Nepal, a country renowned for its rich biodiversity and Himalayan landscapes, faced significant deforestation challenges in the mid-20th century. By the 1950s and 1960s, extensive timber extraction, land conversion for agriculture, and population pressures had reduced forest cover dramatically FAO. (2000). To address this, Nepal initiated systematic forest planning in the early 1960s, with notable efforts during the Second Five Year Plan (1963–1965) (CBS., 2022). These afforestation activities aimed to restore degraded lands and promote sustainable forest management. However, the choice of tree species, particularly the emphasis on monoculture plantations, had unintended ecological consequences, including the displacement of wildlife and increased human-wildlife conflicts Ghimire, & Chalise (2019).
Historical context
Nepal’s forest management history is marked by shifting policies. Before 1957, forests were largely controlled by landlords who managed them for timber, often for railway sleepers (Ghimire & Chalise, 2019). The Forest Nationalization Act of 1957 and 1961 brought forests under state control, followed by the Forest Act of 1961, which aimed to protect and conserve forest resources (Kanel, n.d.). However, these policies initially failed, leading to widespread deforestation during the 1960s and 1970s. The Second Five Year Plan (1963–1965) introduced large-scale plantation activities, including surveys of natural resources, forest management plans, and afforestation to increase forest production. While these efforts laid the groundwork for later successes, such as community forestry in the 1970s, they were not entirely effective at the time and had ecological drawbacks (Kanel, & Kandel, (2004).
Afforestation efforts in the 1960s
The afforestation campaign during the Second Five Year Plan was part of Nepal’s broader strategy to reverse deforestation. Systematic forest planning began in the early 1960s, focusing on:
- Large-scale tree planting in degraded areas.
- Surveys of natural resources to identify suitable planting sites.
- Development of forest management plans for selected districts.
- Construction of fire-lines and forest roads to support forest management.
- Promotion of forest-based industries to enhance economic benefits.
These activities were driven by the need to restore forest cover lost to timber extraction, agricultural expansion, and population growth. However, no specific named campaign from the 1960s is well-documented, suggesting that afforestation was integrated into national forest planning rather than a standalone initiative. The efforts were supported by government and donor agencies, but early attempts were largely unsuccessful, paving the way for the participatory community forestry model introduced in the late 1970s.
Trees planted
The trees planted during the 1960s afforestation efforts were primarily native species, selected based on Nepal’s diverse ecological zones, which range from tropical lowlands to alpine highlands (Government of Nepal 2002).
A significant oversight in the 1960s afforestation efforts was the limited planting of fruit-bearing trees. Instead, the focus was on monoculture plantations, particularly pine species, which are fast-growing and suitable for degraded lands. Pines were likely chosen for their ability to stabilize soil and provide quick forest cover, aligning with the immediate goal of reversing deforestation. However, pines do not produce fruit, which had profound ecological consequences.
Research indicates that monoculture pine plantations fail to provide the wild fruit and other food sources that wildlife, such as monkeys, rely on. Additionally, pine canopies block sunlight, preventing undergrowth vegetation from flourishing, creating “green deserts” with low biodiversity. This lack of food and habitat diversity forced wildlife to seek sustenance in human settlements, exacerbating human-wildlife conflicts. The preference for pines over fruit-bearing species like mango, lychee, or guava, which could have supported both wildlife and local communities, likely stemmed from a focus on rapid reforestation rather than ecological balance (Pokharel, n.d.).
Ecological and social impacts
The absence of fruit-bearing trees in the 1960s afforestation efforts had significant ecological and social repercussions. Wildlife, particularly monkeys, were displaced from forests due to the lack of food sources, leading them to raid crops and settlements. This increased human-wildlife conflicts, a challenge that persists in Nepal today. The monoculture approach also reduced biodiversity, as pine plantations limited the growth of understory plants and other tree species, impacting the broader ecosystem.
The focus on pines created forests that were less resilient and less supportive of Nepal’s rich biodiversity, which includes over 1,240 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with nearly 70 species threatened (Shrestha et al., 1999). The “green deserts” resulting from pine plantations underscored the need for more diverse planting strategies, a lesson that later informed Nepal’s successful community forestry programs.
