A research by Bhim Adhikari (University of York, UK) looks at community forestry schemes in Nepal. In Nepal, there have been environmental improvements since the introduction of common property systems for forests, including more sustainable use and collection of forest products. However, in terms of economic gains, the poorest and most marginalised members of communities receive the fewest benefits.

Not all members of a community want to use forest resources in the same way. Differences in wealth, culture, caste and gender mean that people have different priorities and beliefs about how to manage and use the forests. In many places, Forest User Groups (FUGs) make decisions about management of community forest resources. These groups usually consist of the most powerful community members. These people make decisions for their own benefit, and ignore the needs of poorer people and women. This means poor people lose out economically from the shared resource and have less incentive to follow rules designed to protect the forest.

The study reveals that poorer households are currently benefiting less in absolute terms from community forestry than less poor households. In terms of the contribution of forests to total household income, the study results suggest that the poor are actually less dependent on forests than the rich, a finding that is somewhat contradictory to results from other similar studies. The average ‘poor’ household obtains Nepalese rupees (Nrs) 7,756 gross income from community forest annually, while the more ‘rich’ households obtain on average Nrs 24,466 per year. In terms of the contribution of forests to net household income, the study results seem to suggest an inverted U-shaped relationship – as income increases dependency on forest resources may decline. Households with land and livestock assets and upper caste households gain more from the commons, while better-educated households depend less on forest resources. Female-headed households benefit less from community forests, further aggravating the inequity in distribution of benefits.

Source: http://www.id21.org/zinter/id21zinter.exe?a=i&w=n4ba1g1

The research appeared in a recent publication on ‘Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management’, Environment and Development Economics, 10: 7–31, by Bhim Adhikari, 2005.

The study was also published as part of Sandee Working paper in 2003.