Rules of benefit distribution: A dynamic impact on Nepalese community forestry organizations

ABSTRACT

Participatory approach has been an official part of Community Forestry (CF) since 1989 when Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1989) was introduced in Nepal. However, many problems related to benefit distribution from CF have emerged because of the way decision-making is influenced by social and institutional structures present at community level, particularly in terms of dominance by wealthy and caste elite to formulate rules. The study used a conceptual approach using elite theory with models that looked at Executive Committee (EC) that used to formulate distribution rules. The study uses Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) level data from 31 CFUGs and household data from 310 households in Baglung district, Nepal. The study examined the factors linked with rules of distribution that determined the relative distribution of forest products. The higher the representation of the poor and disadvantaged households on the EC, the greater the benefits to them in terms of greater quantities distributed and longer collection periods. The policy implication of this study is that the forestry organizations help the poor and underprivileged households to build up capacity to undertake leadership roles that influence the formulation of rules through which organizational elite models in favor to them become part of the elite decision-making.

KEYWORDS:

• Community forestry
• decision-making
• disadvantaged and poor
• distribution rules
• elite
• forest products
• forestry organizations

View correction statement:

Erratum

Notes

¹ Elite castes used for this study are Bahun (Brahmins) Chhetry, Thakuri, and Newar castes of Nepalese society.

² The disadvantaged members referred to in this study are lower caste and marginalized groups in Nepalese society.

³ Rich: In this category, households have houses made of bricks, some livestock, at least one member of the family in a public job, engaged in business or with some other secure off-farm income, and they have the capacity to use mechanized tools for agricultural production.Medium: These households have medium-size houses built with slate, tin, and second class brick. They have their own agricultural land and employ farm labor. They can use chemical fertilizer and improved seeds as a semi-mechanized farmer.Poor: Mostly illiterate or with limited access to education. They have medium-sized thatched houses. Most have poor quality, small land holdings, and one to two livestock. They cultivate other farmer’s land on a sharing basis. They are mostly engaged as wage laborers by rich and elite farmers.Poorest: They have insufficient livestock and land for their basic needs. They have very small-sized thatched houses. They have no other source of income. They have to work as daily wage laborers for rich and medium households.