Distributional Inequality Between Community Forest User Group

DISTRIBUTIONAL INEQUALITY BETWEEN COMMUNITY
FOREST USER GROUPS IN KATHMANDU, BHAKTAPUR

AND LALITPUR DISTRICTS
A Thesis
Submitted to Central department of Economics
Faculty of Humanities and social Science
Tribhuvan University, kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
ECONOMICS
By
Bharat Poudel
Roll No.316/063
T.U.Registration No.
Central Department of Economics
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal
May 2010
1
CHAPTRE - ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background

Nepal’s Community forestry is over 30 years old and well
established. By 2008, the government had handed over 1.23 million
hectares of forest land to 14,559 Community Forest User Groups
(CFUGs) involving 1.66 million households (Economic survey,
F/Y2008/09). Community forestry is considered quite a success story in
terms of improving the condition of forests and people in Nepal
(Pokheral, 2003).
Community forestry is the largest programme of the country that
has great contribution, directly or indirectly; to forest products need of
user households and local community development. From the
successful implementation of the 30 years of this programme, most of
the community forestry is now in the stage of production of sufficient
quality of valuable forest product besides benefits from the
consumption of products with in user group’s level. Community forest
user groups are also getting good income from the sell of the surplus
timber and other forest products outside their community forest user
groups. The found collected from the sale of these products and other
sources are utilized in the form of expenses for different purposes at
local level. Users of different socio-economic classes are involved in
different forest management activities and getting benefits from
community forest in the form of different kinds of forest products.
2
Though there is a vital role of forest in the environmental aspect
with many indirect benefits that are, generally not considered in
planning and measuring the impact due to the difficulty in quantifying
them. The benefits that users feel important and get easily are the
obvious direct benefits like timber, fuel-wood, tree fodder and grasses,
leaf-litter and many other NTFP (CF Bulletin, 2008).
Community forestry in Nepal can provide billions of rupees to
national economy but the forest users and managers have not yet
realized the benefits that one can get from CF (Kanel and Niraula,
2004). Due to the unavailability of secondary data on environmental
valuation of Nepalese forestry, it is very difficult to give monetary
term, though users realize those values and importance. Most of the
studies in Nepal are focused on benefits of CF but economic aspect is
less focused. Economics is useful for valuation of forest products use
since it provide numeraire for making analysis quantities of a range of
differentially valued forest products (Richard et al. 2003).
The community forestry concept in Nepal is a courageous,
innovative and future oriented approach towards participatory forest
management by local people. Community Forestry Program is widely
celebrated as one of the most progressive policy examples of
devolving control over forest resources to community based user
groups, which has established a viable procedure for handing over the
forests to actual groups of users with a legal status as autonomous and
corporate institutions with perpetual succession, (Adhikari, 2001).
Nurse et al. (2005) has appreciated CF programme by heartily and said
that the basis for what is now the CF programme formally launched in
Nepal in 1978 as panchayat Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest
following twenty five years of implementation development of rural
people based on participatory resource management model.
Generally a CFUG collects its fund by selling timber, fuel wood,
bedding material, Herbs, NTFPs harvested in community forest. The
3
harvested amount of timber, fuel wood etc is known as Annual Average
Harvestable Forest Product (AAH) that is prescribed in CF operation
plan and approved by District Forest Office of the respective district.
For distributional and sell of harvested forest products, community
forest users are independent and have autonomous right. Selling or
consuming with in users group is based on their social need. Sometime
they export timber outside from the group. The fund expenditure is
allocated into various social development works. The user assembly
decides where to expense the fund.
In practices assessing economic contribution of CF is examining the
economic Values of the forest products and their important to the poor
livelihood. Forest products being the economic goods are important
sources of income that have direct influences on poverty alleviation of
rural communities Sharma (2000). Thus the current issue is what the
economic values of forest products are and its contribution in Poor’s
households in CFUG. Similarly, the analysis of the contribution of CF
household level income will produce insight regarding the
effectiveness of CF programme for household level. Estimating the
economic contribution of the derived income are the key steps towards
understanding the role of CF in rural people’s day life (Chhetri, 2006).
This study provides the HH information of the study area that can
be used to understand the distribution of forest products to the users.
This can guide to better address the problem of CFUGs in the similar
conditions and examine it’s effectiveness in the products flow
perspective. The findings of the quantitative analysis of the policy
makers and managers that guides for the improvement of community
forestry programme in hills of Nepal.
In this context, this study attempts to quantify the value of at least,
directly consumable products; and their contribution to forest users in
the financial terms support their household income and community
necessities in terms of development works. Besides this study also
4
measures the income inequality between rich, middle, poor categories
of user’s households and effect of community forest income to reduce
the income inequality gap.
1.2 Statement of the problem

It is believed that CF programme in Nepal is very successful
programme. At micro level several CFUGs are able to bring positive
change in society. The fund or benefits from CFUGs have been used for
poverty reduction activities and infrastructure development works.
People are getting more timber, fuel wood, leaf litter, NTFPs etc from
CF. (Sharma,2000 Pokheral,2003 Chhetri,2005 Kanel,2004) shows that
CFUGs are contributing to uplift poor’s status and livelihood. They have
made conclusion that CF programme is seem to be pro-poor
programme.
The research problem is that which seeks to explore to what extent
the poor are benefiting from forest products such as by timber, fuel
wood, bedding materials and other kinds of forest products. Is the
distribution of different forest products within the among rich, middle
and poor within the community forest user groups fair, equitable and
justifiable? How much are the poor Households getting benefit from
CF?
Although CFUGs have generated more goods and services in to society

but it is observed that poor are not able to capture in substantive
amount (Kanal and Niraula, 2004). Thus there may be possibility of
uneatable distribution of benefits from CF among the forest user
households. So this research tries to explore the magnitude of
inequality by measuring skewness of distribution using the Lorenz
curve and quantify the inequality using the Gini co-efficient in selected
three CFUGs.
5
1.3 Objective of the Study
The specific objectives of the study are:
1. To determine the share of income derived from community forest
among different economic classes of users (i.e. rich, middle
and poor class) at household level.
2. To find the system of benefit distribution in the three selected
community forest user groups.
3. To identify the inequality co-efficient of the three selected
community forest user groups in- Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and
Lalitpur District.
1.4 Scope of the Study

The study intended to explore the situation of product flow,
user’s input and community development aspects in community forest
in the middle hill of Nepal. Existing share of income from community
forest and other sources in the user’s households and distribution
income level of different wealth classes of the user’s are explored. This
study also wants to explore the fact that the, how much benefit can
get poor household from community forest? Whether the distribution is
pro-poor or not? That helps to evaluate the community forest
programmes and status of social welfare and justice in micro level.
The information which comes from this study is considered to be useful
for decision makers, policy makers and managers.
1.5 Limitation of the Study
6
The limitation of the study is:
1 The study is mainly focused on computing the Gini co-efficients
and the Lorenz curves of income for three selected Community
forest user groups.
2 Only tangible benefits especially assessing for timber, fuel wood

and bedding materials are, consider in the analysis.
1.6 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis divided in to six chapters.
Chapter one covers the research background with problem statement
and justification, objective of the study, research questions, scope of
the study and limitation of the study. This chapter gives an overview of
the research context.
Chapter two describes with the literature related to the study starting
from the overview of community forestry in Nepal. It sequentially gives
an account of benefit of community forestry, contribution of
Community forestry in socio-Economic development with poverty and
income inequality in the context of community forestry. This chapter
tries to present the past studies related to Community forestry in CFUG
context.
Chapter three deals with study area including country background,

description of the district, community forestry programme in the
selected CFUGs with brief description, presenting with the map.
Chapter four presents research methodology which is the central part

of the study. It includes selection criteria of CFUGs and sample
households for the study, design of questionnaire, methods and tools
7
used in data collection & analysis and methods for calculating
household income with valuation of the products in local context.
Chapter five presents results and discussions. It is the main body of

the research that includes socio-economic condition of the
respondents, income of respondents from different sources, share of
CF income to the household’s income, benefit distribution system of
CFUGs, current practices of CFUG fund mobilization, description of
inequality between forest user groups according to household
categories.
Chapter six consist conclusion and recommendation.
8
CHAPTER -TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Community Forestry in Nepal
Nepal is one of the pioneer countries to hand over the management

responsibility of government owned forest area to local community
forming a forest user group as an autonomous body for forest
management and utilization. Though Leasehold Forestry programme for
the poor is the first priority programme of Forestry sector of Nepal, CF had
received the highest priority in the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of
Nepal (1989) and is regarded as the most successful (Acharya and Oli,
2004). The Panchayat Forest (PF) and Panchayat protected Forest (PPF)
rules allowed for the transfer of responsibility for forest management from
the government to the local Panchayat as PF and Panchayat Protected
Forest PPF (Joshi 1993; Bartlett 1992). The promulgation of Panchayat
Forest and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules 1978 provides a convenient
bench mark for community based forest management in Nepal. After
democracy was restored in 1990, the government framed the Forest Act
of 1993, which focused on sustainable management of forest resources
under community-based property rights regimes. The Forest Act vested
more legal authority in Forest User Groups (FUGs). The Master Plan for the
Forestry Sector 1989, the Forest Act of 1993, Forest Regulations of 1995,
the Operational Guidelines of 1995 and Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)
provide the current legal and operational framework of Nepal’s
community forestry (Pokharel & Nurse, 2004). These instruments have
9
legitimized the concept of the Community Forest User Group (CFUG) as an
independent, autonomous and self-governing institution responsible to
protect, manage and use any patch of national forest with a defined forest
boundary and user group members.
The policy of the government originally intended to meet the basic
requirements of the communities through the active participation of
individuals and communities in forest development and management.
After years of protection, growing stocks and potential yields of
community forests have increased. Surplus of forest products for
commercial sale is now available (Kanel, 2004). Later it was expanded to
include the mobilization and empowerment of the CFUGs in the
development of their local communities. Although, community forestry
program has halted the trend of forest degradation since handing over of
the community forest to local people, second generation issues such as
livelihood and social justice, good governance and active
forest/biodiversity management have also to be resolved as we further
move on improving community forestry in Nepal (Kanel and Kanel, 2003).
Community forestry in Nepal has developed rapidly over the last
decade and about 22.5 percent of potential forests covering the area
by 12,30,000 hectares land have been already handed over to 14,559
FUGs for management and utilization about 16,60,000 households are
benefiting from the implementation of community forest operation
plans in Nepal(Economic Survey, F/Y2008/09).
2.2 Benefits of Community Forestry

