Translator Disclaimer
15 November 2019 Management of the Forested Catchments of Nepal's Mid-hills Amid Mismatched Perceptions of Forest–Water Relationships: Challenges and Opportunities
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The expansion of community forestry practices since the late 1970s and, recently, outmigration have led forest cover to increase in Nepal's mid-hills catchments (>52% of the 4.3 million ha). The catchments traditionally provide food and income for local communities, and they are increasingly important for ecological functions, particularly downstream water use. While the hydrological effects of increasing forest cover are generally unclear in the mid-hills region, mismatched perceptions of forest–water relationships between sections of Nepalese society and scientists challenge the management of the catchments in meeting traditional community needs and growing water demand sustainably. This paper shows the prevalence of the culturally formed notion of “more forest–more water” within broader Nepalese society and the conservation-centric attitude of forest policymakers, who focus on reforestation and afforestation. These perceptions contradict general scientific evidence that shows forest development reduces catchment water yield. Conversely, the results of semistructured interviews (n =150) conducted among members of community forest user groups (CFUGs) in the Roshi Khola catchment of the mid-hills district Kavre showed that 44% of respondents consider that forests contribute to increased water quantity, and 37% think forests decrease it. Furthermore, the respondents that viewed forests as reducing water quantity disliked pine forests because these allegedly caused the reduction. Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the duration of membership in the CFUG and the perception that forests increase water. Thus, while there is a high research need to understand the forest–water relationships in the mid-hills, extensive communication of research results and deliberation about them are crucial to developing widely acceptable plans for managing the catchments. This is particularly important in the context of expanding community forestry practices and the current debate on scientific forestry presented by Nepal's key forestry documents, including the Forestry Sector Strategy 2016–2025 and Forest Policy 2019.

Introduction

Current scientific literature largely acknowledges that increased forest cover in catchments reduces water availability due to, for instance, increased evapotranspiration (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Zhang et al 2001), reduced stream flow, or runoff generation (Johnson 1998; Farley et al 2005). These relationships between forest area and catchment water yield have been reported for diverse vegetation and climatic conditions in Europe (Robinson et al 2003), Australia (Cornish and Vertessy 2001; van Dijk and Keenan 2007), and the tropics (Bruijnzeel 2004; Scott et al 2005), among others; many authors have found similar results from global catchment studies (Sahin and Hall 1996; Andréassian 2004; Brown et al 2005; Zhang et al 2017). Yet, beliefs that forests improve water availability persist and affect forest policymaking processes (Wilk 2000; Calder 2002, 2006, 2007; Gilmour 2014).

The belief that forests improve hydrological outcomes is commonly reiterated by the media, forestry practitioners, and development agencies globally. This association between forests and hydrological benefits has often led to increased focus on afforesting or reforesting degraded landscapes (Calder 2005). Thus, increased forest cover is strongly linked to realizing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (Bastos Lima et al 2015; Gratzer and Keeton 2017; Gregersen et al 2017) and climate change mitigation (Ellison et al 2017), and forested landscapes are increasingly recognized for their ecological value, as well as their spiritual and cultural values. Accordingly, the forest area managed explicitly for soil and water protection has risen to over a billion hectares (>25% of the global forest area), while growing numbers of countries (42 in 1990 to 51 in 2015) have recognized the cultural values of forests (Miura et al 2015). This is matched by declining global deforestation rates overall, although high rates persist in many low-income countries (Keenan et al 2015; Sloan and Sayer 2015). Recently, however, some countries in this category, such as Nepal, have reported increases in forest area.

Based on its 2015 Forest Resource Assessment (DFRS 2015), the total forest area in Nepal reached approximately 6 million ha, while it was 5.6 million ha in 1978/1979 and 4.3 million ha in 1994. By contrast, the forest areas allocated for soil and water protection grew by nearly 14% to 650,000 ha from 1990 to 2015 (FAO 2015). Moreover, the forested area composed of naturally grown or planted varieties of broadleaf and pine species constituted over 52% of the 4.3 million ha of the country's mid-hills catchments, mostly as a result of prevalent community forestry practices since the late 1970s and, increasingly, outmigration (Tiwari and Bhattarai 2011; Jaquet et al 2015; Pandey et al 2016; Kc et al 2017; Poudel et al 2017). This increase is notable because the region's allegedly high deforestation rates during the mid-1970s caused severe hydrological effects of transnational significance (Eckholm 1976), prompting large-scale revegetation programs (Gilmour 2003) while concurrently raising concerns about the programs' inability to incorporate local community needs and principles of scientific forestry (Bajracharya 1983).

Recently, forestry documents, including the Forest Policy 2075 (GoN 2019a) and Forestry Sector Strategy 2016–2025 (GoN 2016), have underlined the importance of scientific forestry, mainly due to the realization that forests contribute suboptimally to the national economy. At the same time, the Scientific Forest Management Guidelines 2014 estimated an annual gain of NPR 15 billion (about US$126 million) through scientific management of nearly 247,000 ha of southern Terai forests (MFSC 2014b). More recently, the first national Silviculture Workshop (19–21 February 2017) emphasized the incorporation of silvicultural principles for improved forest production and income generation (DoF 2017). Despite the progress, consideration of the hydrological effects of forest growth or management is mostly missing at the practical or policy level in Nepal, and it is poorly understood overall for increases in forest cover through afforestation or reforestation (Venkatesh et al 2014). This is particularly valid for the broader mid-hills region, where nearly 0.4 million ha plantations of mainly pine species (Pinus roxburghii and Pinus patula) have been generated since the 1980s (Dangal and Das 2018). These plantations were implemented jointly by local communities, the Nepal government, and international development agencies, particularly the Nepal–Australia Forestry Project (Gilmour 2003; Nuberg et al 2019). They are now predominantly managed by local communities, who are organized into community forest user groups (CFUGs), as part of the community forestry program that began in the late 1970s (Gilmour and Fisher 1991; Thwaites et al 2018).

This article aims to support sustainable management of the forested catchments of Nepal's mid-hills, which encompass a variety of broadleaf and pine species, provide livelihoods to over 11 million local inhabitants (Pathak and Lamichhane 2014), and supply water for drinking, irrigation, and hydropower generation to a much larger downstream population (GoN 2011). Importantly, the mid-hills constitute a hydrologically important mountainous region characterized by a complex society–water interface (Nüsser 2017). They experience a highly variable seasonal discharge owing to the prevailing climate, where nearly 85% of the annual rainfall is concentrated during June–September (Merz et al 2003). This regularly causes socioeconomic hardships to local and downstream communities (Adhikari 2013; CRED 2018). The catchments' water sources face mounting pressure in supplying the growing urban population (Gyawali and Dixit 2010; Udmale et al 2016) amid shifting hydrological regimes due to climate change (Sharma and Shakya 2006; Shrestha et al 2016). At the same time, there is growing recognition of the catchments' ecological services, including providing water (Birch et al 2014; Bhatta et al 2015; Rai et al 2015; Van Oort et al 2015; Bhandari et al 2016; Paudyal et al 2017), while concerns about the forests' role in the declining water sources grow, particularly in areas of the mid-hills that were reforested to pine (Sharma et al 2016; Shrestha 2016; CBS 2017; Poudel and Duex 2017).

Balancing forest–water relationships for effective catchment planning

There is a clear need for improved scientific understanding of forest–water relationships that takes into account the site- or species-specific hydrological effects of forest development in Nepal's mid-hills catchments. This understanding is crucial for developing evidence-based management plans for the forested catchments, as found in certain countries such as South Africa (Edwards and Roberts 2006), the United States (Jones et al 2009; Gartner et al 2013), and Australia (Vertessy 2000; Stirzaker et al 2002; Keenan et al 2003). Importantly, effective implementation of such plans requires extensive deliberation and communication among various sectors of the community (Creed and van Noordwijk 2018). It provides opportunities to develop a consistent knowledge base and minimize risks associated with the biophysical and socioeconomic complexities of resource use that are characteristic of the mid-hills (Ives 2004), as well as the broader mountainous region (Kotru et al 2015; Breu et al 2017).

