Confusion, Conflicts and Choices
While there have been some good intentions, no one comes off shining in Nepal's experiment with forestry: not the forester, the social scientist, the "environmentalist" or the politician. Theories have been used up, the only way ahead now is to recognise the pervasiveness of 'narrow individual interest', and allow private forestry.
How can we characterise the present national forest policy of Nepal? Is it community forestry or 'shoot-n-protect' forestry, socialist forestry or capitalistic forestry, state forestry or private forestry? Also, in terms of the more recent debate, who is to take command of monitoring the country's environment: the forester, the urban elite environmentalist, or neither? The signals emanating thus far from forestry circles in the country have been confusing, to say the least.
As far as the national forest policy is concerned, what prevails is an inefficient and confusing mishmash of the various forestry concepts. Let us first take them up one by one.