Studies have claimed that CFUGs have been established as a grass
root level institution for managing forest resources in order to improve the
economic status of forest users of Nepal (Malla 2001; Acharya 2002;
Acharya 2004). However, at the same time many believe that community
forest management is protection-oriented where the main forest
management activities are limited to the removal of dead and dying trees,
and leaf litters. As a consequence, the users are getting sub-optimal
10
benefits (NPC 2001, Shrestha 2001; Karki et.al. 1994; Chhetri and Pandey
1992; Gilmour and Fisher 1991).
Community forestry may be able to provide a lot of opportunities to
the rural poor for their poverty reduction to some extent (Niraula, 2004)
and increase local funds for community development (Dev et al., 2004).
There is a lack of information on the share of community forest income
relative to the total income of a household in Nepalese context (Chhetri,
2004). CF has been an effective example of community-based resource
management (Arnold, 1998; Baland and Platteau, 1996) but beset with its
own problems concerning the creation and distribution of benefits to
beneficiary members (Ojha, 2004).
Dev et al. (2003b) describes various benefits of community forests as:
• Improved flows of forest products on a sustainable basis.
• Development of a local community planning institution.
• Improvement in community infrastructure such as schools and
roads.
• Opportunities such as NTFP collection and credit facilities.
Graner 1999 described these three main patterns of CF benefits in the
Middle hills:
• For most households agriculture is the primary activity, based on
the ownership of small terraces of irrigated and / or un-irrigated
farmland. Middle-class households commonly have land-holdings
and cattle, but only modest private tree resources and grazing
land. They tend to be heavily dependent on inputs to their farming
systems from common forest land.
• Poorer and landless households depend on non-land based

activities such as laboring, artisanal work and NTFP collection. To
pursue these they have specific needs from the forest distinct
from the other wealth-rank groups; such as charcoal for
blacksmithing, and fuel wood and medicinal plants for and sale.
11
• Richer households may supplement farming with incomes from
local businesses or service employment. They often have land
outside the village and may spend only part of the year in the
hills. They commonly have irrigated as well as un-irrigated
Due to the limited size of land-holdings, hill agriculture systems
depend on interdependence between arable land, livestock and forest
components. Broadleaf forests, particularly Katus-Chilaune (and hill Sal in
some CF), supply the most useful range of products for agriculture, such
as fuel wood, fodder, leaf litter, foliage, small poles and fence-sticks.
In addition to agricultural needs, virtually all households depend on
forests for a variety of domestic needs such as fuel and construction
material. Furthermore, forests support certain rural household benefits,
e.g. as a source of charcoal for blacksmiths, fodder for livestock, berries
for alcohol distilling, medicinal plants and so on. Community forestry has
been criticized as a ‘poor policy for poor people’ (Graner 1999).
The heterogeneity of households within FUGs is rarely if ever reflected
in the way FUGs manage their community forest resources and distribute
forest products. Wealthier households tend to benefit most from the
status quo, and since it is these same households which dominate the
decision-making processes and assimilate most information about
community forestry through organized events, they have very little
incentive to alter anything or to change any of the rules governing the
way the FUG operates. Therefore, although certain actions are required to
make sure that poorer households benefit more from community forestry,
it seems unlikely that these actions will be initiated by the elites who
dominate FUG committees (Malla et al. 2003).
2.3 Contribution of Community Forestry in socio-

Economic development and poverty alleviation
Many studies have been conducted on various dimensions of

community forestry that are mainly focused on social and policy aspects.
12
Studies on assessing overall contributions of CF in Nepal is limited,
Acharya and Oli (2004).
In many places CFUGs have become the vehicle for rural development
and at present CFUGs are the main democratically elected local
institutions in place. For many poor rural people, CFUGs also act as rural
banks and source of revenue and income. Pokharel et. al. (2006)
describes CFUG as vehicle for rural development for the following reasons:
• CFUGs manage their finances and give loans to villagers.
• CFUGs support their members for income generating activities such
as vegetation farming, livestock, horticulture, fishery and bee
keeping.
• CFUGs contribute to the construction and maintenance of physical
infrastructure such as irrigation canals, drinking water schemes,
community buildings, wooden bridges, etc.
• CFUGs invest in scholarships for poor children, teachers’ salaries,
school buildings and furniture.
• CFUGs invest their funds and labor in the construction of roads and
trails.
• CFUGs promote eco-tourism and nature awareness by constructing
picnic and recreational spots, temples and eco-clubs.
• CFUGs invest in health posts and medical equipments.
• CFUGs establish forest based enterprises.
CFUGs and their members have increased access to financial assets

from group funds. Increased access to forest dependent households to
basic services such as education and information has been shown. There
is development of physical infrastructure at community level and
increased community awareness and ownership over policy making
process and community development. However, these positive benefits
have usually been disproportionately captured by wealthier CFUG
members-often at the expense of more disadvantaged members (Malla et
al. 2003).
13
Kanel and Niraula, (2004) has made a nation wide study on
expenditure & income of CFUG. They have estimated that Rs. 747 million
has earned by 14000 CFUG in Nepal during F/Y 2003. The figure of
earning is 69% by the sell of timber, 18% by Fuel wood and 10% by
bedding materials. That study has further shown that all CFUGs have
made 28% expenses in forest protection, 36% in social infrastructure and
only 3% in pro-poor programme, while total expenditure done 740 million
& 7 million has deposited as capital saving.
Pokheral (2008) in his study carried out in Lamjung, Tanahun and
Gorkha describes that 55% of the annual investment of CFUGs is in public
infrastructure, 22% in pro-poor activities, 17% in forest development and
6% in administration.
The 4th National Workshop on Community Forestry recommended
to allocate at least 25% of CFUG fund for pro-poor activities, legal
provisions for allocating community forest land to the poor, capacity
building program for the poor and disadvantaged, develop effective
forest land use planning which addresses land allocation to the poor
under community forestry and leasehold forestry, social mobilization to
sensitize the elites and others about pro-poor issues, plan livelihoods
improvement programs based on wealth ranking of CFUG members
and promote pro-poor research and training (DoF, 2004).
Like wise several other socio economic studies related to CFUGs have
shown that CF programme in Nepal has brought positive contribution in
micro level. Further more CFUGs are playing significance role to reduce
poverty by enhancing livelihood of poor people. As mentioned above
various researches have in lighted similarly that the positive contribution
of CFUG has brought socio economic change at micro level.
At the same time some other studies have shown that there is still
prevailing discrimination in benefit distribution among user groups under
the different economic classes of society. Pokheral and Nurse, (2004) has
mentioned that there are various issues & challenges on CFUG benefit
distribution context. They have shown poor user are not capable to
14
capture benefits in equitable manner although poor are sharing much cost
in CF protection & management. Poor people are excluded in decision
making process by capturing the key decision post of CFUG committee by
elite people. The leadership status is also lower for poor people. The poor
people are also excluded in training and human resource development
due to low level of education.
K.C. Arun, (2004) has mentioned in his study paper carried out in
pyuthan district in 2003 that small farmers (poor) are getting lowest
benefits from NTFPs extracted from CFUG, i.e. poor have earned NRs
11815 in comparison to middle farmers NRs 18730 and higher farmer
(Rich) NRs 20496 respectively. He has further discussed that the gross
Value of NTFPs goes maximum toward middle farmer and rich farmers.
Poor farmer are less benefited due to inequality of NTFPs distribution.
Similarly Dahal, (2006) has mentioned in his Ph.D. thesis that there
is a significant inequality of benefit distribution among several ethnic &
economic classes of society. Marginal poor, Dalit and Ethnic deprived
households have been mostly suppressed during benefit distribution in
CF. his study shows that the poor income HH were more dependent on CF
than non poor HH. That study has found average gross value of forest
used & cost of management for each ethnic stratum of society in term of
monetary valuation which was NRs 5837 for Brahmin/ chhetri, NRs 4297
for Newar, NRs 6393 for Janjati and NRs 4164 for Dalit. Similarly B/C ratio
for Newar & Janjati was 1.07 & 1.02 respectively which is positive while
B/C ratio of Brahmin/chhetri was 0.94 and for Dalit it was 0.96. Thus he
had concluded that poor income HH failed to internalize the benefit from
CF as per the total gross cost incurred by them. The middle income group
was able to equalize gross benefit and rich income group was getting
more benefit from CF.
Ojha and Bhattrai, (2001) have shown that poor are less benefited
by distributed material of CF because of unequal distribution of timber,
fuel wood and bedding materials. Their study of two CFUGs from
Dhankuta & Terhathun districts has shown that the B/C ratio for poor was
15
0.94, for middle class HH 1.17 and it was 1.1 for rich HH. Thus they
conclude that poor are getting negative benefit from CFUG.
Sharma, (2000) conducted a research on 42 households of Badikhel
VDC of Lalitpur district and quantified the contribution of community
forest on farm household income in order to assess the impact on poor-
rich gap. The study revealed that community forestry income contributes
12% and 3% of farm household income of poor and rich households
respectively. His one important finding is that while narrowing poor rich
gap community forestry simultaneously increases within-group
inequalities; hence, total inequalities remain the same.
Pokheral Ridish K. (2008) has mentioned in his working paper
carried out in 100 CFUGs in three different mid. Hill districts, Lamjung,
Tanahu and Kaski. This studies main objective is, to verify whether CF is
indeed enabling the self financing of local public goods and to measure
how much of the investment made through CF really reach the poor
( through pro-poor programme). That study finds that the income from
community funds increase local development resources by about 25% and
over all 74% of the annual benefits of CF funds accrue to non- poor while
only 26% accrue to the poor.
Thus literature review shows us there is a knowledge gap to
measure the inequality in the context of distribution of benefit flown from
CFUG. To know the skewness of distribution and finding Gini co-efficient
and skewness of Lorenz curve of three selected CFUG in Kathmandu,
Bhaktapur and Lalitpur districts for inequality assessment.
16
CHAPTER – THREE
STUDY AREA
3.1 Kathmandu Valley

Kathmandu valley is made up the Kathmandu district, Lalitpur
district and Bhaktapur district. The valley consists of one metropolitan,
one sub metropolitan and three municipalities. The Kathmandu valley
is a cultural and political hub of Nepal.
3.2 Kathmandu District

Kathmandu district lies in Bagmati zone of Central Development
Region of Nepal. Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. It covers an area of
395km2. This district comprises of 57 VDCs, 1 metropolitan city and 1
municipality. The altitude of the district ranges between 1262 m to
2732 m above the sea level.
17
The forest area is distributed over the hilly regions in sloppy
landscape. The forest type of Kathmandu is dominated by Alnus
Nepalensis (Utis). The major species tree find in Chilanue, katus, bajh
and pine. According to the DFO record, the total number of community
forests user groups in the district is 148 with total area 4684 hectares.
Total number of household benefited from CF is 18589 which comprise
of 855094 populations (DFO, Kathmandu 2008). According to CBS
(2001), the total population is 1081845, male 576010 and female are
505835, where average family size is 4.6. Main castes found in the
district are Newar, Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Malla
Thakuri, Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.
3.2.1Community forestry in Kathmandu District

Community forestry programme was initiated in the district in
the year 2050/051 B.S. with major objective of fulfilling the forest
products’ needs of the local people on sustainable basis and to
improve the ecological condition of the area. This programme is
recognized as the first priority programme in the forestry sector in the
district that is in line with the government priority programme. Among
the total potential community forest area in the district, 148 CFs
comprising a total area 4684 hectare is handed over to the CFUGs till
date from which a total 18589 users households and 855090
population of the district are benefited.
3.3 Bhaktapur District

Bhaktapur is the smallest district of Nepal which lies in Central
Development Regions of Nepal. It is the third largest city in Kathmandu valley
and was once the capital of Nepal during the great Malla Kingdom until the second half
of the 15th century. It consist 16 VDC and 2 municipalities. The total land
area of Bhaktapur is 138 sq. km. of which 14 percent area is covered
18
by forest. The total forest area in Bhaktapur is 1994.20 hectare. The
forest area is distributed over the hilly regions in sloppy landscape. In
forest area found major species are: - chilaune, katus, guras, khasru,
uttis and pine species. District forest office is main responsible
government authority for forest monitoring and management.
Total population of Bhaktapur is 225461 where Male is 114804
and female is 110657 (DFO Bhaktapur). The average family size is 4.8.
The districts are multi caste society where the people belong to different
caste. Main castes found in this district are Newar, Brahmin, Chhetri,
Gurung, Tamang, Malla Thakuri, Damai, Kami, Sarki, etc.
3.3.1 Community Forestry in Bhaktapur

