Anup K C?Roshani Manandhar?Rajeshor Paudel?Sujan Ghimire

Introduction

Community forestry is used to manage forest resources to bene fi t neighboring communities by focusing on conservation and restoration of areas where resource depletion and social decline occurred in the past(Brendler and Carey 1998).It avoids deforestation and degradation by implementing protective measures(Banskota et al.2007),and encourages decentralized forest administration and empowerment of local people(Karky 2005).Community forestry attracts various actors and stakeholders including the state,private enterprises,and local forest users who seek to satisfy their economic,political and social needs(Hobley and Malla 1996).Community forestry organizes local forest users into community forest user groups(CFUGs)that manage forests,harvest forest products,and set market prices with the help of an executive committee elected by the CFUG assembly(Gilmour and Fisher 1998;Chhetri and Lund 2012).

Community forestry policies were established in Nepal as a response to institutional failure which had resulted in progressive degradation of hill forests(Ojha et al.2009).In the 1970s,local users’participation in forest management was reconsidered by the government after recognizing the effectiveness and bene fi ts of common property management(Brown et al.2002;Chhetri and Lund 2012;Pokharel 2012).It was legally implemented in Nepal with the 1993 Forest Act and the 1995 Forest Rules,and it was operationally based on the co-operation of Forest Department Of fi cers and CFUGs(Pokharal 2001;Satyal Pravat and Humphreys 2013).

Community forest management(CFM)has helped to enhance forest cover,conserve biodiversity and produce forest goods to support subsistence livelihoods(Karky and Skutsch 2010;Zenteno et al.2013).Community managed forests in Nepal are promoting sustainable use of forest resources by encouraging natural regeneration and protecting seedlings(Moss 2012).Patel et al.(2013)demonstrated improvement in forest condition under CFM,showing that it is a proven model for controlling deforestation and forest degradation.Communities have easier access to fi rewood,timber,fodder,litter and grass due to communityconservationandmanagementofforests(Banskota et al.2007).

Soil erosion has been reduced and carbon stock has been increased in hilly areas after implementation of community forest management programs(Banskota et al.2007).A total of 1,798,733 ha of forest was transferred to management by 18,960 CFUGs in Nepal(DoF 2015).The large forest area suggests great potential for carbon sequestration.The dynamics of carbon sequestration in forests is affected by both economic and biological phenomena,and these are questions for future researches(Upadhyay et al.2005).

Bhatta(2004)reported that the above ground carbon in natural forest and community forest ranged from 92 to 113 t ha-1and 55 to 67 t ha-1,respectively,in mixed broad leaved forests of Phulchowki Watershed in Lalitpur District,Nepal.He reported carbon stock in soil in natural forest and community forest at 195–223 and 150–160 t ha-1,respectively.Khanal(2007)reported total carbon stock of 25 t ha-1in Champadevi CF of Kathmandu District,Nepal.Dahal(2007)observed that the above ground carbon in pine forest and mixed broad-leaf forest was 116±16 and 26±8 t ha-1,respectively,in Sunaulo Ghampe Danda CF in Kathmandu District,Nepal.The soil organic carbon in pine forest and mixed broad-leaf forest was 10±1 and 25±1 t ha-1,respectively.The carbon sequestration rates in pine forest and mixed broadleaf forest were 1 and 3 t ha-1a-1,respectively.

Karky(2008)conducted a study in three community forest of Manang,Lalitpur and Ilam Districts of Nepal.He reported that the average carbon pool size of a community managed forest was 138 t ha-1including soil organic carbon.Also,the annual incremental rate of carbon sequestration in CF ranged from 2 to 7 t ha-1a-1excluding soil organic carbon.Gurung(2009)conducted a pilot study in the western Terai of Nepal and estimated the average forest carbon stock at 231 t ha-1.The estimated carbon stock above and below ground,and SOC were 68,18,and 143 t ha-1,respectively.Similarly,Thagunna(2009)estimated the total carbon stock of 78 t ha-1in Bailbanda Buffer Zone CF in Kanchanpur District,Nepal.

