ABSTRACT
The community forests of Nepal are important natural resources for supporting rural livelihoods. Case studies in three districts in Nepal indicate that there has been an overall improvement in the forest condition and economic status of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), but not necessarily an improvement in the social well-being of all individuals, especially poor and disadvantaged families. Therefore, a focus on the biophysical outcomes of community forestry (CF) can be misleading in terms of improvements in social outcomes. Investment in CF focused on creating positive biophysical changes may not lead to similarly positive social or well-being outcomes. Indeed, in some circumstances, investment in the biophysical aspect of CF may be at the expense of desired social outcomes, and can even entrench social inequity at the local level. Therefore, policies designed to support CF need to evolve to be more supportive of pro-poor enterprise development and better targeted to enable marginalized people to benefit.
