Are forests becoming carbon warehouses?
As the world races toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, forests are increasingly being viewed not as living ecosystems but as carbon reservoirs capable of offsetting continued emissions elsewhere. In Nepal, where community forestry has long been celebrated for empowering local stewardship, the growing carbon market agenda raises an important question: Are forests becoming carbon warehouses?
Nepal’s community forestry is widely recognized as a successful example in participatory natural resource management. Since its formal expansion in the late 1970s and 1980s, forest user groups have played a central role in reversing forest degradation, through local stewardship, protection and sustainable use practices. Over time, this system of decentralized forest governance has contributed to a significant increase in forest cover, which now stands at about 46.08 percent of Nepal’s total land area. This success has largely been grounded in community ownership, and a social and livelihood-based relationship between village people and forests where forests are not only sources of carbon, but also of fodder, fuelwood, water regulation, cultural values and local resilience.
In recent years, Nepal has increasingly engaged with global carbon financing and REDD+ mechanisms as part of international climate mitigation efforts. In 2021, Nepal signed an Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) with the World Bank under the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), with the potential to receive up to $45m for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Tarai Arc Landscape by 2025. The agreement aims to support the reduction of around 9m tons of carbon dioxide emissions through improved forest management and conservation efforts. More recently, Nepal also entered into an agreement with the LEAF Coalition, becoming the first Asian country to participate in the initiative, with the possibility of receiving up to $55m through the sale of verified forest carbon credits. On paper, such mechanisms appear promising: forests are conserved, emissions are reduced, and communities and governments receive financial incentives in return for protecting carbon-rich landscapes. However, the realities and implications of carbon market mechanisms on the ground seem to be far more complex.
Carbon markets use very complex systems to measure, check and certify carbon savings. These processes need technical skills that many local forest-dependent communities may not have. As a result, forest management can become more controlled by experts, government officials and international organizations. This can reduce the role of local communities in making decisions about their own forests.
A forest may not qualify for carbon credits if it is not clearly shown that the conservation is caused by the project intervention. For instance, if a forest is already in good condition and there is no visible change after a project starts, it may not be rewarded under carbon market rules, even if local communities have protected it for many years. As a result, long-term conservation efforts by communities may get fewer benefits than places where recent changes are easier to measure and turn into carbon credits.
Similarly, fast-growing plantations may be favored over slow but ecologically rich natural forests and regeneration processes because they can accumulate measurable carbon more rapidly, leading to “industrial monoculture”. Areas with higher carbon storage potential may also receive greater policy and financial attention, even when they are not necessarily the most important for biodiversity conservation, local livelihoods or cultural relationships with forests.
At the same time, carbon-focused conservation models may introduce new rules and restrictions on how communities access and use forests, potentially affecting traditional practices such as collecting firewood, fodder, timber, grazing livestock or managing forests according to local needs and traditional knowledge systems. Over time, there is a risk that forests become governed more for meeting carbon targets and international market standards than for sustaining the long-standing social, cultural, and livelihood values.
Critics further argue that carbon market approaches reflect deeper global inequalities in climate responsibility. By relying heavily on forest-based carbon offsets, there is a risk that mitigation efforts are increasingly shifted toward forest dependent communities in the Global South, while high-emitting countries continue to rely on offset systems rather than making deeper structural reductions in their own emissions. These dynamics may contribute to the commodification of forests, where nature is increasingly viewed as an economic asset, and quantified carbon values begin to outweigh the lived experiences, emotions and cultural relationships that communities have with forests.
Nepal’s forests must be valued beyond carbon. Forests are not merely carbon sinks or climate assets; they are living socio-ecological systems that sustain biodiversity, support livelihoods, preserve cultural practices and shape the everyday relationship between communities and nature. While carbon financing and global climate mechanisms may offer opportunities for conservation and financial support, they should not overshadow the deeper social and ecological meanings forests hold for local people. Nepal’s globally recognized success in forest restoration did not emerge from centralized natural resource governance or external influence but was built through the collective efforts of local communities, forest user groups and generations of traditional ecological knowledge rooted in care, dependence and coexistence with forests.
Therefore, communities must remain at the center of any forest and climate policy. Climate mechanisms should strengthen, rather than weaken, community autonomy, local decision-making and customary forest relationships. As Nepal moves further into the era of REDD+, carbon markets and global net-zero commitments, the challenge is not simply how to monetize forest carbon, but how to ensure that forests continue to remain spaces of community stewardship, ecological integrity and human connection beyond carbon accounting frameworks.