Aryal(2010)estimated the total carbon stock at 167 and 102 t ha-1in pine forest and mixed broad-leaf forest,respectively,in Toudol Chhap CF of Bhaktapur District,Nepal.Dhakal(2010)reported that total carbon stock was highest in naturally regenerated forest(182±26 t ha-1),followed by planted forest(159±32 t ha-1)and enriched forest(134±37 t ha-1)in Pashupati CF of Sarlahi District,Nepal.ICIMOD et al.(2010)studied carbon stocks in 104 community forests of three watershed areas of Nepal,viz.Kayarkhola of Chitwan District,Charnawati of Dolakha District,and Ludhikhola of Gorkha District.Forest carbon stocks in dense and sparse strata of Kayarkhola,Charnawati and Ludikhola watershed were 296 and 257,229 and 167,216 and 163 t ha-1,respectively.

Numerousstudiesconducted in Nepalseparately addressed aspects of community forest management,forest resource use,and carbon stocks.But,few studies addressed all three aspects of community forestry in combination.Our research aimed to answer three questions about Nepal’s community forests:(1)What are the levels of forest resource harvest?(2)What are carbon stock levels?and,what is the status of forest management?To answer these questions,we undertook case studies of two community forests in central and western Nepal from 2010 to 2015.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was conducted in two community forest of Nepal,Gwangkhola Sapaude Babiyabhir Community Forest(GSBCF)in the western hills near Pokhara(Fig.1)and Ka fl e Community Forest(KCF)in the central hills of Nepal near Kathmandu(Fig.2).The two forests had similar area but were located in different regions of Nepal.The two forests were similar in elevation range(900–2000 m asl.)and climate.Because community forestry management has proven successful in the hilly regions of Nepal,this study could provide the status of biomass of community forest.

Case I

GSBCF was handed over to 205 users in 2000 and the operational plan was renewed for the fi rst time in 2006.Its elevation is 930–1325 m asl.and it covered an area of92 ha.The study site supported temperate deciduous forest dominated byCastanopsis indicaandSchima wallichion gentle slopes andPinus wallichianaandPinus roxburghion steep slopes.To help in proper utilization and management of community forest,there were 13 members of the CFUG committee,inclusive of gender and marginalized communities(GSBCFOP 2006;K C et al.2014).

Fig.1 Map of GSBCF with sample plots

Case II

KCF was a block of 94 ha managed by 70 households.It was handed over to CFUG in 1994 and its operational plan was renewed for the second time in 2008.There were 11 members of the CFUG committee,inclusive of gender and marginalized communities.KCF was at 1830–1930 m asl.and was dominated by temperate deciduous species,particularlySchima wallichi,Castanopsis indica,Pinus wallichianaandPinus roxburghi(CFOP 2008;Karky 2008).

Field data collection

The study was conducted from 2010 to 2015 at different seasons of the year.Primary data consisted of the measurement of biomass,household(HH)surveys,focus group discussions(FGD)and key informant interviews(KII).Secondary data was taken from published materialin books,journals,newspapers,research reports and the Community Forestry Operational Plans.Pilot inventory was conducted before each fi eld visit to the study area.During pilot inventory,one FGD was conducted with the CFUG executive committee to involve them in data collection.Also,the boundary of the forest was tracked using GPS and block division of the forest was done for sample plot demarcation.

Fig.2 Map of KCF with sample plots

For the fi rst fi eld study at GSBCF,pilot inventory was done on 5–20 October,2010 and the detailed fi eld work was carried out on 1–25 April,2011.For the second fi eld study,pilot inventory was done on 7–13 August,2014 and the detailed fi eld work was conducted from 20 September to 10 October,2014.Similarly,for the fi rst fi eld study in KCF,pilot inventory was conducted on 7–14 September,2012 while detailed fi eld work was carried out on 2–20 November,2012.For the second fi eld study at KCF,pilot inventory was done on 10–15 June,2014 and detailed fi eld work was carried out on 7–27 July,2014.