Conversely, however, this article shows the prevalence of divergent views about forest–water relationships among sections of the Nepalese community that pose a restrictive policy environment on developing and implementing such plans. This is mostly due to the culturally formed general notion of “more forest–more water” held by the broader Nepalese society, and the conservation-centric attitude of the forest policymakers, who largely focus on reforestation or afforestation activities (Ojha 2017). On the other hand, the perceptions of the CFUGs, as the direct users and managers of the majority of the mid-hills forests (Sharma et al 2017; Thwaites et al 2018), presented here are consistent, to a greater extent, with the limited scientific evidence on forest–water relationships in the region.

The broad consistency between available scientific evidence and CFUG perceptions, representing the deeper experiential understanding of forest management, presents opportunities for developing evidence-based catchment management plans that are locally applicable, particularly for integration into the widespread CFUG programs in the mid-hills (DFSC 2019). This is prudent because the traditional policymaking practices in Nepal's forestry sector inadequately integrate the expertise or interests of the local communities despite the well-founded knowledge systems of forest management (Nightingale 2005). This attitude of the forest policymakers further impedes policy innovation and effective implementation in Nepal (Ahlborg and Nightingale 2012; Ojha 2013; Sunam et al 2013; Ojha et al 2016). Incorporation of divergent views on forest–water relationships increases the acceptability of the ensuing catchment management plans (Calder 1996; Pant et al 2005; Calder and Aylward 2006) and improves contextual appreciation of resource use. This is because both the forest and water resources are used, managed, and symbolized uniquely across societies (Baviskar 2007).

Sociocultural interpretations of forest–water relationships in Nepal

Religious faiths strongly inspire forest management globally (Hamilton 2002; Bhagwat and Rutte 2006; Nelson 2013), including in Nepal (Ingles 1994). Nepalese society maintains a firm cultural base constructed predominantly on Hindu–Buddhist philosophies (81% Hindus and 9% Buddhists) (Dahal 2014) that explicitly recognize the role of forests (Clark 2011; Baltutis 2016) and their ability to influence other ecosystem components, particularly water (Bhagwat et al 2014; Allison 2015). Accordingly, numerous tree species evoke a tradition of worship (Majupuria and Majupuria 1978; Niroula and Singh 2015), and, thus, Nepal's overarching forestry document, the Forest Act 2076 (NLC 2019), incorporates provisions for managing parts of the national forest as religious forest to signify the sacred values assigned by the local communities; this area constituted over 2000 ha in 2014 (MFSC 2014a). This is perhaps why Nepal is known to have embraced an “enlightened” approach to conservation (Heinen and Yonzon 1994; Ormerod and Juttner 1999), which constitutes an inherent aspect of Hinduism (Adhikari 2016).

The interpretations of forest–water relationships are embedded in various forms of sociocultural faiths and rituals (Calder 1999; Sitthisuntikul and Horwitz 2015). In Nepal, planting or protecting trees, particularly around religious sites and water sources, is customary (Basnet 1992). For example, Jana and Paudel (2010) identified a number of religious and cultural sites across the country that integrate forests and water bodies, particularly ponds and lakes that are conserved and protected by local community groups. While these practices are manifestations of the dominant religious faiths in Nepal, the local belief systems intermixed with these consider water availability or scarcity as an “act of god,” as are other natural events such as floods, landslides (Sherry and Curtis 2017), and the onset of rain (Khatry 1996).

Nevertheless, while tree planting is practiced as a strategy to tackle water scarcity at the community level (Yang et al 2014), the perceptions that forests improve hydrological outcomes, such as water availability, are prevalent in the broader Nepalese society, including the mid-hills, as seen in Table 1. The selected excerpts from media coverage in Table 1 highlight the important role of the media in influencing public debate on broader environmental issues in Nepal (Khatri et al 2016). These suggest the prevalence of the “more forest–more water” beliefs in Nepalese society that are also common globally (Calder 2005; Gilmour 2014).

TABLE 1

Broader societal perceptions of forest–water relationships from selected Nepal media.

img-z3-2_R27.gif

Traditional forest policies focus largely on reforestation/ afforestation activities

The hydrologic importance of trees and forests, including for improved water availability, has been historically documented in Nepal. For example, in 2000 BC, cultural customs about communal use of natural resources became authoritative decrees to protect forest resources, including specific trees, such as Shorea robusta, a broadleaf deciduous tree endemic to South and Southeast Asia (Orwa et al 2009), to sustain groundwater (Oli 1996). Likewise, Rule Fourteen of King Ram Shah during the early AD 1600s ordered the protection of trees around springs for continuous water supply and applied a NPR 5 fine (similar to fines applied for social offenses, eg illicitly accusing someone of witchcraft) to those cutting down trees near water sources (NLC nd).

Until the mid-20th century, successive regimes systematically exploited the forests to consolidate political and financial power (Bajracharya 1983; Gautam et al 2004b; Gautam 2006; Springate-Baginski and Blaikie 2007), giving rise to protection-centric legislation, which was further supported by the growth of nature-centered tourism and concerns for nature conservation globally (Heinen and Shrestha 2006). However, emphasis on increased forest cover to improve hydrological outcomes grew after the widely publicized but contested (see Ives [2004] for details) environmental crisis (Eckholm 1976), as many national and international agencies linked this deforestation to reduced water availability. For example, a World Bank Report (1979) predicted that all accessible hill forests would disappear by 1990 and linked forest loss to the drying up of the springs, giving advice to reforest at annual rates of 50,000 and 10,000 ha until 1990 and 2000, respectively (Sattaur 1987).

Subsequent emphasis on afforestation and reforestation activities is evident in the government's development plans, mainly the 5 year periodic plans of the National Planning Commission (NPC 2016a). For example, the sixth such plan (1980–1985) aimed to afforest and improve forest in over 125,000 ha, while the seventh plan (1985–1990) aimed for 175,000 ha, stating “no single forest patch to remain in the following two decades” if the prevailing forest loss continued (NPC 2016b: 54). The seventh plan also reported increased difficulty in obtaining water in the mid-hills due to forest loss, and the eighth plan reiterated drying up of springs and submitted proposals to plant trees along the riverbanks and catchment zones of the larger irrigation and hydropower projects for increased water accretion and hydrological stability (NPC 2016a). Aptly, therefore, increased water availability due to forest development is commonly reported in many parts of the mid-hills that generally host broadleaf species (eg Gurung et al 2013; Lamsal 2014; Adhikari et al 2015; Thapa et al 2018).

As seen globally (Robbins 2000; Adams and Hutton 2007; Neumann 2014), forest protection or expansion is often a political rather than a scientific issue. This is also true in Nepal, as suggested by the ways forestry policy and decisions are made (Amatya et al 2017). For instance, in 1999, the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation banned all types of green felling. Then, in 2002, they developed a biodiversity strategy that pushed a limited and nonscientific approach to forest management that did not consider forest-dependent communities (Ojha et al 2007). In 2003, the ministry stipulated planting 25 saplings for each tree lost due to a development activity (Uprety 2003, 2013). Then, in 2014, the government declared the 10 year period from 2014–2024 to be a “forest decade” with the tag “one household one tree, one village one forest, one city many parks” (MFSC 2015). These directives, while seeming to reinforce proconservation policies, systematically overlook the principles of scientific forestry, particularly silviculture, for improved socioeconomic returns, and thus they impede sustainable forest management (Ojha 2017). In a thorough account of Nepal's forestry sector, Hobley and Malla (1996) called this approach “populist,” prioritizing forest protection over local community needs with concurrent emphasis on reforestation or afforestation.

The reasons for this attitude of the forest policymakers in Nepal include an inadequate appreciation of forest ecosystems (Gautam 2006), historical predominance of state interests in forest management (Ojha et al 2010), and the influence of Western environmental protectionist philosophies in the forestry sector (Nightingale 2003) that are conveyed financially and technically by the international development community (Malla 2001). In recent decades, much protection-centric forestry has centered around environmental schemes such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) (Ojha et al 2013), which have been extended to catchment management, focusing largely on afforestation and reforestation and implemented extensively through foreign aid. For example, in 2015, there were 12 major forestry projects of this nature countrywide, while nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the annual forestry budget (year 2015/2016) was composed of foreign aid (MFSC 2015).

