technical advice of international agencies. The institutions have been
legal vehicles or tools of government bureaucrats for controlling and exploiting local
communities [
128
]. The government agencies and supporting technicians do not approve
the plans unless their hidden interests and terms are incorporated well into the plans [
129
].
Government bureaucrats take action or make other troubles for the executive bodies of
the forest user groups if the executive body does not address the conditions in the plan
and officials’ interests. The institutions have also bound or forced local people to make a
contribution to the activities of the forest management and participate in regular meetings
for reporting the forest conservation progress to the government agencies even if they
little use forest resources [
130
]. The users often require paying the cost of absence or
fines. The bureaucrats have used the institutions to block local communities from utilizing
overstocked resources for household uses even in a serious natural disaster such as in the
2015 earthquake [131].
5.3.3. Suffering for Generations or Being Displaced for Good
Institutionally marginalization and humanitarian suffering of local communities are
increasing as their livelihood supporting resources are managed to address the interest
of foreign and national agencies. The impacts of the conservation forest policies are
extreme in some communities and especially in indigenous communities. Figure 7shows
the regional distribution of indigenous ethnic communities in Nepal. Indigenous ethnic
communities are mostly lived in the upper parts which marginal land areas. Most of them
World 2022,3560
were squeezed up into the marginal lands when Indo-Nepali ethnic groups (e.g., Bahun
and Chhetri) arrived and settled in warmer parts with more plain and fertile lands of the
mountain [
132
]. Indigenous groups accepted living in marginal lands and small private
holdings due to their naturally happy and pleasant social behavior. Some indigenous ethnic
communities squeezed in marginal land areas of lower belts and lived on forest resources
with environment-friendly practices. Attachment of their life, livelihoods, and social
identities of the communities intensified with the common property of forest resources [
34
].
Unlike the other ethnic groups, the indigenous communities did not destroy primary forests
and privatized lands for affluent living. They used local forest resources to complement
their private land resource and sustained lives in the harsh region. The credit for the
current existence of wildlife mammals and natural forests around the human settlement
in the mountain areas goes to the indigenous communities [
37
,
38
]. Otherwise, most land
areas in the communities would be now devoid of natural forests and wild animals as we
see in large parts of the US and Australia or farming land in Terai Nepal [
18
]. Combined
information displayed in Figures 6and 7indicates that the outmigration of people is very
high in the regions with indigenous ethnic community. This is based on fact that the
forestlands areas of the regions are intensively managed for forest carbon sequestration,
protected areas, and adventurous recreation. The information displayed in Figure 4also
indicate the case.
World 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 18
Figure 7. Agro-ecological belt-wise distribution of main ethnic groups in Nepal [Source: [133]].
Government bureaucrats have intensified their presence and officials’ interventions
in the communities where forest resources and wild animals are enriched. Military posts
are established to control and restrict the community to use forest resources that the peo-
ple had used traditionally in the protected areas. The government officials and military or
para-military personnel that monitor the conservation activities in the community areas
behave mostly in wild and rogue manners with a self-superiority feeling [27,75,134]. They
treat the forest-based people, as pests and culprits of natural heritage destruction. They
have often tortured, sexually abused, raped, and killed forest-based people [75,134]. Now
the disproportionally higher proportion of indigenous ethnic groups is immigrated, pris-
oned, and worked in jobs with life-threatening stigma [53,133,135,136]. Many incentives
are provisioned for the government officials and community spies for discouraging, re-
stricting, or punishing the local communities to use the forest resources [75,137]. By natu-
ral behaviors, the ethnic communities can little resist maltreatment or oppressive behav-
iors of the cunning officials or personnel [75]. They have rather tolerated inhumane treat-
ments on them and sought alternatives in other areas [27,134]. The communities will suf-
fer from such harsh treatments for many years or generations due to the declaration of
their forests as protected areas.
The restriction on forest resource uses has contributed to sacrificing even some social
identity. For instance, Chepang is one of the ethnic communities which had a nomadic
lifestyle until very recent times. The government has occupied forest areas of their original
living community for wildlife conservation. Some part was distributed to mainstream eth-
nic communities. Now, some of the Chepang families have lived on a meager marginal
quality of private lands. The others have been landless and work in farming labor. The
people very often get maltreated and killed by officials of conservation agencies
[75,137,138]. Christian missionaries have taken advantage of the measurable life of the
ethnic group and converted the ethnic group into a Christian religious group. The mis-
sionary had changed the religion of only a few households of the ethnic group until the
1991 census, but the followers of the religion reached 8.6 % in the 2001 census and 25.6 out
Figure 7. Agro-ecological belt-wise distribution of main ethnic groups in Nepal [Source: [133]].
Government bureaucrats have intensified their presence and officials’ interventions in
the communities where forest resources and wild animals are enriched. Military posts are
established to control and restrict the community to use forest resources that the people
had used traditionally in the protected areas. The government officials and military or para-
military personnel that monitor the conservation activities in the community areas behave
mostly in wild and rogue manners with a self-superiority feeling [
27
,
75
,
134
]. They treat
the forest-based people, as pests and culprits of natural heritage destruction. They have
often tortured, sexually abused, raped, and killed forest-based people [
75
,
134
]. Now the
disproportionally higher proportion of indigenous ethnic groups is immigrated, prisoned,
and worked in jobs with life-threatening stigma [
53
,
133
,
135
,
136
]. Many incentives are
provisioned for the government officials and community spies for discouraging, restricting,
or punishing the local communities to use the forest resources [
75
,
137
]. By natural behaviors,
the ethnic communities can little resist maltreatment or oppressive behaviors of the cunning
World 2022,3561
officials or personnel [
75
]. They have rather tolerated inhumane treatments on them
and sought alternatives in other areas [
27
,
134
]. The communities will suffer from such
harsh treatments for many years or generations due to the declaration of their forests as
protected areas.
The invasion of their livelihood resources has critically disturbed the social and
economic environments of the ethnic minorities for married couples and couples living
together. The national agricultural development policies have stressed agricultural growth
in the super zone (means large scale) commercial farming and roadside areas with chemical
fertilizer, exotic animal breeds, and hybrid crop varieties [
138
,
139
]. These agricultural poli-
cies are inappropriate in the areas of most of the indigenous communities who are living
in disadvantaged localities or with meager land. Consequently, the social and economic
changes resulted in a declining population. Despite the large population and positive
growth of mainstream ethnic groups, the net national population of almost all the indige-
nous ethnic communities has declined with the intensification of adverse effects of the
conservative land-use policies. The population of some ethnic communities and especially
of recent nomadic people are many folds smaller than the population of the wild animals
that IUCN declared extinction threats [
122
]. The population of some indigenous ethnic
minorities has been declining to extinction. The historical variation in private land pos-
session between ethnic communities has resulted in a difference in generational suffering,
population dwindling to extinction, personal capital (education and skill achievements
development), access to political power, and participation in non-farming or high-income
sectors until now.
The restriction on forest resource uses has contributed to sacrificing even some social
identity. For instance, Chepang is one of the ethnic communities which had a nomadic
lifestyle until very recent times. The government has occupied forest areas of their origi-
nal living community for wildlife conservation. Some part was distributed to mainstream
ethnic communities. Now, some of the Chepang families have lived on a meager marginal
quality of private lands. The others have been landless and work in farming labor. The
people very often get maltreated and killed by officials of conservation agencies [
75
,
137
,
140
].
Christian missionaries have taken advantage of the measurable life of the ethnic group
and converted the ethnic group into a Christian religious group. The missionary had
changed the religion of only a few households of the ethnic group until the 1991 cen-
sus, but the followers of the religion reached 8.6% in the 2001 census and 25.6 out of
69,000 population in the 2011 census [
122
]. Many indigenous ethnic communities migrated
due to land resource scarcity problems that have changed the religious faiths and many
other cultural practices.
