Poverty and Resource Degradation Under Different Common Forest Resource Management Systems in the Mountains of Nepal

Abstract

Abstract Different types of forest management systems in the study area are analyzed, followed by an assessment of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) use systems and collection practices under the government and community-managed systems, and their implications for the status of forests and NTFPs. Confronted with severe poverty arising from small landholdings and scarce nonfarming employment opportunities, villagers in the upper portion of the watershed have benefited considerably from the income derived from NTFPs. Findings indicate that various components of a common forest resource can be managed differently and undergo degradation at different rates. NTFPs are undergoing degradation more seriously than timber under both government and community forest management systems. However, NTFP degradation is more serious in government forests than in community forests. Such degradation is due primarily to a lack of proper institutional arrangements, including the lack of a comprehensive government policy framework for sustainable use and management of NTFPs. Keywords: community forestscommon forest resourceforest user groupsgovernment forestNepalnontimber forest product collection practicewatershed Funding support for the research was provided by the DANIDA-AIT Integrated Watershed Development and Management (IWDM) Program. This article benefited from the comments given by three anonymous referees. Valuable comments and suggestions were also provided by Karl E. Weber, Roberto Clemente, and Edward E. Webb (AIT) and Andrew W. Ingles (IUCN, Bangkok). The draft article was edited by Jonathon Shaw, Associate Professor, Language Proficiency Center, Asian Institute of Technology. We are grateful to all of them for their invaluable help. Notes Note. From field survey, 2001. Only adults between 15 and 60 years of age were included in the analysis. Note. From field survey, 2001. Note. From field survey, 2001. A value of 10 indicates the "best" and 1 the "worst" condition. Note. From field survey, 2001; f; frequency of responses. Note. From District forest office (DFO).