Survey of CFUG perceptions of forest–water relationships

Study area

Roshi Khola catchment (85°23′–85°49′E; 27°23′–27°41′N) has an approximate area of 564 km2 in the mid-hills district of Kavre, Nepal (Figure 1). Typical of the mid-hills, agriculture and forest are the major land-use types in the catchment, with expanding community forestry practices since the late 1970s that affect the land-use patterns of the catchment considerably. For instance, forest fragmentation has been reduced by pine plantations and regeneration (Gautam et al 2003), with an overall increase in forest during 1976–2000 (Gautam et al 2004a), while high forest areas increased at the cost of shrub and cultivated land during 1978–1992 (Gautam et al 2002).

Figure1

The study area: Roshi Khola catchment in Kavre District, Nepal. (Map by Manoj Badu)

img-z5-2_R27.jpg

The climate varies from subtropical below 1000 m above sea level (masl) to cool-temperate above 2000 masl. Rainfall is between 1300–2000 mm annually, with nearly 80% occurring during June–September. These variations in turn influence the vegetation distribution, such that Shorea robusta grow below 1000 masl, Quercus occurs in the cooler temperate areas above 1700 masl, and natural and planted species of Castanopsis, Schima wallichii, and P. roxburghii dominate elevations in between (DFO Kavre 2014).

Large sections of the catchment drain either directly into the Roshi River or into its tributaries, including streams and ponds. Roshi discharge is used for drinking water, irrigation, and hydropower generation (DDC 2014), with increasing demand to supply the growing urban population. For example, the ongoing Kavre Valley Integrated Water Supply Project aims to supply drinking water to the urban populations of Dhulikhel, Panauti, and Banepa municipalities in Kavre district (GoN 2014), which have jointly undergone more than a 100% population rise since 2011 to 134,385 in 2017 (Subedi 2014; MFALD 2017).

Data collection to understand community perceptions and analysis

Topographic maps obtained from the Survey Department of Nepal were used to delineate catchment boundaries and determine the local administrative units, called Village Development Committees (VDCs), that constituted the catchment. (Note: These local units have been rearranged since the elections in 2017 as per the new constitution passed in September 2015.) The records available until July 2013 at the District Forest Office, Kavre, showed that a total of 288 community forests were handed over to the CFUGs in the VDCs comprising the Roshi Khola catchment in part or whole, from which 30 (ie >10% of total) were randomly chosen to represent the catchment. This region is pioneering community forestry practices representing the typical lifestyle of the mid-hills (Gautam et al 2002, 2004a; DFO Kavre 2014). Further, 5 randomly selected members of the chosen CFUGs were interviewed, bringing the total number of respondents to 150. Interviews were conducted during January–March 2015, using a semistructured questionnaire (Badola et al 2012), through household visits. This method provided the opportunity to collect perceptions that were most reflective of the respondents' usual life and experience (Vihervaara et al 2012).

The interviews were conducted in the Nepali language by the first author of this paper and 2 local field assistants. In addition to the name, gender, and primary occupation of the respondents, the interviews gathered information that highlighted the respondent's role within the CFUG (ie whether an active CFUG member or also a member of the executive committee), and the duration of membership in the CFUG. Similarly, the respondents were asked to report their understanding of changes to the water quantity (whether more or less water) and quality (whether more or less visibly turbid or polluted water) that had occurred over a period of time. The respondents were also asked to state whether any specific attributes of the forests (eg forest type, condition, management activities, etc) also affected the forest–water relationships.

Results

Respondent attributes and perceptions of the relationship between forest and water quantity and quality: Responses were analyzed for descriptive statistics, including Pearson's χ2 test to calculate the independence between perceptions and respondents' characteristics, including: gender, role within the CFUG, and duration of the CFUG roles (0–10, 11–20, 21–30, and >30 years). A probability value of 0.05 was used to determine significance.

Of the total respondents interviewed (n = 150), 76% were male, and 24% were female. The majority (71%) identified agriculture as their primary occupation, a typical lifestyle of the mid-hills. At the time of interviewing, about 83% of the respondents were active CFUG members, while the remaining 17% served on the CFUG executive committee.

About half (49%) of the respondents had been CFUG members for 11–20 years, and nearly a third (32%) had been CFUG members for 21–30 years.

Regarding water use, 83% of the respondents used river or stream water, 9% used wells or ponds, while 8% had multiple sources of water for agricultural and domestic use. A very large proportion (94%) said that the quantity of water had decreased, with over 82% and 18% indicating that the decrease had occurred in the past 10 and 20 or more years, respectively. Interestingly, earlier studies around this time reported increased forest cover in the study area, particularly due to the success of pine plantations and CFUG activities (Gautam et al 2002, 2004a). Additionally, only 20% of the respondents said that the water quality had diminished, with 80% and 17% of those considering this to have occurred in the past 10 and 20 or more years, respectively. A large majority (69%) said that water quality had remained unchanged.

As evident from Table 2, the results showed that 44% of the respondents perceived the forests to contribute to increased water quantity, and 37% perceived the forests to contribute to decreased quantity. Moreover, of those who thought that forests decreased water quantity, a vast proportion (96%) said that it was the effect of pine plantations in the area.

Table 2

Community forest users' group perceptions of the forests' effects on water quantity and quality.

img-z6-2_R27.gif

When cross-tabulations were conducted between respondents' views and their characteristics, there were no significant relationships among gender, occupation, and roles within the CFUG. However, perceptions of forest effects on water were influenced by the duration of membership in a CFUG, such that the respondents with longer CFUG experience were significantly more likely to perceive forests as contributing to increased water quantity (χ2 = 17.56, df = 9, p = 0.041).

Discussion

Changing CFUG perceptions of forest–water relationships as an opportunity for evidence-based policymaking

The public perception is that forests improve environmental quality (Maraseni and Cadman 2015), including water availability (Kaimowitz 2005; Calder et al 2007). This is also evident from the results of this survey, as the largest proportion of the respondents (44%) considered that forests increase water quantity, which is the dominant viewpoint within broader Nepalese society and forest policymakers as discussed earlier. The belief that forests improve water availability has also been documented in other parts of the mid-hills of Nepal (Gurung 1989; Adhikari et al 2015).

The tendency of experienced CFUG members to consider forests as contributing to increased water quantity is notable. While this is consistent with the views of Nepalese society, the situation is an example, as pointed out by Calder (2005: 29–62), wherein the deep-rooted collective intellect denies acceptance of an alternative notion that contradicts the historically acquired wisdom about forest–water relationships. However, it is expected that reforesting degraded landscapes revives disturbed hydrological conditions due to improved rainfall absorption by the soil (Scott et al 2005; Ilstedt et al 2007; Bonnesoeur et al 2019), which can occur following years of forest development under low disturbance (Bonell et al 2010; Ghimire, Bruijnzeel, et al 2014). Thus, it is reasonable that the afforestation and reforestation activities continue to form part of the strategies to mitigate flood and landslides, or conserve soil and water, in line with the Soil and Watershed Conservation Act 1982, despite evidence against the ability of the forests to reliably deliver those results (Calder 2005). This inherent trust of the authorities in traditional methods of catchment management, including tree planting, has also contributed to the failure of more sustainable systems catering to local needs and interests (eg the end of decades-old ropeway in the mid-hills; Gyawali and Dixit 2010). This is because the traditional methods of catchment management, entailing excessive mechanization of the catchment landscape, provided suitable conditions for the government's forestry officials to exercise power and influence.

In some cases, people with deep experiential knowledge of forest use and management in Nepal assign an “emotional affection” to the trees on account of the perceived benefits of forest development (Karn et al 2017) that apparently impedes scientific forest management. Again, while this attitude of “experienced” forest users and managers in Nepal broadly aligns with the perceptions of the CFUGs with sustained forestry experience in this study, the views also suggest a need to apply caution in interpreting forest–water relationships, particularly in relation to the role of pine species in catchment water availability. This is because catchment water yield is affected by a host of biologically mediated and anthropogenic factors related to forest use and management, as shown by a number of studies in the broader mid-hills region (eg Gilmour et al 1990; Bonell et al 2010; Ghimire et al 2013) and elsewhere in the tropics (eg Zwartendijk et al 2017). Importantly, the hydrological effects in the forested catchments are further uncertain, with successional change leading to alterations in forest structure and composition, for example, broadleaf species integrating with pine plantations in parts of the mid-hills, including the study area (Gilmour et al 1990; Gautam and Webb 2001; Paudyal and Sapkota 2018).