Promotion of the conservative land uses has also hampered the daily living and social
environment of the forest-based communities. Some authors very often observed in the
communities that the naive communities cannot resist or deny the misleading or socially
harmful programs tactically introduced by politically or socially powerful people with
cunning behaviors. The most common alternative livelihood program of the agencies are
promoting homestays and lodges in their house for tourists and other economically risky
businesses. Every household has no resources or a favorable household environment to
run such a business. Tourists especially from western countries get recreation by spending
nights with families of indigenous and watching their cultural activities. All households
cannot get visitors enough to make their living. Some households have practiced it. The
people have lived in primary communities. Visitors with different interests and behaviors
or addictions come to stay there. Host family or local government cannot monitor and
filter out visitors with ill intentions or behaviors. Running the homestay business requires
serving the visitors at home and in residential areas every day and 24 h. The visitors with
holiday moods seek communities to show some unseasonal cultural activities. The activities
and presence of the visitors all the time have hampered the family privacy of not only the
service hosting household but also social environments for all households in the local com-
munity. The presence of various interested people all days and hours in the institutionally
World 2022,3562
vulnerable and primary communities has spoiled indigenous cultures, norms, and knowl-
edge in a slow poison nature. Local young girls are frequently abused in an institutionalized
way. But international environmental conservation experts and policies have recognized
or suggested the concept of the homestay practice as an alternative livelihood solution
and manage their land resources for environmental conservation. But the life, cultures,
and lifestyle of the communities are attached to a peaceful and natural environment. They
deserve to exercise their natural rights. The policy and practice of promoting homestay
in the vulnerable primary communities to manage their land resources for global benefits
have hampered the indigenous people to exercise their natural rights and live peacefully
in their homelands. They have also resulted in social harm and abuse in the poor and
gullible communities.
5.4. Psychological Dimension
5.4.1. Mental and Emotional Stresses
Many people, especially indigenous ethnic communities and women got psychological,
social, economic, and environmental stresses and other problems from the policies and
practices of excessive land use for environmental conservation. Traditionally the land
resources were a means and safety net for vulnerable people and especially women. Loss
of access to products and services of the land resources has hampered local livelihood
and other safety-net opportunities for them. The women and especially of indigenous
ethnic groups are under-skilled and have insufficient financial assets to run other busyness
for livelihoods. The loss of land resource-based opportunities has compelled them to go
overseas or to urban areas, for making a living [
135
,
136
]. The common job destinations are
the Middle East and Malaysia where the people are not allowed to take spouses or any other
member of their family. The social environments of the women are not safe in most of those
workplaces. Most low-skilled women seasonally migrated for work have obtained jobs
with mentally, emotionally, and physically unsafe or risky conditions. Some of them are
involved in the jobs of social stigma [
135
,
136
]. The women have suffered a lifetime (at work
and after retirement). Even the women who live in communities by sending husbands
to work overseas have been severely mentally sick by family isolation and unfulfilled
emotional needs for many years [
141
,
142
]. The family tragedies have aggravated social
fragmentations (marriage and divorce) and contributed to the declining population of
indigenous ethnic communities. The quality of social and emotional development of their
children is also hampered due to isolation from parents and knowing the measurable
lives of their parents. The structures of the environmental policies have hampered people
in managing the resources in favor of the oppressed and marginalized people even if
women have got opportunities of working as executive directors and other influential
decision-making positions to prepare the land management policies and programs [22].
5.4.2. Intensified Socially Oppressed State
Addressing many problems of development including food security is not possible
without the change in forestland management and revitalization of some indigenous assets
in the mountain geo-ecological systems contexts. The external interventions for using
the land resources for foreign benefits have meddled with or spoiled the thinking and
behaviors of local communities, government officials, and other stakeholders for managing
the resources for local community benefits and national securities. Some forest products
are overstocked and wastage in forests, but communities are experiencing a shortage of
other products. The country imports the products that are wasted in the forest even existed
in accessible localities. A large number of households would benefit directly and indirectly
better off by using the forests for daily household and other local uses [
52
]. The national
actors have rather followed the guidance of the international development agencies to
further destroy the mountain systems including indigenous resources, institutions, and
social-ecological systems, creating the situation not possible to use the forest resources
for farming and other economic purposes [
27
]. Policy analysts and other stakeholders
World 2022,3563
suggested that the traditional uses of the forest resources are no longer profitable for the
community [
143
]. The global environmental policies and practices have also overpowered
bureaucrats and environmentalists to exaggerate environmental problems in media, public
forums, and government decision-making. These activities have further oppressed the
forest-based communities to receive genuine benefits from their forests. No one has dared
to voice against the inappropriate suggestions, practices, and use of the resources for the
luxury of powerful societies at the cost of local community livelihood loss and miseries.
6. Reinforcing Factors and Further Marginalization
The changes in the institutions and other conditions related to the land resource
have intensified or consolidated some phenomena reinforcing the adverse impacts as
explained by the literature on the feedback and path dependency theories [
144
]. New
situations have emerged and evolved in response to the external interventions in the
forestry field. The external interventions have meddled in community thinking and values
which have actuated the forest users to manage their forest product consumption on
the limit of residual products such as fodder from grasses and other annual vegetation
naturally grown in tree margins and private lands. The community people have got the
perception that they should use only residual products from weeding, thinning or pruning
of trees, and offcuts of log harvesting for firewood. The communities are convinced to
meet their construction and other wood need from dried, diseased, or decayed trees of the
forests [
86
,
145
]. The practice enriches tree canopy and stock which have reduced growing
space for or suppressed production of other goods and services for daily household and
reproduction (investment) uses. Despite local demand, communities have been unable to
use some wood products (e.g., stakes and poles) and leaf fodders even if available due to
institutional complexities [
52
]. Selling log or sawn timber in the market requires a costly
endeavor for communities. It requires permission from government authorities that make
many administrative and bureaucratic hurdles [
129
]. They issue permits mostly either
by getting bribes or under the pressure of political leaders [
127
]. Many other agencies
including vested interest groups have created many hassles for forest user groups to
receive harvesting permission. Some other groups or persons also often intervene in the
permission-giving due to the bribery tradition of the government bureaucrats. The hassles
have discouraged community leaders to harvest and sell the wood from the community
forests [
52
,
127
]. In addition, many forest user groups have a small size of forest holding
(national average 74 ha) which generate only a small amount of fund. The forest policy has
made it mandatory to use 50% of the income in managing forests and providing support
for extremely poor households [
79
]. The policy does not allow the distribution of income
for individual households. The rest of the fund is supposed to be used in community and
capacity development activities. That was another disincentive of forest user groups not
to harvest and sell wood products from their forests. Now, all the community forests are
managed under carbon sequestration policy which restricts the conversion of the forests
for addressing multiple product needs of the local communities [
73
]. The restriction of uses
and declining of daily need products will increase the abandoning of agricultural lands
from farming due to decreasing farm manure production and increasing incidences of
wild animals.
New laws and other policies are built on the current regressive forest and other
environmental conservation policies. The forests developed by afforestation or enrichment
plantation in community pasturelands are occupied as protected areas. The government has
done an agreement to sell carbon credits for many forests to foreign agencies. The agencies
may have used the carbon credits to upgrade their GHG emission-intensive business. The
credits, thus, must be retained in the forest to meet international obligations and political
and business credits. A radical change in management with policy change is essential to
produce forest produce goods and services for alleviating the local community problems.
The changes in the resource management in public forests and reducing protected areas
are not allowed by national forest laws and international policies as they emphasized
World 2022,3564
greater areas for forest carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation. Current climate
change motive forest acts and other policies have also dictated to retain the existing state of
forest carbon, biodiversity, sceneries, and other ecosystem services of the forests to utilize
community forest products [
79
]. The utilization of forest products is technically impossible
by fulfilling the conditions. These are technical and institutional reasons that drove the
government agency to restrict the community use of wood from their local forests even
rebuilding homes after the mega earthquake of 2015. Even with generous government
policy and favorable market conditions, the income from the sale of wood or carbon in the
small forest areas (average 0.74 ha) can make little difference in household income and
social security [
44
,
52
]. The carbon payment little compensates for the pervasive social,
economic, socio-ecological, and agrobiodiversity harms that result from locking the land
resource for mitigating global climate change in the mountain communities.