Random sampling was used for carbon stock measurement and household surveys.For carbon stock estimation in GSBCF and KCF,40 and 20 sample plots of 250 m2each were sampled,respectively.For carbon stock measurement,national guidelines prepared by MoFSC(2011)and adopted by K C et al.(2013)were used during data collection in the fi eld.Above ground tree biomass(AGTB)and above ground sapling biomass(AGSB)was calculated by measuring height and diameter of trees and saplings.As explained in the national guideline of Nepal,plants having stem diameter＜1 cm were considered to be leaf litter,herbs,grasses(LHG),plants with stem diameters of 1–5 cm were considered saplings,and plants with stem diameters＞5 cm were categorized as trees.Samples of LHG and soil were collected in the fi eld and analyzed at the laboratory of Tribhuvan University Central Department of Environmental Sciences,Kirtipur for carbon content,following methods similar to those used by Aryal et al.(2013).Organic carbon was measured using the method of Walkley and Black(1934).

Socio-economic surveys

We assessed the status of resource utilization and management by household surveys in each CFUG.In GSBCFUG and KCFUG,105 and 36 households were sampled,respectively,accounting for more than 50% of total households.The objective of the HH survey was to collect data on socio-economic status and bene fi ts distributionstatus within theCFUGs.Also,thecontributionofCFUGstomanagement of community forest(CF)was assessed from HH surveys.Three focus group discussions(FGD),one each with the CFUG executive committee members,educated people,and youth were conducted in both CFUGs to collect detailed information about the management and bene fi ts distribution of CF.We also conducted fi ve key informant interviews(KII)ineachCFUGwithlocalpoliticalleadersandeducated people to get more information about the status of forest product use and management of the CF.

Data analysis

For analyzing carbon stock from fi eld and laboratory data,guidelines prepared by MoFSC(2011)and adopted by K C et al.(2013)were used.As explained in the national guideline of Nepal,the allometric equation of moist forest stand developed by Chave et al.(2005)was used for measuring above-ground tree biomass as the annual precipitation of the study area was between 1400 and 4000 mm.The national allometric biomass equation and table of Nepal developed jointlybyDepartmentofForestResearchandSurveyandthe Department of Forest,Tree Improvement,and Silviculture Component was used to calculate above-ground sapling biomass.Theequationforleaflitter,herbsandgrassgivenin the guideline and the equation for measuring soil organic carbon(SOC)developed by Pearson et al.(2007)were also used.The root-to-shoot ratio value of 1:5 developed by MacDicken(1997)was used for calculating below-ground biomass.The default carbon fraction of 0.47 described in IPCC(2006)was used for converting all forms of biomass into carbon content.Carbon stock data and socioeconomic data are shown here in graphical and tabular form while information on use of forest products and management strategies of the forest are described in the text.

Results

Case I

Socioeconomic Status of the CFUG

The total population of the GSBCFUG was 1070 of which females numbered 590(Table 1).Large numbers of adult males wereout of theirvillagefor education and employment in abroad and in larger cities of Nepal.Most females stayed in the village to look after their children,elderly people,houses and livestock.Majority of people were between 11 and 49 years of age(580 out of 1070).These people were involved in utilization,conservation,and management of the community forest.Agriculture was the main occupation of GSBCFUG.Villagers used traditional agricultural methods which yielded very less output.The total amount of shrubland owned by 205 GSBCFUG was 39.25 ha(0.19 ha/HH).Very little private forest was owned by the GSBCFUG in the village(0.02 ha/HH).This shows the dependency of people on CF for forest resources.The major livestock owned by the GSBCFUG were buffalo,cow,ox and goat with an average of 5.4 animals per household.More people kept goats(3.6 ind./HH)as it was the main source of meat.People kept buffalo and cows for milk and milk products and oxen for tilling the agricultural fi eld.Most families kept buffalo(190 out of 205)and ox(100 out of 205)for tilling the farm fi elds.Some families that owned buffaloes and cows had biogas as an alternative energy source which helped in reducing use of fi rewood.