Nevertheless, over a third of respondents (37%) perceived the forests to decrease water quantity, while a much smaller fraction (15%) perceived forests to improve both water quantity and quality. A vast proportion of the respondents believed pine trees reduced water quantity, which is supported by limited scientific evidence in the mid-hills. For example, the planted pine forests contribute to reduced dry season flows due to their higher evapotranspiration (Baral 2012; Ghimire, Lubczynski, et al 2014) and lower soil hydraulic conductivity (Ghimire et al 2013) as compared to the natural broadleaf species. Similar effects on water yield due to pine and broadleaf species have also been reported in other parts of the world, including North America (Swank and Miner 1968; Swank and Douglass 1974) and Japan (Komatsu et al 2008). The study in Japan further suggested converting coniferous forests into broadleaf forest to increase water yield, as reportedly done by some local governments. However, the results are not uniform, as species respond in different ways to site conditions. For example, a mixed beech–spruce stand used up more water than a spruce-only stand in Norway (Schume et al 2004), whereas the water use by Eucalyptus varied with soil type in India's dry zones and used no more water than the deciduous natives (Calder et al 1993). Likewise, evaporation by the broadleaf and pine forests was similar in Japan (Komatsu et al 2007), while the age of Eucalyptus regnans was significant in affecting water use in Australia (Vertessy et al 2001). Importantly, local perceptions of pines are not consistent, as one participant with over 25 years of CFUG experience in Balthali village opined, “the pines have made our dry barren hills (sukkha rukho danda haru) look greener—much better than before.” This also suggests that more studies on pines’ effects on local water availability are needed.

Yet, it is unclear whether forest–water relationships or perceptions of them will remain the same or change as the rural economies of the mid-hills transition to market-based systems, due to, for example, outmigration (Jaquet et al 2016; Sunam and McCarthy 2016; Ojha et al 2017) and reduced agricultural productivity (Maharjan et al 2013; Paudel et al 2014). Similar circumstances elsewhere are predicted to cause further increases in forest cover, for example, in India (DeFries and Pandey 2010).

Conclusion

This study shows a perception gap of forest–water relationships in Nepal, particularly among the members of the CFUGs, forest policymakers, and broader Nepalese society. The broader societal perception that forests increase water availability, and the perceptions of the forest policymakers that focus essentially on tree planting reflect cultural beliefs and traditional practices. Conversely, CFUG perceptions, which are largely founded on lived experience in forest use and management, are more discerning: Only 44% of respondents considered forests to increase water quantity, while 37% considered that forests reduced it. These respondents also disliked pine forests due to the alleged role of the species in causing the reduction.

We consider that the mismatched perceptions of forest–water relationships described here pose challenges to the management of Nepal's mid-hills catchments in 2 major ways: (1) They impede collective action (ie the development of widely acceptable catchment management plans); (2) the cultural interpretation of these relationships obstructs, or at least delays, the integration of scientific evidence into forest policymaking processes. This is despite CFUG perceptions that align more closely with the scientific evidence showing that forest development in catchments reduces water yield overall.

Thus, while the overall shortage of knowledge on forest–water relationships in the broader mountainous region underscores the need for increased scientific research, the divergent views on these relationships offer opportunities for adopting more inclusive research methods to concurrently integrate science with the perceptions held by the various sections of the Nepalese society. This is particularly important in view of expanding community forestry practices and the ongoing debate on scientific forest management.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Kavre District Forest Office and the Ilaka Offices that we visited for the valuable information and support we received. We are extremely grateful to the members of the Community Forest User Groups who participated in the interview process and the local communities for their support toward our work.

REFERENCES

1.

Adams W, Hutton J . 2007. People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2):147–183. Google Scholar

2.

Adhikari B. 2013. Flooding and inundation in Nepal Terai: Issues and concerns. Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment 12:59–65. Google Scholar

3.

Adhikari B, Baral N, Kafley G, Koirala P, Reijmerink J, Thierry B, Shapiro B . 2015. Impacts of leasehold forestry. In : Thierry B, editor. Regenerating Forests and Livelihoods in Nepal: A New Lease on Life. Boston, MA: CABI Oxfordshire, pp 116–149. Google Scholar

4.

Adhikari J. 2016. Hindu traditions and peasant farming in the Himalayan foothills of Nepal. In : LeVasseur T, Parajuli P, Wirzba N, editors. Religion and Sustainable Agriculture: World Spiritual Traditions and Food Ethics. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, pp 121–137. Google Scholar

5.

Ahlborg H, Nightingale A . 2012. Mismatch between scales of knowledge in Nepalese forestry: Epistemology, power, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 17(4).  http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05171-170416Google Scholar

6.

Allison E. 2015. Religion inscribed in the landscape: Sacred sites, local deities and natural resource use in the Himalaya. In : Brunn SD, editor. Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices And Politics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp 439–459. Google Scholar

7.

Amatya S, Pandit B, Ojha H, Cedamon E, Nuberg I, Shrestha K, Paudel N . 2017. A Policy Lab Approach for Reforming Agro-forestry Policy in Nepal. EnLiFT Policy Brief July 2017. Kathmandu, Nepal: EnLiFT Project. Google Scholar

8.

Andréassian V. 2004. Waters and forests: From historical controversy to scientific debate. Journal of Hydrology 291(1):1–27. Google Scholar

9.

[Anonymous]. 2018. Gaunharu kakakul [in Nepali]. Kantipur. 8 May 2018, p 1. Google Scholar

10.

Badola R, Barthwal S, Hussain SA . 2012. Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: A case study from the east coast of India. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96:188–196. Google Scholar

11.

Bajracharya D. 1983. Deforestation in the food/fuel context: Historical and political perspectives from Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 3(3):227–240. Google Scholar

12.

Baltutis M. 2016. Venerating, personifying, ordaining: Preserving trees and forests in contemporary Asian religions. International Journal of Hindu Studies 20(1):95–103. Google Scholar

13.

Baral T. 2012. Evapotranspiration from Natural and Planted Forest in the Middle Mountains of Nepal [MS thesis]. Enschede, Netherlands: The University of Twente. Google Scholar

14.

Basnet K. 1992. Conservation practices in Nepal: Past and present. Ambio 21(6):390–393. Google Scholar

15.

Basnet M. 2016. Nepalko dhan, hariyo ban: Char dasakma ban kshetrako lobh lagdo phadko, Nepal [in Nepali].  https://nepalmag.com.np/news/2016-11-07/20161107214310.html; accessed on 11 September 2019. Google Scholar

16.

Bastos Lima M, Ashley-Cantello W, Visseren-Hamakers I, Gupta A, Braña-Varela J . 2015. Forests Post-2015: Maximizing Synergies Between the Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+. Policy Brief No. 3. Wageningen, Netherlands: WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature. Google Scholar

17.

Baviskar A. 2007. Waterscapes: The Cultural Politics of a Natural Resource. New Delhi, India: Permanent Black. Google Scholar

18.

Bhagwat SA, Nogue S, Willis KJ . 2014. Cultural drivers of reforestation in tropical forest groves of the Western Ghats of India. Forest Ecology and Management 329:393–400. Google Scholar

19.

Bhagwat SA, Rutte C . 2006. Sacred groves: Potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(10):519–524. Google Scholar

20.

Bhandari P, Kc M, Shrestha S, Aryal A, Shrestha UB . 2016. Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder's willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal. Applied Geography 69(Supplement C):25–34. Google Scholar

21.

Bhatta LD, van Oort BEH, Stork NE, Baral H . 2015. Ecosystem services and livelihoods in a changing climate: Understanding local adaptations in the Upper Koshi, Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11(2):145–155. Google Scholar

22.