Increasing conservative and reckless behavior of bureaucrats associated with the in-
ternational conservation policies is another reinforcing factor. Recently, the government
agency has rather worked out policies to convert production forests into sustainable (con-
servation) forests by following the action plan of the national biodiversity strategy that the
government endorsed by following the advice of international agencies. The plan dictated
that “[A]t least 50 percent of the production forests come under sustainable management by
2020” ([
77
], p. 104). Here, the production forests were used mainly to meet the daily needs
of the community with traditional regenerative practices. The sustainable management
policy directives have added many complex conditions which have dictated following
conservative management and residual product use. International agencies advised the
policy with the hidden interest of placing more forestland under protected conditions [
77
].
Experts have advised to make protected areas in whole parts east to west of high altitude
regions in the countries and develop corridors to connect the protected areas of the north
and south including of India. The areas are more likely to be managed as protected areas
because of the prevalence of Yarchagumba (Cordyceps Sinensis) which IUCN declared as a
declining species. The forest bureaucrats have very conservative values and little apathy
to avoid such suffering of local communities. They have little willingness to change the
regressive laws and other policies. The extension of the protected area undoubtedly ham-
pers the life of the local communities who have lived in remote mountain localities on the
forest resources for years. The forest schools have also increasingly followed curriculums
founded on problems, social values, and policies of developed countries to train human
resources. The officials and technicians who graduated from the schools naturally impose
forest policies and practices to address the problems of developed countries and work
against the well-being of the forest-based local communities.
The prospect of alleviating the adverse impacts with radical institutional changes
is pessimistic. Powerful actors in international organizations and environmental policy
decision forums are people from developed countries [
73
,
146
]. They are committed to
up-scaling the regressive land use policies that have benefited their societies and economies.
Some countries have made substantial investments to develop the forests and establish
protected areas in Nepal [
27
]. The investing agencies undoubtedly hinder any initiatives
of the government to change the management of resources developed in their investment
and resulting in reasonably more benefits for local communities. The complex institutional
change by the community alone is little possible due to the per-sistently serious degree of
bad governance of the government forest agency in Nepal. The international agencies have
offered funds to lure the corrupt bureaucrats for developing and reinforcing laws and other
regression institutions that control and regu-late communities on land management [74].
The conservative policies of managing forests and protected areas further hamper
production and access to forest products and services for farming and increase wildlife
incidences on farm crops, especially in the areas with small patches of land in the middle
of forests. Reduction of forest-based livestock holding naturally hampers farm manure
production essential for restoring organic matter and soil nutrients of sloppy lands. The
hardship of life in communities increases the exodus of male adults and leaves mostly
World 2022,3565
children, the elderly, and women in the mountain community. The women require bearing
additional responsibilities that were traditionally managed by their male counterparts. The
women cannot manage their farming with life threats and crop and livestock loss from wild
beasts [
147
]. Monetary compensation does not resolve the problems of mental stress and
the life security of the local communities. Compounding the farming problems with life
threats makes mountain farming further costly and motivates farmers to abandon arable
lands from farming and emigrate from their homelands.
7. Discussion
This study explained the impacts of forest and other land-based environment conserva-
tion policies on the well-being of forest-based communities and national security in Nepal.
It showed that excessive land uses in forestry and protected areas increased trees, forest
carbon stock, habitats for some wild species, and quality sites for adventurous recreation.
The increasing land resources management for environmental services and other benefits of
distance communities hampered the production of goods or services for local community
needs. Many studies explained such natural tradeoff phenomena [
23
,
25
,
26
,
148
,
149
]. But
the resource management aggravated the vulnerability or marginalization of forest-based
communities. The communities have been marginalized in social, economic, and ecological
dimensions. Duffs (2014) and many other studies also reported similar outcomes in African
and South American countries [
18
,
20
,
29
–
31
]. However, our findings contested the findings
of den Braber et al. (2018) and Oldekop et al. (2019). Those studies showed increasing in
household income and reducing in community income inequalities after the enrichment
of forest areas and expansion of protected areas in Nepal [
55
,
56
]. The people have been
dispossessed of the livelihood supporting resources. The resource dispossession does not
increase household incomes, especially in Nepal’s community context. The findings of
those studies, therefore, are either spurious or misleading. Many studies with a vested
interest in land resources in Nepal used such spurious data and interpreted local realities
misleadingly [34,36].
The excessive land uses for conservation created many environmental, economic, and
social paradoxes. Food import is increasing on one side and abandoning arable lands
for farming is increasing on the other side. Similarly, the communities have farm labor
shortages on one side and an emigration exodus on the other side. Despite having over
45% land use in forestry Nepal requires importing of timber for domestic consumption.
Communities have also suffered from shortages of daily needs products and services. The
increase in forest stock has also reduced agricultural and forest biodiversity. The land uses
for global benefits not only created a critical shortage of forest products to complement
private resources and makes the local economy and other affairs functional. Despite the
increase in forest areas and tree stocks, the management from the external intervention
critically reduced the availability of the forest products and services that are essential
for functioning local systems and activities. The inappropriate management of the land
resources resulted in paradoxes.
This study also showed intensifications of some reinforcing phenomena that have
placed the communities persistently marginalized. Here the main elements to reinforce the
phenomena are international policies, increasing complexities of local institutions, laws and
other policies, land resource conditions, and stakes of new beneficiaries. Nelson (1995) cited
some similar cases in the world and explained the theory of institutional reinforcement or
path dependence [
144
]. The reinforcing factors have made the institutions and resource
conditions too complex to work and too costly to change.
Support of international development agencies did not safeguard the well-being of the
local community though they were involved actively in formulating and implementing the
policies of local community-based land resource management. The agencies worked there
to provide professional scientific and intellectual expertise lacking in the country and to safe-
guard the well-being of the local community. They could not resolve tradeoff phenomena
that naturally occur between the production of services to contribute to global environ-
World 2022,3566
mental conservation and the production of goods and services to meet local needs. Many
studies have explained the naturally occurring tradeoff phenomena [
23
,
25
,
26
,
148
,
149
]. The
agencies also hold limited capacity and mandate to manage many problems including
bad governance and social complexities. Many problems hampering safeguarding the
wellbeing of local communities are also inherited in these organizations themselves. The
sources or pathways inheriting the problems include working policies, programs’ modal-
ities, financing conditions, progress monitoring practices, and the interests of program
managers of the organizations. The agencies with bad governance, rather induced policies
and practices of land resource management to result in the best benefits to the environ-
ment and other benefits to foreign societies. The external benefit-oriented policies and
practices reduced products and services for local needs and hampered the well-being of
local communities. Instead of providing safeguarding, the agencies have been serving
as vehicles to control the community land use policies and practices and sources to keep
the communities suffering for generations or years [
22
]. The international environmental
policies have dictated the government bureaucrats to prioritize resource management for
global benefits and ignore the problems of citizens and the nation.
The results also showed that some adverse impacts of the international policies and
interventions for global benefits are intolerably serious to some societies, especially the
indigenous ethnic communities. The policies and interventions strategically destroyed the
indigenous forestry practices of the community that had produced multipurpose products
and services and kept local social, economic, and ecological systems functional, and vital.