Most part of the forest area (i.e. 94.3 percent) handed over to 56
CFUGs in Bhaktapur. There are 56 number of user groups involved in
Community forestry management in this district. 8334 number of
households is benefited from community forest. 1832 hectare is covered
by community forest in this district. Since 2051 B.S., DFO Bhaktapur has
started to handover forest area as CF to near by inhabitant people
according to Forest Act 1993 and Forest Rule 1995.
3.4 Lalitpur District

Lalitpur district lies in Bagmati zone of Central Development
Region of Nepal. According to the population census 2001, total
population of Lalitpur district is 337785 of which 172455 were male
and 165330 were female. There are 68922 households. The average
household size is 4.9. The districts are multi-caste society where the
people belong to the different caste/ethnic groups such as Brahmin,
Chhetri, Newars, Rai, etc. and some other occupational castes; Kami
and Damai. The average literacy rate in this district is 70.77% (CBS,
2003). The area has a sub- tropical and temperate climate
19
3.4.1 Community Forest in Lalitpur District
There are altogether 175 community forest user groups in
Lalitpur district. The total area of community forest handed over to
local communities is 9839 hectare. 30363 households are taking
benefits from CF. DFO Lalitpur has started to handover forest area is
since 2049 B.S. In terms of the organizational and spatial hierarchy of
the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation the forest resources fall
under the District Forest Office (DFO) Lalitpur which administers,
community forests management activities in the area.
3.5 Description of Selected CFUGs

Three CFUGs from middle hill area are selected for study.
Thadopakho CFUG from Jitpurphedi VDC in Kathmandu district, Padali
CFUG from Lamatar VDC in Lalitpur district and Chameli CFUG from
Dadhikot VDC in Bhaktapur district are selected. Brief description of these
CFUGs is presented below.
20
Table 1: An overview of the studied CFUGs
Particular Thadopakho Padali Chameli
CFUG CFUG CFUG
Address Jitpurphedi-3 Lamatar-6 Dadhikot-2
Handover date 3/23/2057 2/30/2052 10/28/2051
Area (hectare) 60 46 34
No. of household 82 121 185
User population 481 630 920
User sex Male 230 326 458
Female 251 304 462
Ethnicity of HH Brah/ 46 81 115
Chhetri
Janajati 25 26 52
Dalit 11 14 18
Wealth Status Rich 12 12 17
Middle 38 63 96
Poor 32 46 72
Size of Executive 11 11 13
Committee(EC)
Sex wise Male 8 7 6
Female 3 4 7
Representation
in EC
Caste wise Brah/chhetr 7 8 6
representation i
Janajati 3 2 5
in EC
Dalit 1 1 2
Wealth status Rich 4 2 2
Middle 5 6 9
wise
Poor 2 3 2
representation
in EC
(Source: Field survey, 2009)
3.5.1 Thadopakho CFUG

This CFUG is situated in ward no. 3 of Jitpurphedi VDC which lies in
the northern part of Kathmandu district. The area of CF is 60 hectares and
dominated by Alnus Nepalensis (Utis). The major species tree is found
in Chilanue, katus, bajh and pine. 82 HHs are benefited from this CF.
This CF is handed over to the users in 2057 B.S. by DFO Kathmandu.
21
This CFUG also rewards first Prize by DFO Kathmandu in 2061 B.S.
among the 148 CFUG.
The CFUG is heterogeneous in ethnic composition. Most of the
HHs is related to Brahmin and Chhetri ethnic group. The major ethnic
group comprises Brahmin, Chhetri, Newar, Gurung, Damai, Kami and
Tamang.
3.5.2 Padali CFUG

This CFUG is situated in Ward no. 6 of Lamatar VDC which lies in the
southern part of the district and near to Bhaktapur district. The area of the
CF is 21.9 ha and the forest is situated in southern and southern aspect.
121 HHs take directly and indirectly benefit from this CFUG. Major species
of the forest is Alnus nepalensis (UTIs), Schima Wallichi (chhilaune) and
Pinus roxburghil (pine). This CF is handed over to the users in 2052 B.S.
by DFO Lalitpur.
This area found multi caste society where the people belong to the
different ethnic groups. Brahmin is dominated in this area. Major ethnic
group in this CFUG include Brahmin, Chhetri, Newar, Gurung, Magar,
Tamang, Sarki, Damai and Kami.
3.5.3 Chameli CFUG

Chameli CFUG is situated in Ward no. 2 of Dadhikot VDC of
Bhaktapur district which lies in the southern hilly side of the district near
in Lalitpur district. The area of the forest is 13.16 ha and situated south-
west aspect. 185 HHs is benefited from this CF. Chameli CFUG rewards
first prize in 2063 B.S by DFO Bhaktapur among all CFUG of Bhaktapur.
The type of CF is sub-tropical. The major species of forest is Alnus
nepalensis (UTIs), Schima Wallichi (chhilaune), Pinus roxburghil (pine),
katus and kafal. This CFUG is handed over to the CFUG in 2051 B.S. by the
concerned DFO. The majority of the users in this CFUG belong to Brahmin
22
ethnicity. Other ethnic groups are Chhetri, Newar, Magar, Sarki, Kami,
Damai and Tamang.
District map of the study area
23
Thadopakho
CFUG
Chameli
CFUG
Padali
CFUG
24
CHAPTER- FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Selection of the study area

There are 148 CFUG in Kathmandu, 56 community forest user groups in Bhaktapur
and 175 community forest user groups in Lalitpur district (C.F. Bulliten, 2008). For
comparative study, among them one community forest from Kathmandu, one community
forest from Bhaktapur and one community forest from Lalitpur district are selected based
on the following criteria.
• CFUGs handed over at least before 5 years.
• CFUGs having the heterogeneous community in respect of household income
status.
• CFUGs having more than 50 households.
• CFUGs representing the average management performance as per the District
Forest Office (DFO) evaluation record.
The study area is selected because of the following reasons:
• Community forestry has been implemented in this area
• This kind of research has not been yet done in this area.
• Researcher is interested and familiar with the area.
• Have good record keeping system.
• Have contributed significantly in country development work.
Based on above reason, following three Community forest user groups has been selected
for the study:
1. Thadopakho community forest user group, Jitpurphedi V.D.C.-3 Kathmandu.
2. Chameli Community Forest user groups, Dadhikot V.D.C.-2 Bhaktapur.
3. Padali Community Forest user groups, Lamatar V.D.C. – 6 Lalitpur.
4.2 Wealth Ranking
25
The primary objective of this research is to obtain the magnitude and extent of
inequality which presence in several socio-economic classes in three CFUG households.
Indeed, this research wants to see obviously how much quantity of CF benefit i.e. timber,
fuel-wood and bedding material been captured by poor class households of the society.
Therefore it is required to classify total households of CFUGs into three wealth ranking
classes (Rich, Middle and Poor) of the user’s households; wealth ranking is carried out in
all 3 selected CFUGs. We can gather all information about wealth ranking from
community forest user groups Committee. We can found all selected 3 CFUGs have
already classified wealth being classes of the total user’s households. For wealth ranking,
all selected 3 CF, community forest user group Committee have been used Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) technique which is following.
Table 2: wealth ranking criteria adopted to categorize Users HH in the study area
Wealth group I (Rich Wealth group II (Middle Wealth group III (Poor
class) Class) class)
• Surplus cereals • Year round food • Seasonal or chronic
(12+) security food insecurity
• > 15 Ropani land • 5-15 Ropani land • Lacking basic
• Monthly income • Monthly income Rs necessities
is >Rs 10,000 3000-10,000 • Sell>3 months of
• Saving in the • No saving in the labor per year
bank bank • < 5 Ropani land
• Many HH assets, • Non-gazette level • Monthly income <
some luxuries service at least of a Rs 3,000
• No family family member
members doing
wage labor
4.2.1 Number of Household in each wealth classes of selected three CFUGs

Table 3: number of household in each wealth classes of selected three CFUGs
S.N. Name of CFUG Total No. of Wealth classes
Rich Middle Poor
household
1 Thadopakho CFUG 82 12 38 32
2 Padali CFUG 121 12 63 46
3 Chameli CFUG 185 17 96 72
4 Total 388 41 197 150
(Source; field survey, 2009)
26
4.3 Selection of sampled households
The household is taking as the unit of sampling. Based on the records of the selected
CFUGs, a sampling frame was made incorporating all households with in the selected
CFUGs. Then wealth ranking exercise was carried out in all the selected 3 CFUGs and all
the user households were categorized in 3 wealth classes, i.e. Rich (I), Medium (II) and
Poor (III). From the sampling frame, 26 HHs of wealth- class I, 25 of class II and 27 of
class III were selected by using simple random sampling method in total, about 20% HHs
are selected for the study purpose.
Table 4: Sampling frame showing the selected of the respondents.
Name of NO. of No. of No. of No. of
CFUG users’ sample respondents respondents by
HH d HH by sex wealth class
Male Femal Ric Midd Poo
e h le r
Thadopak
ho 82 17 10 7 4 7 6
Padali 1 1
21 24 17 7 8 6 0
Chameli 1 1 1 1
85 37 27 10 4 2 1
Total 2
388 78 54 24 6 25 27
4.4 Design of questionnaires

Two sets of questionnaires with relevant questions to collect the required
information was developed for the study. One set of questionnaire is prepared for
community forest user’s committee members and other set is for the household’s survey.
Questionnaire for the community forest user committee member and key informants was
designed to get the general information of the CFUG. This helps to collect sources and
investment areas of CFUG fund, status of inclusion and benefit sharing, price of forest
27
products and agriculture products etc (Appendix II). The sample household survey is
develop to explore information on quantities of forest products collected and use by the
users, input of the users on CF activities and other income generating activities, income
from different sources, etc (Appendix I). The questionnaires were translated in Nepali
language for household survey and CFUGC.
4.5 Data Collection

4.5.1 Primary Data Collection
a) Focus Group Discussion

This discussion was done to make a common understanding about the local
market price of forest products, other products and services related to research issues, real
needs of the users they expect from the CFUG income.
b) Informal Discussion
Informal discussion were carried out with different key informants; teachers,
elder person, local leaders and social workers to get the overall general information on
CFUG and check the information collected with other respondents.
C) Household (HH) Survey

Household survey was carried out to collect primary information from the users’
HH using questionnaire. The questionnaire is structured with questions to gather
information on HH characteristics of respondents, income of HH from various sources,
cost/ inputs of HH in various activities, quantity of major forest products consumed and
sold in the market, wage rate, rate of forest products etc (as shown in appendix I).
d) Meeting with Committee Members

This operation was carried out after the household survey and focus group
discussion to discuss on the issues and major questions arising during data collection, and
to collect information on community level activities carried out by CFUGs with their
fund.
28
4.5.2 Secondary Data Collection
Relevant and necessary secondary information and records for this research study
were collected from different published and unpublished literatures from different
sources. The major sources include;
• Office records, reports and other documents of District Forest Office i.e. journal
of forest, CF bulletin, record of CF activities and annual report of selected 3
CFUGs etc.(DoF) of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur district.
• Office records, operational plans, minute register and Records of the CFUGs.
• Other published and unpublished literatures.
• Websitesi.e.www.forestrynepal.org,www.sandeeonline.com,www.forestaction.org
, www.scribed.com, www.wrm.org.uy
4.6 Monetization of Benefit

