1.1 Scope of forest resources in the Paris Agreement and NDCs

Although major discussions and responses on climate change are skewed towards the mitigation potential of forests, the essence of Article 5.2 of the Paris Agreement is that climate change adaptation and other ecological functions of forests should proceed in an integrated manner with mitigation goals (UNFCCC, 2015). Climate change actions targeting forest resources, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries (REDD+), cannot be stand-alone initiatives but should contribute and complement mitigation, conservation, livelihood support, and building resilience while minimizing risks and vulnerability. Major declarations such as the Paris Agreement, New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), Global Forest Goals (GFGs) and Targets under the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Aichi Biodiversity Targets have well-acknowledged this viewpoint (CBD, 2010; IUCN & ForestAction, 2020; UN, 2014; UN, 2015; UN, 2017; UNFCCC, 2015).

Article 5.2 of the Paris Agreement stipulates the importance of forest-related climate action. The article asks Parties to take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of GHG such as through REDD+. Further, the PA also gives a clear signal by stressing joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is another important feature of the Paris Agreement. Countries are to undertake and communicate ambitious NDCs as the global response to climate change for achieving the purpose of the agreement. NDCs adopt a bottom-up process that allows countries to submit their commitments. It is a pragmatic solution for setting realistic ambitions and ensuring effective implementation, as countries are free to decide on the content, process and timeline of intended climate action that they will take. NDCs will guide climate action and thus constitute the main vehicle for implementing, tracking and communicating progress made by each country.

The commitments expressed in many NDCs by individual countries have prominently featured forest or forest ecosystems (IUCN et al., 2020). The submitted NDCs recognize mitigation and adaptation contributions of the forest sector mostly emphasizing coordinated responses. In 165 NDCs examined, forest sector-related targets on mitigation and adaptation were submitted by 156 and 93 countries, respectively (IUCN et al., 2020). For instance, Indonesia’s NDCs view mitigation and adaptation as an integrated concept, such as by reducing deforestation and forest degradation, ecosystem conservation/restoration or integrated watershed management, for achieving food, water, energy security and building resilience (GoI, 2016). Nepal’s NDCs emphasize developing “mitigation-friendly forest management systems” and enhancing carbon sequestration through sustainable management of forests, programmes reducing emissions from forest areas, as well as adaptation-friendly community-based forest and climate-resilient watershed management (GoN/MoPE, 2016). The NDCs highlight building climate-resilient watersheds, making community-based forests climate adaptation-friendly, and designing and implementing community adaptation plans of action (CAPAs) based on forest and non-forest benefits.

1.2 Addressing capacity gaps for translating NDCs’ commitments into actions on the ground

Despite significant improvements in policy, such as establishing mechanisms for REDD+, concrete measures to integrate climate action on the ground are yet to gain traction in the absence of meaningful participation of the concerned stakeholders such as community forestry (Cadman, Maraseni, Ma, & Lopez-Casero, 2017). Participation does not imply inviting stakeholders or filling quorum for consultations (Bastakoti & Davidsen, 2016; Cadman et al., 2017). Rather, it interweaves deeper into capacity barriers at the community level such as fully understanding the roles, responsibilities, costs and benefits involved in participation, and the ability to make informed decisions to safeguard core interest and resource sustainability (Maraseni et al., 2020). Inadequate readiness at the community level hampers the whole prospect of implementing NDCs through sustainable forest management.

The existing gap between policy and action has resulted in resources being concentrated in the upper echelons of the policy community and largely unavailable at the local level, where capacity building is needed the most (Cadman et al., 2017). For instance, gaps between international requirements for monitoring climate actions (such as MRV of REDD+) and the existing forest monitoring systems (such as the community level) can seriously hamper the implementation of planned climate action at the community level (Dhungana, Poudel, & Bhandari, 2018). Governments need to pay adequate attention by allocating proper resources to fill capacity gaps and thus, ensure meaningful participation at the local level, such as Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), to implement NDCs and mainstream their efforts into the broader national and international processes. For that, it is crucial to fully understand the key capacity gaps and enable CFUGs to make informed decisions.

This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for capacity building in community forestry, such as CFUGs, targeting the effective implementation of NDC’s adaptation and mitigation commitments. It builds largely on the observations and findings from a capacity building needs assessment (CBNA) at multi-levels conducted in five provinces of Nepal in 2019 and 2020. We expect that the recommendations will be useful for designing capacity building activities at the community forestry level to implement relevant NDC commitments not only in Nepal but also other counties.