Birch JC, Thapa I, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SHM, Gurung H, Hughes FMR, Mulligan M, Pandeya B , et al. 2014. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 8(Supplement C):118–127. Google Scholar

23.

Bonell M, Purandara BK, Venkatesh B, Krishnaswamy J, Acharya HAK, Singh UV, Jayakumar R, Chappell N . 2010. The impact of forest use and reforestation on soil hydraulic conductivity in the Western Ghats of India: Implications for surface and sub-surface hydrology. Journal of Hydrology 391(1):47–62. Google Scholar

24.

Bonnesoeur V, Locatelli B, Guariguata MR, Ochoa-Tocachi BF, Vanacker V, Mao Z, Stokes A, Mathez-Stiefel S-L . 2019. Impacts of forests and forestation on hydrological services in the Andes: A systematic review. Forest Ecology and Management 433:569–584. Google Scholar

25.

Bosch JM, Hewlett JD . 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology 55(1–4):3–23. Google Scholar

26.

Breu T, Molden D, von Dach SW, Zimmermann AB, Mathez-Stiefel S-L . 2017. Focus issue: Mountain forests and the SDGs. Mountain Research and Development 37(3):245–245. Google Scholar

27.

Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA . 2005. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 310(1):28–61. Google Scholar

28.

Bruijnzeel LA. 2004. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104(1):185–228. Google Scholar

29.

Calder I, Hofer T, Vermont S, Warren P . 2007. Towards a new understanding of forests and water. International Journal of Forestry and Forest Industries 58(229):3–10. Google Scholar

30.

Calder IR. 1996. Water use by forests at the plot and catchment scale. The Commonwealth Forestry Review 75(1):19–30. Google Scholar

31.

Calder IR . 1999. The Blue Revolution. Land Use and Integrated Water Resources. London, UK, Earthscan Publications. Google Scholar

32.

Calder IR. 2002. Forests and hydrological services: Reconciling public and science perceptions. Land Use and Water Resources Research 2:2.1–2.12. Google Scholar

33.

Calder IR . 2005. Blue Revolution: Integrated Land and Water Resources Management. London, UK: Earthscan. Google Scholar

34.

Calder IR . 2006. Integrated land and water resources management. In : Anderson MG, McDonnell JJ, editors. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0470848944.hsa192Google Scholar

35.

Calder IR . 2007. Forests and water—Ensuring forest benefits outweigh water costs. Forest Ecology and Management 251(1):110–120. Google Scholar

36.

Calder IR, Aylward B . 2006. Forest and floods. Water International 31(1):87–99. Google Scholar

37.

Calder IR, Hall RL, Prasanna KT . 1993. Hydrological impact of eucalyptus plantation in India. Journal of Hydrology 150(2):635–648. Google Scholar

38.

CBS [Central Bureau of Statistics]. 2017. National Climate Change Impact Survey 2016: A Statistical Report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics. Google Scholar

39.

Clark WA. 2011. Clarifying the spiritual value of forests and their role in sustainable forest management. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture 5(1):18–38. Google Scholar

40.

Cornish PM, Vertessy RA . 2001. Forest age-induced changes in evapotranspiration and water yield in a eucalypt forest. Journal of Hydrology 242(1):43–63. Google Scholar

41.

CRED [Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters]. 2018. Natural Disasters 2017. CFROTEO Disasters. EM-DAT file dated 02/07/2018. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Google Scholar

42.

Creed I, van Noordwijk M . 2018. Forests, trees and water on a changing planet: A contemporary scientific perspective. In : Creed IF, Noordwijk MV, editors. Forest and Water on a Changing Planet: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Governance Opportunities. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series 38. Vienna, Austria: IUFRO [International Union of Forest Research Organizations], pp 13–26. Google Scholar

43.

Dahal B. 2014. Social composition of the population: Caste/ethnicity and religion in Nepal. In : Bayliss E, Mcturk N, editors. Population Monograph of Nepal, Vol II. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics, pp 1–48. Google Scholar

44.

Dangal S, Das A . 2018. Effect of management practice and age on increment in Pinus patula plantations in Nepal. Banko Janakari Special issue 4:27–37. Google Scholar

45.

DDC [District Development Committee]. 2014. Kavrepalanchok: District Profile [in Nepali]. Dhulikhel, Nepal: District Development Committee and Statistics Office, Dhulikhel, Kavrepalanchok. Google Scholar

46.

DeFries R, Pandey D . 2010. Urbanization, the energy ladder and forest transitions in India's emerging economy. Land Use Policy 27(2):130–138. Google Scholar

47.

DFO Kavre [District Forest Office Kavre]. 2014. Monitoring and Evaluation Report of the Community Forest Development Program: Fiscal Year 2013/14 [in Nepali]. Kavre, Nepal: District Forest Office, Kavre. Google Scholar

48.

DFRS [Department of Forest Research and Survey]. 2015. State of Nepal's Forests: Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) Nepal. DOFRA Survey. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forest Research and Survey. Google Scholar

49.

DFSC [Department of Forests and Soil Conservation]. 2019. Community Forestry.  http://dof.gov.np/dof_community_forest_division/community_forestry_dof; accessed on 30 January 2019. Google Scholar

50.

DoF [Department of Forests]. 2017. Silviculture for Forest Management. First National Silviculture Workshop. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests. Google Scholar

51.

Eckholm E. 1976. Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects. New York, NY: WW Norton. Google Scholar

52.

Edwards MBP, Roberts PJT . 2006. Managing forests for water: The South African experience. International Forestry Review 8(1):65–71. Google Scholar

53.

Ellison D, Morris CE, Locatelli B, Sheil D, Cohen J, Murdiyarso D, Gutierrez V, Noordwijk Mv, Creed IF, Pokorny J , et al. 2017. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change 43(Supplement C):51–61. Google Scholar

54.

FAO [Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations]. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Desk Reference. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Google Scholar

55.

Farley KA, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB . 2005. Effects of afforestation on water yield: A global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Biology 11(10):1565–1576. Google Scholar

56.

Gartner T, Mulligan J, Schmidt R, Gunn J . 2013. Natural Infrastructure: Investing in Forested Landscapes for Source Water Protection in the United States. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Google Scholar

57.

Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL . 2004a. Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environmental Management 33(1):48–61. Google Scholar

58.

Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL . 2004b. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. International Forestry Review 6(2):136–148. Google Scholar

59.

Gautam AP, Webb EL . 2001. Species diversity and forest structure of pine plantations in the middle hills of Nepal. Banko Janakari 11(2):13–21. Google Scholar

60.

Gautam AP, Webb E, Eiumnoh A . 2002. GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22(1):63–69. Google Scholar

61.

Gautam AP, Webb E, Shivakoti G, Zoebiech M . 2003. Landuse dynamics and landuse change patterns in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosysems and Environment 99:83–96. Google Scholar

62.

Gautam KH. 2006. Forestry, politicians and power—Perspectives from Nepal's forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 8(2):175–182. Google Scholar

63.

Ghimire B. 2014. Ek gaun ek pokhari [in Nepali]. Kantipur.  https://ekantipur.com/printedition/2014/11/17/333856.html; accessed on 11 September 2019. Google Scholar

64.

Ghimire CP, Bonell M, Bruijnzeel LA, Coles NA, Lubczynski MW . 2013. Reforesting severely degraded grassland in the Lesser Himalaya of Nepal: Effects on soil hydraulic conductivity and overland flow production. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 118(4):2528–2545. Google Scholar

65.

Ghimire CP, Bruijnzeel L, Bonell M, Coles N, Lubczynski M, Gilmour D . 2014. The effects of sustained forest use on hillslope soil hydraulic conductivity in the middle mountains of central Nepal. Ecohydrology 7(2):478–495. Google Scholar

66.

Ghimire CP, Lubczynski MW, Bruijnzeel LA, Chavarro-Rincón D . 2014. Transpiration and canopy conductance of two contrasting forest types in the Lesser Himalaya of central Nepal. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 197(Supplement C):76–90. Google Scholar

67.

Gilmour D. 2003. Retrospective and prospective view of community forestry in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2(2):5–7. Google Scholar

68.

