I tried to come up with some view points, which I believe, in some ways shows relevance to the context of Hement Ji’s email regarding upcoming new name of ForestAction.
First, I congratulate Hemant ji and his team for genuine contribution they made to science and also for communicating research outcomes to domestic as well as global scientific communities. As far as I understand, ForestAction was set owing very poor contexts of scientific communications in Nepal despite insufficient domestic efforts were/are being made by very few government as well as non-government organizations.
What I feel now is that the research in forestry was and still is continuously being conducted. However, its circulation to the scientific community is still really poor. The scholars, students, scientists, professionals even the users group have found number of interesting and worthwhile findings during their research, during their job tenure or during their time to the forests. But how much of them do we really know? And how much of them do we really make known in international arena? Very little, most of them are outdated! For example, I got chance to look into a Sayer J. (2005) edited book ‘The earthscan reader in forestry and development’, where I found shocking and outdated information on community forestry in Nepal. I beg your time to cite a few of them. ‘India and Nepal has the same type of joint forest management (!!!!)……, Nepalese government is now attempting to take back most of the rights and benefits of the communities that previously developed (!!!!)…….’ I personally do not agree with these statements though few of us may do. I don’t think of necessities to elaborate them since most of us know what really we have in our context. However, I afraid, it could blur the very clear picture of Nepalese community forestry, to which we often proud of.
In my view, the time has already come to clarify the world saying that what you think or perceive or document is not true enough. Keeping eyes open to government organizations, in such matters, is absolutely a waste of time since most of the academicians and scholars who really came up with clear statistics, science and views are often deprived and thrown away out from the institutional framework and many of them are in pipeline. Hence, I believe, it is our sole responsibilities to make aware of the scientific world on our ground reality and our commitment towards the community forestry so that our democratic image, at least on the forestry sector could endure for ever.
Therefore, I suggest Hemant ji and his colleagues to foresee and embrace the horizon of the science and feel the responsibilities to circulating the facts and worthwhile scientific outcomes to the entire world.
Dear Nepalese Foresters
I tried to come up with some view points, which I believe, in some ways shows relevance to the context of Hement Ji’s email regarding upcoming new name of ForestAction.
First, I congratulate Hemant ji and his team for genuine contribution they made to science and also for communicating research outcomes to domestic as well as global scientific communities. As far as I understand, ForestAction was set owing very poor contexts of scientific communications in Nepal despite insufficient domestic efforts were/are being made by very few government as well as non-government organizations.
What I feel now is that the research in forestry was and still is continuously being conducted. However, its circulation to the scientific community is still really poor. The scholars, students, scientists, professionals even the users group have found number of interesting and worthwhile findings during their research, during their job tenure or during their time to the forests. But how much of them do we really know? And how much of them do we really make known in international arena? Very little, most of them are outdated! For example, I got chance to look into a Sayer J. (2005) edited book ‘The earthscan reader in forestry and development’, where I found shocking and outdated information on community forestry in Nepal. I beg your time to cite a few of them. ‘India and Nepal has the same type of joint forest management (!!!!)……, Nepalese government is now attempting to take back most of the rights and benefits of the communities that previously developed (!!!!)…….’ I personally do not agree with these statements though few of us may do. I don’t think of necessities to elaborate them since most of us know what really we have in our context. However, I afraid, it could blur the very clear picture of Nepalese community forestry, to which we often proud of.
In my view, the time has already come to clarify the world saying that what you think or perceive or document is not true enough. Keeping eyes open to government organizations, in such matters, is absolutely a waste of time since most of the academicians and scholars who really came up with clear statistics, science and views are often deprived and thrown away out from the institutional framework and many of them are in pipeline. Hence, I believe, it is our sole responsibilities to make aware of the scientific world on our ground reality and our commitment towards the community forestry so that our democratic image, at least on the forestry sector could endure for ever.
Therefore, I suggest Hemant ji and his colleagues to foresee and embrace the horizon of the science and feel the responsibilities to circulating the facts and worthwhile scientific outcomes to the entire world.
Comments and remarks are welcome!
I wish ForestAction (or ??) much success!
Indra Sapkota