Forest resource use and management

About 160 households in GSBCFUG were involved in conservation,management and use of forest products.Collection of dry and green fi rewood was allowed only once per year during thinning of forests in winter.About 1125 kg of fi rewood was provided to each user group from dead trees,old trees and branches.People were also allowed to enter in the forest for fodder collection throughout the year.About 900 kg of fodder was harvested annually by each actively involved household.Mostly women and children harvest fodder and dry leaf litter while both males and females participate in thinning and removal of fi rewood from the forest.Timber was allowed to the CFUG members during construction of a private and community building.There was provision of one tree at a reduced cost for the construction of new building.Construction timber was supplied at no cost for the rehabilitation of houses of CFUG members destroyed by fi re and landslide.

In GSBCFUG,people were involved in plantation of trees on barren land near the forest area.Both males and females were involved in meetings and in forest thinning.It was compulsory for CFUG to be involved in forest thinning to take green wood.People were self-disciplined so no forest monitor was needed in the CFUG.Meetings of the management committee were conducted occasionally to help in conservation,management,and distribution of forest resources.The meetings were convened for planningfuture activities of CFUG and deciding the harvest and revenue collection procedure from the forest.

Table 1 Socioeconomic status of GSBCFUG

Vegetation structure and carbon stock

Trees of DBH class 10–20 cm occurred in the forest at highest density and had increased from 208 to 225 per hectare from 2011 to 2014(Fig.3).The density of trees of DBH class＞20 cm had increased from 98 to 112 tree ha-1from 2011 to 2014.This shows that the forest was dominated by newly grown trees after the implementation of CFM.All forms of biomass had increased in 2014 from levels recorded in 2011 in GSBCF.Above-ground tree biomass(AGTB)had increased from 126.3 in 2011 to 170.4 t ha-1in 2014.Above-ground sapling biomass(AGSB)and leaf litter,herb and grass biomass(LHG)contributed less to total biomass in 2014 than in 2011.The total carbon stock in 2014 was 155.04 t ha-1as compared to 122.29 t ha-1in 2011.Above-ground tree carbon increased from 59.36 in 2011 to 80.09 t ha-1in 2014(Fig.4).The carbon stock in AGSB and LHG was low compared to tree and soil carbon.The annual sequestration rate of carbon was 8.19 t ha-1including SOC while annual atmospheric CO2mitigation potential was 30.03 t ha-1.

Fig.3 Trees per hectare in GSBCF

Fig.4 Carbon Stock of GSBCF

Case II

Socioeconomic status of CFUG

The total population of the KCFUG was 371 with 48%male(Table 2).The male and female population data was similar to that of GSBCFUG.The independent people aged 11–49 years were more(54%)than the dependent population(46%).Nearly equal areas of irrigated land(0.18 ha)and non-irrigated land(0.19 ha)were owned,on average,by each household.People were engaged in commercial agriculture and had grown improved vegetables and fruits.More adults were involved in the service sector than in agriculture because the study site was near Kathmandu where demand for services was high.No shrubland or private forest was owned by CFUG members so they were totally dependent on the community forest for forest products.Due to the involvement of people in commercial agriculture and the service sector,fewer livestock were held by households that was the case in the recent years.The major livestock domesticated by the KCFUGs were cow(0.8 ind./HH)and goat(0.3 ind./HH)with average livestock of one animal per household.

Table 2 Socioeconomic status of KCFUG

Forest resource use and management

In KCFUG,30 households were actively involved in conservation,management and utilization of forest products.Harvest of dry fi rewood,dry leaves and fodder was permitted throughout the year for immediate use while harvest of green fi rewood was allowed once per year during forest thinning in winter.After thinning of the forest,about 900 kg of fi rewood was provided to each user group from the dead trees,old trees and branches.Extraction of timber was allowed after the approval by the community forest management committee.The allotments of fi rewood and timber exceeded the needs of the user group so any surplus timber was sold to generate income for work in forest conservation,management and community development.In 2013,timber was sold for US$1875(150,000 Nepali Rupees[NRs])at the rate of US$0.5/m3(NR 40/m3).

Males and females of CFUG were involved equally in thinning,meetings and guarding of the forest.Forest thinning was compulsory for taking green wood and was carried out by actively involved households during winter.The meetings of KCFUG management committee were conducted once per month for conservation,management and distribution of forest resources.A meeting allowance of US$0.31(NR 25)was paid to each member present at the meeting to encourage attendance.Meetings were convened to plan awareness programs for presentation at festivals and gathering of people for awareness generation on conservation of forest.Local people guarded the forest to stop illegal hunting and cutting of trees.A fi nancial incentive of US$0.63(NR 50)per day was paid for effective conservation and management of the forest.

