Prospects for REDD+ Financing in Promoting Forest Sustainable Management in HKH

  • Shambhavi Basnet
  • Jagriti Chand
  • Shuvani Thapa
  • Bhaskar Singh Karky


Results based payment is the main instrument of REDD+ through which emission reduction activities are rewarded in HKH region. The principle of “additionality” is used in this process which means the incentives are rewarded to the forest managers for conserving forest areas, and, thus, mitigating climate change. Incentives for conserving forests are provided in an ex-post payment model, which is a challenge to countries receiving the payments. The establishment of community forest user groups (CFUGs) for the management and conservation of forests have made locals more accountable towards forests. The involvement of the private sector is equally vital in REDD+ by contributing to sustainable forest management and rural development. Hence, this chapter focuses on the prospects of REDD+ financing by adopting various mechanisms, analyzing the challenges in REDD+, encouraging the involvement of CFUGs and private sector through improved forest management system and addressing problems with the support of national policies.


REDD+ Community forestry management system Private sector Results-based payment Benefits 



Community Forest Management


Community Forest User Group


Convention of the Parties


Dalit Alliance for Natural Resources, Nepal


Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal


Forest Reference Emission Level


Greenhouse Gas


International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development


Monitoring, Reporting and Verification


Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities


Nepalese Rupees


Non-timber Forest Product


Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation, and the role of Conservation, Sustainable

Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon



Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice


tons of Carbon per Hectare


tons of Carbon dioxide


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


United States Dollar


Village Development Committee


  1. Binod, B.B. 2016. History of forestry and community forest in Nepal. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 2 (11): 424–439.Google Scholar
  2. Bluffstone, R.A., E. Somanathan, P. Jha, et al. 2018. Does collective action sequester carbon? Evidence from the Nepal Community Forestry Program. World Development 101: 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chipeta, M.E., and M. Joshi. 2001. The Private sector speaks: Investing in sustainable forest management, 303p. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  4. FCPF. 2018. Emission Reductions Program Document (ER–PD). People and forests—A Sustainable Forest Management-based Emission Reduction Program in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. Paris: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.Google Scholar
  5. Holloway, V., and E. Giandomenico. 2009. The history of REDD policy. Carbon Planet White paper. Adelaide.Google Scholar
  6. Joshi, M.R. 2017. Community forestry programs in Nepal and their effects on poorer households. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Scholar
  7. Kanel, K.R., and D.R. Niraula. 2017. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari 14 (1): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karky, B.S. 2008. The economics of reducing emissions from community managed forests in Nepal Himalaya. Enschede: University of Twente. Scholar
  9. Kipalu, P. 2011. Introducing the FCPF readiness package (R-package) and the carbon fund operational. Washington, DC: Bank Information Centre, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Koirala, P.N. 2007. Benefit sharing in Community Forests in Nepal. A case study in Makawanpur District of Nepal. (Doctoral and MSc dissertations). Wageningen: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  11. Logan-Hines, E., L. Goers, M. Evidente, et al. 2012. REDD+ policy options: Including forests in an international climate change agreement. Managing forest carbon in a changing climate, 357–376. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahanty, S., and J. Guernier. 2008. A fair share: sharing the benefits and costs of community-based forest management. Theme on understanding the benefits of the commons. Cheltenham: University of Gloucestershire.Google Scholar
  13. Maharjan, M.R., T.R. Dhakal, S.K. Thapa, et al. 2009. Improving the benefits to the poor from community forestry in the Churia region of Nepal. International Forestry Review 11 (2): 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maraseni, T.N., P.R. Neupane, F. Lopez-Casero, et al. 2014. An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community forests in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 136: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ministry of Forests and Environment (MFE). 2018. Community forestry. Department of Forests.
  16. Pandey, G.S., and B.R. Paudyall. 2015. Protecting forests, improving livelihoods—Community forestry in Nepal. FERN.
  17. Paudel, G., and R. Karki. 2013. REDD+ governance, benefit sharing and the community: Understanding REDD+ from stakeholders perspective in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 11 (2): 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Poudel, M., R. Thwaites, D. Race, et al. 2014. REDD+ and community forestry: Implications for local communities and forest management-a case study from Nepal. International Forestry Review 16 (1): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poudyal, B.H., G. Paudel, and H. Luintel. 2013. Enhancing REDD+ outcomes through improved governance of community forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 11 (2): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rai, R.K., M. Nepal, B.S. Karky, et al. 2017. Costs and benefits of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Nepal. ICIMOD Working Paper. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.Google Scholar
  21. RECOFTC. 2007. Sharing the wealth, improving the distribution of benefits and costs from community forestry: Policy and legal frameworks. Synthesis of discussions at the Second Community Forestry Forum, 21–22 March 2007, Bangkok, Thailand, RECOFTC.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenbach, D., J. Whittemore, and J. DeBoer. 2013. Community Forestry and REDD+ in Nepal. (Thesis). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  23. Subedi, B.P., P.L. Ghimire, A. Koontz, et al. 2014. Private sector involvement and investment in Nepal’s Forestry Sector: status, prospects and ways forward. Indonesia: Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme.Google Scholar
  24. The Red Desk. 2016. What is REDD+? the REDD desk.
  25. Timalsina, N., N. Bhattarai, B.S. Karky, et al. 2017. Contributions by the private sector to climate change mitigation: Lessons from the Plantec Coffee Estate in Nepal. ICIMOD working paper. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.Google Scholar
  26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2014. Key decisions relevant for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Decision booklet REDD+. Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC Secretariat.Google Scholar
  27. Wong, G., A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, et al. 2016. Results-based payments for REDD+: Lessons on finance, performance, and non-carbon benefits. Vol. 138. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shambhavi Basnet
    • 1
  • Jagriti Chand
    • 1
  • Shuvani Thapa
    • 1
  • Bhaskar Singh Karky
    • 1
  1. 1.International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)LalitpurNepal

Personalised recommendations