1. Forest Entitlement and Benefit Sharing in Community Forests in Nepal
(Lessons from two cases of community forests of Nepal)
Pashupati Nath Koirala1
and K.F.Wiersum2
1. Department of Forests, Babarmahal, Kathmandu; E-mail: koiralapn@gmail.com
2. Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Freerk.Wiersum@wur.nl
ABSTRACT: The aim of this research is to gain insight and explore the relationship of forest benefits and their distribution
mechanism among users by evaluating existing institutional arrangements in the community forestry (CF). Although, the
community forestry in Nepal has been regarded as a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) approach, it has been facing
many challenges in benefit sharing and resource allocation process among forest dependent users and stakeholders. The
forest entitlement approach has been used for in-depth understanding of the entitlement of users. An in-depth explorative
approach of case studies had been used as a research strategy. Two community forests were purposively selected in
Makawanpur District in the central Nepal. A trend over seventeen years' of timber distribution among users shows more or
less a similar trend among rich, mid-wealthier, and poor category users. In this case, the marginalisation of poor and
minorities users may not be benefited in forthcoming period too. Moreover, the livelihood resources from the forests have
not impacted on livelihood improvement of the poor and minorities. The challenge remains how to share the benefit on the
basis of equity among users without antagonising the community sections with sustainable forest management principles.
This research recommends studying gaps among different stakeholders in understanding of the differentiated role of forests
products in livelihood of poor and well being user and developing new distribution mechanism and access of all levels of
users in all created sub-entitlement.
Keywords: Benefit sharing, Community Forestry, Poverty, Entitlement
1. COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL
The idea of community participation in forestry was initially to increase the direct benefit derived from forests. Furthermore,
Gilmour and Fisher (1991) pointed out after failure of industrial model of development, the concept of the community
forestry through people participation was conceptualized by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to utilize the forest
resources, to rehabilitate the degraded and denuded land. Meanwhile, the concept was legitimized by the adoption of
“Forestry for People”, keeping the theme for the Eighth World Forestry Congress in Jakarta in 1978, and further refined the
concept (Arnold, 2001; Gilmour and Fisher,1991; Wiersum, 2004) simultaneously and FAO initiated the community forestry
programme in 1978 in Nepal. It was focused on seedling production for tree plantation in denuded hilly landscape as a
common forestland management practice (Acharya, 2006). Accordingly, it elapsed various phases and now community users
(having traditional use rights) are involved directly with usufruct right after getting an entitlement from the government
(MFSC, 1989; DOF, 2006; Koirala, 2007; Hobley, 2009).
The real community forestry application started after enacting the Forest Act of 1993 and the Regulation of 1995. The act
been more successfully implemented on the community forestry sections than other sections. Further, the implementation
support is continuity through revised CF Guidelines in 2009 at the field level (Poffenberger, 2000, DoF, 2009). Broadly, the
community forestry is now the main thrust in Nepal's forestry sector policy, and it is aimed at providing environmental,
social, and economic benefits to the Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) (Joshi and Pokharel, 1998). Further, Kanel
and Kandel (2003) also write 'community forestry policy is recognized as one of the most progressive policies in the world'.
Hence, regarding to the policy framework, it has been evolved to a well-accepted strategy since 1970s (MFSC, 1989;
HMGN, 1993; MFSC, 2000, Acharya, 2007).
The key stakeholder in this programme is Forest User Group (FUG), which manages the both human and natural resources
being an independent and an authentic corporate institution (HMGN, 1993) for forest resource mobilization with usufruct
right (Karki and Tiwari, 1998). It is a model of common property management co-managed by government and local users
(Acharya, 2006; Wiersum, 2004). A total of 1.66 million hectares of national forest have been handed over in community
forests, and 2.2 million households (HH) (more than 40 percent of the total population) have been participated as
membership (DOF, 2012). The experiences have been much more challenging to benefit pro-poor and disadvantaged people
(Kumar, 2002; Kanel, 2004, Wiersum, 2009, Hobley, 2009, Kanel, 2009). The tasks can be specified into benefit sharing
arrangements among stakeholders, access of passive and disadvantaged users in decision making process, transparent and
equity in community fund allocation (Kanel and Kandel, 2003; Kanel, 2004; Chhetri and Nurse, 1992; Kumar, 2002;
Pokharel, 2006). The issue of direct benefit to local poor is a crucial discussion matter since the inception phase to till. The
distribution of benefits based on equity is not being addressed by the community forestry (Adhikari et al., 2004) also Graner
(1997) had argued not supported policies to the poor community.
