The Way Forward for Community Forestry in Nepal: Analysis of Performance against National Forestry Goals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “ The Way Forward for Community Forestry in Nepal: Analysis of Performance Against National Forestry Goals” aims to measure the performance of community forestry towards achieving the sustainable forest management goals. The manuscript is the methodical study illustrated with a case study. After corrections I recommend publishing it.
Comments for authors
Language
Some sentences are very long. However, I have no objections to the linguistic correctness.
Subject
The subject is correct.
Keywords
A part of the words have been chosen correctly, but the second part repeats the title.
Abstract
The Abstract reflects the content of the manuscript.
1. Introduction
The literature review (section 1 and section 1.1) is not established in the world literature (in fact, it is not there at all). This literature is very rich. The authors only presented the problems of Nepal. Most of this section should be transferred to the description of the research object. The subject matter should be developed with the help of international literature. This arrangement is unusual and incorrect.
The purpose of the work is correct.
2. Materials and Methods
I have no major objections to the text. Correct description of the various stages of the research.
There is no clear justification for the selection of indicators (Table 1).
3. Results
Subsection 3.1 is not part of the results. Please move this fragment to the right place. On the one hand, it is a kind of discussion, and on the other hand, it is a kind of introduction.
The entire section contains too many discussion items that should be moved to the Discussion section. Comparisons to other similar studies and references to literature are part of the discussion – they are not results.
4. Discussion
Correct discussion supported by examples of previous studies. It should be completed with the elements included in the Results section.
Please check carefully that there will be no duplications after making these corrections.
5. Conclusions
The conclusions are very general. The manuscript presents a case study. Therefore, this part should be supplemented with recommendations for the research area.
Conclusions should summarize the results and discussion, but not repeat them. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods or new policies) can the paper contribute to international literature? How to link the findings and conclusions in this paper with the previous findings and conclusions from other countries? All these questions must be clearly responded in Conclusion Section.
References
Literature should be supplemented. She's not too rich. The methodological overview in the Introduction section is particularly missing.
Others
The manuscript is a valuable methodological study. It requires reconstruction and additions. The results and discussion are very interesting and valuable. Despite many comments and recommendations, I believe that it deserves to be published in a revised version. I hope that the comments contained in the review will contribute to raising the scientific level of the article.
Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires major changes recommended by the reviewer.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 (modifications are made in green in the revised manuscript)
Comment 1. Language: Some sentences are very long. However, I have no objections to the linguistic correctness.
Answer: We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for his/her comment.
C2. Subject: The subject is correct.
Answer: We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for his/her appreciation.
C3. Keywords: A part of the words have been chosen correctly, but the second part repeats the title.
Answer: We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for his/her comments. We have replaced the key words as suggested, to avoid repetition with the title.
C4. Abstract: The Abstract reflects the content of the manuscript.
Answer: We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for his/her appreciations and comments.
C5. Introduction: The literature review (section 1 and section 1.1) is not established in the world literature (in fact, it is not there at all). This literature is very rich. The authors only presented the problems of Nepal. Most of this section should be transferred to the description of the research object. The subject matter should be developed with the help of international literature. This arrangement is unusual and incorrect. The purpose of the work is correct.
