1. Dil B. Khatri, Hemant R.
Ojha, Krishna K. Shrestha
and Naya S. Paudel
World Congress on Agroforestry, February 10-13,
New Delhi

2. 
Linking forest to food security is taking space on global debate
(political and scholarly) i.e. RIO+ 20 and others

Scholars (re)asserts that forest ecosystem is critical to food
production (Mohamed –Katerere and Smith 2013)

But, to what extent forest is contributing to food security? - Very
limited!

So, why forest policy and institutions are restrictive to food security?

3. Forest and food security
issues have always been
linked in many parts of the
world, but still limited
research and policy
attention!

4. Expansion of community
forestry have posed restrictions
on fodder production and
grazing (Dhakal et al., 2010,,
Thoms, 2008, Adhikari et al.).
Contributed to declined
number of cattle per household
(Dhakal et al., 2010, Thoms,
2008

5. Question:
Methodology:
How responsive are
community forestry
institutions in Nepal
to the need of
linking forest to food
security?

Why?



Literature review
Review of policy and
legal documents
Case studies of
community forest user
group (operational
plans of six selected
CFUGs)
Research in progress

6. Forest-farm
interface for
increased farm
productivity
Community
Forestry
management
practices
Forest based
income and
employment
Wild
food/edible
items
Food
security

7. 
Mainstream forestry science
focused on enhancing: bio-mass
productivity, revenue and biodiversity (Westoby, 1979, Kennedy
et al. 2001)

Reflected in Nepal’s forest
management: Declaration of 23%
forest area as protected area,
timber focused management (even
in the community managed forests)

Undermined local concerns
relating to forest for food security

8. 
Broader policy framework focused on: revenue and
expansion of FA through aforestation

Forest legislation prohibits use of forest land for
agriculture production and no explicit focus on
agroforestry and food security

Implementation framework more restrictive for food
security (i.e. Forest Regulation prohibits to grow cash
crops in forest land and requires too many steps to
harvest and trade timber)

No explicit provision on production and use of wild
food

9. MOFSC/DOF
MOAC/DOA
MOAC/DOL
D
National
level
DFO
DADO
DLDO
District
level
RP
CF
SC-A
SC-L
Livestock
Agriculture Farm and AF
group
Group
CFUG
Village
level

10. Collection of ground
grass
Grazing
Fodder management
Grass collection is
allowed in specified
time period
Grazing is prohibited in
most of the CFs and
provision of fine if rules
are violated
Provision to promote
fodder but no explicit
plan on it
Some CFUGs have
provision to promote
improved grass

Provision of rotational
grazing in 2 CFUGs in
specified forest block
Conventional forestry
mindset foresters and
local power relations
prevail in CFUG rule
making process (OP)

11. 
Three factors problem in forest-food links: forestry
science, policy and legislative framework, and institutions

These three aspects needs to be dealt with
simultaneously

Need for integrating forest, tree and agriculture
production (Padoch and Sunderland 2013)

Adaptive-collaborative approach to learning and
innovation for change (Colfer 2005, Prabhu et al 2007;
Ojha et al 2013)
• Adaptive learning – action learning, reflections and innovations
• Bounding conflicts and fostering collaboration
• Cross-scale linkages

12. Thank You !
Acknowledgement:
Govinda Paudel and Mani Ram Banjade for contributing in
paper.
Australian Centre for
International Agriculture
Research
For correspondence:
dil@forestaction.org
12