To summarise, although there are many constructive implications of the community forestry, with having about 1.66 million
ha forest land (DoF, 2012). The past decades of implementation has not been addressing on effective poverty alleviation and
equity in benefit sharing and decision making. The major issues are exclusion of poor, minority and disadvantaged users
from decision making process. Several reports indicate that the past three decades have also not been able to tackle and to
address the equity issues of benefit sharing mechanism effectively.

2. 2. RESEARCH METHODS AND RESPONDENT SELECTION
A case study approach was adopted to acquire information and analysis (Yin, 1984). The research units of this research were
two community forestry organizations and individual members. Both CFs were selected purposively in Makawanpur
District in the central Nepal. The Rani has not been selling the products outside their user boundary and other one is selling
outside for commercial use. An area of 151.87 and 358.4 ha forest land of Rani and Simpani have been an endowment for
entitlement to the group from the government. Natural hardwood forest type is common characteristic of both community
forests. Shorea robusta is commonly found and 90 per cent terrains are of hilly nature. A stratified random sampling was
carried out for respondents' perception among rich, mid-wealthier and poor household strata (more than 102 respondents)
and management suggestions including observation and informal discussions.
3. FOREST ENTITLEMENT AND ITS BENEFIT FLOW SYSTEM
The land of CF with a registered certificate from the District Forest Officer has been an endowment. A plan is developed for
the management of the forest resources and land. Similarly, a constitution also is responsible for the institutional
arrangements. According to the entitlement theory, CFUG institutionalizes access to decision making process and forest
products. The interests and social composition in the community has been creating a sort of congruence in the demand and
supply position of forest products (Leach et al., 1999). The stakeholders for the entitlements are individual users and various
groups at local level. Both stakeholders obtain household and community level benefits. The forest products for household
purposes such as timber, poles, firewood, grasses, medicinal plants, fruits contribute livelihood. The timber products to
outside selling including other sources create a community fund for the social development and the income generation.
Household economy and subsistence lifestyle depends on the supply of these needs. In brief, the heterogeneity of rural
communities needs different kind of products for their various requirements. This study has focused household benefits that
were closely related with users' involvement in the community forestry. Therefore, further discussions on the following
sections may explore an insight and realities of the situation.
4. BENEFIT SHARING IN COMMUNITY FORESTRY
The rural people subsist for their daily life on forest products fuel wood, timber for house construction, fodder and grass for
livestock and medicinal plants for traditional treatment. Although greenery has been improved, the livelihoods of the forest
dependent communities, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, have not improved as expected (Pokharel, 2006; Brown et
al., 2002; Ostrom, 1999, Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). It seems increasingly likely that the majority of FUGs are not utilizing
the forest to their 'full potential in terms of income generation' (Kanel and Kandel, 2003). The elite members of FUG
typically capture leadership positions on major decision level positions (Iversen et al., 2006). Similarly the first phase of the
community forestry had also loose aspects in access to the resources by poor people (Mahanty, et al., 2006; Allison, et al.,
2004). Also, in the second phase after protection, there are less addressed aspects of access to the benefits distribution for
poor people (Pokharel, 2006). Further, Chhetri (2006) also see difficulties on distribution of benefits among users. How the
mechanism processes benefit sharing in the operation, and what the users perceive the benefit distribution of forest services
and products? These two questions are the major thematic analytical core parts of this study.
4.1. Community benefits
Community forestry is contributing to users through mobilizing a big amount of community fund collected themselves. It is
also reflected in the operational plan and the constitution. Furthermore, social development or community development is a
prominent priority activities and projects in the community forests. The forest regulation also encourages the community
development for users' welfare by using the balance fund after investing the forest management. For the community
development, CFs have generated fund through various sources. Among them major sources were timber and fuel wood
selling to own users and timber merchants outside the CF boundary. More explanation is described to explore the results of
the investments of the collected fund. Perceived benefits by users to various executed developments are taken a study part.