Answer: We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for his/her comments and suggestions. We have made major changes in order to accommodate with these suggestions. We have included a new paragraph in the first section in order to establish our study in the world literature. With this occasion, we have included extra references as follows:
Duguma, L. A.; Minang P. A.; Foundjem-Tita D.; Makui P.; Mandiefe Piabuo S. Prioritizing enablers for effective community forestry in Cameroon. Ecology and Society 2018. 23 (3):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10242-230301
Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R. Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where are we now? Annual Reviews of Anthropology 2007, 36, 301-336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143
Antiori, A.; Rausser, G. Collective choice and community forestry management in Mexico: an empirical analysis. J.Dev.Stud., 2007, 43, 512-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380701204471
Chhetri, B.B.K.; Jonsen, F.H.; Konoshima, M.; Yosimoto, A. Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: determinants od user participation in forest management. For.Poicy Econ, 2013, 30, 6-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.010
Maryudi, A.; Devkota, R.R.; Schusser, C.; Yufanyi, C.; Salla, M.; Aurenhammer, H.; Rotchanaphatharawit, R.; Krott, M. Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For. Policy, Econ., 2012, 14(1), 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.017
Fisher, R.J. Lessons learned from community forestry in Asia and their relevance for REDD+. USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program, Washington, DC, USA
Kimengsi, J.N.; Bhusal, P. Community Forestry Governance: Lessons for Cameroon and Nepal. Society & Natural Resources 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.2006844
Baynes, J.; Herbohn, J.; Smkth, S.;Fisher, R.; Bray, D. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change 2015, 35, 226-238, https://doi-org.am.e-nformation.ro/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011
Also, we have replaced the sections regarding Nepal and the institutional setup for Nepal forestry sector to the Methodology section, by creating a new paragraph – 1.1. Research object.
C6. 2. Materials and Methods: I have no major objections to the text. Correct description of the various stages of the research. There is no clear justification for the selection of indicators (Table 1).
Answer: Thank you so much for this observation. The rationale behind selecting the indicators for this study is described in the section 2.3 Data collection and analysis: Based on consultations with diverse forestry professionals, policy makers and as well as researchers, original 3L model indicators were carefully assessed and adjusted to fit the specific conditions of Nepal. Adapted indicators used for this study are designed based on community-based forest management initiatives, CF contribution to sustainable forest management, local livelihood and income generation activities, implementation of FMPs, promotion of local governance and role and relationship with forestry stakeholders as shown in Table 1 and in Table S1. The changes in the text are shown in green.
C7. 3. Results :Subsection 3.1 is not part of the results. Please move this fragment to the right place. On the one hand, it is a kind of discussion, and on the other hand, it is a kind of introduction. The entire section contains too many discussion items that should be moved to the Discussion section. Comparisons to other similar studies and references to literature are part of the discussion – they are not results.
Answer: We thank the reviewer 1 for these comments and suggestions. We understand that is quite unusual to describe the forest policy goals in the Results section, and we really appreciate the suggestions from this perspective. However, we decided to keep the section within the Results part. The reason is that the methodology of our research has a very important part of secondary empirical analysis, based on studying the documents and trying to understand and translate the policy goals from the perspective of the socio-economic theories. Being part of the used methodology, the documentation on the policy goals provides some results – description of the policy frame as it is filtered through the second layer defined by the3L Causative Benchmarking Model. These results, in our perspective belong to Results section.
C8. 4. Discussion. Correct discussion supported by examples of previous studies. It should be completed with the elements included in the Results section. Please check carefully that there will be no duplications after making these corrections.
Answer: Thank you for this appreciation and the associated observation. We have included some additions in Discussion section of the improved version of the manuscript highlighting some elements from the results that helps the discussion. The changes in the text are shown in green.
C9 . 5. Conclusions
The conclusions are very general. The manuscript presents a case study. Therefore, this part should be supplemented with recommendations for the research area.
Conclusions should summarize the results and discussion, but not repeat them. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods or new policies) can the paper contribute to international literature? How to link the findings and conclusions in this paper with the previous findings and conclusions from other countries? All these questions must be clearly responded in Conclusion Section.
Answer: The recommendations made by Reviewer 1 are valuable, thank you. We have almost rewritten the Conclusion section, thus improving substantially the manuscript. We have answered in the new text to the questions suggested by the reviewer. The changes are in green in the new version of the manuscript.
C10. References: Literature should be supplemented. She's not too rich. The methodological overview in the Introduction section is particularly missing.
Answer: Thank you for these comments. As indicated at the answer to comment 5, we have added numerous references, trying to better describe the global context and the state of the art in the research area of our study.