They also hampered opportunities for the community practices of complementing private
resources with forest resources to manage their livelihoods. It also destroyed the indigenous
practices that the communities followed to sustain in limited natural resources and enjoy
their traditional nature-based cultures and lifestyles. The policies and interventions have
spoiled the social-ecological situation that contributed to retaining natural forests and
the coexistence of wild mammals and humans. The environmentally friendly behaviors,
lifestyles, and livelihood practices of the communities were a blessing to nature-kind
including humans. But vested interest works of the conservation agencies have now
made them curses especially to the communities. The strategic interventions on local land
resources for benefiting other societies have compelled the communities to give up social
identity including religious beliefs and nature-based culture, lifestyle, and livelihoods. The
external agencies purposefully destroyed natural assets (indigenous livestock breeds and
crop varieties) and indigenous practices. The institutions and biophysical conditions that
the external agencies induced are reinforcing the adverse impacts or results in slow poison
effects on the lives and livelihoods of the communities. The harm to living conditions of
the ethnic groups has hampered reproduction and resulted in population decline. The
communities, therefore, are institutionally and biophysically placed not only in a vulnerable
or marginalized position but also to be suffered for generations or extirpating. Literature
noted local communities in colonial countries had got similar impacts and treatment during
the Europeans’ colonization era [20,150].
Current environmental policies and practices at both national and international levels
are advocated and clutched by environmental experts, scientists, and other high-profile
personalities with a decent standard of living [
5
,
11
,
12
,
94
]. They strategically endorsed and
introduced the policies and practices of excessive use of lands of the poor communities
for addressing problems created by the societies or people with a politically powerful and
decent standard of living. But the personalities have produced incomparably more GHG
emissions than the forest-based communities. The excessive land use is done primarily
for dumping excess (GHG emissions) and quenching the wild thirst of people with a
decent and luxurious standard of living. The works are scientifically and morally illogical.
More importantly, they have resulted in seriously inexcusable harm, especially in ethnic
minorities and disadvantaged communities. In our study case, these inexcusable harms in
the victimized communities resulted from strategic interventions of some agencies to result
in more benefits to politically powerful and materially well-off countries [
27
]. In addition,
World 2022,3567
most people making the government policy decisions about land resource management are
socio-politically most powerful ethnic communities of Nepali society. They have received
most benefits directly and indirectly from international agencies due to making the decision
of increasing land uses for environmental and other benefits for foreign societies. But the
land use policies and practices have harmed mostly ethnic minorities and other indigenous
ethnic groups and made them suffer for generations. This infers that land grabbing and
critical harm in many affairs of the indigenous ethnic communities are done in partnership
and for the mutual benefit of historically cunning and powerful ethnic communities of the
host country and developed countries. Studies explained that such degrees of serious harm
by deliberated activities of mainstream or powerful societies for the sake of their long-term
benefit is a genocide [
151
]. Cox (2017) studied 17 extreme genocide cases and concluded
that no perpetrator declared monovalent intentions formally and in advance. The study
concluded that the main criteria determining the monovalent work of any agency are the
processes and outcomes of the interventions. Based on the work process and outcomes,
the current international environmental policies of land uses, can be considered abuse,
exploitation, and genocide of ethnic minorities and other weak ethnic communities. These
phenomena indicate that international environmental conservation policies and practices
are becoming criminal activities.
The inexcusable outcomes are not repercussions because many studies have well
explained the phenomena of the tradeoff in the production of goods for local needs and
marginalization of local communities from excessive land uses for global environmental
conservation [
23
,
25
,
26
]. The inhuman policies and practices are formally endorsed in many
international policy decision forums and official documents and mainstreamed in many
policies and practices of government and international organizations. The policy actors
were aware of the tradeoff phenomena and potential harms to institutionally vulnerable
groups [
23
]. These crimes are incomparably more serious than the cases in that some
countries politically expressed concern for some ethnic groups overseas [
152
,
153
]. But
the countries, for the sake of self-benefit, have provided funds and other support in the
land use activities that have placed Nepali indigenous ethnic communities suffering for
generations or extirpating.
8. Conclusions and Limitations of the Study
The results of this study provide many lessons for land use policy decisions. The
cases in Nepal indicate that excessive land use for global environmental conservation can
exacerbate many critical psychological, social, economic, and ecological problems. It can
hamper indigenous resources and knowledge systems, social-ecological systems which
are vital assets to practicing a nature-based farming lifestyle, and sustainable livelihoods
for the forest-based communities. The conservative land use can make the communities
more dependent on external and artificially produced inputs. It can increase the risk of
people to be legally punished and maltreated also increases due to growing restrictions on
using forest products for livelihood and increasing monitoring and controlling activities
of conservation officials in their localities. The life hardship associated with little access
to their land resources may compel the communities to change religious faith and give
up traditional cultural practices. The institutions introduced to control local communities
and manage the land for environmental conservation may oppress and exploit the local
communities. The lands used for benefiting global society are likely to lose their freedom
to manage the resources for the local community or national benefits. The excessive land
uses for global environmental conservation can be a subject of not only harming local
communities but also compromising national security and sovereignty.
This study proved that excessive land uses for global benefits can bring many financial
implications to national economies. The government requires borrowing foreign loans and
using other sources of resources to increase conservation areas and manage the resources.
This study also proved that the inappropriate or excessive investment of resources can
affect not only the well-being of local communities and national securities but also carry
World 2022,3568
financial pressures on future governments for maintaining foreign currency reserves, pay-
ing the loans, and providing other development services. Shifting land resource using
from economic purposes to environmental conservation naturally reduces the forestry
contribution to GDP and hampered other fairs of the communities.
The excessive land uses for environmental conservation and other benefits of global
societies are found resulting inexcusable harm to local communities and especially in-
digenous ethnic groups or minorities. The finding infers that current international policy
initiatives of protecting 50% of earth territory for global environmental conservation or
increasing land use for mitigating climate change fosters social crimes in the world. These
illogical land use policies and practices are driven by environmental policy experts, sci-
entists, and government authorities. The inexcusable harm to socially marginally and
environmentally friendly people implies that the symbolically high-profile personalities are
monovalent people. Environment conservation is an altruistic or benevolent work. But the
symbolically high profile personalities have misused the land resources with their social
power and made environmental conservation benevolent to monovalent work. They have
made the international organizations channels for doing the social crimes and shelter for
the monovalent people. These works can be bad for both victims and perpetrating social
groups in the future.
The study also proved that support of international agencies may not minimize
adverse impacts of international policies of conservative land use for global environment
conservation on local communities. They can rather exacerbate local social, economic,
and environmental problems. The finding implies that the Nepal government requires
restricting involvement or any support of all international agencies that are involved in
land resource-related policy development and their implementation. Otherwise, they keep
harming forest-based communities and many aspects of national security in institutionally
weak societies.
The use of excessive land including forests for environmental conservation and other
benefits of distance societies is found adversely affect most indigenous ethnic communities
in Nepal. The adverse impacts on the communities are very critical from a humanitarian
perspective and lasting for generations. The finding implies that excessive land uses for
global environmental conservation may result in many serious impacts on local communi-
ties and national security in institutionally and ecologically vulnerable societies. Land use
also institutionalized social crimes and abuses. The findings infer that using a half earth
land territory for global environment conservation or implementing the current UN policy
of upscaling forest and wilderness areas for ecological restoration may result in serious
degrees of marginalization and exacerbate the threat of extinction of some indigenous
ethnic groups in the countries such as Nepal where many affairs of lives of communities
are strongly attached with moderately opened or mixed canopy-based forest resources.
This study urges that civil societies and other public require to take proactive actions to halt
the inhuman land use policies which are practiced by the government agency in support of
international policies and development agencies. The works of the leaders and intellectuals
from indigenous ethnic communities are also against their own social groups [
74
,
143
,
154
].
The elites and intellectuals have advocated or worked in the best interest of donor agen-
cies and developed countries which has made people of other communities awkward for
voicing against oppression, abuse, and exploitation to the indigenous communities by the
conservation agencies and other beneficiaries. Some knowledge to work better for the
indigenous communities can be learned from the Maori community and the government in
New Zealand.