In addition, twelve years record of Rani and eleven years record of Simpani have provided a scenario of allocation of
community fund, which is discussed in the following sections. Therefore, this chapter discusses on the community benefits
by both ways qualitative and quantitative interpretation. The following subheadings are presented into sources of fund and
their allocation. The perception of key informants and respondents is also included in the section.
Community fund and its mobilization is a key part of the community forestry. User group has operated an accounting system
and a certain regulation to mobilize the fund. As prescription in the operational plan and the constitution, they obtain an
approval of yearly plan of budget and programme in advance by an assembly meeting. Both CFs have committed in their
operational plan to invest at least 25 percent of the collected fund into the forest management activities. In the same way,
FUG has been expending more money into social development from the balance fund. Meantime, the DFO has circulated a
letter of memorandum for the investment giving high priority in pro-poor activities and women development in second
priority after the forest management.
For this, the study focused to obtain the information in two methods: first through interview as well as informal discussion
with respondents and key informants, and second by collecting secondary sources of information such as account records of
past years. Interviews and informal discussions were held to get perception on allocation of the fund in various activities.

3. Now, the secondary data have been used to see a trend and custom of the fund mobilization. Therefore, this section is sub-
divided into the following sub headings to describe in more detail. A summary of categorized expenditures items can be
shown in Table 1.
Both CFs have allocated a very little amount in poverty related activities. Rani invested less than four percent and about four
percent in Simpani. Elder people felicitation, cash grant assistance were the main headings of the allocation. Therefore, the
allocation was not, in fact, for the poverty alleviation.
Table 1: Summary table of community fund allocation (17 years transaction record in NRs 1$=88 NRs)
Payment from community
fund
Rani CFUG Allocation
percentage (%)
Simpani CFUG Allocation percentage (%)
Amount NRs. Amount NRs.
Administrative costs 589626 13.39 1915880 28.84
Infrastructure and social
development
344404 7.82 1508044 22.70
Forest Development 3031981 68.88 2431988 36.60
Poverty and social security 165440 3.76 268611 4.04
Revenue deposit 0 0.00 317449 4.78
Others 270572 6.15 202127 3.04
Total 4402023 100.00 6644099 100.00
In conclusion, the summary table below also gives a comparative scenario between two community forests for the
community fund allocation. In one hand, Simpani the commercial motive CF has allocated and expended more fund in
infrastructural development than Rani, and in the other hand, it has expended less amount in the forest development than
Rani.
4.2 Household benefit
The tables below show that richer and mid-wealthier users have benefited from timber product. In Rani, most timbers have
been consumed by mid-wealthier users. In comparison, majority richer and mid-wealthier households have consumed the
timber product. In total, more beneficiaries in the percentages are in Rani than Simpani. Average quantity of timber ratio
difference is bigger in Simpani between richer and poor (5:1) while it is about 2.5:1 in Rani.
Table 2: Major household benefits in Rani CF
Major material benefits
Wealth Category of users Remarks
Rich Mid-wealthier Poor
Rani Simpani Rani Simpani Rani Simpani
Timber BHH
268(196%) 70
(39%)
799(207%) 38(23%) 152(84%) 8(18%) Percentage of total household
702 (137, 385 and 180 Rich,
Mid-wealthier and poor HH)
Average cubic feet/HH
30.01 26.87 31.12 14.19 12.96 5.34 Based on Total households
389 (180,165 and 44)
Fuel wood purchased BHH
41(30%) 13 146(38%) 5 72(40%) 0 During distribution time by
CF
Fuel wood /Fodder/Grass/
Leaf litter collection from
the forest area
Free Free Free Free Free Free Mostly by mid-wealthier and
poor users
BHH=Beneficiaries households, HH=Households.
Note: The figure in parentheses is the percentage of users to the total households in the CF. The data was from 1992/93 to 2009/10 of Rani
and from 2001/02 to 2005/06 of Simpani.
Regarding the timber distribution, although it seems not discriminatory provision for equal access, in comparison to
households, lower caste and minorities have not been benefited from existing distribution pattern.