C11. Others: The manuscript is a valuable methodological study. It requires reconstruction and additions. The results and discussion are very interesting and valuable. Despite many comments and recommendations, I believe that it deserves to be published in a revised version. I hope that the comments contained in the review will contribute to raising the scientific level of the article. Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires major changes recommended by the reviewer.
Answer: We would like to say that we appreciate the effort to read and make comments and suggestions for our manuscript. We have tried to accommodate all the suggestions and we do believe that the improved version of the manuscript is now a much better version, with a higher scientific level.
Reviewer 2 Report
L91-92: to summarize, the study focuses on the extent to which community forestry meets the national forestry goals of Nepal and identifies key issues that if dealt with, would improve performance. Basically this study adapts a model using an approach similar to that in previously published research, [15].
The study seems to indicate that it is analyzing the performance of the community forestry structure, though implemented locally, against national forestry goals. And yet the national forestry goals are not clearly stated, only criteria and indicators for assessing the performance of community forestry are studied. Where is the direct linkage to national policy goals? Indeed, it is not until the results section that there is discussion of national forest policy documents and goals. If this study is analyzing performance against national forestry goals, the goals need to be defined upfront in materials and methods and the connection to the adopted criteria and indicators made clear.
The paragraph in lines 116-125 indicates that the assessment in this study is really of CFUG’s, and even though these are locally implemented, in this study the CFUG’s are lumped together and defined as the state forest management institution. The authoritative institutions of Nepal are not rated in this study, but most of the people interviewed scoring the CFUG structure are from the true government institutions not rated in this study. Why are the true government institutions not being rated for how well Nepal is meeting its national forest goals?
Although the study says Nepal has been using a community forestry approach for 30 years, it seems as though national forestry goals have been changing greatly over those 30 years. No wonder the scoring on CFUGs is so low because it is unclear how long the national forestry goals have been in place, and therefore to mention 30 years seems inaccurate.
The quality of Figure 1 needs to be improved, it is unreadable.
In summary, although the surveys and interviews are based on a very limited sample, the structure of the C&Is is relevant to positive forestry outcomes. The title indicates that continually addressing the perceived issues and then analyzing the performance of the CFs using this approach is a positive way forward for community forestry in Nepal. Please make this assertion (hypothesis) more clear in the text. More clearly summarizing suggestions and recommendations in the results in a table would better emphasize the results than the paragraph formats.
Research publications recommend and describe impacts, instead of using words such as must or should. Please rewrite sentences that use the word “should” or “must” unnecessarily. P486: “At the same time, the impact of identifying and removing barriers in forest product specific value chain would likely increase commercialization” P489-491: “Contents of such a fundamental document usually include foundational topics such as the forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing plans.”
P492-493: It is unclear what points about the study results in this sentence: “This study suggests that FMPs musts be developed with inclusion of multiple management goals to utilize the multi-functionality of the forests.” The study adopted a range of criteria by which to analyze performance, so it seems as if the study is assuming multiple management goals are desirable, and therefore FMPs would need to be developed that way based on the assumption. The terminology “this study suggests” indicates that results of the study suggest this, which may be true, but one reason the results may suggest this is because the study is based on that assumption in the first place.
In terms of grammar, there are many minor issues throughout.
There are many places that would be more correct with “the”, and other places where “the” is used where “the” should be deleted.
The pronoun “they” is often used and it is often difficult to know who “they” is. Please go through and replace the use of “they” with the noun.
L107 needs an ‘and’: criteria, and ii) use the criteria…
Same with 110, activities, and b) authority…
L118, adapt needs to be ‘adapting’ because ‘assessing’ was used earlier in the sentence and measuring is used later.
L120-121: The sentence “this paper is assessment only the performance of the forest management institutions, leaving the authority institutions beside.” is poorly written. Please rewrite. Other sentences in this paragraph seem repetitious. Please rewrite the paragraph.