Gilmour D. 2014. Forests and Water: A Synthesis of the Contemporary Science and its Relevance for Community Forestry in the Asia–Pacific Region. Bangkok, Thailand: RECOFTC [The Centre for People and Forests]. Google Scholar

69.

Gilmour D, Fisher R . 1991. Villagers, Forests, and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process, and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Sahayogi Press. Google Scholar

70.

Gilmour DA, King GC, Applegate GB, Mohns B . 1990. Silviculture of plantation forest in central Nepal to maximise community benefits. Forest Ecology and Management 32(2):173–186. Google Scholar

71.

GoN [Government of Nepal]. 2011. Water Resources of Nepal in the Context of Climate Change. Kathmandu, Nepal: Water and Energy Commission Secretariat. Google Scholar

72.

GoN [Government of Nepal]. 2014. Environmental Assessment Document: Addendum to the Initial Environmental Examination of Kavre Valley Water Supply Scheme, Secondary Town Integrated Urban Environmental Improvement Project. Kathmandu, Nepal: Water and Energy Commission Secretariat. Google Scholar

73.

GoN [Government of Nepal]. 2016. Forestry Sector Strategy 2016–2025. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Google Scholar

74.

GoN [Government of Nepal]. 2019. National Forest Policy 2075 [in Nepali]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Environment.  https://mofe.gov.np/downloadfile/Ban%20Niti_1554873640.pdf; accessed on 19 August 2020. Google Scholar

75.

Gratzer G, Keeton WS . 2017. Mountain forests and sustainable development: The potential for achieving the United Nations' 2030 agenda. Mountain Research and Development 37(3):246–253. Google Scholar

76.

Gregersen H, El Lakany H, Blaser J . 2017. Forests for sustainable development: A process approach to forest sector contributions to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. International Forestry Review 19(1):10–23. Google Scholar

77.

Gurung A, Bista R, Karki R, Shrestha S, Uprety D, Sang-Eun O . 2013. Community-based forest management and its role in improving forest conditions in Nepal. Samll-Scale Forestry 12(3):377–388. Google Scholar

78.

Gurung SM. 1989. Human perception of mountain hazards in the Kakani-Kathmandu area: Experiences from the middle mountains of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 9(4):353–364. Google Scholar

79.

Gyawali D, Dixit A . 2010. The construction and deconstruction of scarcity in development: Water and power experiences in Nepal. In : Mehta L, editor. The Limits to Scarcity: Contesting the Politics of Allocation. London, UK: Earthscan. Google Scholar

80.

Hamilton LS. 2002. Forest and tree conservation through metaphysical constraints. The George Wright Forum 19(3):57–78. Google Scholar

81.

Heinen JT, Shrestha SK . 2006. Evolving policies for conservation: An historical profile of the protected area system of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(1):41–58. Google Scholar

82.

Heinen JT, Yonzon PB . 1994. A review of conservation issues and programs in Nepal: From a single species focus toward biodiversity protection. Mountain Research and Development 14(1):61–76. Google Scholar

83.

Hobley M, Malla Y . 1996. From forests to forestry, the three ages of forestry in Nepal: Privatisation, nationalisation and populism. In : Hobley M, editor. Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal. London, UK: Rural Development Forestry Network, Overseas Development Institute. Google Scholar

84.

Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Verbeeten E, Murdiyarso D . 2007. The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 251(1):45–51. Google Scholar

85.

Ingles A. 1994. The influence of religious beliefs and rituals on forest conservation in Nepal. In : Seeland K, editor. Nature Is Culture: Indigenous Knowledge and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Trees and Forests in Non-European Cultures. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications Limited. Google Scholar

86.

Ives J. 2004. Himalayan Perceptions: Environmental Change and the Well-Being of Mountain Peoples. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

87.

Jana S, Paudel NS . 2010. Rediscovering Indigenous Peoples' and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Forest Action Nepal. Google Scholar

88.

Jaquet S, Schwilch G, Hartung-Hofmann F, Adhikari A, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Shrestha G, Liniger HP, Kohler T . 2015. Does outmigration lead to land degradation? Labour shortage and land management in a western Nepal watershed. Applied Geography 62(Supplement C):157–170. Google Scholar

89.

Jaquet S, Shrestha G, Kohler T, Schwilch G. 2016. The effects of migration on livelihoods, land management, and vulnerability to natural disasters in the Harpan watershed in western Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 36(4):494–505. Google Scholar

90.

Johnson R. 1998. The forest cycle and low river flows: A review of UK and international studies. Forest Ecology and Management 109(1):1–7. Google Scholar

91.

Jones JA, Achterman GL, Augustine LA, Creed IF, Ffolliott PF, MacDonald L, Wemple BC . 2009. Hydrologic effects of a changing forested landscape—Challenges for the hydrological sciences. Hydrological Processes 23(18):2699–2704. Google Scholar

92.

Kaimowitz D. 2005. Useful myths and intractable truths: The politics of the link between forests and water in Central America. In : Bonell M, Bruijnzeel L, editors. Forests, Water and People in the Humid Tropics: Past, Present and Future Hydrological Research for Integrated Land and Water Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp 86–98. Google Scholar

93.

Kantipur. 2019. Taal sukepachhi kheti [in Nepali]. Kantipur .  https://ekantipur.com/pradesh-7/2019/03/25/155348902043614618.html; accessed on 11 September 2019. Google Scholar

94.

Karn R, Yadav K, Yadav N . 2017. Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal: Questions and Possibilities. Silviculture for Forest Management [in Nepali]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests. Google Scholar

95.

Kc B, Wang T, Gentle P . 2017. Internal migration and land use and land cover changes in the middle mountains of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 37(4):446–455. Google Scholar

96.

Keenan R, Gerrard A, Kanowski P, Stanton R . 2003. Australian forest plantations: Providing industry, environmental and community benefits. In : XII World Forestry Congress Proceedings. Quebec, Canada: FaO [Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations]. Google Scholar

97.

Keenan RJ, Reams GA, Achard F, de Freitas JV, Grainger A, Lindquist E. 2015. Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management 352(Supplement C):9–20. Google Scholar

98.

Khadka A, Chapagai B, Jha J, Baskota G, Rai S, Das M . 2016. Purwa ma Paani ko hahakar [in Nepali]. Nagarik.  https://archive.nagariknews.com/2016/society/nation/story/68554.html; accessed on 11 September 2019. Google Scholar

99.

Khatri DB, Pham TT, Di Gregorio M, Karki R, Paudel NS, Brockhaus M, Bhushal R . 2016. REDD+ politics in the media: A case from Nepal. Climatic Change 138(1):309–323. Google Scholar

100.

Khatry P. 1996. Rain for the drought: An anthropological inquiry into the structure of a Buddhist festival in Kathmandu. Contrubutions to Nepalese Studies 23(1):89–108. Google Scholar

101.

Komatsu H, Kume T, Otsuki K . 2008. The effect of converting a native broadleaved forest to a coniferous plantation forest on annual water yield: A paired-catchment study in northern Japan. Forest Ecology and Management 255(3–4):880–886. Google Scholar

102.

Komatsu H, Tanaka N, Kume T. 2007. Do coniferous forests evaporate more water than broad-leaved forests in Japan? Journal of Hydrology 336(3–4):361–375. Google Scholar

103.

Kotru R, Rathore B, Pradhan N, Bhatta L, Acharya G, Karky B, Sigdel S, Bhojvaid P, Gera N, Sharma S . 2015. Transforming Mountain Forestry in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: Toward a Third-Generation Forest Management Paradigm. ICIMOD Working Paper 2015/9. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD [International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development]. Google Scholar

104.

Lamsal P. 2014. Manaw banyajantu dwanda byawasthapan sangai sambriddhika lagi samudayik ban: Sthalgat sawal tatha nitigat chunautiharu [in Nepali]. Sixth National Community Forestry Workshop. Lalitpur, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation Nepal. Google Scholar

105.

Maharjan A, Bauer S, Knerr B . 2013. International migration, remittances and subsistence farming: Evidence from Nepal. International Migration 51(1):249–263. Google Scholar

106.

Majupuria T, Majupuria I . 1978. Sacred and Useful Plants and Trees of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Sahayogi Press. Google Scholar

107.

