CHURIA FORESTS OF NEPAL 

Caption

The survey revealed the following results about the state of forests in the Churia region. State of Land Cover in Churia Forests covered the highest proportion of the total area of the Churia region (72.37%; 1,373,743 ha) followed by Other Land (26.44%; 501,848 ha) and OWL (1.19%; 22,672 ha). Most of the forest area (76%) was outside the protected areas (PAs) but the rest was within PAs, 18% in core zones and 6% in buffer zones. It appears that the total forest area decreased by 38,051 ha in the 15 years from 1995 to 2010 at the annual rate of 0.18%. Over this period, forest area decreased in 27 districts while slightly increased in the 9 districts. Growing Stock The number of stems per/ha (DBH ≥5 cm) was about 731 on forest land, slightly more than 180 on OWL and about 66 in the Other Land. Regeneration was 19,805/ha for seedlings and 958/ha for saplings. The basal area of stems (≥ 5cm DBH) in forest land was 18.77 m2/ha, 2.37 m2/ha of OWL and 1.55 m2/ha for Other Land. The per hectare stem volumes for forest land and OWL were 153.99 m3 and 17.16 m3 respectively. The total stem volume of live trees was 153.99 m3/ha, while those of standing dead trees and of dead wood and removal were 4.59 m3/ha and  13.21 m3/ha respectively. The total air-dried aboveground biomass was 186.48 t/ha; the total belowground biomass was 6.33 t/ha. Similarly, the potential sustainable production forest area was about 744 thousand hectare. Carbon Pool The total carbon stock was estimated to be 160.65 tg (116.94 t/ha). Tree, litter/debris and soil components comprised 84.73, 0.31 and 31.90 t/ha carbon respectively. Biodiversity A total of 281 tree species, 186 shrub species and 322 species of herbaceous plants (including flowering plants and Pteridophyte) were recorded. A total of 666 different species of flora (240 trees, 144 shrubs, 187 herbs, 70 climbers, 22 ferns and 3 epiphytes) and 74 species of animal derivatives were used as NTFPs. Forest Disturbances
Government-managed forests appeared to be less subject to anthropogenic disturbances than community- managed buffer zones and community forests. The core zones of PAs were well protected from anthropogenic disturbances, perhaps because of their relative remoteness from the forest edge.