We have taken one year’s distribution data from each sample unit of three
CFUGs. During this period we have calculated the total flow of timber, fuel wood,
bedding material in each sample HH. Then monetization is done by finding the selling
price in local market. Generally monetization is done by finding the selling price of CF
product. So we take the local market price for timber, fuel wood and bedding materials.
All three CF have lies in middle hill and the forest type is also same so local market price
found in same.
For price calculation, PRA consultation was also done to convert quantity of
forest product into monetization form.
a) Calculation of Benefit in Monetary Term

We have calculated the monetary form of benefit by using the following formulas
for finding the gross value of income that was captured by sample HHs in the non-
monetary form (i.e. timber, fuel wood & bedding material). We can only use formula
29
from the study of Dahal (2006), but price of forest products is not same. We take the
local market price of the study area.
The used formulas were following:
(i) IF = QF* PF
Here, IF = Income from firewood
QF = Quantity of firewood (per bhari = 20 kg)
PF = Price of fire wood (Rs. 35/- per bhari)
(Source: Dahal, 2006)
(ii) ITF = QTF * BGTPTF
Here, ITF = Income from tree fodder/ bedding material
QTF = Quantity of tree fodder/ bedding material (per bhari 10-15 kg)
BGTPF = Barter game price of tree fodder/ bedding material (rs. 5 /- per bhari)
(iii) ILT = QLT * PLT
Here, ILT = Income from log timber
QLT = Quantity of log timber (per Cft)
PLT = Price of log timber (Rs. 100/-per Cft)
Thus Gross income from forest product (GIFP = IF + ITF+ILT)
4.7 Data Analysis

Data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The data collected
during the field works were categorized and variable were formulated. The data were
logically interpreted along with simple tables, charts and graphs.
The quantitative data were analyzed using statistical tools like, frequency
distribution, mean, standard deviation, and Lorenz curve & Gini-coefficents (to show the
income inequality among the sampled households). The qualitative data were analyzed in
descriptive way and finding is in tables, chart and figures.
4.8 Details of statistical Tools used in the Analysis
30
4.8.1 Lorenz Curves and Gini co-efficients:
These tools were used to show the income inequality among the
sampled households. The Lorenz curve is a function of the cumulative
proportion of ordered individual values mapped onto the corresponding
cumulative proportion of their size. If all individuals have the same
income, the Lorenz curve is a straight diagonal line, called the line of
equality. If there is any inequality in income, then the Lorenz curve falls
below the line of equality. The total amount of inequality can be
summarized by the Gini coefficient (also called the Gini ratio), which is the
ratio between the area enclosed by the line of equality and the Lorenz
curve and the total triangular area under the line of equality. The Gini
coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with
perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1
corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income,
and everyone else has zero income). Gini coefficient (G.C) can be
computed by using,
1
G.C. = ------------ Σ Σ / Yi - Yj
μ n (n – 1)
Where, μ is the mean income, n is the total number of sampled

households, Yi and Yj are the shares of individuals i and j in total income,
Chhetri (2005).
Lorenz Curves
This curve is developed by M.O. Lorenz, a French economist to
measure the skewness of income distribution in U.S.A. this is simple
graphical method of measuring the inequality of distribution. The
Lorenz curve shows the magnitude of distance of distribution curve
from the line of equal distribution. Thus Lorenz curve can help to
compare the extent of distribution between many income groups of
population (Aryal, J.P. and Gautam, A. 2003).
31
A common way to analyze personal income statistics is to construct which is
known as a Lorenz curve. The numbers of income recipients are plotted on horizontal
axis, not in absolute terms but in cumulative percentage. The vertical axis shows the
share of total income received by each percentage of population. It also is cumulative up
to 100%, meaning that both axes are equally long. The entire figure is
enclosed in a square, and a diagonal line is drawn from the lower left
corner (the origin) of the square to the upper right corner. At every point
on that diagonal the percentage of income received is exactly equal to the
percentage of income recipients - for example, the point halfway along
the length of diagonal represents 50% of the income being distributed to
exactly 50% of the population. At the three quarter point on the diagonal,
75% of the income would be distributed to 75% of the population. In other
words, the diagonal line is representative of ‘perfect equality’ in size
distribution of income. Each percentage group of income recipients is
receiving that same percentage of the total income; for example- the
bottom 40% revives 40% of the income, while the top 5% receives only
5% of the total income, (Shrestha N. and Kansakar D.R. 2003).
The Lorenz curve shows the actual quantitative relationship
between the percentage of income recipients and the percentage of the
total income they did in fact receive during, say a given year (Chhetri,
2005).
Gini co-efficient
Gini co-efficient is a measure of concentration derived from Lorenz curve. As the
degree of concentration in the concerned variable increase, so does the curvature of the
Lorenz and thus the area between the Lorenz curve and equal distribution line becomes
larger. It means when the inequality of distribution increases, the gap area between
Lorenz curve and equal distribution line (i.e. line of 450) increases so on. Thus Gini co-
efficient (G.C.) is the ratio between the areas between 45 0 line & Lorenz curve and total
area below the 450 line( Todaro….).
If the Lorenz curve coincides on the 450 line, the value of G.C. is Zero i.e. there is
equal distribution of concerned variable, where as, if the Lorenz curve covers the whole
32
area below the 450 line. G.C. will be equal to unity i.e. there is higher inequality in the
distribution of variable concerned. Moreover, the value of G.C. is always a non- negative.
0 ≤ G.C. ≤ 1
The value of Gini co-efficient occupies between 0 to 1. When value of G.C.
nearer to Zero; it is nearer to equal distribution i.e. less skewness of income distribution.
If the value of G.C. higher i.e. nearer to 1, it is said that there is sharp distribution, i.e.
more inequal distribution been occupied. The higher the value of Gini co-efficient, the
higher the inequality of income distribution, the lower it is, the more equitable the
distribution of income (Aryal and Gautam, 2001).
CHAPTER – FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents

Socio economic features such as ethnic composition, sex, occupation, literacy,
household size, land holding, etc. of the respondents are presented and analyzed in this
heading. Brief description of these features can be helpful to understand the socio-
economic status of the area under study. As this study is focused on the financial aspects
of household income and cost attributed to CF activities & other household activities,
socio-economic characteristics of the respondents give quick understanding of the
scenario of socio-economic condition of the users in the study area.
5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents

The respondents involved in the survey were belonging to different castes. All the
caste systems are grouped into three categories. They are Brahmin/Chhetri, Janajati and
Dalit. The major Janajati were Magars, Tamangs, Newars, Kumal, Gurung and Dalits
were, Damai, Kami and sarki.
33
Table 5: Ethnic Composition of selected sample Households
Ethnic Group TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Brahmin/ Chhetri 10 15 22 47 60.30
Janajati 4 4 10 18 23
Dalit 3 5 5 13 16.70
Total 17 24 37 78 100
(Source; field survey 2009)
Brahmin/ Chhetri comprise 60.3% of sampled HHs; followed by Janajati 23% of ethnic
community and Dalit are 16.7% of the total sampled households. In the study area
researcher found that all ethnic community people are living with brotherhood. In the
Thadopakho CFUG, there is less involved in Dalit HHs than other two CFUGs.
5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents

The respondents of this research include either male or female from the households
which mostly involve in the CF activities. Among the respondents male are selected
69.3% and female are 30.7%, which is shown following table;
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by sex
Gender TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Male 10 17 27 54 69.30
Female 7 7 10 24 30.70
Total 17 24 37 78 100

The respondents were mainly individuals who mostly involve in forestry and farming
activities assuming that they can provide more information than those who do not involve
in such activities. It shows that male participation is more in farm and forestry activities
than female participation.
34
5.1.3 Household Size of the Respondents
The average household size was 7 member in the study area with minimum 4 and
maximum 12 members. Household size of the surveyed population was found remarkably
larger than national average household size of the country, i.e. 5.4 (CBS, 2003). Also, it
was found larger than districts average household size of 4.89 (CBS, 2001). The
households are divided into three sizes, i.e. <6 members (small), 6-8 members (medium)
and >8 members (large) in the study.
Table 7: Household Size of the selected sample household
Total
Household Size TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Household Percentage
<6 2 4 6 12 15
6-8 9 12 19 40 51
>8 6 8 12 26 34
Total 17 24 37 78 100
(Source: field survey, 2009)
More than half of the sampled households are of medium sized (51%) followed by small
(34%) and large (only 15%).
5.1.4 Occupation Status of the Respondents

Occupations refer to all the activities of earning by people for their livelihood and
daily requirement fulfillment. The respondents of study area are involved in a variety of
occupation like farming, business, services etc.
Table 8: Occupation Status of the selected sample household
Occupation Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Agriculture 13 20 29 62 80
Business 4 4 8 16 20
Total 78 100
Table 8 shows that the 80% of the household are depend on the agriculture, which
is their main occupation, where as 20% of household are only involve in Business.
5.1.5 Land Holding Size of the Respondents
35
The land holding size of the respondents ranges from 1 to 21 Ropani. Land
holding is divided in to three categories, which are show in the following table.
Table 9: Land holding size of selected sampled household
Land Hold Size (in
Ropani) TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage
>15 4 8 14 26 33.4
5-15 7 6 12 25 32
<5 6 10 11 27 34.6
Total 17 24 37 78 100
Table 9 shows that the 33.4% of the respondents have >15 Ropani land where as 32%
have 5-15 Ropani and 34.6% have <5 Ropani land.
5.1.6 Education Status of the Respondents

The education level of respondents were broadly classified in to 4 categories such
as Illiterate, Primary level, Secondary Level and College level.
Table 10: Education status of the sample household
Education Status TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

Primary 9 13 20 42 53.8
Secondary 2 3 6 11 14.1
College 1 2 1 4 5.1
Illiterate 5 6 10 21 27
Total 17 24 37 78 100
Above table 10, shows that the most of the respondents (53.8%) had completed the
primary level. 14.1% had completed the secondary level, only 5.1% had received the
college level education and 27% of the respondents were illiterate. Most of the
respondents of the Bramin/chhatri were found literate up to the secondary level and
higher level of illiteracy was found in lower caste and Janajati community.
5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents

Livestock holding of the households indicates pressure on the forest from the
livestock in terms of consumption of fodder and ground grass. Also the number or unit of
36
livestock and type of livestock determines the wealth status of the household in the rural
community.
Table 11: Livestock holding status of the sample households
Livestock Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage
Cattle 40 24 32 96 13.2
Buffalo 12 19 26 57 7.8
Goat 139 119 235 493 67.8
Pig 22 21 38 81 11.2
Total 213 183 331 727 100
In the study area, the percentage of the goat is found dominant in terms of number, and
then followed by Cattle, pig and lastly buffalo.
5.1.8 Wealth Status of the Respondents

Rich, Medium and Poor class households were purposively selected by simple
random sampling after wealth ranking. There fore the figure shows somewhat equal
number of respondents from 3 classes.
Table 12: Wealth status of the selected sample households
Household Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage
Rich 4 8 14 26 33.4
Middle 7 6 12 25 32
Poor 6 10 11 27 34.6
Total 17 24 37 78 100
Among the sampled household, 33.4% household belong to rich class. 32 % belong to
middle class and 34.6% belong to poor wealth class.
5.2 Household Income of the Respondents

