From Community Forestry to Buffer Zone Community Forestry: A Systematic Review of Governance Shifts, Socio-ecological Outcomes and Policy Challenges in Nepal

Nepal has spent more than four decades developing one of the world's most recognized community forestry (CF) programs, handing day to day forest management responsibilities to local forest user groups. More recently, forests located within the buffer zones of protected areas (PAs) have been reclassified as Buffer Zone Community Forests (BZCFs), placing them under the joint control of user groups and park authorities within the federal governance framework adopted in 2015. This hybrid governance model is widely assumed as a mechanism for simultaneously achieving biodiversity conservation along with local socio-economic development. However, the extent to which it fulfills the objectives, and whether the multiple policy frameworks governing it have created overlapping mandates, ambiguous authority, and contradictory benefit-sharing rules, remain unaddressed. This review examines how the transition from CF to BZCF has influenced forest conditions, livelihoods and local institutions in Nepal, while identifying areas where governance and policy frameworks are inconsistent or contradictory. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we synthesised evidence from 80 studies published between 2000 and 2026 and analyzed the findings through a Drivers-Processes-Outcomes framework spanning the federal, provincial and local levels. Evidence indicated that the impacts of BZCFs are mixed and highly context-specific. Ecologically, BZCF exhibited improved canopy cover, reduced forest fragmentation, and improved forest health; however, these improvements do not guarantee increases in biodiversity. Economically, conservation related activities especially from tourism have generated additional income for some communities, yet the benefits are unevenly distributed, while restrictive regulations on forest products continue to adversely affect households that depend heavily on the forest. Institutionally, the transition has reduced community autonomy, as much of the decision-making power now resides with park authorities rather than the community. This is exacerbated by overlapping budgets, ambiguous decision-making processes and conflicting benefit-sharing mechanisms, which contribute towards a recentralization of the system, increased transaction costs, and a declining local legitimacy. Overall, our findings suggest that this process of so-called 'hybrid governance' cannot reconcile dual objectives of conservation and development. Achieving these goals will require greater policy coherence across all levels of government, transparent and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms, and the retention of meaningful co-management authority by local communities.