L230-234: rewrite the sentences without ‘we’ as the subject. Are you authors going to extract millions of cubic feet of timber? Perhaps: “One government report shows that more than 4.5 million cubic feet of timber could potentially be sold annual from community forests, but due to passive forest management, only 0.5 million cubic feet of timber is extracted. “
P449: the use of the word “consecrated” is always in a religious context, of something being sacred. Models in this context are not sacred nor religious. Use a different term.
L454: use “led” instead of “leaded”
Research publications recommend, they do not prescribe. Please rewrite sentences that use the word “should” or “must” unnecessarily. P486: “At the same time, barriers in forest product specific value chain need to be identified and removed” P489-491: “Contents of such a fundamental document include the forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing plans.”
Author Response
Reviewer 2 (modifications are made in blue in the revised manuscript)
Comment 1. L91-92: to summarize, the study focuses on the extent to which community forestry meets the national forestry goals of Nepal and identifies key issues that if dealt with, would improve performance. Basically, this study adapts a model using an approach similar to that in previously published research, [15].
Answer: Thank you for the observation. We have made some additions in the introduction section to better suggest the ideea. The edited text is in blue color in the improved version of the manuscript:
Using 3L causative model by Stevanov and Krott [14], this study focuses at determining to what extent CF as forest management institution meets the national forestry goals of Nepal and identifies the key issues than can improve CF performance.
C2. The study seems to indicate that it is analyzing the performance of the community forestry structure, though implemented locally, against national forestry goals. And yet the national forestry goals are not clearly stated, only criteria and indicators for assessing the performance of community forestry are studied. Where is the direct linkage to national policy goals? Indeed, it is not until the results section that there is discussion of national forest policy documents and goals. If this study is analyzing performance against national forestry goals, the goals need to be defined upfront in materials and methods and the connection to the adopted criteria and indicators made clear.
Answer: Thank you for the important feedback/comment.
The main idea of this 3L model used for this study is the linkage between three different layers. For this case, the various policy documents were studied, with focus on forestry sector. Based on the goals on these policy documents they were translated into criteria and indicators which are easy to measure. So, these criteria and indicators are the part of national forestry goals.
C3. The paragraph in lines 116-125 indicates that the assessment in this study is really of CFUG’s, and even though these are locally implemented, in this study the CFUG’s are lumped together and defined as the state forest management institution. The authoritative institutions of Nepal are not rated in this study, but most of the people interviewed scoring the CFUG structure are from the true government institutions not rated in this study. Why are the true government institutions not being rated for how well Nepal is meeting its national forest goals?
Answer: Thank you so much for the comment and the question. This study is focused on forest management institutions, working locally. So, community forestry User groups, which are working as the local forest management institutions for state-owned forests are the case for this. As CFUGs all over the country have same legal and technical background with Sustainable Forest management as the common goals, so they were bundled together to assess the performance. Assessing the performance of state authority institution was not among the goals of the study, but Reviewer 2 is indeed right. This would be a very interesting research direction to focus in our future research. The suggestion of the reviewer has been included in the conclusion section as a potential future research direction. The text additions in the Conclusion section are in blue in the improved version of the manuscript (last paragraph of the manuscript).
C4. Although the study says Nepal has been using a community forestry approach for 30 years, it seems as though national forestry goals have been changing greatly over those 30 years. No wonder the scoring on CFUGs is so low because it is unclear how long the national forestry goals have been in place, and therefore to mention 30 years seems inaccurate.
Answer: Thank you for the critical reflection. CF policy in Nepal was initiated in 1970s. Since then many polices and legislations have been formed to this date, but the overall aim of all initiatives documents is enhancing sustainable forest management. So, based on this aim of national vision of sustainable forest management, we tried to formulate the local indicators in a way that helps to assess the CF performance in present times.
C5. The quality of Figure 1 needs to be improved, it is unreadable.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Figure 1 has been replaced with a clearer one.
C6. In summary, although the surveys and interviews are based on a very limited sample, the structure of the C&Is is relevant to positive forestry outcomes. The title indicates that continually addressing the perceived issues and then analyzing the performance of the CFs using this approach is a positive way forward for community forestry in Nepal. Please make this assertion (hypothesis) more clear in the text. More clearly summarizing suggestions and recommendations in the results in a table would better emphasize the results than the paragraph formats.
