In recent years, worldwide forest resource degradation and its impact on biodiversity and global warming have attracted a great deal of attention of those involved in the forestry sector at the national and international level. Consequently, planners and policy makers are reconsidering forest policies, and an increasing number of projects have been launched in different parts of the world with the aim of linking conservation with economic development objectives.
theless, there has been little progress in effectively integrating local people_x0019_s economic development needs with forest resource conservation objectives. Project designers have been unable to come up with strategies and approaches that would enable them to translate the principles and concepts into effective on-the-ground action (Wells, 1995).
One of the main reasons is that most forestry projects have tended to mobilise their resources and efforts towards addressing the direct causes of forest degradation (e.g. conversion of forest lands to agriculture, collection of firewood and fodder by rural people, wildlife trade, etc.), rather than the less evident underlying reasons which actually drive the use of forest resources.
This paper attempts to provide an analytical framework to determine some of the underlying reasons for forest degradation by examining Nepal_x0019_s land use policies and practices in a historical context and from the perspective of different interest groups, or stakeholders, who are influenced by such policies. It is expected that this analytical framework may also be relevant for other countries facing similar forestry issues.
The paper is based on three arguments:
" First, although there are many stakeholders with their own social, economic and political goals, most policies relating to forest and other land uses are generally formulated in isolation, mostly by one stakeholder - the government - considering largely its own interests and goals.
" Second, analyses are generally made considering current policy and practices, which may have been the result of past policies and actions.
" Finally, most analyses generally concentrate on stated (expressed) objectives or interests, especially those of government policy and programmes, rather than the unstated objectives and interests which often drive the actions.
