Land Use Policy 63 (2017) 342–355 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Ecosystem services from community-based forestry in Nepal: Realising local and global benefits Kiran Paudyal a,∗ , Himlal Baral a,b , Kim Lowell c , Rodney J. Keenan a a School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia b Centre for International Forestry Research, Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor, Barat, 16115, Indonesia c Earth Systems Research Centre, University of New Hampshire Ogunquit, ME, 03907, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 8 September 2016 Received in revised form 27 January 2017 Accepted 31 January 2017 Keywords: Environmental policy Community forestry Sustainability Livelihoods Biodiversity conservation Ecosystem services a b s t r a c t Community-based Forestry (CBF) is now a popular approach for landscape restoration, forest manage- ment, biodiversity conservation and support for rural livelihoods worldwide. The Himalayan country Nepal has been at the forefront of CBF for over four decades, with almost 40% of the total population directly involved in protecting and managing more than 32% of the country’s forested land. However, in the past, the focus of CBF in Nepal was the provision of goods for local subsistence, and there has been lim- ited analysis of the role of CBF in providing ecosystem services (ES) from restored forest landscapes. Based on material drawn from a literature review and a stakeholders’ workshop, this paper analyses changes in Nepalese forest policies to provide a more holistic framework for CBF that provides a wider range of ES and to potentially underpin payments for ecosystem services in Nepal. The analysis indicates that Nepal’s forest policy and practices are still dominated by a narrowly conceived notion of forest management that does not accommodate the holistic concept of ES. The study illustrates that CBF provides many ES from local to global benefits as result of forest restoration. For example, timber, firewood, food, and water have local importance, while climate regulation, flood/erosion control, and habitat improvement have global importance. Many innovative cases are emerging in the long journey of CBF in Nepal that demonstrate more diverse management strategies, new forms of tenure rights and autonomy in institutional spaces. These can potentially provide a catalytic platform for the wider adoption of the ES framework in CBF regimes, in order to focus and reward forest management more directly for the provision of services such as water, biodiversity, climate regulation and recreation. Consequently, this study discusses the issues and challenges that are impeding the implementation of the ES concept in Nepal and suggests some ways forward. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Community-based Forestry (CBF) is a viable alternative to the historical patterns of state control and industrial forest manage- ment. It has become an important approach for forest management, biodiversity conservation and supporting livelihoods (Agrawal and Chhatre, 2006; Ojha, 2014; Purnomo et al., 2012). CBF is primar- ily a management and ownership model in which the local people have a central role in planning, decision-making and managing forest resources (Agarwal, 2010; Pokharel and Tiwari, 2013). The concept of CBF emerged in response to the failure of centralised ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: kiran.paudyal@gmail.com (K. Paudyal), H.Baral@cgiar.org (H. Baral), klowellnz@gmail.com, kim.lowell@unh.edu (K. Lowell), rkeenan@unimelb.edu.au (R.J. Keenan). forest bureaucracy in conserving forests and biodiversity, reducing land degradation or supporting the role of forests in contributing to human well-being in many parts of the world (Agrawal et al., 2008). CBF is increasingly being practised in many countries, with both native forests and plantations being managed for livelihoods and conservation as well as for regulating and amenity values (RRI, 2014; Stevens et al., 2014). According to RRI (2014), indigenous people or communities own or control 511 million hectares (15.5%) of the world’s forests as community-managed forests, the vast majority (97%) of which are in low and middle-income countries. In developing countries, approximately one-third of the forests is under the ownership and/or management of indigenous and local communities (Ojha et al., 2009; RRI, 2014). Nepal, a small mountainous country, is becoming a leader in CBF with 2.05 million hectares of forest being managed by community groups deriving multiple benefits (DoF, 2015; Ojha, 2014). However, forest management and poli- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.046 0264-8377/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.