Answer: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made an assertion, as suggested, in the conclusion, indicating that 3L model can be a way to continually monitor the effectiveness of the CF in achieving the forest policy goals. The changes are in blue in the improved version of the manuscript:
Continually addressing the perceived issues and then analyzing the performance of the CFs using the 3L model is a positive way forward.
Also, in the conclusion section, we have summarized the recommendations, as suggested by the reviewer. Although a table format was recommended we have made a bullets enumeration, thinking that using a table in a conclusive section is not very usual. The revised text in is blue in the improved version of the manuscript:
There are some recommendations that clearly arise from this research:
- Make the regulations more predictable and increase the technical support provided by the state for CF, especially in areas like product innovation, value addition, marketing;
- Promote management approaches that are less conservative and more market oriented, without passing the limits of sustainable forest management;
- Create an innovation enabling environment for CF in areas like new products and services; Formulation of FMPs with multiple management objectives, focusing on assessment and management of ecosystem services and their potential capitalisation, is a part of the solution.
C7. Research publications recommend and describe impacts, instead of using words such as must or should. Please rewrite sentences that use the word “should” or “must” unnecessarily. P486: “At the same time, the impact of identifying and removing barriers in forest product specific value chain would likely increase commercialization” P489-491: “Contents of such a fundamental document usually include foundational topics such as the forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing plans.”
Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the text to accommodate with the suggestions. The changes are given in blue in the Discussion section:
At the same time, removing the present barriers in forest product value chain will be helpful to increase the commercialization. Our study recommends removing taxes and fees to multiple governmental levels, thus expanding the forest product chain.
FMPs are the fundamental document for managing the forest resources. These plans, with clear objectives for forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing schemes, promotes sustainable forest management. This study recommends developing FMPs by including multiple management goals to utilize the multi-functionality of the forests and to maximize the benefits from the forest.
C8. P492-493: It is unclear what points about the study results in this sentence: “This study suggests that FMPs musts be developed with inclusion of multiple management goals to utilize the multi-functionality of the forests.” The study adopted a range of criteria by which to analyze performance, so it seems as if the study is assuming multiple management goals are desirable, and therefore FMPs would need to be developed that way based on the assumption. The terminology “this study suggests” indicates that results of the study suggest this, which may be true, but one reason the results may suggest this is because the study is based on that assumption in the first place.
Answer: Thank you so much for this comment and the associated suggestion. We have revised the text to better describe the study recommendations. Changes are given blue color:
This study recommends developing FMPs by including multiple management goals to utilize the multi-functionality of the forests and to maximize the benefits from the forest.
C9. In terms of grammar, there are many minor issues throughout.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have gone through the whole document to correct grammatical issues. The changed text are given in blue.
C10. There are many places that would be more correct with “the”, and other places where “the” is used where “the” should be deleted.
Answer: Thank you for the observation and the suggestions. We have revised the whole manuscript trying to correct the indicated issue.
C11. The pronoun “they” is often used and it is often difficult to know who “they” is. Please go through and replace the use of “they” with the noun.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have gone through the document, checked it and replace the pronoun with noun, as indicated. the changes are shown in blue color in the text. Some examples below:
CFUGs are unaware about the marketing tools and strategies which can help them to create higher value for forest-based products.
These plans are different from the regular FMPs which are more based on silvicultural system (irregular shelterwood system) and aimed for productive management of forests
CFUGs are very weak in financial record management as well as in managerial accounting.
CFUGs also coordinate the auctions and other bidding practice when selling the timber products to outside market other than their regular forest users.
CFUGs do not have institutional arrangements for marketing in general and market information gathering and assessing in particular.
CFUGs are not able to create and maintain the value chain for forest products as well as adding value to current forest products.
CFUGs are only selling the raw products which has very low value compared to the final market price.