The household economy in the rural society depends on the income derived from
different sources like, Agriculture, livestock, non farm income (remittance, service rent
etc.) and Community Forest income.
5.2.1 Agriculture Income of the Household
37
Agriculture is one of the most important sources of the subsistence economy in
rural households. Main agriculture product is the study area has paddy, maize, wheat and
fruits and vegetable.
Table 13: Annual agriculture incomes per sampled household according to household
categories
Income HH Total Average
source type income income Minimum Maximum Percentage
Agriculture Rich 5,61,435 21,593.65 14,800 36,170 54.6
Middle 2,99,350 11,974 6,830 20,500 29.1
Poor 1,66,715 6,174.62 3,280 7,820 16.3
Total 10,27,500 13173 3280 36170 100
In the study area income of the household from agriculture varies from NRs 3,280 to NRs
36,170. Table 13 shows that the annual average agriculture income of a rich class
household has more than the other. Annul average income of rich class household have
NRs. 21593.65, middle class household have NRs. 11974and 6174.62 annual average
income of the poor household..
5.2.2 Livestock Income of the Respondents

Livestock rearing is a common practice in rural area for manure, milk and cash
income. Rich class households have practiced to rear more cattle than middle and poor
class households, middle class households have more than goat, buffalos and Pigs than
other class household in the study area (Table 14) which indicate the livestock rearing
pattern of different wealth class of households. Middle class households were found to
have a relatively higher number of livestock than the poor and rich class households. This
may be because the middle class household is more dependent on agriculture farming for
which the Livestock are reared as source of manure and they also earn from the sale of
milk and goat products.
Table 14: Livestock holding status of per household according to household categories
Livestock Livestock No. of Livestock No. of Livestock No. of
Type Rich Class Middle Class Poor Class
Cattle 46 35 15
Buffalo 21 24 12
Goat 179 187 127
38
Pig 18 36 27
Total 264 282 181
Table 15: Annual livestock income per household according to household categories
HH Total Average
Income Source type income income Minimum Maximum percentage
Rich 3,10,475 11,941.36 2,700 32,500 35.6
Livestock (Cattle, Buffalo,
Goat, Pig and milk selling) Middle 3,04,040 12,161.06 4,510 26,500 35
Poor 2,56,125 9,486.61 3,645 24,210 29.4
Total 8,70,640 11162 3645 32500 100
In the study, income from livestock includes the monetary value derived from the sell of
livestock and its products in a year in the household. The monetary value is given also to
the products consumed in the households themselves. The income of the livestock per
household in the study area varies from NRs.2700 to NRs32500. The average livestock
income is the highest to the middle class household (NRs.12161.06 per annum) and the
lowest for poor class household (NRs 9486.61 per annum).
5.2.3 Non Farm Income of Respondents
In this study, the income other than from agriculture, livestock and forest are
classified as non-farm income of the household which include income from government
and non-government service, remittance from foreign job, business, pension, wage labor,
interest, rent etc.
Table 16: Annual income per household from non- farm sources according to household
categories
Income Total Average
Source HH type Income Income Minimum Maximum Percentage
Rich 1519460 58440.76 35750 200000 57.7
Non-farm Middle 656000 26240 10000 70000 25
39
Poor 456500 16907.4 4000 42000 17.3
Total 2631960 33743 4000 200000 100
Above table 16 shows that the non-farm income of the user household in the study area is
derived minimum NRs 4000 from to maximum NRs 200000. Non farm income of the
rich class household is more than other two classes of households because most of the
rich class households are involved business and foreign job.
5.2.4 Community Forest Income of the Respondents

In this study Community forest (CF) income implies the income derived from the
use and sell of forest product like timber, fuel-wood, fodder, bedding materials etc. from
CF. Income from CF is, therefore, the monetary value of the products consumed and sold
by the users. In the study area it is found that most of the forest products derived from the
CF are consumed in the household and not sold outside the CFUGs. So we can convert
consumed forest product by HHs level is into local market price, to find out the HHs
income from CF. Annul income from the CF according to household categories are
shown following table.
Table 17: Annual income of household from Community Forest according to household
type
Total Average
Income Source HH type income Income Minimum Maximum percentage
Community Forest Rich 17180 660.76 320 1075 39.7
Middle 15015 600.6 275 840 34.7
Poor 11030 408.51 140 835 25.6
Total 43225 554.16 320 1075 100
Table 17 show that the rich class households take more benefit from CF than the other
class household, where rich class household derives NRs.660.76, poor class derives NRs.
408.51 and a middle class derives NRs 600.6 per annual average income from the CF.
The reason behind this may the fact that the poor households have less land and livestock
ownership and so use less quantity of fuel wood or bedding materials. Also the poor class
households use very low quantity of timber because they are not involved in CF product
distribution committee. Rich class household use more timber than other so they earn
40
more in CF because they have in power of distribution. Middle class people have more
livestock than other so they consume more Bedding materials than others.
5.2.5 Total household Income of Respondents

Total household income means income from various sources ( agriculture,
livestock, non-farm) including community forest, which income directly help to the
economy of the sampled household of three wealth categories from three CFUGs.
Annual total income of the selected sample households are shown following table,
Table 18: Annual income of sampled household according to household Categories
Total income Total income
Income Total income of of the Middle of the poor
source Rich Class HHs Class HHs class HHs
agriculture 561435(23.32) 299350(23.49) 166715(18.72)
Livestock 310475(12.89) 304040(23.86) 256125(28.77)

Non-farm 1519460(63) 656000(51.48) 456500(51.27)
Community
forest 17180(0.72) 15015(1.17) 11030(1.24)
1274405(100
Total 2408550(100) ) 890370(100)
Table 18 shows that the non-farm source of the income (mostly income from in country
and foreign services) is the major source of the sampled household which comprises 63%
of rich, 51.48% of middle and 51.27% of poor total household income. The high share of
income from non-farm sources is due to the high rate of foreign employment from most
of the households. Community forest contributes less than other source, where it
comprises 0.72% of rich, 1.17% of middle and 1.24% of poor to the total household
income. This is because the poor people are more depend on the forest product at
household level than the rich and middle HHs.
41
5.3 Share of Community Forest Income in Total Household Income of
Respondents
Community forest is one of the major sources of timber, fodder, fuel wood,
bedding materials and leaf litter to the users. Besides community forest provides several
indirect benefits to the users’ household such as water, fertilizers, etc. contribution of
community forest income to the household income of the total sample household is found
NRs 43225 where rich households getting a total of NRs. 17180; middle class households
get NRs. 15015 and the poor class households are getting NRs. 11030( Table 15).
Table 19: Annual community forest income per user household and its share in the total
household income according to household type
Share of CF
Household Number of Community Total household income in total
Type household forest income(NRs) household
income (NRs) income (%)
Rich 26 17180 2408550 0.71
Middle 25 15015 1274405 1.17
Poor 27 11030 890370 1.23
Total 78 43225 4573325 3.11
The finding shows that community forest supports 3.11% in the total household
income. Poor class household is receiving 1.23%, middle class households 1.17 and rich
class households are receiving 071% of their total household income from CF (table 19).
The finding also shows that the Poor households are more depend on community forest
than other household’s people in the study area.
42
Table 20: annual mean CF income per user household and its share in total
household income according to household categories (NRs)
Household Community forest Total household Share of CF income
Category income income (NRs) in total household
income (%)
Rich 660.76 92636.53 0.71
Middle 600.60 50976.2 1.17
Poor 408.51 32976.66 1.23
Total 1669.87 176589.39 3.11
The finding shows that the mean annual household income per household from the CF is
NRs.1669.87 where a rich class household gets NRs. 660.76, middleclass household gets
NRs. 600.60 and a poor class household gets NRs. 408.51(Table 20).
Although the actual amount of income to the poor household is lower than rich
class households, it has significant impact on support the poor households. The findings
of other several studies Chhetri, (2005), Ghimire, (2007) also conformed that poor
households derived a relatively large share of their household income from community
forest compared to the better- off households in the same community.
The result of t- test shows that there is no significant difference (p value >0.05) in
the mean income received from the community forest between the rich HH and middle
HH classes of users’ at the 0.05 level. There is also no statistically significant difference
(p value > 0.05) in mean income received from the community forest between the rich
class HH and Poor class HH of users at the 0.05 level. But t-test shows that there is
statistically significant difference (p value > 0.05) in mean income received from the
community forest income between the rich and poor class household of users at the 0.05
level.
5.4 Benefit Distribution System of Selected Three CFUGs

The study has shown that a majority of users were taking household use products
from the community forest. Among them timber, fuel wood and bedding materials were
most consumed basic requirement by the respondents as well as users. Besides these
43
products, other products such as grass, litter, leaf etc. are not including for the study
because of time constraint. Therefore include distribution of timber, fuel-wood and
bedding materials in this study with the help of informal discussion of user, interview
with the respondents and Community Forest Committee member (CFCM) of selected
three CFUG.
a. Timber distribution: -
There has been traditional pattern of benefit distribution in the context of timber
product in all three CFUG. Timber is considered valuable forest product thus it is sold
higher price than other forest products. The capable user i.e. rich class users have taken
more benefits from timber. The selling system of timber is open auction bid type. The
user who have more money he can bye only because the price of timber is high. In some
cases limited users were compete in sell. The technical support in valuation of timber
quantity has been provided by DFO staff. Generally timber is sold NRs 100/- per Cft.
The provision of equitable sharing of benefits has not serving to poor people. For
instance, the rate of timber is not affordable by poor user and rate for richer and mid-
wealthier users are enjoying very much. Using of timber is generally for house building,
Furniture etc.
b. Fuel wood Distribution:-

All three CFUG have same rule to distribute fuel wood. Fuel wood is collected
from dead, dying and diseased tree. Small shrubs also are used fuel wood purpose. There
is great demand of fuel wood for cooking in the study area.
The system of fuel wood collection is very traditional. Generally CFUG
committee meeting decides to open forest in winter season. It is generally in Saturday
holiday. Every household require paying NRs. 35 for per bhari fuel wood, which is the
market price of fuel-wood.
c. Bedding material distribution:-

In the study area, main occupation of users has agriculture, so there is more use of
bedding material for making compost manure. Bedding material contributes to
44
agriculture production. All three CFUGs generally open every week of holiday for
collection of bedding material. User need to pay NRs 5 per bhari, which is the local price
of bedding materials.
d. Grass, litter, fruits, leaf

In general these all products are not strictly prohibited. Like wise litter collection
is often schedule to open during spring and summer season. Litter, leaf and grass are
distributed free of cost.
e. Other type of Benefits

Some time CFUG distributes special kinds of benefit in cash or material from
within its users. These are prize, reward, elder recognition, training, seminar etc. In the
study are researcher found community forest user group committee are annually
rewarded that person who involve in social sector bye the fund of CFUG. Also give the
prize of student, who takes the good mark in S.L.C. exam among these CFUGs. CFUGs
member also can take the benefits, participation of tours, training and seminar, through
the CFUGs fund. We find in the study areas, this type of distribution is decided by CFUG
committee meeting. The leadership is mainly responsible for it. Poor people have low
access in this kind of benefit capture.
5.4.1 Distribution of benefit among Sample Household of selected all CFUG

