|
|
Challenges to increasing the opportunities for the poor to access benefits of common pool resources - the case of community forestry in the Terai of Nepal
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Year of Publication | 2005 |
| Authors | Birkha Chettry,; Francis, P,; Madhu Gurung,; Iversen, V,; Ghanendra Kafle,; Pain, A,; Seeley, J, |
| Journal Title | Renewable natural resources management for mountain communities |
| Pagination | 267-287 |
| Key Words | case studies; common property resources; community development; community forestry; community involvement; forest management; forest resources; forests; organizations; poverty; property rights; resource utilization; right of access; social forestry; socia |
| Abstract | The growth of forest user groups (FUGs) in Nepal over the last 10 years could be taken as an example of the effective scaling up of community-based organizations. However, this growth has taken place mainly in the hills and not in the Terai (plains) and we have little evidence of the effect of community forestry on the livelihoods of the poor. This paper reports on research on FUGs in two districts (Rupandehi and Nawalparasi) of the Terai of Nepal. Information was collected on the use of common property resources, the processes of community group formation, and the outcomes of these processes. The evidence indicates that while the effect of community-based forest groups has led to improved tree cover within the community forests, for a variety of reasons to do with access, these have not necessarily translated into pro- poor livelihood benefits. A generalized framework is presented that distils some of the key underlying issues in relation to analysing the linkages between new forest management institutions, social and economic processes, and natural resource access and use. While there is room for manoeuvre in creating a more enabling environment for community forestry and promoting pro-poor livelihood benefits, greater recognition needs to be given to the diverse use of forests and the role of these uses in poor household livelihood diversification strategies. |
| |
|
|