CFUGs are working as the frontlines for shrinking the deforestation and increasing the greenery in the hills.
CFUGs are also connected to local level government which are in their immediate doorstep.
CFUGs are always aspiring to take this mediator role and manage the interest. All the interviewees pointed out that CFUGs are working as mediator at local level.
C12. L107 needs an ‘and’: criteria, and ii) use the criteria…
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. The suggestion has been included in the improved version of the manuscript. The changes are shown in blue color:
…….i) translate vague and generalist language of policy documents (the policy layer) into precise terms by considering science, political, public economics and business managements theories (the theoretical layer) thus formulating clear and science based criteria, and ii) use the criteria to evaluate the empirical level - all identified differences indicate on institutional performance.
C13. Same with 110, activities, and b) authority…
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. The suggestion has been included in the improved version of the manuscript. The changes are shown in blue color:
- a) management institutions with clear mandate on forest management activities, and b) authority institutions with regulatory, policymaking and enforcement tasks
C14. L118, adapt needs to be ‘adapting’ because ‘assessing’ was used earlier in the sentence and measuring is used later.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been included in the improved version of the manuscript. The changes are shown in blue color:
It implies assessing the criteria and indicators from the theoretical frame of the method, adapting them to local particularities and empirically measuring different documentary information and forest stakeholders’ perceptions against the adapted criteria
C15. L120-121: The sentence “this paper is assessment only the performance of the forest management institutions, leaving the authority institutions beside.” is poorly written. Please rewrite. Other sentences in this paragraph seem repetitious. Please rewrite the paragraph.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have rewritten the whole paragraph for more clarity. The changes are given in blue in the improved version of the manuscript:
This paper is assessing the performance of the forest management institutions, responsible for managing state-owned forests. The authority state institutions are not the object of the study. In Nepal, state-owned forests are managed by CFUGs therefore these institutions were evaluated in the study. Because all the CFUGs are operating under the same technical and regulatory frame to achieve sustainable forest management goals and because they have a strong national level network, CFUGs were considered as the state forest management institution for this study.
C16. L230-234: rewrite the sentences without ‘we’ as the subject. Are you authors going to extract millions of cubic feet of timber? Perhaps: “One government report shows that more than 4.5 million cubic feet of timber could potentially be sold annual from community forests, but due to passive forest management, only 0.5 million cubic feet of timber is extracted. “
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have changed the text as indicated in the improved version of the manuscript.
C 17. P449: the use of the word “consecrated” is always in a religious context, of something being sacred. Models in this context are not sacred nor religious. Use a different term.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. Indeed, the term is not the proper one. We have replaced it with the term established. The change is given in the text in blue:
The Stevanov and Krott [14] 3L causative model is an established model for evaluating the performance of state forest management institution. Using this model for assessing the performance of CF as state-owned forest management institution in Nepal needed some adaptations in terms of used indicators due to particular conditions of the Nepalese forestry sector, thus proving the flexibility of the model and contributing to its global application.
C18. L454: use “led” instead of “leaded”
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have made the indicated change, with blue in the improved version of the manuscript:
Nepalese unique institutional frame – especially the role of CF in managing state-owned forests – led to somehow different results from other countries as there are fundamental differences in the nature of forest management institution.
C19. Research publications recommend, they do not prescribe. Please rewrite sentences that use the word “should” or “must” unnecessarily. P486: “At the same time, barriers in forest product specific value chain need to be identified and removed” P489-491: “Contents of such a fundamental document include the forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing plans.”
Answer: Thank you for the suggestions. We have changed the text (with blue in the improved version of the manuscript) to correct the indicated issues:
At the same time, removing the present barriers in forest product value chain will be helpful to increase the commercialization. Our study recommends removing taxes and fees to multiple governmental levels, thus expanding the forest product chain.
