Krish

Excellent questions? I also want to be informed. COULD ANYBODY be pleased for answering??

Take Care

Krish, better would be excellent suggestions????

Naturally tree grows itself. It does not need any help because every species are well known where and how to grow. We say that condition 'Jungle'. We, human being create forest (or modify jungle to forest) for our own purpose. We are enjoying and struggling with forest since time immemorial and now we have reached at cross-road.

We might be confused where to go? To jungle? (Perhaps we have no more), To the forest? (Very often it seems horticulture without any fruits) To the jungle of concrete? (the fatal way to end up). I think these are some ethical issues. In clear terms, the way of thought and idea of behavior of human being toward forest (in broader terms natural resources) are related with forest ethics.

From the very beginning, human being have been engaged with forest (most of the parts for destruction?) as a primary producer (actually this is not human, this is nature) to the end user. All are playing with natural values and silvicultural norms. Here, in each and every steps of production to consumptions, some ethical questions (can I say issues?) exist. Such as how sustainable and environmental friendly approaches are being applied and what measures and methods are being adopted?

I deliberately say, forest does not need any ethics, this is foresters and other people who need and work with forest ethics as Swedish forest owners say 'Forest can grow with out foresters.` Really, this was a crucial comment. The critical question I would raise on forest ethics is what used to be and what should be the hypothesis and vision of playing with nature and forests behind and in front of spectrum?

We all Nepalese forester know more about CF. I believe the CF process is beyond the definition of law and legislative system and that is the ethics. It's a perception of acceptance or deny (but this is not a definition). Of course it varies from place to place, from time to time, from one level to another, from one profession to another, even from one individual to another.

Therefore the question were put to have your perception on the discussion paper.
Thanks.

www.benktesh.org.np

http://community.wvu.edu/~bds024 

For me forest ethics are a set of values about good and bad in forests. It also implies what do we expect from forests and what we can give to the forestry.

We have firmly established ethics in CF in case of Nepal. These ethics are, but not limited to, providing fuelwood and fodder in rural lives. However, over the years, the trend is changing to give importance to the functions forests are assumed to have on better environment and water yeilds. Slowly, CF has been seen as a major source of national revenue contributing to growth of national economy. Western world are proud to say "we are built on wood". Our hariyo ban nepal ko dhan needs revisiting and we have to make it relevant once again and CF is the approach on its way already. There are rooms to gradually change the established forestry ethics in Nepal. That is to say forests are not only for fuelwood and fodder, but if managed scientifically, it can offer good living to the people. In rural areas, most community forest stands are secondary old growth which are insufficiently able to supply the domestic timber needs. But there are possibilities for maintaining a sustainable supply of timber from these community managed forests. All we need is to change the stand gradually which can yield better products.

The established trends has limited the ability of forest to contribute to national economy by some provision of making things difficult to sale timber products out of the user's group. I feel that this should not be happening. We talk about free market and globalization where we should be opening up markets for our products across the country border. In practice we are limiting the supply within a small territory of the UGs. Thus, possiblity should be explored in making the smooth sale of timber products outside the UGs which would boost up the local as well as national economy.

Similarly, CFs are seen as being managed with a traditional approach. In village if we go to suggest thinning the stand, people are reluctant to cut the dense stand. They love trees to grow as they are. We could benefit more if scientific methods could be mingled with the traditional approach of prevention and protection from deterioration of forest stands.

One important aspect to redefine the forest ethics relevant to CF in my opinion is that objective of CF should be taken as standards to its management. We have CFs inside PAs such as in Bufferzone and in conservation areas. A more proactive preservationist approach is required in those forests where the primary objective is biodiversity conservation. However, in all other regular CFs that belong to national forests, produciton approach should be prioritized and should be reflected in management.

Instead of assessing CFs by forested area and percentage, it should be done with actual and potential productive capacity and reveneue generated then only can the ethics of CF be justified. Otherwise we will be in the same viscous cycle yielding to nothing for improvement form one level to another.

Cutting down trees should be always cricized. Trees are grown to be cut. As people take pride in harvesting our agronomic crops, foresters should be proud of cutting down trees in sustainble way. Arranging for better technical back up with all CFs is one way to assure this. And if things go wrong, the we need not to be nervous because forestry as a long term cultivation practice has a lot of things hidden inside and knowledge can be built over time and longer experience.

We have had volumes of informaiton on socio-economic aspect of people's lives in CF and something should trigger in including scientific aspect of forest management in usual CF studies and findings should be shared.

Finally, I insist forest ethics is such that we manage our CF wit the techniques of ecology and management of the stands.

I hope this comment would be helpful for your discussion. Thank you.

Benktesh
www.benktesh.org.np

I don't know if this will help but this is how i see it.

I see Forest Ethics as the "rules or standards that govern our conduct as Foresters".

This could be as conservationists, producers of wood products, researchers, surveyors etc. These would all be very different depending on the overall goal of our work. Maybe this is governed by legislation to protect localised fauna or it may even have a larger scale interest. So basically i think it would be hard to some up the ethics of the forests as right from wrong would be different from goverment to villager.

This would be a great subject to read about and i wish you all the best.