The best solution for sustainable living and adapting to climate changes and other
critical problems for the forest-based communities is the best use of the land resources by
optimizing social-ecological systems. But some phenomena reinforcing the adverse impacts
on the community or nation may occur when structural changes are made for managing
the extensive land resources for global environment conservation. The phenomena make
changes in institutions and resources management too costly and time-consuming. The
World 2022,3569
phenomena ultimately place the community or nation suffering for years. Nepal, therefore,
requires some urgent policy actions to make radical reforms in land resource management
for the benefit of the forest-based communities. The solution can be downscaling protected
areas and managing the forests resources for multipurpose including economic uses.
This study used some data that only insiders of the study community can feel or
observe and express and contributed some noble knowledge in literature. It explained the
extreme impacts of the externally motivated harsh land use policy on the resource-based
communities that lived on meager lands and in very sensitive geo-ecological systems of the
mountain. Community situations in other regions can be different. Region-specific future
studies may further increase the horizon of knowledge in the land use field. The paper
explaining the approach the foreign agencies succeeded to grab the extent of land resources
of Nepal is under publication process.
Author Contributions:
This study is a joint work of B.D., N.C., A.S., N.D., K.B.K., H.L.S., B.A., S.K.S.
and P.B. B.D. outlined the concept of the paper, modified a few maps, and wrote most parts of the
discussion and conclusions sections. H.L.S. collected or modified some maps and contributed data
materials. The other authors elaborated on the concept contributed data materials and edited the
manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
We declare that this study was based on secondary sources
of public information. It did not deal with human and animal experiments to obtain information.
We followed standard research norms to carry out the study. The study method does not require the
ethical approval of any ethics committee or institutional review board. The maps may have minor
errors caused by uploading data. The authors worked voluntarily to share the problems of their
communities with the world. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors and do not
reflect the organizational views of the author affiliations.
Informed Consent Statement:
This study was based on secondary sources of public information,
which does not require consent to publish information.
Data Availability Statement:
All data so far collected are presented in the article. No data worth
uploading for future uses.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Büscher, B.; Fletcher, R.; Brockington, D.; Sandbrook, C.; Adams, W.M.; Campbell, L.; Corson, C.; Dressler, W.; Duffy, R.; Gray, N.; et al.
Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 2017,51, 407–410. [CrossRef]
2.
Ellis, E.C.; Mehrabi, Z. Half Earth: Promises, pitfalls, and prospects of dedicating Half of Earth’s land to conservation. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 2019,38, 22–30. [CrossRef]
3.
Pimm, S.L.; Jenkins, C.N.; Li, B.V. How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Sci. Adv.
2018
,4, eaat2616.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Schleicher, J.; Zaehringer, J.G.; Fastré, C.; Vira, B.; Visconti, P.; Sandbrook, C. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over
one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2019,2, 1094–1096. [CrossRef]
5.
UNCCD. The Global Land Outlook, 2nd ed.; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): Bonn, Germany, 2022.
Available online: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-04/UNCCD_GLO2_low-res_2.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2022).
6.
Tisler, T.R.; Teixeira, F.Z.; Nóbrega, R.A. Conservation opportunities and challenges in Brazil’s roadless and railroad-less areas.
Sci. Adv. 2022,8, eabi5548. [CrossRef]
7.
Nicholson, E.; Watermeyer, K.E.; Rowland, J.A.; Sato, C.F.; Stevenson, S.L.; Andrade, A.; Brooks, T.M.; Burgess, N.D.; Cheng,
S.-T.; Grantham, H.S. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021,5, 1338–1349. [CrossRef]
8.
Gannon, P.; Dubois, G.; Dudley, N.; Ervin, J.; Ferrier, S.; Gidda, S.; MacKinnon, K.; Richardson, K.; Schmidt, M.; Seyoum-Edjigu, E.
Editorial Essay: An update on progress towards Aichi biodiversity target 11. Parks 2019,25, 7–18. [CrossRef]
9.
McNeely, J.A.; Miller, K.R. IUCN, national parks, and protected areas: Priorities for action. Environ. Conserv.
1983
,10, 13–21.
[CrossRef]
10. Christoff, P. The Bali roadmap: Climate change, COP 13 and beyond. Environ. Politics 2008,17, 466–472. [CrossRef]
11.
Lewis, S.L.; Wheeler, C.E.; Mitchard, E.T.; Koch, A. Restoring Natural Forests Is the Best Way to Remove Atmospheric Carbon; Nature
Publishing Group: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
World 2022,3570
12.
Grafton, R.Q.; Chu, H.L.; Nelson, H.; Bonnis, G. A Global Analysis of the Cost-Efficiency of Forest Carbon Sequestration; OECD
Environment Working Papers, No. 185; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021.
13. World Bank. Global Development Indicators: Open Data; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
14.
Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Deforestation and Forest Loss. The World Official Data. Our World in Data. 2021. Available online:
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation (accessed on 16 July 2022).
15.
Potvin, C.; Bovarnick, A. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Key actors,
negotiations and actions. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 2008,2, 264–272. [CrossRef]
16.
Global Landscape Forum Donor Report 2014, Lima Peru. Available online: https://www.globallandscapesforum.org/
publication/2014-global-landscapes-forum-final-report/ (accessed on 22 July 2021).
17.
Global Landscape Forum Donor and Partner Report 2015, Paris, France. Available online: https://www.globallandscapesforum.
org/publication/2015-global-landscapes-forum-donor-partner-report/ (accessed on 22 July 2021).
18.
Domínguez, L.; Luoma, C. Decolonising conservation policy: How colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and
perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land 2020,9, 65. [CrossRef]
19.
Hendlin, Y.H. Environmental justice as a (potentially) hegemonic concept: A historical look at competing interests between the
MST and indigenous people in Brazil. Local Environ. 2019,24, 113–128. [CrossRef]
20.
Springer, J.; Almeida, F. Protected Areas and the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Current Issues and Future
Agendas; Rights and Resources Initiative: Washingtong, DC, USA, 2015.
21.
Phelps, J.; Friess, D.A.; Webb, E.L. Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon–biodiversity trade-offs. Biol. Conserv.
2012
,154,
53–60. [CrossRef]
22.
WWF; MOF_Nepal; GEF. Integrated Landscape Management to Secure Nepal’s Protected Areas and Critical Corridors.
WWF/GEF Project 9437. Available online: https://www.thegef.org/project/integrated-landscape-management-secure-nepal- s-
protected-areas-and- critical-corridors (accessed on 24 January 2021).
23.
Rodríguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D., Jr.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across
space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006,11, 28. [CrossRef]
24.
Aryal, K.; Laudari, H.K.; Neupane, P.R.; Maraseni, T. Who shapes the environmental policy in the global south? Unpacking the
reality of Nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021,121, 78–88. [CrossRef]
25.
Dawson, N.; Coolsaet, B.; Martin, A. Justice and equity: Emerging research and policy approaches to address ecosystem service
trade-offs. In Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation; Schreckenberg, K., Mace, G., Poudyal, M., Eds.; Routledge Taylor &
Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 2, pp. 22–38.
26.
Deng, X.; Li, Z.; Gibson, J. A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management. J. Geogr. Sci.
2016,26, 953–968. [CrossRef]
27.
Dhakal, B.; Chand, N.; Shrestha, A.; Dhakal, N.; Karki, K.B.; Shrestha, H.L.; Bhandari, P.L.; Adhikari, B.; Shrestha, S.K.; Regmi, S.P.
How Policy and Development Agencies Led to the Degradation of Indigenous Resources, Institutions, and Social-Ecological
Systems in Nepal: Some Insights and Opinions. Conservation 2022,2, 134–173. [CrossRef]
28.
Satyal, P.; Corbera, E.; Dawson, N.; Dhungana, H.; Maskey, G. Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+
approach. Clim. Policy 2019,19, S8–S22. [CrossRef]
29.