Non commercial CF (Rani) has been distributing the timber and fuel wood to own users. Therefore, it should have been
more numbers in beneficiaries, whereas it seems Simpani is paying more attention for commercial selling and pertaining
procedures. On the other hand, Rani has many members more than 700 with compare to the forest area. However, it has
distributed considerable quantity of timber and firewood to their users. Although it has fixed high price rate, consuming
trend has not been declining. Therefore, this result concerns the motivational factors are related to serve users' demand. It
can be concluded that the CF being commercial motive is not presenting their willingness to serve local demands of users.
This kind of issues should be discussed with CF authorities and facilitators such as the District Forest Office (DFO) staffs,
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and supportive organisations.
Similarly, the Figure 1 shows a trend of the timber distribution among rich, mid-wealthier and poor is stable over 18 years
period in Rani and the same result can be observed in Simpani too. Although it has been improved in latter phase in Rani to

4. the poorest users, it is not being a significant change. Almost two decades of the community forestry has not made a
favourable situation for the poorest farmers.
Figure 1: A trend of timber used by users over 18 years period in Rani CF
4.3 Comparison of benefits in two community forests
In both CFs, it was clearly observed that no clearly mentioned the provision of the forests products' distribution such as
fodder, fuel wood and animal bedding for poor and less wealthy users. Forest inventory plan was more focused in timber
harvesting and processing in both CFs. The provision clearly states that richer are being more benefited. A comparison of
benefits in both community forests was done as follows in Table 3.
Table 3: Comparison of the benefits and its arrangements between two community forests
S.N. Description Community forests
Rani Simpani
1 Institutional arrangement and household benefits (material)
a Timber distribution system to community users
General arrangements Equal, 30 to 50 cft/HH Equal/150 cft/HH
Rate of timber NRs. 220 to 220/cft NRs. 20 to 35/cft, for remote village NRs.
20/cft
b. Fire wood from the forests Free collection Free collection
c. Fodder, grass, litter, and leaf Free collection Free collection
d. Water (no provision in both CFs) Free (no provision prescribed ) Free/ Even neighbour users also use freely
e Commercial selling of timber and
fuel wood
No/ huge income from own users Yes/huge income source mostly from sale to
external people
2. Environmental benefits Awareness more -do-
3. Access to community benefits through decision process
a. Users‟ Involvement through
assembly
Attendee of assembly approve the plan -do-
b. Users‟ Involvement through
Executive Committee ( EC)
Usually EC members/occasionally sub-
groups invited
Often EC members/BDC invites other
members too in the annual plan preparation
4. Allocation of the fund
a. Income generating activities Goat farming/ budget allocation to women
sub-group
Not noticeable activities in community
b. Infrastructural development and
community development
Office building, school support, drinking
water (7.82% of the fund)
Office building, irrigation, road, school support
depositing money (22.87 % of the fund)
c. Forest development
Core forestry activities Nursery for Asparagus plant, Asparagus
plantation, and trainings (7%)
Asparagus plantation and trainings (8 %)
Bio-gas grant 78 users got NRs. 500 to 1000/ HH 54 users got NRs. 1000/HH
Timber harvesting and
transportation cost
25.79 % of total budget (73 % of forest
development)
26.84 % of total budget (73% of forest
development)
d. Scholarship to school students 54 students No
Although there are differences between two communities, the general trend regarding the distribution of benefits within a
village is relatively similar. Although the institutional arrangements do in principle enable equal participation and benefit
sharing among different wealth classes, in general the poor ranked users are getting less benefit compared to medium and
rich users. The timber distribution trend is stable throughout the last period. Similarly, very little community fund is
allocated to pro-poor activities. Most of the activities are supporting to increasing life quality of medium and richer users.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
A trend of timber quantity used by users over 18 years in Rani CF
Rich Mid-wealthier Poor

5. 4. 4 Perception of user toward fund allocation
A key question has been raised that how poor or passive users could be involved actively thoroughly in the community
forestry process. The interview with respondent and key informants also revealed that few users were only eager towards the
community forestry. Majority users were unaware about the fund management; moreover, not only by poor group user, but
richer and mid-wealthier were also not aware about the fund. Without access in information no one can make their comment
towards the community forestry activities. However, both CFs claimed more transparency system adapted and always open
for anyone to know about the fund. At the same time, users often do not visit the office, and ask for detail information. It
would seem an interface issue for further discussion between users and the EC on transparency and empowerment.