Beyond chemicals: Why Nepal must transition to biopesticides now
Over the years, the use of chemical pesticides in Nepal has increased so notably that it has raised serious concerns about human health and environmental sustainability. From residues in the food we eat to the degradation of soil health and biodiversity loss, the long-term consequences of excessive pesticide use are becoming harder to ignore. In Nepal, where agriculture remains the primary livelihood for around 60 percent of the population, the dependence on synthetic chemicals is not just a farming issue; it is a public health and environmental crisis in the making.
Climate change has led to the emergence of new pests and the expansion of pest habitats, causing farmers to rely more heavily on chemical pesticides to protect their crops. While effective in the short term, the widespread and often unregulated use of synthetic pesticides triggers long-term consequences. These include the development of pest resistance, contamination of soil and water resources, accumulation of toxic residues in food, and alarming impacts on human health and biodiversity. Children, pregnant women, and farm workers are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure, with studies linking prolonged contact to respiratory issues, hormonal disruptions, and even cancer.
Recent studies have shown that vegetables in Nepal often contain pesticide residues exceeding the maximum residue limits (MRLs), rendering them unsafe for human consumption.
The increasing import of chemical pesticides over recent years highlight Nepal's growing reliance on synthetic pest control measures. As in the fiscal year 2023/24 alone, the country imported 1,664 active ingredient (a.i.) tons of chemical pesticides (PQPMC, 2025). The rising trend reflects an urgent need to question the sustainability and safety of our current pest management practices.
In the face of these growing challenges, biopesticides present a promising and necessary alternative. Derived from natural organisms or substances like bacteria, fungi, viruses, and botanical extracts, biopesticides control pests without causing harm to the environment, human health, or beneficial organisms. Unlike synthetic pesticides, they are biodegradable, target-specific, and less likely to cause pest resistance.
Common examples of biopesticides include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which controls caterpillars; neem-based formulations for a broad spectrum of pests; Trichoderma species that act against fungal pathogens; and Jholmal, a locally prepared bio-mixture made from cow/buffalo urine, dung, botanicals, and beneficial microorganisms for pest and disease management, and is currently being promoted in Nepal. These eco-friendly options not only help protect crops effectively but also support soil health, pollinator survival, and long-term agricultural sustainability.
Biopesticides are no longer just something used by the organic farmers as a choice; they are now essential for mainstream agriculture, especially in the face of climate and health challenges. As climate change continues to alter pest dynamics, and as chemical residues threaten public health, a shift toward safer alternatives is not just desirable but urgent. The adoption of biopesticides supports multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Nepal’s smallholder farmers, who are already facing the brunt of climate impacts, can benefit from locally available and low-cost biopesticide options like Jholmal, which enhance both resilience and productivity.
Despite their proven benefits, the widespread adoption of biopesticides in Nepal faces several challenges. A major barrier is the lack of awareness and technical knowledge among farmers, many of whom are unfamiliar with how biopesticides work, how to apply them effectively, or how they differ from conventional pesticides. In addition, biopesticides are often not readily available in rural markets, and when they are, they tend to be more expensive or perceived as less effective due to slower action. Limited private sector involvement and insufficient government incentives have also contributed to a weak supply chain and low investment in local production. Without strong institutional support and market linkages, the transition from chemical to biological pest management remains slow and fragmented.
To accelerate the transition toward sustainable pest management, a coordinated and multi-stakeholder approach is essential. First, government policies should actively promote biopesticides by including them in subsidy schemes. Investment in research and local production of bio-based inputs should be prioritized, enabling farmers to access affordable and effective products tailored to Nepal’s diverse agroecological zones. Extension services must be reoriented to include biopesticide training through farmer field schools, demonstration plots, and digital platforms. The private sector, too, has a critical role to play in developing, distributing, and marketing biopesticides, especially when incentivized through public–private partnerships. Finally, awareness campaigns targeting farmers, consumers, and policymakers can help shift perceptions and generate demand for safe, sustainable pest control solutions.
The overuse of chemical pesticides is not just an agricultural concern; it is a public health, environmental, and sustainability crisis. Thus, biopesticides offer a safer and more sustainable way to manage pests without damaging our soil, food, or ecosystems. If we want safe food and a clean environment, we must act now. With the right support from the government, private sector, and awareness among farmers and consumers, biopesticides can become a powerful solution against pest management. The future of farming lies not in fighting nature, but working with it. By adopting biopesticides today, Nepal can cultivate a healthier tomorrow; for its land, its farmers, and its people.
The author holds Master's degree in Agricultural Economics and is currently working as a research intern at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