Downey, L.; Bonds, E.; Clark, K. Natural resource extraction, armed violence, and environmental degradation. Organ. Environ.
2010,23, 417–445. [CrossRef]
30. Homer-Dixon, T.F. Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. Int. Secur. 1994,19, 5–40. [CrossRef]
31. Duffy, R. Waging a war to save biodiversity: The rise of militarized conservation. Int. Aff. 2014,90, 819–834. [CrossRef]
32.
Lyons, K.; Westoby, P. Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: Plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts.
J. Rural. Stud. 2014,36, 13–21. [CrossRef]
33.
Robertson, B.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Global land acquisition: Neo-colonialism or development opportunity? Food Secur.
2010
,2,
271–283. [CrossRef]
34. Ives, J.D.; Messerli, B. The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
35.
Sivinski, J. Conservation for Whom?: The struggle for indigenous rights in Sagarmatha National Park. SIT Study Aboard
2015. Available online: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3244&context=isp_collection (accessed on
6 April 2022).
36.
Ives, J. Himalayan Perceptions: Environmental Change and the Well-Being of Mountain Peoples; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
37.
Orlove, B.S.; Guillet, D.W. Theoretical and methodological considerations on the study of mountain peoples: Reflections on the
idea of subsistence type and the role of history in human ecology. Mt. Res. Dev. 1985,5, 3–18. [CrossRef]
38. Schroeder, R.F. Himalayan subsistence systems: Indigenous agriculture in rural Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 1985,5, 31–44. [CrossRef]
39.
Dhakal, B.; Bigsby, H.; Cullen, R. Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for
small farmers in Nepal. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010,35, 86–115. [CrossRef]
40.
Karki, S.T. Do protected areas and conservation incentives contribute to sustainable livelihoods? A case study of Bardia National
Park, Nepal. J. Environ. Manag. 2013,128, 988–999. [CrossRef]
41.
Maskey, G.; Adhikari, B. REDD+ and Community Forestry in Nepal: Strengthening or Paralysing Decentralised Governance?
J. For. Livelihood 2018,16, 35–55.
World 2022,3571
42.
Shrestha, U.B.; Shrestha, B.B.; Shrestha, S. Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: Rhetoric and reality. Int. J.
Biodivers. Conserv. 2010,2, 98–104.
43.
Poudel, M.; Thwaites, R.; Race, D.; Dahal, G.R. Social equity and livelihood implications of REDD+ in rural communities—A case
study from Nepal. Int. J. Commons 2015,9, 177–208. [CrossRef]
44. CBS. Environmental Statistics of Nepal 2019; Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019.
45. Campbell, B. Nature’s discontents in Nepal. Conserv. Soc. 2005,3, 323–353.
46. Seeland, K. National park policy and wildlife problems in Nepal and Bhutan. Popul. Environ. 2000,22, 43–62. [CrossRef]
47.
Neupane, S.; Shrestha, K. Sustainable forest governance in a changing climate: Impacts of REDD program on the livelihood of
poor communities in Nepalese community forestry. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2012,4, 71–82.
48.
Bastakoti, R.R.; Davidsen, C. Nepal’s REDD+ readiness preparation and multi-stakeholder consultation challenges. J. For.
Livelihood 2015,13, 30–43. [CrossRef]
49.
Rana, E.; Thwaites, R.; Luck, G. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon, forest diversity and forest products in Nepal community
forests. Environ. Conserv. 2017,44, 5–13. [CrossRef]
50.
Khatri, P. Nepali Furniture Firms Heavily Rely On Imported Timber. The Rising Nepal. Kathmandu. 2019. Available online:
https://old.risingnepaldaily.com/main-news/nepali-furniture-firms-heavily-rely-on-imported-timber (accessed on 23 July 2019).
51.
Dhakal, B.; Bigsby, H.; Cullen, R. Socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies on heterogeneous agricultural households.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012,53, 73–95. [CrossRef]
52. Nuberg, I.; Shrestha, K.; Bartlett, A. Pathways to forest wealth in Nepal. Aust. For. 2019,82, 106–120. [CrossRef]
53.
Paudel, K.; Potter, G.R.; Phelps, J. Conservation enforcement: Insights from people incarcerated for wildlife crimes in Nepal.
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020,2, e137. [CrossRef]
54.
Yadav, B.D.; Bigsby, H.; MacDonald, I. The relative distribution: An alternative approach to evaluate the impact of community
level forestry organisations on households. Land Use Policy 2015,42, 443–449. [CrossRef]
55.
den Braber, B.; Evans, K.L.; Oldekop, J.A. Impact of protected areas on poverty, extreme poverty, and inequality in Nepal. Conserv.
Lett. 2018,11, e12576. [CrossRef]
56.
Oldekop, J.A.; Sims, K.R.; Karna, B.K.; Whittingham, M.J.; Agrawal, A. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized
forest management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2019,2, 421–428. [CrossRef]
57. Thoms, C.A. Conservation success and livelihood failure. Policy Matter 2008,14, 169–179.
58.
von Jacobi, N.; Nicholls, A.; Chiappero-Martinetti, E. Theorizing social innovation to address marginalization. J. Soc. Entrep.
2017
,
8, 265–270. [CrossRef]
59. Adger, W.N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 2006,16, 268–281. [CrossRef]
60. Bromley, D. Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy; Basil Blackwel: Oxford, UK, 1989.
61. North, D.C. Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991,5, 97–112. [CrossRef]
62.
Beunen, R.; Patterson, J.J. Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional
work’. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019,62, 12–29. [CrossRef]
63.
Barrett, C.B.; Constas, M.A. Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014,111, 14625–14630. [CrossRef]
64.
Lima, B.; Mairon, G.; Kmoch, L. Neglect paves the way for dispossession: The politics of “last frontiers” in Brazil and Myanmar.
World Dev. 2021,148, 105681. [CrossRef]
65.
Global Tiger Summit in Russia, November 2010. Available online: https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?199185/Global-Tiger-
Summit-in-Russia-November-2010 (accessed on 7 July 2022).
66.
Baynham-Herd, Z.; Redpath, S.; Bunnefeld, N.; Molony, T.; Keane, A. Conservation conflicts: Behavioural threats, frames, and
intervention recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 2018,222, 180–188. [CrossRef]
67.
Bräutigam, D.A.; Knack, S. Foreign aid, institutions, and governance in sub-Saharan Africa. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang.
2004
,52,
255–285. [CrossRef]
68.
Busscher, N.; Parra, C.; Vanclay, F. Environmental justice implications of land grabbing for industrial agriculture and forestry in
Argentina. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020,63, 500–522. [CrossRef]
69. Tura, H.A. Land rights and land grabbing in Oromia, Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2018,70, 247–255. [CrossRef]
70. Yang, B.; He, J. Global Land Grabbing: A Critical Review of Case Studies across the World. Land 2021,10, 324. [CrossRef]
71.
Matheson, F.I.; Dunn, J.R.; Smith, K.L.; Moineddin, R.; Glazier, R.H. Development of the Canadian Marginalization Index: A new
tool for the study of inequality. Can. J. Public Health/Rev. Can. De Sante’e Publique 2012,103, S12–S16. [CrossRef]
72.
Hall, J.M. Marginalization Revisited: Critical, Postmodern, and Liberation Perspectives. Adv. Nurs. Sci.
1999
,22, 88–102.
[CrossRef]
73.
FCPF. Annual Progress Report 2016; Forest Carbon Partnership Facility; The World Bank Groups: Washington, DC, USA, 2016;
Retrieved 20 February 2021.
74.
Gyamtsho, P. The Decade to Restore Our Planet. Declaration on 2nd June 2021. Available online: https://www.icimod.org/the-
decade-to-restore-our-planet (accessed on 27 September 2021).
75.
LAHURNIP and NIWF 2020. Fact Finding Mission Report. In Violation of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights in Chitwan National
Park of Nepal; Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese IPs (LAHURNIP) and National Indigenous Women Federation
(NIWF): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2020.