5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
With regard to the fund expenditure, the trend of expenditure of community fund in the past years is more or less similar in
both CFs. Thus, it may be concluded that the support will not be easily diverted towards unprivileged groups. Accordingly,
the trend of timber distribution among rich, medium and poor in the past years shows nearly the same and stable in both CFs.
Since 20 years it has not been improved to serve the poorest users. Well being users have more access to their own land for
firewood, but poor almost depend on the forest sources. Similarly, Chepang community (primitive ethnic group forest
dependent people based on wild food from the forest land) in Simpani have not been receiving any support to improve the
production and conservation of wild food still used as livelihood resources during hardship period. Meantime, the most
important environmental benefit is water but has been either ignored or treated as natural gift in both CFs. If it is valued,
regular income source will be identified, and it impacts raising awareness to the environmental protection.
The present practice of the forest management seems to be a move from multipurpose forestry to timber management forests.
Major products such as timber and firewood have been focused on for detail arrangements in the operational plan. As a
result, the forest is changing from multipurpose forestry to a single product focus. However, it is said that a sustainable
management is being practised in Nepalese community forestry. Consequently, it has not met the demand to poor and
subsistence farmers who needs more multiple use forestry products such as fodder, grass, and firewood twigs.
In general, the specific product focused management regime of the community forests has not been supporting the poor and
disadvantaged groups in the community. At the same time, if the focus continuously remains on timber, then biodiversity
may decreases slowly and disadvantaged groups will get more marginalised. At the same time, very little fund has been
invested in the real forest management. This investment is moving to the advantage of wealthier users. As a result, on the
other hand, the users are experiencing scarcity of fuel wood twigs, grasses, and fodder in the forests. This is a great issue for
further phase in community forestry.
In conclusion, the rules and regulation have not discriminated the users regarding their access to the forest resources. In
decision process the minority and poor users have rarely been participated. Not only it is possible by FUG, but there should
also be support from the government through policy implications. To conclude, there are still some discrepancies among
users and interests. On this basis, some questions can be posed for future to address these issues: why are poor users not
participating in the mainstream of the community forestry and why are elites and higher wealthier users often capturing the
constitutional post in the community forests regularly? The major challenge is to make a balance in implementing and
executing pro-poor supportive reform in the community forestry without disintegrating societal cultural set up.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
From the results and above discussions, some recommendations can be made to further improve the effective mobilization of
derived resources and sustainable management of community forests. The Forest Department should mobilize their staffs
with input to convince CF institutions and present decision holding members to rethink the decision making process and
benefit distribution system. Users should be encouraged and motivated for their rights and access to all types of benefits. The
operational plan and the constitution revision should incorporate arrangements increasing the access and sharing benefit
equitably.
According to the trend of timber and firewood distribution among users, it is almost certain that the promising impacts may
not change in near future to support well being of poor and minority users. For this reason, a great devotion should be
commenced by policy level from present decision holding authority to distribute resources on equity basis. A very strict
mandatory guideline is to be imposed from the government. There should be a clear vision that whether the community
forestry is for poverty alleviation or only for mitigation. Diverse nature of community's demand could be fulfilled only by
multipurpose forestry system than timber oriented management. The DFO staff and the EC members should be educated on
the environmental services and benefits.
The forest management activities have not been a priority and poverty reduction programme is poorly been planned and
implemented. Therefore, fund allocation for forestry activities and poverty alleviation should be increased that may support
regular resource availability and achievement of entitlement. The elites should be defined with respect to the real situation.
Therefore, the gap should be identified by a suitable framework analysis.

6. REFERENCES
Acharya, G.R. (2007). Conflict management in community forestry, a study in community forests in Nepal, Master Thesis,
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Acharya, K.P. (2006). Community forestry in Nepal: a model of common property resource management, Nepal Net,
www.nepalnet.com, accessed on 30/01/2006.