Malla Y. 2001. Changing policies and the persistence of patron–client relations in Nepal: Stakeholders' responses to changes in forest policies. Environmental History 6(2):287–307. Google Scholar

108.

Maraseni TN, Cadman T . 2015. A comparative analysis of global stakeholders' perceptions of the governance quality of the clean development mechanism (CDM) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). International Journal of Environmental Studies 72(2):288–304. Google Scholar

109.

Merz J, Nakarmi G, Shrestha SK, Dahal BM, Dangol PM, Dhakal MP, Dongol BS, Sharma S, Shah PB, Weingartner R . 2003. Water: A scarce resource in rural watersheds of Nepal's middle mountains. Mountain Research and Development 23(1):41–49. Google Scholar

110.

MFALD [Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development]. 2017. Brief Introductory Book of the Rural Municipalities and Municipalities 2017 [in Nepali]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development. Google Scholar

111.

MFSC [Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation]. 2014a. Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 2013/14 [in Nepali]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Google Scholar

112.

MFSC [Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation]. 2014b. Scientific Forest Management Guidelines 2014 [in Nepali]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests. Google Scholar

113.

MFSC [Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation]. 2015. Project Bank in the Forestry Sector of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Google Scholar

114.

Miura S, Amacher M, Hofer T, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Ernawati, Thackway R . 2015. Protective functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology and Management 352(Supplement C):35–46. Google Scholar

115.

Nelson RH. 2013. Multiple-use forest management versus ecosystem forest management: A religious question? Forest Policy and Economics 35(Supplement C):9–20. Google Scholar

116.

Neumann R. 2014. Making Political Ecology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar

117.

Nightingale A. 2003. Nature–society and development: Social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum 34(4):525–540. Google Scholar

118.

Nightingale AJ. 2005. “The experts taught us all we know”: Professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode 37(3):581–604. Google Scholar

119.

Niroula G, Singh N . 2015. Religion and conservation: A review of use and protection of sacred plants and animals in Nepal. Journal of Institute of Science and Technology 20(2):61–66. Google Scholar

120.

NLC [Nepal Law Commission]. n.d. Rules Framed and Issued by His Majesty King Ram Shah. Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal Law Commission. Google Scholar

121.

NLC [Nepal Law Commission]. 2019. The Forests Act 2019 (2076). Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal Law Commission.  http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/The-Forest-Act-2019-2076.pdf; accessed on 24 September 2020. Google Scholar

122.

NPC [National Planning Commission]. 2016a. Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Plans. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission.  https://www.npc.gov.np/en/category/periodic_plans; accessed on 9 July 2019. Google Scholar

123.

NPC [National Planning Commission]. 2016b. Seventh Plan, Part I. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission.  https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/seventh_eng.pdf; accessed on 19 August 2020. Google Scholar

124.

Nuberg I, Shrestha K, Bartlett A . 2019. Pathways to forest wealth in Nepal. Australian Forestry 82(Supplement 1):106–120. Google Scholar

125.

Nüsser M. 2017. Socio-hydrology: A new perspective on mountain waterscapes at the nexus of natural and social processes. Mountain Research and Development 37(4):518–520. Google Scholar

126.

Ojha H. 2013. Counteracting hegemonic powers in the policy process: Critical action research on Nepal's forest governance. Critical Policy Studies 7(3):242–262. Google Scholar

127.

Ojha H. 2017. The Problem of Not Cutting Trees. Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies.  https://www.sias-southasia.org/blog/the-problem-of-not-cutting-trees/; accessed on 31 July 2019. Google Scholar

128.

Ojha H, Timsina N, Khanal D . 2007. How are forest policy decisions made in Nepal? Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6(1):1–17. Google Scholar

129.

Ojha HR, Khatri D, Shrestha KK, Bushley B, Sharma N . 2013. Carbon, community and governance: Is Nepal getting ready for REDD+? Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 22(4):216–229. Google Scholar

130.

Ojha HR, Khatri DB, Shrestha KK, Bhattarai B, Baral JC, Basnett BS, Goutam K, Sunam R, Banjade MR, Jana S, Bushley B, Dhungana SP, Paudel D . 2016. Can evidence and voice influence policy? A critical assessment of Nepal's forestry sector strategy, 2014. Society & Natural Resources 29(3):357–373. Google Scholar

131.

Ojha HR, Paudel NS, Banjade MR, McDougall C, Cameron J . 2010. The deliberative scientist: Integrating science and politics in forest resource governance in Nepal. In : German LA, Ramisch JJ, Verma R, editors. Beyond the Biophysical: Knowledge, Culture, and Politics in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp 167–191. Google Scholar

132.

Ojha HR, Shrestha KK, Subedi YR, Shah R, Nuberg I, Heyojoo B, Cedamon E, Rigg J, Tamang S, Paudel KP , et al. 2017. Agricultural land underutilisation in the hills of Nepal: Investigating socio-environmental pathways of change. Journal of Rural Studies 53:156–172. Google Scholar

133.

Oli K. 1996. Legal instruments for sustainable environmental management in Nepal. Environment and History 2(2):231–248. Google Scholar

134.

Ormerod S, Juttner I . 1999. Catchment sustainability and river biodiversity in Asia: A case study from Nepal. In : Harper D, Brown A, editors. The Sustainable Management of Tropical Catchments. New York, NY: Wiley, pp 187–207. Google Scholar

135.

Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A . 2009. Agroforestree Database: A Tree Reference and Selection Guide Version 4.0. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. Google Scholar

136.

Pandey D, Heyojoo BP, Shahi H . 2016. Drivers and dynamics of land use land cover in Ambung VDC of Tehrathum District, Nepal. Banko Janakari 26(1):7. Google Scholar

137.

Pant D, Thapa S, Singh A, Bhattarai M, Molde D . 2005. Integrated Management of Water, Forest and Land Resources in Nepal: Opportunities for Improved Livelihood. CA Discussion Paper 2. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat. Google Scholar

138.

Pathak R, Lamichhane K . 2014. Population size, growth and distribution. In : Bayliss E, Mcturk N, editors. Population Monograph of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics, pp 15–37. Google Scholar

139.

Paudel K, Tamang S, Shrestha K . 2014. Transforming land and livelihoods: Analysis of agricultural land abandonment in the mid hills of Nepal. Jounal of Forests and Livelihood 12(1):11–19. Google Scholar

140.

Paudyal AS, Sapkota S . 2018. Pine plantations management in community forests: Application of silviculture to enhance productivity, replacement of timber import and conversion into mixed forest. Kalpabrikshya 19(324):18–26. Google Scholar

141.

Paudyal K, Baral H, Lowell K, Keenan RJ . 2017. Ecosystem services from community-based forestry in Nepal: Realising local and global benefits. Land Use Policy 63(Supplement C):342–355. Google Scholar

142.

Poudel DD, Duex TW . 2017. Vanishing springs in Nepalese mountains: Assessment of water sources, farmers' perceptions, and climate change adaptation. Mountain Research and Development 37(1):35–46. Google Scholar

143.

Poudel M, Dhakal A, Acharya U, Kafle G, Khanal K, Dhungana S, Oli B . 2017. Linking Landuse and Forestry Transition with Depopulation in Rural Nepal. Silviculture for Forest Management. Kathmandu, Nepal: Department of Forests. Google Scholar

144.

Rai RK, Shyamsundar P, Nepal M, Bhatta LD . 2015. Differences in demand for watershed services: Understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal. Ecological Economics 119(Supplement C):274–283. Google Scholar

145.

Robbins P. 2000. The practical politics of knowing: State environmental knowledge and local political economy. Economic Geography 76(2):126–144. Google Scholar

146.

Robinson M, Cognard-Plancq AL, Cosandey C, David J, Durand P, Führer HW, Hall R, Hendriques MO, Marc V, McCarthy R , et al. 2003. Studies of the impact of forests on peak flows and baseflows: A European perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 186(1):85–97. Google Scholar

147.

Sahin V, Hall MJ . 1996. The effects of afforestation and deforestation on water yields. Journal of Hydrology 178(1–4):293–309. Google Scholar

148.