During field survey we have taken interview with sample respondent HH family
head member about the amount of distributed timber, fuel wood, bedding material. Each
sample HH were asked how much quantity they have bought or taken from CF. the
answers they had filled up in questionnaire then updated their benefit value and quantity.
Generally all samples HH have taken some extent of timber, fuel wood and
bedding materials. Few have taken benefit, i.e. training, participation in seminar etc,
which is provided by DFO, INGO and NGO. All benefits were taken by sample
45
household with household categories of all three CFUGs for one year data are shown in
following table and diagrams.
Table 21: Involvement in different programme from selected three CFUG members in
2008, according to household categories
Name of CFUG Training Seminar
Rich Middle Poor Rich Middle Poor
Thadopakho 2 1 2 - - -
Padali 1 3 1 1 1 -
Chameli 3 1 1 3 1 1
Table 21 shows that the there are less participation in training and seminar from poor
class member of CFUG. This is because there are less participation of poor in committee
of forest in 2008, 40% of rich, 34 % of middle and only 24% of poor class people are
participate in training programme from 3 CFUG. In seminar programme 57% of rich,
29% middle and only 14% of poor class people are participate from Chameli and padali
CFUG but no one are participate from Thadopakho CFUG.
5.4.1.1 Distribution of benefit of forest products of selected sample household in

Selected three CFUG
Table 22: Annual average benefit distribution of forest products per sampled household
according to household categories of selected three CFUG
Name of Household No. of Average Benefit Quantity
Timber Fuel-wood Bedding
CFUG categories sample HH
in (Cft) in (Bhari) materials in
(Bhari)
Rich 4 3.50 3.50 38
Middle 7 4 4.28 31.85
Thadopakho
Poor 6 0.70 5.50 35.33
Rich 8 2.25 1.75 39.62
Middle 6 1.33 2.50 46.83
Padali
Poor 10 1.40 3.90 8.5
Rich 14 5.10 2.50 31.85
Middle 12 3.16 4.83 24.83
Chameli
Poor 11 2.27 4.36 19.00
46
Table: 23 Average community forest incomes per household by type of forest product
according to household categories (NRs) in Thadopakho CFUG
Household Average income from community forest by type of forest product
categories (NRs)
Timber Fuel-wood Bedding Total
materials
Rich 350 122.50 190 662.50
(52.83) (18.49) (28.68) (100)
Middle 400 150 159.20 709.2
(56.40) (21.16) (22.440 (100)
Poor 66.66 192.50 176.60 435.76
(15.29) (44.18) (40.53) (100)
Total 816.66 465 525.80 1807.46
(45.18) (25.73) (29) (100)
Above table 23 shows that the rich and middle households’ people can got more timber
from CF so these household are more benefit than poor. Annually in mean value of
community forest product, rich can earn NRs 662.5, middle earns NRs 709.2 and poor
earn only NRs 435.76. In Thadopakho CFUG middle are more benefited among poor and
rich. This is because middle class household have more livestock. Which is also show in
following bar diagram.
Figure no: 1 Average annual community forest benefit per sample household by type of
forest according to household categories of Thadopakho CFUG
47
according to household categories (NRs) in Padali CFUG
Househ Average income from community forest by type of
old forest product (NRs)
categor
materials
ies
Rich 225 61.25 198.12 484.37
(46.45) (12.65) (40.90) (100)
Middle 133.34 87.50 234.16 455
(29.30) (19.24) (51.46) (100)
Poor 140 136.50 42.40 318.90
(43.90) (42.90) (13.29) (100)
Total 498.34 285.25 474.68 1258.27
(39.60) (22.67) (37.73) (100)
Above table 24 shows that the rich households’ people can got more timber from CF so
rich household are more benefit than poor and middle class HH. Annually mean value of
forest product of rich can earn NRs 484.37, middle earns NRs 455 and poor earn only
NRs 318.90.Which is also show in following bar diagram.
Figure no. 2: Average annual Community forest benefits per household by type of forest
product according to household categories in padali CFUG
48
according to household categories (NRs) in Chameli CFUG
Household Average income from community forest by type of forest product (NRs)
categories
materials
Rich 514.28 87.5 159.28 761.06
(67.58) (11.49) (20.93) (100)
Middle 316.67 169.16 124.16 610
(51.92) (27.73) (20.35) (100)
Poor 227.28 152.73 95.45 475.46
(47.80) (32.13) (20.07) (100)
Total 1058.23 409.39 378.89 1846.52
(57.30) (22.18) (20.52) (100)
Above table 25 shows that the rich households’ people can got more benefits from forest
products so these household are more benefit than poor and middle. In Chameli CFUG
annually mean value of the rich can earn NRs 761.06, middle class HH earn NRs 610 and
poor HH earn only NRs 475.46. This is because rich and Middle HH are more benefited
from timber. Which is also show in following bar diagram.
Figure 3: Average annual community forest benefit per sample household by type of
forest according to household categories of Chameli CFUG
5.5 Source of CFUG Fund and Socio economic contribution
49
5.5.1 Source of Fund
CFUG collects money received from various sources in its group fund. The major
sources of Forest user Group (FUG) fund includes the sale and distribution of forest
products, collecting membership fees, levying penalties, bank interest of fund, grants/
donation etc.
Table no.26: Total revenue of Thadopakho CFUG in 2008 from various sources
S.N. Description Source Total Amount in Percentage of
(NRs) the total
income
1 Forest products Timber 5550 16.23
Fuel wood 8610 25.18
Bedding material 1640 4.79
2 Others Membership fee 2050 5.99
Penalty 635 1.86
Interest 712 2.08
Grants/ donation 15000 43.87
3 Total - 34197 100
Table no.27: Total revenue of Padali CFUG in 2008 from various sources
(NRs) the total
income
Fuel wood 12705 41.18
Penalty 15 0.04
Interest 1018 3.23
3 Total - 30858 100
Table no.28: Total revenue of Chameli CFUG in 2008 from various sources
(NRs) the total
income
50
Fuel wood 24605 44.40
Penalty 545 0.99
Interest 816 1.47
3 Total - 55411 100
In the study area main source of forest user group is fuel wood and timber. More than
25% of total fund are collected in fuel wood. This is because in this area main source of
cooking energy is fuel wood, more than 80% of respondents are using forest wood for
cocking their food. And more than 15% annual total fund is collected from selling timber.
Membership fees also the other important source of revenue of CFUG. Community forest
management committee also takes NRs 25 per household for renew their membership per
year.
5.5.2 Status of CFUG Fund Expenditure/Mobilization

Generally the CFUG can utilize their fund in various community development
activities of the community besides forest development works. Community development
activities are essential to improve the quality of life and to empower the local people.
Community development program directly address the needs and benefits of the groups
by increasing access to basic services. During the study, it is found that CFUGs has
launched limited number of community development in the study area from the FUG
fund or the income of the community forest. List of annual total expenditure in various
area of selected sample CFUGs are following;
Table No. 29: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Thadopakho CFUG
S.N. Description Invested amount in Percentage of total
NRs expenditure
1 Community development 10000 48.78
2 Institutional development 7000 34.15
3 Infrastructure development 2500 12.19
4 Income generation activities - -
5 Miscellaneous 1000 4.88
6 Total 20500 100
51
Thadopakho CFUG spent in community development activities 48.78% fund of the total
expenditure fund in 2008(Table 29), which more than other. Community development
means road construction, school support, temple building etc which particularly related in
community. For institutional development they spent 34.15% of total expenditure and
infrastructure development they spent only 12.19% fund in 2008 but in income
generation activities they have not spent any amount.
Table No. 30: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Padali CFUG
NRs expenditure
4 Income generation activities - -
5 Miscellaneous 1000 8
6 Total 12553 100
Above table 30 shows that the Padali CFUG also expenses huge amount in community
development activities (57.37% of total expenditure) in 2008. In this study area for
institutional development they spent NRs1350 (10.75% of total expenditure) and
infrastructure development they spent NRs 3000 (23.88% of total expenditure) only. For
income generation activities in 2008 they have not spend any amount.
Table No. 31: Total Expenditure in different area in 2008 of Chameli CFUG
NRs expenditure
4 Income generation activities 4500 14.55
5 Miscellaneous 1500 4.85
6 Total 30925 100
Above table 31 shows that the Chameli CFUG also expenses NRs 12500 (40.42% of total
expenditure) in 2008. In this study area for institutional development they spent NRs
7200 (23.29% of total expenditure) and infrastructure development they spent NRs 5225
(16.89% of total expenditure) only. For income generation activities in 2008 they spend
52
NRs 4500 (14.55% of total expenditure amount). An income generation activity means
that type of activities which directly help to improve people income like Training, loan
etc.
5.6 Measuring Income Inequality between Household Categories
The measurement of dispersion of tangible benefit with in all selected three CFUG is our
core objective. What kind of inequality of distribution of timber, fuel wood and bedding
material is occurred? How far (sharp or smooth) and to what extent of distributional
inequality be observed in those selected CFUGs? These are our research problem to be
solved. Thus finding the extent of inequality is our prime concern.
In this study we have applied two methods for measuring the inequality, they are:-
• Lorenz curve method
• Gini co-efficient method
5.6.1 Lorenz curve for selected CFUGs

