Private forests (PFs) are an important component of Nepal's forestry sector, providing social, ecological, and economic benefits. However, their development remains constrained by institutional, regulatory, and operational barriers. This study examined the status, management practices, and institutional challenges of private forests in Parsa District of Madhesh Province, Nepal, using a mixed-methods approach. Primary data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 34 registered private forest owners (20% of 168 registered PFs), eight key informant interviews, four focus group discussions, and direct field observation. Secondary data from institutional records, policies, regulations, and relevant literature were used to complement and triangulate the primary data. Results showed that registration peaked during 2005–2010, coinciding with external project support, but subsequently stagnated amid complex, multi-agency administrative procedures. This has created a registration gap in which policy recognizes private ownership but provides limited post-registration support. Management practices were largely market-oriented, with preferences for fast-growing, high-value species such as Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Tectona grandis, and Dalbergia sissoo, potentially limiting native species diversity. Private forests provided multiple livelihood and ecosystem benefits, including fuelwood (27.97%), timber, fodder, fruits, and contributions to soil and biodiversity conservation. However, their productivity and sustainability were constrained by pest and weed infestations, seedling mortality and theft, inadequate irrigation, and limited access to quality planting materials. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated a significant concentration of responses around bureaucratic permitting procedures (χ2=11.65, P=0.009), which were the most frequently reported policy barrier. Value-added taxation, species-specific restrictions, and weak post-registration monitoring further constrained private forest development. Simplifying regulatory procedures, strengthening institutional and technical support, and improving policy coherence are therefore important for enhancing private forestry and promoting sustainable forest management in Nepal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pantha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: