森林文化的疯狂:尼泊尔社区森林“科学林业”倡议的一个案例

B. Basnyat, T. Treue, R. Pokharel
{"title":"森林文化的疯狂:尼泊尔社区森林“科学林业”倡议的一个案例","authors":"B. Basnyat, T. Treue, R. Pokharel","doi":"10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following a case study approach, this paper explains how scientific forest management plans were developed and implemented in community forests of a mid-hill district in Nepal. Field observations were carried over a period of two years (December 2014 to December 2016) in two community forests. User group members, forest officials, forest technicians and executive committee members were consulted. The plans were prepared simply by compiling the administrative requirements where management prescriptions were defined either based on forest technicians’ knowledge or taken directly from the guidelines with little reference to the actual site quality, management objectives, and forest stand conditions. Apart from harvesting of trees, users hardly implemented the plans’ silvicultural prescriptions and forest restoration activities. Moreover, forest officials administratively reduced the number of trees that users could harvest to around half of what the plans allow. Accordingly, forest user groups face a paradoxical forest administration that promotes timber harvesting according to so-called scientific principles, which it then brushes aside to satisfy bureaucratic demands. The study concludes that the concept of scientific forestry is merely used as a “brand” or a seemingly sound “narrative” in community forestry, while it is of little practical relevance because administrative decisions are more powerful in guiding forest management decisions. Hence, the study suggests a replacement of the current schizophrenic mix of so-called “scientific forest management” and sweeping administrative orders with adaptive management practices in community forests. Banko JanakariA Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal Special Issue No. 4, 2018, Page : 54-64","PeriodicalId":89659,"journal":{"name":"Banko janakari","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Silvicultural madness: a case from the “Scientific Forestry” initiative in the community forests of Nepal\",\"authors\":\"B. Basnyat, T. Treue, R. Pokharel\",\"doi\":\"10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Following a case study approach, this paper explains how scientific forest management plans were developed and implemented in community forests of a mid-hill district in Nepal. Field observations were carried over a period of two years (December 2014 to December 2016) in two community forests. User group members, forest officials, forest technicians and executive committee members were consulted. The plans were prepared simply by compiling the administrative requirements where management prescriptions were defined either based on forest technicians’ knowledge or taken directly from the guidelines with little reference to the actual site quality, management objectives, and forest stand conditions. Apart from harvesting of trees, users hardly implemented the plans’ silvicultural prescriptions and forest restoration activities. Moreover, forest officials administratively reduced the number of trees that users could harvest to around half of what the plans allow. Accordingly, forest user groups face a paradoxical forest administration that promotes timber harvesting according to so-called scientific principles, which it then brushes aside to satisfy bureaucratic demands. The study concludes that the concept of scientific forestry is merely used as a “brand” or a seemingly sound “narrative” in community forestry, while it is of little practical relevance because administrative decisions are more powerful in guiding forest management decisions. Hence, the study suggests a replacement of the current schizophrenic mix of so-called “scientific forest management” and sweeping administrative orders with adaptive management practices in community forests. Banko JanakariA Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal Special Issue No. 4, 2018, Page : 54-64\",\"PeriodicalId\":89659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Banko janakari\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Banko janakari\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Banko janakari","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/BANKO.V27I3.20542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

本文采用案例研究的方法,解释了科学的森林管理计划是如何在尼泊尔一个半山地区的社区森林中制定和实施的。在两个群落森林中进行了为期两年(2014年12月至2016年12月)的实地观测。咨询了用户小组成员、森林官员、森林技术人员和执行委员会成员。这些计划只是通过汇编行政要求来编制的,其中管理规定是根据森林技术人员的知识或直接从指南中制定的,很少参考实际的场地质量、管理目标和林分条件。除了采伐树木外,使用者几乎没有执行该计划的造林规定和森林恢复活动。此外,林业官员在行政上将用户可以收获的树木数量减少到计划允许的一半左右。因此,森林使用者群体面临着一个自相矛盾的森林管理局,该局根据所谓的科学原则促进木材采伐,然后为了满足官僚要求而置之不理。该研究得出结论,科学林业的概念在社区林业中仅被用作一个“品牌”或一个看似合理的“叙事”,而它几乎没有实际意义,因为行政决策在指导森林管理决策方面更为有力。因此,该研究建议用社区森林的适应性管理实践来取代目前所谓的“科学森林管理”和全面行政命令的精神分裂混合。Banko JanakariA《尼泊尔林业信息杂志》2018年第4期,第54-64页
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Silvicultural madness: a case from the “Scientific Forestry” initiative in the community forests of Nepal
Following a case study approach, this paper explains how scientific forest management plans were developed and implemented in community forests of a mid-hill district in Nepal. Field observations were carried over a period of two years (December 2014 to December 2016) in two community forests. User group members, forest officials, forest technicians and executive committee members were consulted. The plans were prepared simply by compiling the administrative requirements where management prescriptions were defined either based on forest technicians’ knowledge or taken directly from the guidelines with little reference to the actual site quality, management objectives, and forest stand conditions. Apart from harvesting of trees, users hardly implemented the plans’ silvicultural prescriptions and forest restoration activities. Moreover, forest officials administratively reduced the number of trees that users could harvest to around half of what the plans allow. Accordingly, forest user groups face a paradoxical forest administration that promotes timber harvesting according to so-called scientific principles, which it then brushes aside to satisfy bureaucratic demands. The study concludes that the concept of scientific forestry is merely used as a “brand” or a seemingly sound “narrative” in community forestry, while it is of little practical relevance because administrative decisions are more powerful in guiding forest management decisions. Hence, the study suggests a replacement of the current schizophrenic mix of so-called “scientific forest management” and sweeping administrative orders with adaptive management practices in community forests. Banko JanakariA Journal of Forestry Information for Nepal Special Issue No. 4, 2018, Page : 54-64
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信