FMPs are the fundamental document for managing the forest resources. These plans, with clear objectives for forest resources management approaches and silvicultural methods, forest product marketing strategies, management of ecosystem services and benefit sharing schemes, promotes sustainable forest management. This study recommends developing FMPs by including multiple management goals to utilize the multi-functionality of the forests and to maximize the benefits from the forest.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I have no objection to the revised version of the manuscript. I recommend publishing it. Congratulations.
Author Response
C1. Dear authors, have no objection to the revised version of the manuscript. I recommend publishing it. Congratulations.
Answer: Thank you for your constructive feedbacks during the review process.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for the changes they made. There are still language issues, such as in line 51, “clear proves of success”. Not sure what that means. Line 80 – Nepal’s new constitution, not Nepal new.
Line 63, the section heading “2.1 research object”: this section is not about research objectives, it is more about a background of “forestry sector governance in Nepal”. I suggested using that phrase as the title of the section.
Rereading the results section, it continues to be unclear why section 3.1 is labeled results, as well as labeled Nepal Forest Policy Goals even though it seems more like “History of Nepal’s National Forest Policy”. This section is largely historical, and provides context. It would better fit in the materials and methods to help explain the background for the Table 1. Figure 2 labels what was called Criteria in Table 1 as “national forestry goals”. I can see they may be both goals and criteria, but then say so in that section. Consider again either moving section 3.1 out of results because they are not results, moving it between sections 2.1 and 2.2 would make sense, or perhaps 2.2 and 2.3 would make sense as well.
Given the only recent adoption of these criteria in Nepal forest policy, no wonder the results in Figure 2 show little progress, and little progress is noted in places in the Discussion. I imagine the previous policies focused on CF as being speakers for forestry and mediator of interests in forests, since those scores are the highest? It seems like important factors to raise in the discussion that Nepal has only had the new goals in the last five years or so, which is not a lot of time to show progress, especially for the new goals.
Lastly, the study still does not say why L136: “the authority state institutions are not the object of the study”, when the aim of the study is to L55-57: “assess the performance of CF as a forest management institution in the context of national forest policy and in the frame of sustainable forest management”. In Figure 1, there appears to be no connection between the top row of national policy and legislation and the rest of the forestry sector organizational structure. This indicates no connection between national level and provincial levels. This study is trying to assess the performance of CF in the context of national forest policy, but the figure seems to be indicating there is no organizational connection. Is there a different type of connection between national and provincial? If there is no connection, then it is unclear how to assess the performance in the context of a not connected national policy.
I like that the conclusions include a summary listing of recommendations. It would be useful if all recommendations are listed there. For example, L509-510 indicates the study recommends removing taxes and fees to multiple governmental levels, thus expanding the forest product chain.” It is unclear in that this recommendation is included in the conclusions. For convenience and understanding of the reader, please include a comprehensive summary list of recommendations in the conclusions.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 (modifications are made in Orange in the revised manuscript)
C1. I thank the authors for the changes they made. There are still language issues, such as in line 51, “clear proves of success”. Not sure what that means. Line 80 – Nepal’s new constitution, not Nepal new.
Answer: Thank you for the comment and the suggestions.
The text in line 51 is re-written and shown in Orange color in the improved version of the manuscript: Despite the achievements in reducing deforestation and providing basic forest products to local users….
The text in line 80 is re-written and shown in Orange color as : The new constitution of Nepal
C2. Line 63, the section heading “2.1 research object”: this section is not about research objectives, it is more about a background of “forestry sector governance in Nepal”. I suggested using that phrase as the title of the section.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. The text has been changed and shown in orange color as 2.1. Forestry Sector Governance in Nepal.
C3. Rereading the results section, it continues to be unclear why section 3.1 is labeled results, as well as labeled Nepal Forest Policy Goals even though it seems more like “History of Nepal’s National Forest Policy”. This section is largely historical, and provides context. It would better fit in the materials and methods to help explain the background for the Table 1. Figure 2 labels what was called Criteria in Table 1 as “national forestry goals”. I can see they may be both goals and criteria, but then say so in that section. Consider again either moving section 3.1 out of results because they are not results, moving it between sections 2.1 and 2.2 would make sense, or perhaps 2.2 and 2.3 would make sense as well.
