Nepal’s forests play a vital role in sustaining both ecosystems and rural livelihoods, and the country’s experience offers key lessons for sustainable forest management. Regularly updated, accurate subnational forest data is essential to help local governments make evidence-based decisions for effective planning and resource allocation. Such data also supports performance-based fiscal transfers in the forest sector, ensuring that investments are linked to measurable outcomes. Inclusive forest management remains central to Nepal’s approach, balancing ecological integrity with socioeconomic benefits to guarantee equitable access for vulnerable communities. Expanding private tree planting on agricultural lands is another critical strategy, offering potential to enhance rural incomes while reducing dependence on public forests.
The latest findings reveal that Nepal has increased its forest cover significantly—from 29% in 1994 to over 46% in 2022—largely due to community-based forest management initiatives. However, challenges persist, including forest fragmentation, degradation, and a decline in average tree canopy cover and height between 2018 and 2022. These trends threaten biodiversity, watershed functions, erosion control, and other ecosystem services. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are a key livelihood source, with 66% of households collecting them—particularly the poorest families who depend most on public forests. Women play a central role as primary collectors, highlighting gendered dimensions of forest use. The report also provides Nepal’s first nationally representative socioeconomic data on forest dependency across all 753 municipalities.
To build resilience and equity in the forest sector, the report recommends several measures: maintaining and regularly updating forest data, integrating ecological and socioeconomic priorities in management plans, and continuing support for community forestry user groups to ensure fair distribution of benefits. Promoting informed private tree planting and developing tailored forestry and agroforestry extension services can further boost productivity and reduce pressure on public forests. Additionally, systematically updating socioeconomic forest statistics is critical for adaptive and inclusive policy development.
Despite Nepal’s progress, key knowledge gaps remain. There is limited information on forest health, ecosystem types, watershed dynamics, and management regimes—whether forests are governed by communities, the state, or private owners. Data on private trees is also scarce, including their contribution to household needs and local economies, preferred species, and production potential. Addressing barriers such as access to seedlings, inputs, and technical know-how is vital for expanding tree cover and enhancing forest-based livelihoods.
In conclusion, Nepal’s community-centered forest management model has proven effective, but its long-term success depends on closing critical data gaps and aligning fiscal, policy, and investment decisions with spatial evidence. Integrating ecological sustainability with socioeconomic development will ensure that the nation’s forests continue to thrive as both a natural and livelihood resource.