Vegetation structure and carbon stock

At KCF,trees of DBH 10–20 cm occurred at highest density of 220 tree ha-1in 2014 (Fig.5).Trees of DBH＞20 cm occurred at the lowest density of 105 tree·ha-1in 2014.Thus,the forest was dominated by younger trees after the implementation of CFM.Comparing the 2014 data with that of 2012,tree density had increased.Above ground sapling biomass,leaf litter,herb and grass biomass and below ground biomass were 3.8,1.5 and 26.9 t ha-1,respectively.Total biomass in 2012 was 154.8 t ha-1while that in 2014 was 161.8 t ha-1.Biomass in all forms in 2014 was greater than in 2012.Carbon stock in all forms of plants in 2014 was greater than in 2012 but soil organic carbon was less than in 2012(Fig.6).Total carbon stock in 2014 was 110.1 t ha-1,slightly greater than 107.1 t ha-1in 2012.Annual carbon sequestration rate was 1.5 t ha-1,while annual atmospheric CO2mitigation potential was 5.6 t ha-1.

Discussions

Fig.5 Trees per ha in KCF

Population structure,education,landholding and livestock holding status of the household directly in fl uenced the community forest similar to the study of Adhikari(2003).The male population was less than the female population in both CFUGs,re fl ecting the national pattern of CBS(2012)of Nepal.Most adult males were out of their villages in search of education and employment opportunities in larger cities of Nepal(K C et al.2015).It shows that there was more involvement of females in forest conservation and management as reported by Chhetri et al.(2013).Both males and females,including their children,harvested forest products as reported by Rijal et al.(2011).The proportion of the active population of 11–49 years in the user group was similar to the national average(CBS 2011).A high proportion of active population in the user groups indicates higher potential to contribute to sustainable management,conservation,and enhancement of community forest(Ghazoul et al.(2010).

As agriculture and animal husbandry are supported by Nepal’s forests(Meshack et al.2006),they need to be addressed for assessing impacts of community forestry.Traditional subsidence agriculture were practiced on irrigated and unirrigated lands held by the CFUGs as reported by Adhikari et al.(2007).Agricultural production on the limited private land holdings is suf fi cient for a few months of the year and the remaining food requirement is purchased from markets,as reported by Meshack et al.(2006).Households with larger landholdings,particularly private forest and shrubland,depended less on forest products from the community forest,as reported by Chhetri et al.(2013).Households having more livestock participated more in forest resource utilization and were more dependent on forest resources,as reported by Chhetri et al.(2013).

Fig.6 Carbon Stock of KCF

Forest resources such as timber, fi rewood,fodder and leaf litter were harvested from the forest,as reported by Ianni et al.(2010),Pokharel(2012),Chhetri et al.(2013)and K C et al.(2015).Some community forests ban timber harvest in the interest of protecting forest resources(Meshack et al.2006).The CFUGs were allowed to harvest green wood once annually during winter,as reported by Adhikari et al.(2007).Villagers began to use lique fi ed petroleum gas(LPG)for cooking and electricity for heating and lighting as alternatives to the use of fi rewood.CFUGs held fewer livestock than in earlier years and had begun to feed commercial fodder as an alternative to green fodder from the forest.After the establishment of the community forest,use of forest resource was controlled and managed by the CFUG committee.Local people began to use alternative sources of fodder,fuelwood and timber,and this prevented the destruction of the forest.Due to the enhancement of living standards resulting from receipt of remittances and involvement in service sectors,villagers harvested fewer forest resources in 2014 compared to the past.Villagers were motivated to protect the forest.As a result,increase in population and numbers of forest users did not affect the harvest rate of forest resources.

