Community Forestry, Power and Inequality in Nepal

Community forestry of Nepal is widely recognized as a successful model of decentralized environmental governance and community development. It has significantly contributed to forest regeneration across Nepal. However, its social outcomes in terms of participation, decisions and distributions of benefit remain uneven and unjust among social groups. This article examines community forestry as an institution for community development and change. It focuses on how social hierarchies and power relations influence participation, leadership, and benefit distribution within Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). The study outlines three main objectives. First, it analyzes how gender, caste, and class shapes participation and leadership roles in Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs). Second, it evaluates whether governance on community forestry practices reproduces or reduce inequality at the local level. Third, it analyzes how migration and livelihood changes under community forestry practices changes influence power and decision-making in community forestry institutions. The article is based on a qualitative review of relevant literatures and institutional reports published among 1990 and 2024. The findings show that decentralization on the forest management system has expanded formal participation in the forest resource management. However, major decision-making power remains concentrated among socially and economically privileged groups within community. Women’s participation is often limited and largely symbolic and instrumental rather than equal participations and ownership in a substantive way. Caste and class continue to influence leadership and benefit sharing. Centralized bureaucratic procedures continue to limit deliberative processes effect on outcomes of community forestry. The article, based on review of previous research, concludes that community forestry in Nepal is a space where different groups struggle over power and resources. The main thematic outcomes of this analysis is that promoting equity requires more than procedural and instrumental inclusion. It requires assurance of meaningful participation to achieve equitable outcomes. It also calls for institutional reform that addresses structural inequalities and decision-making power among social groups.