The income inequality of the household can be shown by drawing the Lorenz
curve and calculating the Gini co-efficient. The departure of the line below the line of
equality (straight line) in the Lorenz curve shows the inequality (diagonal line) to the
household income. Farther the line from the line of equality, greater is the inequality it
represents.
Table No. 32: Distributional summary statistics of three CFUGs with 10 quantile group
Quantile Thadopakho CFUG Padali CFUG Chameli CFUG
Group
% of Cum% of Media Cum% of Median Cum% of
Median HH income HH income HH
income
1 80.65 8.03 37.58 5.72 51.91 7.24
2 83.87 20.67 60.40 8.02 59.54 12.34
3 86.02 25.01 77.85 16.45 76.34 20.53
4 91.40 29.63 85.91 22.78 87.79 30.39
5 100.00 39.66 99.33 30.13 100.00 38.77
6 112.90 51.00 107.38 41.88 102.29 50.46
53
7 135.48 57.84 134.23 51.33 107.63 68.71
8 154.84 72.71 169.13 69.61 112.21 71.93
9 177.42 89.58 181.21 82.99 128.24 86.00
10 - 100.00 - 100.00 - 100.00
Figure 4, Lorenz curve of total annual CF income selected 3 CFUG members
Lorenz Curves
120
Line of Equal Dist
CF1
100 CF2
CF3
80
Cum% Income
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cum % HH
Above figure 1, shows that the Lorenz curve for CFUG 1(Thadopakho CFUG) and
CFUG 3 (Chameli CFUG) is close and smooth to the line of equal distribution where as
Lorenz curve for CFUG 2 (Padali CFUG) and is farther from line of equal distribution.
54
So we can conclude that the distribution of forest products between community forest
user group member in Thadopakho CFUG and Chameli CFUG is less inequal. But it is
far inequal in Padali CFUG.
Table no 33: Gini co-efficient for selected three CFUG
S.N. Name of CFUG Agriculture Non- farm Community forest
income income income
1 Thadopakho CFUG 0.36 0.44 0.17
2 Padali CFUG 0.29 0.50 0.28
3 Chameli CFUG 0.26 0.42 0.17
Table 33, shows that the Gini co-efficient for three different source of household income
in three community forest user group. In Thadopakho CFUG has more inequality (Gini
co-efficient 0.36) of agriculture income between CFUG member than Padali and Chameli
CFUG. As the value of G.C. on agriculture income of Chameli CFUG is 0.26, there is
less income inequality between CFUG member than Thadopakho and Padali CFUG. The
Gini co-efficient of non-farm income in the study are found that the Thadopakho CFUG
has, 0.44, Padali CFUG has 0.50 and Chameli CFUG has 0.42(table 32). This result
shows that value of G.C. of Padali CFUG is greater than other two CFUG so there is
more Non-farm income inequality between community forest user group members. The
value of G.C. of Chameli CFUG has lower than other two CFUG so there is less non-
farm income inequality between CFUG members. The Gini co-efficient of CF income in
Thadopakho CFUG is 0.17, Gini co-efficient of Padali CFUG is 0.28 and Chameli CFUG
is 0.17. The result clearly indicates that the Gini co-efficient of Padali CFUG is relatively
higher than the other two CFUG so there is more CF income inequality between the
community forest user group members. The researcher found that in Padali CFUG has
traditional system of distribution forest product, means first-come-first basis system.
They are not following scientific system means equal distribution system. Poor household
can get less forest product among the middle household and rich household (Table 16),
this is because the poor are less represents in CFUG committee.
5.7 Is community Forestry Pro-Poor programme?
55
There has been long discussion in an issue whether CF programme is pro- poor or
not. Government of Nepal has considered it is a pro-poor programme, thus this
programme is emphasized at rural level, where the more poverty is found. So government
has made conducive policy Acts, Rules as well as mentioning in 9th, 10th and three years
interim plan that CF programme is pro-poor programme.
Department of forest (2007) has stated that the primary objective of community
forestry is to fulfill forest product in sustainable basis for local people to reduce rural
poverty through providing much benefits to poor household of society.
In the context of Interim plan of government have given highest priority to reduce
poverty and thus undertaken the CF program as a tool to reduce rural poverty. In this
regard, the question more frequently is raised whether CF programme and CFUGs
activities are sufficiently contributing in poverty reduction in Nepal.
To some extent CFUGs are contributing in upliftment of various socio-economic
variables in rural area of the country. Several research reports, study paper are supporting
it. More fund of CFUG has been used to reduce poverty, to increase education level, to
construct development structure in society. In spite of contributing in socio-economic
development, several studies on another hand have shown that benefit distribution of
CFUGs are still unfair, unjustifiable and inequal & the poor users have less access in
CFUG benefit sharing.
This study on Thadopakho, Padali and Chameli CFUG shows that there is still
inequality of benefit distribution. Only rich and middle class users are getting more
benefit and poor user are getting low benefit while having low access in timber, fuel
wood, bedding materials etc. the Gini co-efficient of all three CFUG shows the presence
of inequality in all CFUG. Making CF programme pro-poor, it is required to smooth
equal distribution of benefit within CFUG member.
5.8 How Inequality is Constraint in Poverty reduction?

Generally poverty and inequality are considered as synonyms in various studies,
but are different. World Bank report (1990) has defined that poverty is concerned with
the standard of living in society but inequality measures relative living standard across
56
the whole society. Absolute poor are those who are below one U.S.doller per day income.
Those have also not good fair living standard, life expectancy, education, caloric food
and proper needy materials. In this context World Bank has given the suggestion to Least
Developed countries (LDC) like Nepal to adopt the policy of providing more benefits
towards the poor for reducing poverty.
In this context, CFUGs can flow more benefits towards the poor society for
upgrading the poor users livelihood where inequality is a detrimental factor, which be a
constraint to flow more benefits in poor people.
World Development report (2002) has clearly mentioned that major hurdle in poverty
reduction is unequal distribution in LDC, so it has been suggested to lower the inequality
co-efficient for the better access of poor in community benefits. (Sen, 2001) has proposed
Sen’s Index of poverty, shows the poverty gap. He has used Gini co-efficient as prime
factor to calculate poverty gap. Thus the inequality has been considered a major factor of
poverty in poor nation like Nepal.
Tiwari, (2004) has mentioned that income based poverty in Nepal is more
common. The sharing of income or consumption of lowest 20% poor population is 5.3%
where as higher 20% rich have 50.3%. The Gini co-efficient of Nepal in 1985 was 0.24
but it was 0.34 in 1996 and 0.42 in 2003/04. Like wise the GDP growth rate of Nepal is
also not pro-poor. He has further pointed out growth of GDP can’t contribute in poverty
reduction, while reducing the inequality is more important.
Wagle, (2009) states in his report that Nepal has possessed the highest inequality
co-efficient of income distribution in Asia when we are saying loudly poverty is reduced
from 42% to 31% in 2006 (NPC report 2006). He has mentioned the more recent data of
Gini co-efficient for Nepal is 0.47. This shows more inequality of income distribution
among people. The inequality is sharp in rural area.
The above discussion shows that growth and production only can’t cope poverty,
if inequality persists there. Our study shows us the production and growth of forest
resources is being increasing but distribution is still inequal. The Gini co-efficient for
Thadopakho CFUG is 0.17, Padali CFUG is 0.28 and Chameli CFUG is 0.17. In
Thadopakho and Chameli CFUG has found less CF benefits distributional inequality
57
between household Categories so there is less income inequality but Padali CFUG has
more distributional inequality between household categories so there is sharp and skewed
distribution. Thus the Value of G.C. shows that there is still presence of inequality in the
distribution of CF benefit generated through timber, fuel wood, bedding materials and
other sources. It is seen that the inequality is more in Padali CFUG than the Chameli and
Thadopakho CFUG. There are several causes of the presence of inequality of them the
detrimental are: traditional system of distribution of Valuable timber product; poor &
Dalit have low representation on decision making key post, weak monitoring &
evaluation system of DOF etc.
CHAPTER – SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Agriculture is the major professional of the people in the study area but the share
of total household income is the highest from non-farm activities (mostly from in-country
and foreign employments) which covers 57.5% of total income. Agriculture is the second
largest source of household’s income it covers 22.5% of total income. Community
forestry contributes only 3.11% of the total household income. In the study area, most of
the forest products collected from CF are consumed for household purpose and not sold
in the market or outside their CFUGs. Mean absolute income from agriculture, livestock,
and non-farm activities and of forest products is higher in rich class households and the
lowest in poor class households.
Rich class households are getting more income from the use of CF products than
poor and middle class HHs in absolute terms, but the difference in the income between
these three classes is insignificant. In contrast, the percentage share of CF income in
terms of total HH income becomes high for poor class HHs as their total HH income is
very low compared to richer class households. In terms of absolute contribution rather
than percentage share to the household income, community forests contribute more to the
well-off households than to the poor households. Although the actual amount of income
58
to the poor HHs is lower than to richer class households, it has significant impact on
support poor households.
The consumption pattern of forest products in three categories of household is
also different. Rich class households use large quantity of timber; middle class use more
fuel wood than poor class HHs. The income from the use of forest products has helped to
reduce the income inequality in all three categories of users, having the higher
contribution to the poor and middle class HHs.
CFUGs have spent their fund for different social development works. Poor users
are not getting more benefits from CFUG fund because participation of poor and
disadvantaged users in decision making process is very low but they have to involve in
all group activities such as forest protection, tending, etc. Though they participate in
assemblies, their voices are not heard and programmes are not formulated for their
support. Elite makes rules and poor and disadvantaged section of users are compelled to
follow those rules. For this reason, recurring works done with CFUG fund and the actual
necessities of the poor users expected from the fund do not match. All three CFUGs are
spending more than 40% amount of the total expenditure amount in social development
work. Poor class HHs has also low participated in training and seminar than rich and
middle HHs.
6.2 Recommendations
From the benefit distribution perspective, the studied community forests are found
poorly managed and traditional system of all three CFUGs, the researcher has made
following recommendation for the better promotional strategies for lowering the
inequality to improve the livelihood of CFUGs members.
CFUGs should have to make equitable benefit distribution mechanism
flow more benefits i.e. timber towards the poor class HHs. For this first
of all identify the poor HH and also participate poor household in
decision making process (Executive Committee) in community forest
user group committee.
59
CFUG leadership and DFO staff should give proper attention to monitor
the benefit distribution system, whether being equitable or not.
Through the annual household survey it will be found that, actually
which wealth class be more benefited.
CFUG should have to abolish the traditional and old-dated benefit

distribution system of first-come-first basis. At this traditional system,
people who are in distribution committee of forest user group, they are
more benefited. If all CFUG committee follows equal distribution
system then, there is no any inequality forest product distribution.
CFUG should implement equal distribution system and more inclusive

basis distribution system/mechanism which can help to access the
poor in more benefit sharing. Community forest Committee can adopt
the rule of equal distribution of forest products to all CFUG members.
Poor users should be involved equally in the decision making process

(Executive committee). To achieve this, there should be equi-
proportional involvement of poor and disadvantaged users in executive
committee. This can be also done through the Quota system, involving
in decision making process.
For greater benefit of the poor households dependent on forest

resources, alternative income generation programmes should
formulated, for which skill development trainings and seed money for
income generation activities should be provided by CFUG from the
group fund. The percentage of income of CFUG that should be spent on
60
pro-poor programmes as provisioned on three years interim plan
(2008-2010) should strictly be followed. This can narrow down the
income inequality gap between poor and rich household.
When deciding on mobilizing CFUG fund, all categories of users should

get chance to take part in decision making. But in the study area found
in more than 75 % of elite member are in decision making process. For
this CFUG committee can adopt the quota for non elite member in
decision making process. Allocation of CFUG fund on various
developmental works should strictly consider the necessities of users
on priority order. The system of decision making only by some elites
should be discouraged and representation of all classes of users should
be ensured.
In training, seminar and other human capital development, CFUG and

DFO should participate more poor users.
REFERENCES
Acharya, B. and Oli, B.N. (2004) Impacts of Community Forestry in

Rural Livelihood Nepali Mid-hill: A Case Study from Bharkhore
61
Community Forest, Parbat District. Banko Jankari, 14 (1) pp 46-50.
Department of Forest Research and Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Acharya, K.P. (2001) Managing Forests in Community Forestry,
Banko Janakari 11 (2): 3-7 CBS (2001) Population Census Report,
Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.
Adhikari, Bhim (2003) “property Right and Natural Resources: socio-
Economic Heterogeneity and Distributional Implications of Common
Property Resources Management” working paper of SANDEE,
Kathmandu Nepal
Aryal, J.P. and Gautam, A. (2003). Quantitative technique. A
reading book for M.A. Economics.
CBS (2003) statistical year book of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics.
HMG, Kathmandu, Nepal
CBS (2007) Summary result of poverty analysis based on Nepal,
Living Standard Survey, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.
Chhetri, B.B.K. (2005) Community Forestry Programmes in the Hills
of Nepal: Determinants of Users Participation and Household
Dependency. M. Sc. Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Science
(UMB).
Chhetri R. B (2004) Conservation and Development in Nepal:

