Banko Janakari 
A journal of forestry information for Nepal 

Nepal's forest: a diminishing resource ? 

The national forest inventory has been completed. And, its report has also 
been recently endorsed by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. 
With this, documents on Nepal's forests now on will cite the contry having 
only 29% of its land under forest having ten (or more) percent of crown 
cover. Hitherto this figure was 38%. It is not the matter of citation in the 
texts that is important, what is shocking to all informed people of the 
country, is a substantial loss of the country's forest area in the past twenty 
years. With an annual rate of 1.7% decrease of the country's forest cover, and 
in the Terai alone such rate being 1.3%, the country's policy makers might 
be in grave concern of the existing forest management practices. 

The estimation done by the Land Resource Mapping Project in 1978/79 
indicated Nepal's forest cover as 38% plus 4.7% shrub totaling to 42.7%. The 
present figure is 29% forest cover plus 10.6% shrub totaling to 39.6%. There 
seems, however only 3.1% decrease in the forest land, but the increase of 
shrub cover in every regions at the cost of forest area followed by a gradual 
transformation of forest land into other land-use forms in the Terai, is 
nothing but an indication of a catastrophic ecological imbalance for the 
mountainous country like ours. The decrease of forest cover from 34.2% in 
1978/79 to 23.4% in 1993/96 (annual rate of loss is 2.3%) in the fifty one hilly 
districts and the lowest percentage of shrubs and forest cover in areas 
between 1000 to 2000 m is its sign. 

What went wrong ? Why is Nepal's' forest - so vital for restoring water 
balance and supporting optimal productivity of agricultural land - 
decreasing with a pace seemingly beyond control ? In spite of a huge input 
from our own efforts as well as from a number of external funds expended to 
manage the forests, the reverse gear so pronounced in the forestry sector, is 
some thing very serious. 

Plenty of reasons are cited purporting to explain the causes of forest 
destruction. Of them, reasons related to population increase have been cited 
the most often. But, one must not forget the trans-boundary smuggling of 
timber, legal and illegal settlements of the hill migrants, agricultural 
expansion, fire, and also the presnce of Bhutani refugees are the significant 
causes which have not been effectively tackled. Above all, scientific 
management practices to increase forest productivity have never been 

1 



adequately applied, and since 1964, the growing stock of forests in the Terai 
is in decline from 101 to 73 cubic metre for Sal (Shorea robusta) and 76 to 58 
cubic metre for the Terai Hardwoods. 

Much has been depicted about the country’s shift in forest policy from 'a 
failed policing' to 'participation', and much is expected from it. Nepal has 
been praised, especially by the donors for adopting it. Peoples' participation 
is undoubtedly a noble approach of forest management and should be 
cherished. But, the lack of adequate homework before handing over and/or 
the snail's pace of handing-over forest areas to the communities (the present 
rate of handing over may need sixty more years for its completion), their post 
formation support, and solving issues related to conflicts and other 
discrepancies especially in the Terai where there is market access, etc. have 
made this programme debatable. Handing over large areas of commercial 
forests to a small number of users is one such example which will force 
people to think instinctively on the negative side of this programme. 

The role that forests play in the country like ours needs no eloraboration to 
forestry professionals; nonetheless, the truth is that the forests of Nepal are 
decreasing at an alarming rate since 1960s. The national mandate of 
developing forestry sector for the welfare of the country is solely given to 
forestry professionals. And it is, none other than we forestry professionals, 
senior or junior, should share the credit or discredit of the state of affairs. 
Instead of pointing fingers to others, we should take responsibility for not 
being able to manage them to the level needed. Unless realised, the time is 
not very far when we won't see the remaining public forests, except protected 
areas, of this beautiful, but neglected country. 

Lastly, thanks to the hard core effort of the Ministry for strictly setting aside 
18.1% of the country's land as protected areas most of which have reasonable 
forest cover, or is it the only system to save the remaining forests of the 
country ?. Hopefully, better sense will prevail. 

Sushim Ranjan Baral, Ph D 
Editor