Households were involved in decision making and design of institutions to regulate resource use and manage con fl ict resolution,as reported by Adhikari and Lovett(2006)and Sreedharan and Matta(2010).The general meeting of CFUGs was conducted once each year to discuss the income status,activities and planning of the management committee.Forest guards were not necessary at GSBCF and were voluntary at KCF,similar to the report of Pokharel(2012).Decision making by villagers on forest access and use and management of forest resources had positive outcomes on forest conservation,as reported by Hayes and Persha(2010).Due to improved conservation of the forest and less human interference,local people perceived that wild animals such as leopard,porcupine,monkey and birds had increased in the forest.

Greater numbers of trees of DBH＜20 cm than reported by Bayat et al.(2012)shows that the forest has been better conserved by the CFUGs.Carbon stock of forest would be expected to continuously grow in future with the increasing volume of trees.This might occur only after sustainable harvest of old trees and plantation of seedlings as suggested by Nabuurs et al.(2007)and Gelman et al.(2013).The current extraction of forest products was less than in earlier years and people were more effectively involved in conservation and management of forest.

Greater amounts of above-ground biomass than belowground biomass is a typical characteristic of forests(Ekoungoulou et al.2015).The carbon stock in CFUG forests was less than that estimated by Purdon(2010)(268 t ha-1),Aryal et al.(2013)(166.68 t ha-1)and Bottazzi et al.(2013)(171 t ha-1).The soil organic carbon was also less than that estimated by Aryal et al.(2013)in mixed forest(60.86 ton ha-1).The carbon sequestration rate was higher in GSBCF than at KCF due to less extraction of forest products and growth of planted trees in GSBCF.Also timber from KCF was sold in local markets in 2013.Compared to the carbon sequestration rate estimated by Banskota et al.(2007)of Lalitpur(1.41 t ha-1a-1),Ilam(3.1 t ha-1a-1)and Manang(1.13 t ha-1a-1),GSBCF had high and KCF had medium carbon sequestration rates.

Conclusion

We conclude that demographic status,area of land holding,and livestock numbers were directly related to forest conservation and management.Forest resources such as timber,fi rewood,fodder and leaf litter were harvested from the forest.People were involved in forest thinning,meetings,guarding and plantation of forests on barren land for forest conservationandmanagement.Densityoftrees,biomassand carbon stock of trees had increased from 2010 to 2015.This shows that forest resource conservation,management and extraction by community forest user group had positive impact ongrowthofvegetation,carbon stockand thecarbon sequestration rate of the forest.Study of additional community forestry projects in Nepal is needed to design and implement improvements to existing methodologies.

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge Prof.Dr.Kedar Rijal,Prof.Dharma Dangol,Dr.Dinesh Raj Bhuju,and Prof.Dr.Chet Raj Bhatta for guiding us and helping to conduct this study.

Adhikari B(2003)Property rights and natural resources:socioeconomic heterogeneity and distributional implications of common property resource management.Kathmandu,Nepal

Adhikari B,Lovett JC(2006)Transaction costs and community-based natural resource management in Nepal.J Environ Manag 78:5–15

Adhikari B,Williams F,Lovett JC(2007)Local bene fi ts from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal.For Policy Econ 9:464–478

Aryal C(2010)Status of carbon stock at Toudol Chhap community forest,Sipadol,Bhaktapur.Tribhuvan University,Kirtipur

Aryal S,Bhattarai DR,Devkota RP(2013)Comparison of carbon stocks between mixed and pine-dominated forest stands within the Gwalinidaha community forest in Lalitpur District,Nepal.Small Scale For 12:659–666

Banskota K,Karky BS,Skutch M(2007)Reducing carbon emissions through community-managed forests in the Himalayas.ICIMOD,Kathmandu

Bayat AT,Gils HV,Weir M(2012)Carbon stock of European beech forest;a case at M.Pizzalto,Italy.APCBEE Proc 1:159–168

Bhatta P(2004)Carbon stock capacity of mixed broad leaved forests of Phulchowki watershed,Lalitpur.Tribhuvan University,Kirtipur,Kathmandu

Bottazzi P,Cattaneo A,Rocha DC,Rist S(2013)Assessing sustainable forest management under REDD+:a communitybased labour perspective.Ecol Econ 93:94–103