3.1 Capacity Building Needs Assessment (CBNA) at community forestry level

Community-based forest management (CBFM) is a participatory approach to managing forests under the autonomy vested to forest users (i.e. stewards) as opposed to centralized control of forest management by the government. It includes formalized customary and indigenous processes as well as government-led initiatives covering social, economic and conservation dimensions in a range of activities (FAO, 2016). Communities can play a significant role in sustainable forest management when they are empowered to participate in decision-making and equitable benefit sharing (RECOFTC, 2013). In the past four decades, CBFM regimes encompassed an estimated 732 million hectares, which is about 28% of the forests in the 62 countries or 65% of the world’s forests cover (FAO, 2016). Effectiveness of CBFM is evident by its increasing coverage throughout the Asia-Pacific region such as Nepal, Viet Nam, Myanmar, China, the Philippines and many other countries (Feurer, Gritten, & Than, 2018; RECOFTC, 2013).

Nepal is considered a pioneer for successfully implementing CBFM (MOFE, 2019). Local communities under different CBFM regimes (e.g., community, collaborative or leasehold forestry) plan and manage over one-third of the forest area (MOFE, 2018). The Forest Act provides clarity on the tenure rights of the community forestry regime. As a result, CBFM has been quite successful in its core objectives for resource conservation and maintaining a supply of fodder, timber and fuelwood along with the flow of environmental and cultural services (Aryal, Laudari, & Ojha, 2020). However, as identified in the workshops, the reliance of community forestry on traditional or indigenous management practices has been unable to tap the full potential of forests to meet current needs, including climate change actions. This means that it can be challenging to ensure the full involvement of CFUGs in market-based mechanisms, such as REDD+, due to the lack of capacity in understanding the technicalities of opportunities and risks from climate change or concerns over safeguarding existing rights of CFUGs (Dhungana et al., 2018).

The integration of climate change into CFUGs governance regime is indispensable to address risks, tap into opportunities and build resilience. Forest management needs a more active and outcome-oriented approach to address livelihood expectations, contribute climate change solutions and ensure sustainability.

One basic question at the CUFGs level in Nepal is the state of preparedness to undertake reforms for contributing to NDCs commitments. The CBNA found a significant gap in understanding about the nature of involvement and incentives for integrating climate change action into the community forestry regime (Figure 2).

First, there was a need for communicating the NDCs commitments and relevant government policy and actions to CFUGs at regular intervals. CFUGs are unable to assess risks and opportunities resulting from major policy developments at the national and international levels as such information rarely reaches them. It is often hard for them to assess their role and responsibilities or incentives (benefits, support, recognition of efforts) to implement NDCs.

The second gap is on the process and scope of implementation. Targeted programmes on climate change, such as REDD+, tend to stress the carbon benefits more than other issues such as social and environmental safeguards, adaptation co-benefits and other livelihood concerns, which in principle are fully integrated into REDD+ design.

The third gap relates to monitoring and assessment. Programmes related to REDD+ involve a rigorous process of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of sinks and emissions, which require extra resources and effort by communities to secure performance-based payment. In addition to carbon benefits, communities need to monitor and assess climate change impacts on forests, adaptation outcomes, the quality of governance and other non-carbon indicators related to sustainable forest management. Without adequate capacity and incentives, these requirements would simply add layers of burden to the existing forest management tasks.

The fourth gap is in the planning and implementation of climate action. This requires building technical, financial, infrastructure, human resources and institutional capacities to administer climate action transparently. Communities need to upgrade their capacity to facilitate coordination, communication and negotiation with external parties (both private and public sources offering support in the form of finance, technology, or skills). CBNA workshops identify that incorporating climate change components (mitigation and adaptation) into forest management needs careful consideration of issues on equitable benefit sharing and additional incentives for motivating CFUGs participation.

In addition to the capacities mentioned above, the participants in CBNA workshops also identified additional issues faced by CFUGs such as rising socio-economic expectations under modern lifestyles, migration, market forces (timber and non-timber products) and land-use dynamics. These non-climatic issues reflect the concern that the design and implementation of climate change-related actions need a synergistic approach to ensure the overall sustainability of SES.

