Taking a deliberative democracy perspective, we analyze the case of forest governance in Nepal with a view to understanding the extent and processes of citizen-state deliberations in forest policy making in relation to Nepal's specific historical and social contexts. We analyze 15 policy decisions which range from parliament-endorsed laws to executive decisions of the government that were made over the period 1998-2004.

Recently there was an electronic debate on the pros and cons of Community Forestry (CF) and Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) in Nepal Terai. I analyzed views of the participants in the debate to distil a) substantive arguments for and against the two options, including any alternatives proposed, and more importantly b) explore the culture of argumentation as reflected in the ways participants sought to make their claims or criticize others’ claims. I admit that this note is a bit academic and abstract but hope provide some reflections on how the participants argued, and what prospects exist for reconciliation.

As the country is heading towards major restructuring of political system and the state, I wonder if it is also a time to do fundamental rethinking of forestry sector in Nepal. As many would agree, democratic values and practices are important not only in political field, but also in all aspects of social and political life. This means Forestry field also deserves this attention. So should we initiate debate of transformation in forestry field at this time? I think this is a right time, assuming there will be an announcement of constituent assembly very soon. Since forestry sector, together with agriculture, is still the backbone of livelihoods of majority of the people, issues of democratization and inclusive governance in this sector are no less important than political democracy.