World 2022,3572
76. MFSC. Conservation Landscapes of Nepal; Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
77.
MFSO. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014–2020; Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation [MFSO]: Kathmandu,
Nepal; Singha Durbar: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2015.
78. Ministry of Forest. Forestry Sector Master Plan 1988; Ministry of Forest and Watershade Management: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1988.
79. MoFE. Forest Act 2076; Ministry of Forest and Environment [MoFE]: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019.
80.
MOFSC. Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2025, Terai Arc Landscape; Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation [MOFSC]: Kathmandu,
Nepal; Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2015.
81.
World Bank. Nepal and the World Bank Three Decades of Partnership. Available online: http://web.worldbank.org/archive/
website00811/WEB/OTHER/BA58AF89.HTM?OpenDocument (accessed on 21 July 2022).
82.
MSFP. Forestry Sector Strategy (2016-25); A Joint Venture Project of UK, Finland and Swiss Government; Government of Nepal;
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation; Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme (MSFP): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
83.
UNEP; WCMC. Sagarmatha National Park Nepal. United National Environmental Program. World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. 2011. Available online: http://www.thesalmons.org/lynn/wh-wcmc/Nepal%20-%20Sagarmatha.pdf (accessed on
27 June 2021).
84.
World Bank. Nepal and World Bank Sign Innovative Financing Agreement on Forests and Climate Change for Building Back Greener; 2021.
World Bank press Release. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/02/26/nepal-and-
world-bank-sign-innovative-financing-agreement (accessed on 7 July 2022).
85.
Reed, M.S.; Ferré, M.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Blanche, R.; Lawford-Rolfe, R.; Dallimer, M.; Holden, J. Evaluating impact from research:
A methodological framework. Res. Policy 2021,50, 104147. [CrossRef]
86. Saxena, A.; Buettner, W.C.; Kestler, L.; Kim, Y.-S. Opportunities and barriers for wood-based infrastructure in urban Himalayas:
A review of selected national policies of Nepal. Trees For. People 2022,8, 100244. [CrossRef]
87.
Thakuri, S.; Baskota, P.; Khatri, S.B.; Dhakal, A.; Chaudhary, P.; Rijal, K.; Byanju, R.M. Methane emission factors and carbon fluxes
from enteric fermentation in cattle of Nepal Himalaya. Sci. Total Environ. 2020,746, 141184. [CrossRef]
88.
van Kooten, G.C. Forest carbon offsets and carbon emissions trading: Problems of contracting. For. Policy Econ.
2017
,75, 83–88.
[CrossRef]
89.
Adhikari, R.K.; Poudyal, N.C.; Shrestha, A. The effect of foreign remittance on timber imports: Evidence from Nepal. J. For. Res.
2022,in press. [CrossRef]
90.
Joshi, Abhaya Raj, Nepal was supposed to double its tiger population since 2010. It Tripled It. Mongabay Series: Conservation
Effectiveness. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2022/07/nepal-was-supposed-to-double-its-tiger-population-
since-2010-it-tripled-it/ (accessed on 26 July 2022).
91.
Thoms, C.A. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of
community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 2008,39, 1452–1465. [CrossRef]
92.
Shrestha, U.B.; Shrestha, S.; Chaudhary, P.; Chaudhary, R.P. How representative is the protected areas system of Nepal? Mt. Res.
Dev. 2010,30, 282–294. [CrossRef]
93.
Kandel, P.; Chettri, N.; Chaudhary, R.P.; Badola, H.K.; Gaira, K.S.; Wangchuk, S.; Bidha, N.; Uprety, Y.; Sharma, E. Plant diversity
of the Kangchenjunga Landscape, Eastern Himalayas. Plant Divers. 2019,41, 153–165. [CrossRef]
94.
CIFOR. Global Landscapes Forum Final Report 2013. In Proceedings of the Parties (COP 19) to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Warsaw, Poland, 16–17 November 2013.
95.
Heinen, J.T.; Kattel, B. Parks, people, and conservation: A review of management issues in Nepal’s protected areas. Popul. Environ.
1992,14, 49–84. [CrossRef]
96.
Kanel, K.; Shrestha, K. Tropical secondary forests in Nepal and their importance to local people. J. Trop. For. Sci.
2001
,13, 691–704.
97.
Borradaile, L.; Green, M.; Moon, L.; Robinson, P.; Tait, A. Langtang National Park Management Plan 1977–1982; FAO, National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation Project: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1977.
98. Garratt, K.J. Sagarmatha National Park Management Plan; National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1981.
99. Houge Mackenzie, S.; Hodge, K. Adventure recreation and subjective well-being: A conceptual framework. Leis. Stud. 2020,39,
26–40. [CrossRef]
100.
Jacquemet, E. Why do people come to see Mount Everest? Collective representations and tourism practices in the Khumbu
Region. J. Alp. Res.|Rev. De Géographie Alp. 2017,13, 105–113. [CrossRef]
101.
Hansen, M.M.; Jones, R.; Tocchini, K. Shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) and nature therapy: A state-of-the-art review. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2017,14, 851. [CrossRef]
102. Joshi, M.D.; Joshi, C. Areas of species diversity and endemicity of Nepal. Ecosphere 2022,13, e3969. [CrossRef]
103.
KC, B.; Race, D.; Fisher, R.; Jackson, W. Changing Rural Livelihoods and Forest Use Transition in the Middle Hills of Nepal.
Small-Scale For. 2021,20, 479–501. [CrossRef]
104.
Dhakal, B.; Kattel, R.R. Effects of global changes on ecosystems services of multiple natural resources in mountain agricultural
landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,676, 665–682. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105.
Jordan, C.F. Why Is Species Diversity Higher in the Tropics? In Evolution from a Thermodynamic Perspective: Implications for Species
Conservation and Agricultural Sustainability; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 201–216. [CrossRef]
106.
Minya, A. 479 Forest Fires in a Single day. eKantipure News, 26 March 2021. Available online: https://ekantipur.com/news/2021
/03/26/16167199233075910.html (accessed on 12 July 2021).
World 2022,3573
107. Kunwar, L.S. Emigration of Nepalese people and its impact. Econ. J. Dev. Issues 2015,19, 77–82. [CrossRef]
108.
Subedi, Y.R.; Kristiansen, P.; Cacho, O.; Ojha, R.B. Agricultural Land Abandonment in the Hill Agro-ecological Region of Nepal:
Analysis of Extent, Drivers and Impact of Change. Environ. Manag. 2021,67, 1100–1118. [CrossRef]
109.
Ward, M.; Tulloch, A.I.; Radford, J.Q.; Williams, B.A.; Reside, A.E.; Macdonald, S.L.; Mayfield, H.J.; Maron, M.; Possingham, H.P.;
Vine, S.J. Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020,4, 1321–1326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. KC, B.; Race, D. Outmigration and Land-Use Change: A Case Study from the Middle Hills of Nepal. Land 2020,9, 2. [CrossRef]
111.
DLUS. Land Use Map. Department of Land Survey (DLUS), Nepal Government. 2022. Available online: https://www.dos.gov.
np/products-services (accessed on 6 July 2022).
112.
Gong, P.; Wang, J.; Yu, L.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liang, L.; Niu, Z.; Huang, X.; Fu, H.; Liu, S. Finer resolution observation and
monitoring of global land cover: First mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. Int. J. Remote Sens.
2013
,34, 2607–2654.
[CrossRef]
113.
Uddin, K.; Shrestha, H.L.; Murthy, M.; Bajracharya, B.; Shrestha, B.; Gilani, H.; Pradhan, S.; Dangol, B. Development of 2010
national land cover database for the Nepal. J. Environ. Manag. 2015,148, 82–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114.
Department of Custom. Nepal Foreign Trade Statistics: Fiscal Year 2019/20 (2076/77); Department of Custom, Ministry of Finance:
Kathmandu, Nepal, 2020.