Sattaur O. 1987. Trees for the people. New Scientist 115(1577):58–62. Google Scholar

149.

Schume H, Jost G, Hager H . 2004. Soil water depletion and recharge patterns in mixed and pure forest stands of European beech and Norway spruce. Journal of Hydrology 289(1–4):258–274. Google Scholar

150.

Scott D, Bruijnzeel L, Mackensen J . 2005. The hydrological and soil impacts of forestation in the tropics. In : Bonell L, Bruijnzeel M, editors. Forests, Water and People in the Humid Tropics: Past, Present and Future Hydrological Research for Integrated Land and Water Management. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp 622–651. Google Scholar

151.

Shahi P. 2011 Community forest pioneer wears the mantle of success. The Kathmandu Post XIX(16). Kathmandu, Nepal: Kantipur Publications Pvt Limited. Google Scholar

152.

Sharma A, Lamsal P, Acharya B, Gyawali B, Dhakal S . 2017. Sustainable management of community forests: Principles, foundations, indicators and parameters [in Nepali]. In : Sharma AR, Lamsal P, Dhakal SR, editors. Community Forestry Bulletin 17. Lalitpur, Nepal: Sigma Media Offset Press, pp 48–61. Google Scholar

153.

Sharma B, Nepal S, Gyawali D, Pokharel GS, Wahid S, Mukherji A, Acharya S, Shrestha AB . 2016. Springs, Storage Towers, and Water Conservation in the Midhills of Nepal. ICIMOD Working Paper 2016/3. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD [International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development]. Google Scholar

154.

Sharma RH, Shakya NM . 2006. Hydrological changes and its impact on water resources of Bagmati watershed, Nepal. Journal of Hydrology 327(3–4):315–322. Google Scholar

155.

Sherry J, Curtis A . 2017. At the intersection of disaster risk and religion: Interpretations and responses to the threat of Tsho Rolpa glacial lake. Environmental Hazards 16(4):314–329. Google Scholar

156.

Shrestha A. 2016. Deep roots. The Kathmandu Post, 1 May 2016. Kathmandu, Nepal: Kantipur Publications Pvt Limited. XXIV, pp 16. Google Scholar

157.

Shrestha S, Shrestha M, Babel MS . 2016. Modelling the potential impacts of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Indrawati River Basin, Nepal. Environmental Earth Sciences 75(4):280. Google Scholar

158.

Silwal E. 2013. Ban le banaeko baikuntha nagari [in Nepali]. Chitwan Post Daily 4(4). Narayangadh, Nepal: Chitwan Post Publication Limited. Google Scholar

159.

Sitthisuntikul K, Horwitz P . 2015. Collective rituals as meaningful expressions of the relationships between people, water and forest: A case study from northern Thailand. Intercultural Studies 36(1):88–102. Google Scholar

160.

Sloan S, Sayer JA . 2015. Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends, but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecology and Management 352(Supplement C):134–145. Google Scholar

161.

Springate-Baginski O, Blaikie P , editors. 2007. Forests, People and Power: Political Ecology of Reform in South Asia. London, UK: Earthscan. Google Scholar

162.

Stirzaker R, Vertessy, R, Sarre, A , editors. 2002. Trees, Water and Salt: An Australian Guide to Using Trees for Healthy Catchments and Productive Farms. Barton, ACT, Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corp. Google Scholar

163.

Subedi B. 2014. Urbanisation in Nepal: Spatial pattern, social demography and development. In : Bayliss E, Mcturk N, editors. Population Monograph of Nepal III: Economic Demography. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics, pp 95–154. Google Scholar

164.

Sunam R, Paudel N, Paudel G . 2013. Community forestry and the threat of recentralization in Nepal: Contesting the bureaucratic hegemony in policy process. Society & Natural Resources 26(12):1407–1421. Google Scholar

165.

Sunam RK, McCarthy JF . 2016. Reconsidering the links between poverty, international labour migration, and agrarian change: Critical insights from Nepal. The Journal of Peasant Studies 43(1):39–63. Google Scholar

166.

Swank W, Douglass J . 1974. Streamflow greatly reduced by converting deciduous hardwood stands to pine. Science 185(4154):857–859. Google Scholar

167.

Swank W, Miner N. 1968. Conversion of hardwood-covered watersheds to white pine reduces water yield. Water Resources Research 4(5):947–954. Google Scholar

168.

Thapa K, Gnyawali T, Chaudhary L, Chaudhary B, Chaudhary M, Thapa G, Khanal C, Thapa M, Dhakal T, Rai D , et al. 2018. Linkages among forest, water, and wildlife: A case study from Kalapani community forest in Lamahi bottleneck area in Terai Arc Landscape. International Journal of the Commons 12(2):1–20. Google Scholar

169.

Thwaites R, Fisher R, Poudel M , editors. 2018. Community Forestry in Nepal: Adapting to a Changing World. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

170.

Tiwari S, Bhattarai K . 2011. Migration, Remittances and Forests: Disentangling the Impact of Population and Economic Growth on Forests. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Google Scholar

171.

Udmale P, Ishidaira H, Thapa B, Shakya N . 2016. The status of domestic water demand: Supply deficit in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Water 8(5):196. Google Scholar

172.

Uprety BK. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: Process and Practice. Kathmandu, Nepal: Uttara Upreti. Google Scholar

173.

Uprety BK. 2013. Environmental Safeguards in Forestry Projects. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Google Scholar

174.

van Dijk AIJM, Keenan RJ . 2007. Planted forests and water in perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 251(1):1–9. Google Scholar

175.

Van Oort B, Bhatta LD, Baral H, Rai RK, Dhakal M, Rucevska I, Adhikari R. 2015. Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 13:70–80. Google Scholar

176.

Venkatesh B, Lakshman N, Purandara B . 2014. Hydrological impacts of afforestation—A review of research in India. Journal of Forestry Research 25(1):37–42. Google Scholar

177.

Vertessy RA. 2000. Impacts of plantation forestry on catchment runoff. In : O'Loughlin E, Nambiar EKS, editors. Plantations, Farm Forestry and Water. Proceedings of a national workshop, 20–21 July 2000, Melbourne. Barton, ACT, Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, pp 9–19. Google Scholar

178.

Vertessy RA, Watson FGR, O'Sullivan SK . 2001. Factors determining relations between stand age and catchment water balance in mountain ash forests. Forest Ecology and Management 143(1–3):13–26. Google Scholar

179.

Vihervaara P, Marjokorpi A, Kumpula T, Walls M, Kamppinen M. 2012. Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: A case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. Forest Policy and Economics 14(1):58–68. Google Scholar

180.

Wilk J. 2000. Local perceptions about forests and water in two tropical catchments. GeoJournal 50:339–347. Google Scholar

181.

World Bank Report. 1979. Nepal Development Performance and Prospects. Washington, DC: World Bank. Google Scholar

182.

Yang X, Khanal N, Koirala H, Nepal P . 2014. People's perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change in the Koshi River Basin, Nepal. In : Vaidya R, Sharma E, editors. Research Insights on Climate and Water in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD [International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development], pp 129–144. Google Scholar

183.

Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR . 2001. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resources Research 37(3):701–708. Google Scholar

184.

Zhang M, Liu N, Harper R, Li Q, Liu K, Wei X, Ning D, Hou Y, Liu S . 2017. A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: Importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. Journal of Hydrology 546:44–59. Google Scholar

185.

Zwartendijk BW, van Meerveld HJ, Ghimire CP, Bruijnzeel LA, Ravelona M, Jones JPG . 2017. Rebuilding soil hydrological functioning after swidden agriculture in eastern Madagascar. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 239:101–111. Google Scholar
© 2019 Badu et al. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the authors and the full source.
Manoj Badu, Ian Nuberg, Edwin Cedamon, and Subodh Sharma "Management of the Forested Catchments of Nepal's Mid-hills Amid Mismatched Perceptions of Forest–Water Relationships: Challenges and Opportunities," Mountain Research and Development 39(4), R27-R36, (15 November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00023.1
Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 1 September 2019; Published: 15 November 2019
JOURNAL ARTICLE
PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top