Examining the Linkage. In K.R. Kanel et al. (eds), Twenty Five Years of
Community Forestry, Proceeding of Fourth National Community
Forestry Workshop, Department of Forest ( DoF), Community Forestry
Division (CFD), Kathmandu.
Community Forest department (2008), Bulletin of forest,
Babarmahal Kathmandu Nepal
Dahal, M.R. (2006), Externality and Distributional Implication of
Community Forest Management: a Case Study of Arun River Valley.
The Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Faculty of Humanities and Social
Science, T.U. Nepal
62
Department of Forest, annual progress report- 2008, Kathmandu
Department of forest, Ban dairy- 2008, Kathmandu
Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O. and Soussan, J.
(2003b), Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle
Hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1): 64-77.
Gilmour, D.A., and Fisher, R.J. (1991) Villagers, Forest and
Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry
in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.
Graner, E. (1999) Forest policies and access to forests in Nepal. In
R.B. Chhetri and O.P. Gurung (eds.), Anthropology and sociology of
Nepal: culture, societies, ecology and development Sason, Kathmandu,
Nepal
Hamro Kalpabriksha (2008), department of Forest, Babarmahal,
Kathmandu
HMGN (1989) Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal. Main Report
and Executive Summary, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation,
Kathmandu.
HMGN (1993) Forest Act 2049. Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
HMGN (1995) Forest Rules 2051. Ministry of Law and Justice, His
Majesty’s Government of Nepal.
HMGN (2000) Forest Policy 2000. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
(HMG/N), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
HMGN (2002) The Tenth Five Year Plan. National Planning
Commission, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal.
Kanel, K. R. and Niraula, D. R. (2004) Can Rural Livelihood be
Improved in Nepal Through Community Forestry? Banko Janakari 14(1).
Department of Forest Research and Survey, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Kanel, K.R. (2004) “Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry:
Contribution to Millenium Development Goals”. In K.R. Kanel et al.
(eds.), Twenty Five Years of Community Forestry, Proceeding of Fourth
63
National Community Forestry Workshop Department of Forest ( DoF),
Community Forestry Division ( CFD) , Kathmandu.
Kanel, K.R. and Kanel, B.R. (2003) Community Forestry in Nepal:
Second Generation Issues. Community Forest Bulletin 10:6-18.
Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Kanel, K.R. and Kanel, B.R. (2004) Revising Community Forestry in

Nepal: Achievements and Challenges. Community Forest Bulletin 11:5-
19. Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Karki, Arun K. (2003). Extraction of NTFPs from the Community
forest: analysis of benefit distribution pattern in household level,
Journal of Forest & livelihood 4 (1) july 2004.
Malla, Y. B. (2001) Changing Policies and the Persistence of Patron-
Client Relations in Nepal: Stakeholders' Response to Change in Forest
Policies. Environmental History, 8(2).
Maharjan, R. (2004). Tenth five year plan, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, National
Planning Commission, HMG/Nepal, Kathmandu. NBS (2002), Nepal Biodiversity
Strategy, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation Kathmandu.
Niraula, D.R. (2004) Integrating Total Economic Value for Enhancing

Sustainable Management of Community Forests: A Forward Looking
Approach. In K.R. Kanel et al. (eds.), Twenty Five Years of Community
Forestry, Proceeding of Fourth National Community Forestry Workshop,
Department of Forest ( DoF), Community Forestry Division ( CFD) ,
Kathmandu.
NPC (2002) The Tenth Plan. National Planning Commission (NPC),

Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
64
Ojha, H. & Bhattarai, B. (2001), Distributional Impact of Community
Forestry : who is benefiting from Nepal’s community forests?. Forest
action research series 00/01 kathmandu, Nepal
Ojha, E.R. (2004) Comment. Regional Development Dialogue 25(2):
126-134.
Pokharel, B.K., Paudel, D. and Gurung, B.D. (2006). Forests,
Community Based Governance and Livelihoods: Insights from the
Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project in Capitalization and Sharing
of Experiences on the Interaction between Forest Policies and Land
Use Patterns in Asia. Linking People with Resources, Vol. 2: Technical
Papers, 53- 60. SDC and ICIMOD.
Pokharel, R. K. (2003) An Evaluation of the Community Forestry
Program in Kaski District of Nepal: A Local Perspective. Dissertation for
the degree of Ph. D. Michigan State University.
Pokheral, R. K. (2008). Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds; Do They
Benefit the Poor? working paper of SANDEE, Kathmandu Nepal
Richards, M., Maharjan, M. R. and Kanel, K. R. (2003).
Economics, Poverty and Transparency: Measuring Equity in Forest User
Groups. Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 91-104.
Sharma, A. R. (2000). Glamour and grips of Community forestry:
Impact on Income Distribution. Banko Jankari (10) 2: 27-31.
Shrestha, N and Kansakar D.R. (2003), Quantitative technique. A
reading book for M.A. Economics
Shrestha, N.K. (2001). The Backlash: Recent Policy Change
Undermines User Control of Community Forests of Nepal. Forest, Tree
and People, No. 44 pp 62-65.
Tiwari, B. N. (2004). An appraisal of poverty reduction strategy in
Nepal. Central Department of Economic; TU, Kathmandu.
Wagle, D. (2009). Reduced poverty: Increased inequality, a report
published in kantipur daily, 28 Aug. 2009.
65
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Household Survey
I am a student of MA Economics at TU Central department of

Economics Kirtipur. I am carrying out research entitled, “THE STUDY Of
DISTRIBUTIONAL INEQUALITY BETWEEN COMMUNITY FORESTRY USER
GROUPS” for partial fulfillment of the requirement for my MA degree.
All information maintained in this questionnaire will be confidential. So,
I humbly request you to mention your own reality in this questionnaire
with full confidence. Please feel to express your personal opinion. The
information that you will provide and your personal identification will
be kept confidential while using the information for research activities.
Bharat Poudel
Household Survey Form
Date;
----------
66
1. General information of the respondent:
a. Name: -------------------- b. Age: -------- c. Gender: Male [ ]

Female [ ]
d. Marital status: Married [ ] Unmarried [ ]

widower [ ]
e. Wellbeing class: Rich [ ] Medium [ ]

Poor [ ]
2. Household information of the respondents:
a. No of household member: Male [ ] Female [ ]
b. Education of respondents: Illiterate: [ ] Primary: [ ] Secondary:

[ ] College: [ ]
3. Agriculture Income of households

Please mention the quantity of land owned in your household, total
annual production and their prices during past one year.
Type of Crop Cropping area Qty. of annual Price (Rs)
(Ropani) production(unit)
Rice
Maize
Wheat
Vegetable
Fruits
Other(please
specify)
4. Income from Livestock
67
Mention the number, type and production of your livestock and the
prices earn during past one year
Product Type Number Total cash earned (Rs)
Cattle
Buffalo
Goat
Chicken
Milk production
Other
5. Cash Income of household (non farm income)

Mention the number of your household member engaged in different
off farm activities and the amount of income earned from each sources
during the past one year.
Types of employment Number of person income Cash earn
Male Female
Services
Employment abroad
Business
Labor wages
Rent / Interest
Other (please specify)
6. Which one is your main source of forest product supply?
a. Community Forest [ ] b. Private forest: [ ] c. Other: [ ]
7. Income of the household from Community Forest

Please mention the amount of product and their prices during last
twelve month.
Product type Unit Prices(Rs)
Timber
Fuel wood
Fodder
68
Ground grass
Leaf litter
Bedding materials
Other( please Specify)
8. Has the total income generated from the sale of forest product,
increased over the year?
Increase [ ] decrease [ ] No change [ ]
9. Do you get total demand of your forest product from community

forest?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
10. Do you feel that Forest Benefit distribution pattern is fair and
equitable?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
11. How for poor people are benefited in distribution of forest product?
Fair [ ] Moderate [ ] low [ ]
12. Mention your View on benefit distribution forest product;

a)--------------------------------------------------------------------
b) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
c) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
d) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
13. If any Comment? Please write,
Appendix II: Questionnaire for Key Informant Survey
69
Date: ---------
1. Name of the CFUG: -------------------------------------------------
2. Address of the CFUG: -----------------------------------------------
3. List of key person.
SN Name Position Age Qualification

1
2
3
4
5
4. CFUG hand over date: ------------
5. Total population of Users: ---------- Male: ------- Female: -----
6. Number of Household: ------------------
7. Number of household by well being classes:

a) Rich classes: -----
b) Middle classes: ------
c) Poor classes: --------
8. How much amount of money is in your CFUG fund in (Rs):
a) Total Fund:-----------
b) Amount of loan investment: --------
c) Amount in the bank account:-----------
70
9. What are the major activities were CFUG fund is utilized?
S.N. Activities Amount Invested in
(Rs)
1 Forest protection, development and
management
2 Community development
3 Institutional development
4 Infrastructure development
5 Income generation activities
6 Miscellaneous
10. Involvement in the training and other programme based on the last
year record;
S.N. Activities Rich class Middle class Poor class
1 Seminar
2 Training
3 Tour
4 Study
5 Other (please
specify)
11. Who does the decision in CFUG activities?
S.N. Types of activities Person,Committ Remark

e, or group
1 Forest product distribution
2 Fund mobilization
3 Opportunity decision
4 Other
12. If anything to say, please?

1 ………………………………………………………………………………………..
1 …………………………………………………………………………………………
71
2 …………………………………………………………………………………………
3 …………………………………………………………………………………………
4 …………………………………………………………………………………………
72

Distributional Inequality Between Community Forest User Group

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Distributional Inequality Between Community Forest User Group

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DISTRIBUTIONAL INEQUALITY BETWEEN COMMUNITY

FOREST USER GROUPS IN KATHMANDU, BHAKTAPUR

Submitted to Central department of Economics

Faculty of Humanities and social Science

Tribhuvan University, kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Central Department of Economics

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

1.1 Research Background

1.2 Statement of the problem

Although CFUGs have generated more goods and services in to society

1.4 Scope of the Study

1.5 Limitation of the Study

2 Only tangible benefits especially assessing for timber, fuel wood

1.6 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter three deals with study area including country background,

Chapter four presents research methodology which is the central part

Chapter five presents results and discussions. It is the main body of

Chapter six consist conclusion and recommendation.

2.1 Community Forestry in Nepal

Nepal is one of the pioneer countries to hand over the management

2.2 Benefits of Community Forestry

• Poorer and landless households depend on non-land based

2.3 Contribution of Community Forestry in socio-

Many studies have been conducted on various dimensions of

CFUGs and their members have increased access to financial assets

3.1 Kathmandu Valley

3.2 Kathmandu District

3.2.1Community forestry in Kathmandu District

3.3 Bhaktapur District

3.3.1 Community Forestry in Bhaktapur

3.4 Lalitpur District

3.5 Description of Selected CFUGs

3.5.1 Thadopakho CFUG

3.5.2 Padali CFUG

3.5.3 Chameli CFUG

District map of the study area

4.1 Selection of the study area

4.2 Wealth Ranking

4.2.1 Number of Household in each wealth classes of selected three CFUGs

4.4 Design of questionnaires

4.5 Data Collection

a) Focus Group Discussion

C) Household (HH) Survey

d) Meeting with Committee Members

4.6 Monetization of Benefit

a) Calculation of Benefit in Monetary Term

4.7 Data Analysis

4.8 Details of statistical Tools used in the Analysis

Where, μ is the mean income, n is the total number of sampled

5.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents

5.1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Respondents

Ethnic Group TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

5.1.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents

Gender TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

(Source; field survey, 2009)

5.1.4 Occupation Status of the Respondents

Occupation Type TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

5.1.5 Land Holding Size of the Respondents

5.1.6 Education Status of the Respondents

Education Status TPCFUG PCFUG CCFUG Total Percentage

5.1.7 Livestock Holding Status of the Respondents