115.
Shrestha, P.M. Kathmandu Post 27 June 2022, Forex Reserves down to Fund Imports for Just a Little over Six Months Raises
Alarm. Available online: https://kathmandupost.com/national/2022/06/27/forex-reserves-down-to-fund-imports-for-just-
a-little-over-six-months-raises-alarm (accessed on 22 July 2022).
116.
FAO. Trends and Current Status of the Contribution of the Forestry Sector to National Economies; Working paper FSFM/ACC/07;
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004.
117.
Oldekop, J.A.; Sims, K.R.; Whittingham, M.J.; Agrawal, A. An upside to globalization: International outmigration drives
reforestation in Nepal. Glob. Environ. Change 2018,52, 66–74. [CrossRef]
118.
Pokhrel, M. Will Nepal Ever be Paid for Saving Trees? Lots of Pledges in Glasgow, But Doubtful if They will Actually Bring Nepal
Cash for Protecting Forests. Nepali Times. 7 November 2021. Available online: https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/will-nepal-
ever-be-paid-for-saving- trees/ (accessed on 8 April 2022).
119.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). National Census of Agriculture 2011–2012; Central Bureau of Statistics Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011.
120.
Kane, S.; Dhiaulhaq, A.; Sapkota, L.M.; Gritten, D. Transforming forest landscape conflicts: The promises and perils of global
forest management initiatives such as REDD+. For. Soc. 2018,2, 1–17. [CrossRef]
121. CBS. Preliminary Report of National Population Census 2021; Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2021.
122. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). National Population Report 2017; Central Bureau of Statistics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2017.
123.
Childs, G.; Craig, S.; Beall, C.M.; Basnyat, B. Depopulating the Himalayan Highlands: Education and Outmigration from
Ethnically Tibetan Communities of Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2014,34, 85–94. [CrossRef]
124.
Thapa, N.; Paudel, M.; Guragain, A.M.; Thapa, P.; Puri, R.; Thapa, P.; Aryal, K.K.; Paudel, B.K.; Thapa, R.; Stray-Pedersen, B.
Status of migration and socio-reproductive impacts on migrants and their families left behind in Nepal. Migr. Dev.
2019
,8,
394–417. [CrossRef]
125.
Johnson, S.P. The earth summit: The United Nations conference on environment and development (UNCED). VRÜ Verfass. Und
Recht Übersee 1994,28, 134–135.
126.
Bhatt, R.P.; Khanal, S.N. Environmental impact assessment system in Nepal–An overview of policy, legal instruments and process.
Kathmandu Univ. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009,5, 2009.
127.
Adhikari, K. Perception or reality? A case study of corrupt practices in the forestry sector in Nepal. Eur. Bull. Himal. Res.
2015
,46,
9–34.
128.
Basnyat, B.; Treue, T.; Pokharel, R.K. Bureaucratic Recentralisation of Nepal’s Community Forestry Sector. Int. For. Rev.
2019
,21,
401–415. [CrossRef]
129.
Paudel, D.; Pain, A.; Marquardt, K.; Khatri, S. Reterritorialization of community forestry: Scientific forest management for
commercialization in Nepal. J. Political Ecol. 2022,29, 455–474.
130.
McDougall, C.; Jiggins, J.; Pandit, B.H.; Thapa Magar Rana, S.K.; Leeuwis, C. Does adaptive collaborative forest governance affect
poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s community forests. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013,26, 1235–1251. [CrossRef]
131.
Adhikari, S.; Harada, K.; Dahal, N.K.; Kandel, S. Earthquake Impacts on the Livelihoods of Community Forest Users in
Sindhupalchok District, Nepal, and Their Perceptions towards Forest Conservation. Conservation 2021,1, 327–341. [CrossRef]
132. Bista, D.B. Fatalism and Development: Nepal’s Struggle for Modernization; Sangam Books: Banaras, India, 1991.
133. Edmundson, H. Tales from the Himalaya–Religion, Science, Politics, Society; Vajra Books Publisher: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019.
134. Jana, S. Voices from the margins: Human rights crises around protected areas in Nepal. Policy Matters 2007,15, 87–99.
135.
Paudyal, P.; Kulasabanathan, K.; Cassell, J.A.; Memon, A.; Simkhada, P.; Wasti, S.P. Health and well-being issues of Nepalese
migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Malaysia: A systematic review. BMJ Open
2020
,10, e038439.
[CrossRef]
136.
Simkhada, P.; Van Teijlingen, E.; Gurung, M.; Wasti, S.P. A survey of health problems of Nepalese female migrants workers in the
Middle-East and Malaysia. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights 2018,18, 4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137.
Warren, T.; Baker, K.J. WWF Funds Guards Who Have Tortured and Killed People. BuzzFeedNews. Available online: https:
//www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death (accessed on 23 September 2020).
World 2022,3574
138.
MOA. Project Document of Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project. Ministry of Agricultural Development (MAD); Government
of Nepal/Ministry of Agriculture Development: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
139.
NPC. Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) 2014; National Planning Commision [NPC]: Kathmandu, Nepal; National Nutrition
and Food Security Secretariat. Central Bureau of Statistics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014.
140.
Gurung, T.D. Nepali park officials tortured a man to death. Then, the government and the World Wide Fund for Nature rewarded
them. Kathmandu Post, 3 March 2019.
141.
Mak, J.; Zimmerman, C.; Roberts, B. Coping with migration-related stressors—A qualitative study of Nepali male labour migrants.
BMC Public Health 2021,21, 1131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142.
Aryal, N.; Regmi, P.R.; van Teijlingen, E.; Trenoweth, S.; Adhikary, P.; Simkhada, P. The Impact of Spousal Migration on the
Mental Health of Nepali Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 1292. [CrossRef]
143.
Rai, R.K.; Nepal, M.; Karky, B.S.; Timalsina, N.; Khadayat, M.S.; Bhattarai, N. Opportunity Costs of Forest Conservation in Nepal.
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. Front. For. Glob. Change. 2022,5, 857145. [CrossRef]
144.
Nelson, R. Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. In Theorien der Organisation; Ortmann, G., Sydow, J., Türk, K.,
Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1997; pp. 81–123. [CrossRef]
145. Bartlett, A. A review of community forestry advances in Nepal. Commonw. For. Rev. 1992,71, 95–100.
146.
Novosad, P.; Werker, E. Who runs the international system? Nationality and leadership in the United Nations Secretariat. Rev. Int.
Organ. 2019,14, 1–33. [CrossRef]
147.
Thapa, S. Effectiveness of crop protection methods against wildlife damage: A case study of two villages at Bardia National Park,
Nepal. Crop Prot. 2010,29, 1297–1304. [CrossRef]
148.
Howe, C.; Suich, H.; Vira, B.; Mace, G.M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being:
A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2014
,28, 263–275.
[CrossRef]
149.
Schaafsma, M.; Bartkowski, B. Synergies and Trade-Offs Between Ecosystem Services. In Life on Land; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M.,
Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1022–1032. [CrossRef]
150.
Schaller, D.J. Raphael Lemkin’s view of European colonial rule in Africa: Between condemnation and admiration. J. Genocide Res.
2005,7, 531–538. [CrossRef]
151. Cox, J.M. To Kill a People: Genocide in the Twentieth Century; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
152. Wintour, P. UK MPs Declare China Is Committing Genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The Guardian, 22 April 2021.
153. Wong, E.; Buckley, C. US Says China’s Repression of Uighurs is ‘Genocide’. The New York Times, 27 July 2021.
154.
Minya, A.; Pokharel, G. Barha barshamaa Tibbar bagh (Triple number of tiget within 12 years). eKantipure News, 30 July 2022.
Available online: https://ekantipur.com/news/2022/07/30/165914536695461439.html (accessed on 26 July 2022).
Content uploaded by Bhubaneswor Dhakal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bhubaneswor Dhakal on Sep 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