I think Forest ethics refers to the understanding of integrity between human and forest resources. So understanding the relationship and interaction between forest and people from sociobiological perspective may give clear understanding regarding it. So as a forester it is our duty to marry that relationship and as a member of natural system it is our duty to play the role for maintain the system. In case of Nepalese CF, many studies suggested that the best way to sustain that relationship is to integrate scientific and traditional approach and it is the time for us to merge them for the synergistic benefits to both sides (i.e. mankind and forest, which include flora and fauna). CF management practices have lots of efforts from people side and had acquired benefits from forest (e.g. fuelwood, fodder, agricultural implements, constructional materials, Medicines, climate amelioration, etc). However, as a scientific knowledge holder, foresters are unable to document and explore that contribution (e.g. what is contribution of our CF to national GDP, Carbon sequestration, green oxygen production etc.) This is making our effort unproductive from scientific perspective.

On the other hand, we can find lots of rhetoric and realities in CF (e.g. Participation of women/poor and DAG in paper rather than actuality in field, preparation of OP and constitution with full effort of forestry staffs in the name of CFUGs etc.). Therefore what I think, there needs package programme for the Community forestry (e.g. programme of health, education/awareness, drinking water, livestock/agriculture, banking facilities etc) progress to get win-win situation to both sides (i.e. manager/people and forest) but we are far behind from that context due to lack of governance, acute poverty and other unlimited factors. So, for me forest ethics is an issue, which is affected by various social, political, economical, physical and natural factors. In one word, we are unable to maintain the ethics of forestry due to our poverty.

I hope it might add some bricks in your discussion.

Gopal Prasad Ghimire
M.Sc. Student
IOF, Pokhara, Nepal.

Dear Gyanedra ji,

The issue of 'Forest Ethics' as you raised is very new, interesting and contemporary in the arena of natural resources management and development. To address your enquires, let us see, at first, what development ethics refers to. There are many discourses and debates going on regarding 'Development Ethics'. The discourses and debates quite often give contradictory notions. However, we can trace many commonalities in these.

By development ethics, people examine a development process and intervention in terms of equitable development outcomes at different levels: local, national, international and global; and more importantly its implications on nature. If you want economic development at the cost of environmental/natural resources, from the perspectives of development ethics, one can argue that you do not have ethical development. Again, if your development processes and interventions underpin the persistent social, political and economic differences, your approach can be also regarded as unethical. Furthermore, if your development processes or interventions question sustainability or reinforce degradations of your future generations' ability to meet their own needs/ to enhance their wellbeing, your development approach can be regarded as unethical. Likewise, forest ethics refers to the similar types of conceptions, which try to see the ethical aspect of forest resources management and development in terms of equality and sustainability.

The underlying rationalities of ethics are various. The world is not homogeneous; it is heterogeneous politically, economically, socially, culturally and geographically. For example, you can analyze heterogeneity of a community in different dimensions and aspects as mentioned. Because of heterogeneity; benefits, crisis, risks … from any intervention transmit into individuals, households, communities or societies or nations with varying speeds, length and magnitudes. Such fundamental specificity of heterogeneity in the given context always demands an ethical concern from us so that our interventions can be directed towards the achievement of equitable societies. In addition to this, the resources of earth are finite (in terms of quantity, quality, and capacity); and they are not made not only to meet our needs, but also to meet needs of our daughters, sons, grandsons, grand daughters …. This also asks us to think ethically on sustainability of these resources.

When you look at the domain of forest management and development, you will see many issues related to forest ethics. Forest ethics here refers to ethical dimensions of wellbeing of forest poor and marginalized, sustainable livelihoods of forest resources dependent people, wildlife and biodiversity conservation, ecological and environmental balance. Forest ethics is concerned on both intergenerational and intragenerational equities. This shows that forest ethics is more close to the conception of sustainable development. In short, forest ethics shows a concern on forest resource sustainability (transmission of bequest value of forest resources to our future generations equitably) and equitable wellbeing of intragenerations from the management and development of the forest resources. Forest ethics always tries to justify you, and provides you an ethical rationality to consciously understand why you need to take into account the above issues in the management and development processes and interventions of forest resources. This raises a curiosity in us to know what sort of forestry activities are sought to be taken under the domain of forest ethics.
Any forestry activity could be based on forest ethics if it

ensures forest sustainability or transfers more or at least same bequest value of forest resources to our future generations;

underpins to achieve equitable outcomes or benefits or welfare per capita at present by utilization of forest resources;

ensures well being of wildlife, biodiversity and other forest resources;

maintains or enhances ecological or environmental vital functions eg energy flow, materials flow, absorptive capacity,

secures freedom, rights of the concerned people; minimizes conflicts; builds on peace;

reduces risks and uncertainties;

allows participation of diverse groups without any pressures, compulsions and fears;

breaks isolation, promotes micro-meso-macro linkages.

This is my conception on 'Forest Ethics'. I draw this conception based on my work and academic experiences. You can analyze community forestry of Nepal in terms of above points in order to have an understanding the degree of forest ethics we achieved in the domain of 25 year old community forestry.

I kindly ask you to go further and in-depth literature review in order to have both concise and broader meanings of forest ethics, and then analyze ethical aspects of community forestry. This will give you an ethical sphere of community forestry in Nepal.

Good luck with this new academic endeavour!

With regards,
Raj Kumar Pandey
Environment and Development
The University of Reading
The United Kingdom
e-mail: r.k.pandey@reading.ac.uk