Brendler T,Carey H(1998)Community forestry,de fi ned.J For 96:21–23

Brown D,Malla YB,Schreckrnberg K,Springate-Baginski O(2002)From supervising subjects to supporting citizens:recent developments in community forestry in Asia and Africa.Overseas Development Institute,London

CBS(2011)Population monograph of Nepal.Central Burea of Statistics,Kathmandu

CBS(2012)national population and housing census 2011.Central Bureau of Statistics,Kathmandu

CFOP(2008)Community forest operational plan of Ka fl e community forest.Ka fl e Community Forest User Group,Lalitpur

Chave J,Andalo C,Brown C(2005)Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests.Oecologia 145:87–99

Chhetri BBK,Lund JF,Nielsen ?J(2012)The public fi nance potentialofcommunity forestry in Nepal.EcolEcon 73(1727):113–121

Chhetri BBK,Johnsen FH,Konoshima M(2013)Community forestry in the hills of Nepal:determinants of user participation in forest management.For Policy Econ 30:6–13

Dahal P(2007)Carbon sequestration status at Sunaulo Ghampa Danda community forest,Kathmandu.Tribhuvan University,Kirtipur,Kathmandu

Dhakal K(2010)Carbon stock estimation of Pashupati community forest.Tribhuvan University,Kathmandu

DoF(2015)CFUG database record available in MIS.Community Forestry Division,Department of Forest,Kathmandu

Ekoungoulou R,Niu S,Loumeto JJ,Ifo SA,Bocko YE,Mikieleko FEK,Guiekisse EDM,Senou H,Liu X(2015)Evaluating the carbon stock in above-and below-ground biomass in a moist central African forest.Appl Ecol Environ Sci 3:51–59

Gelman V,Hulkkonen V,Kantola R,Nousiainen M,Nousiainen V,Poku-Marboah M(2013)Impacts of forest management practices on forest carbon.HENVI Workshop 2013:interdisciplinary approach to forests and climate change.Helsinki University Centre for Environment,HENVI,University of Helsinki

Ghazoul J,Butler RA,Vega JM,Koh LP(2010)REDD:a reckoning of environment and development implications.Trends Ecol Evol 25:396–402

Gilmour DA,Fisher RJ(1998)Evolution in community forestry:contesting forest resources.RECOFTC,Bangkok

GSBCFOP(2006)Community forest operational plan of Ghwangkhola Sapaude Babiyabhir community forest.District Forest Of fi ce,Syangja

Gurung M(2009)Assessment of forest carbon potential of riverine forests at the Khata Corridor and Lamahi-mahadevpuri complex.Presented in national sharing workshop in everest hotel on 25th August 2009.Organized by WWF-Nepal/WINROCK International and Terai Arc Landscape kathmandu,Nepal

Hayes T,Persha L(2010)Nesting local forestry initiatives:revisiting community forest management in a REDD+world.For Policy Econ 12:545–553

Hobley M,Malla Y(1996)From forests to forestry.The three ages of forestry in Nepal privatisation,nationalisation and populism.In:Hobley M(ed)Participatory forestry the process of change in India and Nepal,rural development forestry study guide 3.Rural Development Forestry Network Overseas Development Institute,London

Ianni E,Mattenet M,Geneletti D,Malizia LR(2010)Communitybased forest management in the Yungas biosphere reserve,Northern Argentina.Environ Dev Sustain 12:631–646

ICIMOD,ANSAB,FECOFUN(2010)Baseline report of forest carbon stocks in Ludhikhola,kayarkhola and Charnawati watersheds of Nepal,forest carbon stock in REDD+pilot project sites:year one measurement and analysis.In:International centre for integrated mountain development,Asia network for sustainable agriculture and bioresources.Federation of Community Forest Users’Nepal,Kathmandu

IPCC(2006)Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories,volume 4 agricultural,forestry and other land use.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Cambridge

Karky BS(2005)Who will grow the forest,bring bene fi t,and save the earth?.Resources Himalaya Foundation,Kathmandu

Karky BS(2008)The economics of reducing emissions from community managed forests in Nepal Himalaya.Dissertation to obtain the degree of Doctorate,Centre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy,University of Twente,Enschede

Karky BS,Skutsch MM(2010)The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya.Ecol Econ 69:666–672

K C Anup,Bhandari G,Joshi Ganesh Raj,Aryal S(2013)Climate change mitigation potential from carbon sequestration of community forest in mid hill region of Nepal.Int J Environ Prot 3(7):33–40

K C Anup,Joshi GR,Aryal S(2014)Opportunity cost,willingness to pay and cost bene fi t analysis of a community forest of Nepal.Int J Environ 3(2):108–124

K C Anup,Koirala I,Adhikari N(2015)Cost-bene fi t analysis of a community forest in Nepal.J Sustain For 34(3):199–213

Khanal A(2007)Estimating the potential of community forestry:a case from Champadevi forest.Master thesis submitted to Central Department of Environmental Science,Tribhuvan University,Kirtipur,Kathmandu

MacDicken K(1997)A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry projects.Forest Carbon Monitoring Programme,Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development,Arlington

Meshack CK,Adhikari B,Doggart N,Lovett JC(2006)Transaction costs of community-based forest management:empirical evidence from Tanzania.Afr J Ecol 44:468–477

MoFSC(2011)Forest carbon measurement guidelines.Climate Change and REDD Cell,Kathmandu

Moss C(2012)Nepalese community forestry expert:‘With green forests comes a green economy’.FORESTS NEWS.Centre for International Forestry Research,Indonesia

Nabuurs GJ,Masera O,Andrasko K,Benitez-Ponce P,Boer R,Dutschke M,Elsiddig E,Ford-Robertson J,Frumhoff P,Karjalainen T,Krankina O,Kurz WA,Matsumoto M,Oyhantcabal W,Ravindranath NH,Sanz Sanchez MJ,Zhang X(2007)Forestry.In:Metz B,Davidson OR,Bosch PR,Dave R,Meyer LA(eds)Climate change 2007:mitigation.Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanelon Climate Change.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp 543–584

Ojha H,Persha L,Chhatre A(2009)Community forestry in Nepal,A policy innovation for local livelihoods.International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington

Patel T,Dhiaulhaq A,Gritten D,Yasmi Y,Bruyn TD,Paudel NS,Luintel H,Khatri DB,Silori C,Suzuki R(2013)Predicting future con fl ict under REDD+ implementation. Forests 4:343–363

Pearson TR,Brown SL,Birdsey RA(2007)Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon.Northern Research Station,Department of Agriculture

Pokharal BK(2001)Livelihoods,economic opportunities and equity:community forestry and people’s livelihoods.J For Livelihood 1:16–18

Pokharel RK(2012)Factors in fl uencing the management regime of Nepal’s community forestry.For Policy Econ 17:13–17

Purdon M(2010)The clean development mechanism and community forests in Sub-Saharan Africa:reconsidering Kyoto’s ‘‘moral position’’on biocarbon sinks in the carbon market.Environ Dev Sustain 12:1025–1050

Rijal A,Smith-Hall C,Helles F(2011)Non-timber forest product dependency in the Central Himalayan foot hills.Environ Dev Sustain 13:121–140

Satyal Pravat P,Humphreys D(2013)Using a multilevel approach to analyse the case of forest con fl icts in the Terai Nepal.For Policy Econ 33:47–55

Sreedharan CK,Matta JR(2010)Poverty alleviation as a pathway to sustainable forest management. Environ Dev Sustain 12:877–888

Thagunna LK(2009)Estimation of carbon stock of Bailbanda Buffer Zone community forest,Chadani VDC-7,Kanchanpur.Tribhuvan University,Kirtipur

Upadhyay TP,Sankhayan PL,Solberg B(2005)A review of carbon sequestration dynamics in the Himalayan region as a function of land-use change and forest/soil degradation with special reference to Nepal.Agr Ecosyst Environ 105:449–465

Walkley A,Black IA(1934)An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining organic carbon in soils:effect of variations in digestion conditions and of inorganic soil constituents.Soil Sci 63:251–263

Zenteno M,Zuidema PA,De Jong W,Boot RGA(2013)Livelihood strategies and forest dependence:new insights from Bolivian forest communities.For Policy Econ 26:12–21