3.1.1 Comprehensive framework for capacity building at the community forestry level

In order to address the identified capacity gaps, a much broader objective for ensuring sustainable forest management (SFM) as well as addressing climate change concerns is needed. SFM is a dynamic concept that aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations (FAO, 2020). SFM involves the application of the best available practices based on current scientific and traditional knowledge, including effective and accountable governance, that allows multiple objectives and needs to be met without degrading the forest resource and while safeguarding the rights of forest-dependent peoples (ITTO, 2015).

SFM could be the overarching concept for community forestry to follow for the effective implementation of NDCs commitments while achieving a resilient SES. Elements of SFM are comprehensive and cover state (resources, biodiversity, health and vitality), functions (production, protection and socio-economic) and enabling conditions for management (legal, policy and institutional framework) (FAO, 2020). The broad scope of SFM signifies that it must be flexible and constantly adaptive to stay relevant and useful according to stakeholders needs, values, resources, institutions and technologies (ITTO, 2015). Because of the dynamic, multidimensional, multipurpose and multiuse framing of SFM, major assessment reports (i.e. IPCC, IPBES) or agreements/decisions (Paris Agreement, SDG15, the NYDF, GFG, Aichi Targets, etc.) frequently stress the need for its adoption and application. SFM can reduce the extent of forest conversion to non-forest uses (e.g. cropland or settlements) by providing long-term livelihoods for communities, while ensuring timber, fibre, biomass, non-timber resources and other ecosystem functions and services, lowering GHG emissions and contributing to adaptation (IPCC, 2019). SFM is one of the key pillars of REDD+ action that can help integrate and optimise carbon and non-carbon benefits. For instance, SFM allows transferring carbon to wood products, which addresses the issue of mitigation from biomass for energy (where burning releases CO₂ back into the atmosphere) and sink saturation in mature forest stands (IPCC, 2019).

Given this background and identified capacity gaps, we propose a comprehensive framework for capacity building that would enable achievement of NDCs commitment through SFM, as shown in Figure 3.

The proposed framework consists of two parts: assessment of SFM outcomes and integrated planning and implementation. Assessment mainly covers outcomes resulting from SFM incorporating mitigation, adaptation and quality of governance. Here, the assessment of the quality of governance helps to cement the integrity of actions by ensuring transparency, participation and institutional coordination. The integrated planning and implementation (IP&I) part addresses the capacity gaps by putting in place appropriate arrangements to implement climate and non-climate action in an adaptive manner. IP&I consolidates overlapping indicators for an integrated assessment, and it can help to determine the level of coordination. IP&I can also identify resources and capacity (both available and what’s needed) from external sources, and encourage adaptive planning and implementation based on the evaluation of key performance indicators.

3.2 Capacity building for the integrated assessment of SFM outcomes

Assessment is critical for examining progress on NDCs implementation, identifying challenges, and for prioritizing actions. It can be the basis to enhance ambitions or to justify requests for external support. Communities can use scientifically verifiable data generated from the assessment to identify effective forest management options and report contributions to government including requests for support or result-based payments (such as REDD+). During CBNA, the involvement of communities in the assessment was found as a critical capacity gap towards improving decision-making, both internally and when dealing with outsiders.

3.3 Integrated planning and implementation

An IP&I is indispensable to incorporate additional actions related to SFM, climate action and governance. IP&I will help in assessing the resources needed to allocate division of roles and responsibilities and identify needed external support for finance, technology and capacity development.

Since a participatory approach is key for IP&I, a mapping of all stakeholders involved is key for effective coordination. Communities should objectively conduct stakeholder mapping to allocate appropriate roles and responsibilities based on capacity, position and benefit/burden-sharing, which is also useful in examining the level of coordination required both horizontally and vertically.

Implementation of SFM activities and climate action necessitate substantial human, financial, technical and institutional resources and capacity. Communities, therefore, need to plan their activities using available resources and capacity. The assessment helps to identify resources and capacity gaps and hence determine the feasibility of planned measures. Furthermore, it helps to build a strategy for seeking external support from government and non-government sources based on actual need. This strategy can significantly help communities to decide what kind of support to receive and what to decline.

IP&I of SFM, mitigation, adaptation or governance is an adaptive process that involves continuous learning and improvement. An iterative approach like a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check and Act) cycle can be used. Although PDCA appears as an additional part of the planning process, the objective here is to prioritize action that communities can accomplish with the resources and capacity available to them. The focus is on gradual improvement in the performance of the PDCA cycle in the current year, although this is guided by long-term vision, goals and objectives. A stepwise approach provides valuable learning opportunities to communities, which is fundamental for adaptive planning.