Lessons learned
The 1960s afforestation efforts, while well-intentioned, highlighted the importance of ecological diversity in reforestation. The shift to community forestry in the late 1970s, formalized by the Forest Act of 1993, addressed some of these shortcomings by empowering local communities to manage forests and prioritize diverse species. Modern projects, such as those led by environmentalists, include fruit-bearing trees like mango and lychee to support both wildlife and livelihoods.
Today, Nepal’s forest cover has nearly doubled, from 26% in 1992 to 45% in 2016, largely due to community forestry and out-migration reducing pressure on forests FAO. (2020). However, the legacy of the 1960s monoculture plantations serves as a reminder of the need for balanced reforestation strategies that consider wildlife needs and biodiversity.
Conclusion
Nepal’s afforestation campaign in the 1960s, part of the Second Five Year Plan, was a critical step toward addressing deforestation. By planting native species like khair, sissoo, sal, pines, oaks, and rhododendrons, the campaign aimed to restore forest cover. However, the reliance on monoculture pines, which do not bear fruit, led to the displacement of wildlife, particularly monkeys, into human settlements, increasing conflicts. This oversight underscores the importance of incorporating fruit-bearing trees and diverse species in reforestation efforts to support both ecological balance and human communities. As Nepal continues to lead in community-based forest management, the lessons from the 1960s remain relevant for sustainable environmental stewardship.
The campaign sought to restore degraded forest cover, stabilize soil, and protect watersheds critical for agriculture and hydropower. By planting native species such as khair (Acacia catechu), sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo), sal (Shorea robusta), pines (Pinus spp.), oaks (Quercus spp.), and rhododendrons (Rhododendron spp.), the initiative aimed to rebuild ecosystems while supporting local livelihoods dependent on forest resources like timber, fuelwood, and fodder.
However, a significant flaw in the campaign was the heavy reliance on monoculture plantations, particularly fast-growing pine species. Pines, while effective for quick reforestation and erosion control due to their adaptability and rapid growth, do not produce fruit or edible resources for wildlife. This oversight had profound ecological consequences, particularly for fruit-dependent species like monkeys, bats, and birds. Forests dominated by pines lacked the diverse food sources—fruits, nuts, and seeds—provided by species like figs (Ficus spp.), wild mangoes (Mangifera indica), or jamun (Syzygium cumini), which are critical for sustaining wildlife populations. As a result, animals, notably rhesus macaques and langurs, were displaced from their natural habitats, forced to seek food in agricultural fields and human settlements. This led to increased human-wildlife conflicts, with crop raiding and property damage becoming persistent issues in rural communities, straining relations between conservation efforts and local populations.
The absence of fruit-bearing trees in these reforestation efforts disrupted the ecological balance. Forests are complex ecosystems where biodiversity thrives on interdependence. Fruit-bearing trees not only provide sustenance but also facilitate seed dispersal, as animals like monkeys and birds spread seeds through their movement and droppings, promoting natural forest regeneration. Without these trees, the food web weakened, affecting herbivores, omnivores, and even predators reliant on diverse prey. The monoculture approach also reduced habitat suitability for pollinators and insects, further limiting the ecosystem’s resilience.
Nepal’s experience highlights the critical need to prioritize fruit-bearing and diverse native species in reforestation. Trees like banyan, pipal, amla (Phyllanthus emblica), and bel (Aegle marmelos) support wildlife while offering cultural and economic value to communities. Diverse forests are more resilient to pests, diseases, and climate variability, unlike monocultures, which are vulnerable to blight and wildfires, as seen in pine-dominated regions. Incorporating fruit-bearing trees would have retained wildlife within forests, reducing their migration into human areas and mitigating conflicts.
Nepal’s community-based forest management, now globally recognized, evolved partly from these lessons. Today, programs emphasize mixed-species planting and ecological restoration, balancing human needs with biodiversity conservation. For instance, community forests in the Terai and mid-hills integrate fruit-bearing species to support wildlife and provide non-timber forest products, enhancing local incomes. The 1960s campaign underscores that reforestation must go beyond tree cover to foster ecosystems that sustain wildlife, prevent human-wildlife conflict, and ensure long-term environmental stewardship. As Nepal navigates climate change and habitat loss, prioritizing diverse, fruit-rich forests remains essential for ecological and social harmony.
Vidhu Prakash Kayastha holds PhD degree in Journalism and Mass Communication, and is a former Media and communication Officer in FAO Nepal.
Comment