Answer: Thank you for your comments and suggestion. We have implemented all of them this time:
- Section 3.1. become section 2.2., with orange in the improved version of the manuscript.
- In table 1 and also in the caption for figure 2 we have made some additions (in orange in the improved version of the manuscript) in order to clarify the relationship between forest policy goals and criteria.
C4. Given the only recent adoption of these criteria in Nepal forest policy, no wonder the results in Figure 2 show little progress, and little progress is noted in places in the Discussion. I imagine the previous policies focused on CF as being speakers for forestry and mediator of interests in forests, since those scores are the highest? It seems like important factors to raise in the discussion that Nepal has only had the new goals in the last five years or so, which is not a lot of time to show progress, especially for the new goals.
Answer: Thank you so much for the critical reflection. Community forestry has a long history of more than a three decade. The initial goal of community forestry program was to reduce the deforestation in the hills and provide the basic forest products to the local users, protecting the forest. The community-based conservation approach was very much successful in reducing the deforestation and managing the forest resources. Since then many polices, legislations and guidelines have been formulated to guide the path for community forestry. Based on your suggestion we have added the following sentence in the discussion section (in orange in the improved version of the manuscript.
These rather low scores for economic performance may also be explain by the fact that the new policy is only in place for the last years, giving not enough time for the CF to adapt.
C5. Lastly, the study still does not say why L136: “the authority state institutions are not the object of the study”, when the aim of the study is to L55-57: “assess the performance of CF as a forest management institution in the context of national forest policy and in the frame of sustainable forest management”.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. In this case CF, which are the local community-based institutions and have the legal rights to manage the state-owned forest resources are taken into account. CFUGs only have the management rights and authority rights is not associated with them. In Evaluating the State Forest institutions, we can evaluate both the institutions with management role and authority role. In this specific case only the institutions with management role are considered, as this study is focused on community forestry. For the next round of study it would be interesting to study the performance of state authority institutions.
C6. In Figure 1, there appears to be no connection between the top row of national policy and legislation and the rest of the forestry sector organizational structure. This indicates no connection between national level and provincial levels. This study is trying to assess the performance of CF in the context of national forest policy, but the figure seems to be indicating there is no organizational connection. Is there a different type of connection between national and provincial? If there is no connection, then it is unclear how to assess the performance in the context of a not connected national policy.
Answer: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. In the case of Institutional Frame as shown in figure 1 we would like to explain the specific case of Nepal:
- After the New constitution in 2015 AD Nepal has gone through the administrative reform from central government system to federal government system. There are three different layers of government : federal government, provincial government, and local government.
- In the Case of forest management, the right for management of state forests has been transferred to provincial government. CF are now under provincial governments, which were previously under central government.
- Central (federal) government formulates the policies and legislations for the whole country, based on which provincial and local government formulates their policies.
- In the case of forestry sector, Provincial governments formulate polices based on the national polices formulated by federal government.
- So, there is no direct arrow between federal government and provincial government in the figure. Only the dotted line is shown as, provincial government is not directly ruled by central government but they need to adapt their policies to national guiding lines.
Consequently, for clarity, we added the following sentence in the section 2.1. Forestry Sector and Governance in Nepal (in orange in the improved version of the manuscript:
Provincial governments formulate adapted polices based on the national polices formulated by federal government.
C7. I like that the conclusions include a summary listing of recommendations. It would be useful if all recommendations are listed there. For example, L509-510 indicates the study recommends removing taxes and fees to multiple governmental levels, thus expanding the forest product chain.” It is unclear in that this recommendation is included in the conclusions. For convenience and understanding of the reader, please include a comprehensive summary list of recommendations in the conclusions.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. We have completed the list of recommendations in the conclusions by adding the following text (in orange in the improved version of the manuscript):
Remove taxes and fees to multiple governmental levels for promoting the business activities and expanding the forest product chain.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
