Forest/Biodiversity Governance in federal structure of Nepal

The republic and federalism are the two major political agendas that are endorsed by the people of Nepal through the recent election for the constituent assembly. The seven party alliances, before the election, more or less agreed upon these two agendas. However, none of the major political parties expressed the clarity on the structure of federal(ism) states in their election manifestos, except the Maoist, who proposed the federal states on the basis of five different bases (e.g. Tamsaling (Tamang), Newa (Newar), Tharuwan (Tharu).

According to Khanal D.R, all political parties have expressed some issues on forestry/biodiversity governance in their election manifestos (Khanal, 2064). However, there are many more issues that are not clearly expressed such as traditional rights of indigenous people on forest/biodiversity resources, climate change etc. In addition to these issues, there is a need of clarity on benefit sharing among local government, federal government, and central government, patent rights on local knowledge and species. The issue of protected area governance is also an important part of biodiversity conservation.

The primary aim of this electronic debate is to initiate an intellectual discussion on forest and/or biodiversity governance regime in future federal structure. In order to initiate professional debate, here are some (issues) points for discussions.

1. the sovereign rights of local communities in forest and/biodiversity resources, this also includes traditional rights of indigenous communities.
2. Benefit sharing mechanism
3. State obligation towards multi national environmental agreement (MEAs)
4. The assessment of present protected area management (governance). the issue of park-people conflicts, wildlife depredation and compensation mechanism, role of local communities in protected area management, devolution of power to the existing buffer zone development councils etc
5. New emerging issues such as forest and climate change. The possibility of recently discussed (Bali conference), REDD.
6. Different management models. The issue of high altitude forest management is has not been a priority. What could be the best management model(s) or regime(s) for different geographical areas
7. Protective vs Productive forest management.

These are the points only for initiating the discussion. There are many more points that we need to have discussion in order to adopt an inclusive forest/biodiversity governance regime in future federal Nepal.

I thank you very much for all of your time and efforts. Your valuable comments, suggestions will provide a space for further discussions among intellectuals, political parties, international communities, forests user groups and their networks, and most importantly, the people of Nepal.

I am convinced that this discussion will support support in adopting an inclusive and people oriented forest/biodiversity governance regime. Besides, I am convinced that we can learn a lot from this discussion.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.