Adhikari, B., Falco, S.D.; Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common
property forest management in Nepal, Ecological Economics, 48 (2004), pp. 245-257.
Agrawal, A.; Gibson, C.C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource
conservation, World Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 629-649.
Allison, G., Bampton, J; Kandel,B.R.; Shrestha, M.L.; Shrestha, N.K. (2004). 25 years of community forestry, Fourth
National Workshop, 2004, Kathmandu proceedings, Department of Forests, Community Forest Division, Babarmahal,
Kathmandu.
Arnold, J.E.M. (2001). Forest and People, 25 years of community forestry, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
Brown, D.; Malla, Y.; Schreckenberg, K.; Springate-Baninski, O. (2002). From Supervising subjects to supporting citizens:
recent developments in community forestry in Asia and Africa, Natural Resource perspectives, Number 75, February
2002, ODI www.odi.org,uk, retrieved on 2006/05/10.
Chhetri, R. B., Nurse, M.C. (1992). Equity in user group forestry: implementation of community forestry in central Nepal,
Discussion paper 1/92, Nepal-Australia Community Forestry Project, Nepal.
Chhetri, R.B. (2006). From protection to poverty reduction: a review of forestry policies and practices in Nepal, Journal of
Forest and Livelihood, Vol. 5, (1) pp. 66-77.
Department of Forests, (2006). www.dof.gov.np/programmes.htm, retrieved on June 26, 2006.
Department of Forests, (2009). Community Forestry Guideline, Nepal.
Department of Forests, (2012). Annual Reports, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Gilmour, D.A. and R.J. Fisher, (1991). Villagers, forests and foresters, the philosophy, process and practice of community
forestry in Nepal, Sahayogi Press, Tripureshwar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Graner, E. (1997). The Political Ecology of Community Forestry in Nepal, Saarbruvken, Verlag fÜr Entwickungspolitkik.
His Majesty Government of Nepal(HMGN), (1993). Forest Act, 1993. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMGN, (1995). Forest Rules, 1995. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMGN, (2000). Forestry sector plan, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Hobley, M. (2009). „Inclusion and Democratic Governance: What Can We Learn from Community Forestry?‟ Proceeding of
the Community Forestry International Workshop, 15-18 September, Pokhara, Department of Forests, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Iversen, V.; Chhetry, B.; Francis, P.; Gurung, M.; Kafle, G.; Pain, A.; Seeley, J. (2006). High value forests, hidden
economics and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai, Ecological Economics, 58, pp. 93-107.
Joshi, A.L.; Pokharel, K.P. (1998). Participation approach in Nepal's forestry sector: a policy evaluation, Sustainable forest
management, Proceedings of an International Seminar, 31 August-2 September, (1998), Pokhara, Nepal.
Kanel, K. R. (2004). Twenty five years‟of community forestry: contribution to millennium development goals, 25 years of
community forestry, Proceedings of the fourth national workshop on community forestry, 4-6 August, 2004, Community
Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kanel, K.R. (2009). „Partnerships in Community Forestry: Implications and Lessons‟, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kanel, K.R.; Kandel, B.R. (2003). Community forestry in Nepal: second generation issues, CF Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 6-18,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Karki I.S., Tiwari, S. (1998). Towards Sustainable Management of Forests: Learning from the Experiences of Community
Forestry in Nepal, A paper presented at International seminar 31 August-2 September, Pokhara, Nepal, Institute of
Forestry, ITTO, and PD 103/90 Rev.1 (F).
Koirala, P.N.(2007). Benefit sharing in community forests in Nepal, MSc Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Kumar N. (2002). The challenges of community participation in forest development in Nepal, The World Bank Operations
Evaluation Department, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Leach, M.: Mearns, R.; Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based
natural resource management, World Development, Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 225-247.
Mahanty, S.; Gronow, J.; Nurse, M.; Malla, Y. (2006). Reducing poverty through community based forest management in
Asia, Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 5 (1).
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, (1989). Master Plan of Forestry Sector, Nepal.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Self-Governance and forest resources, Occasional paper no. 20, ISSN 084-9818, CIFOR, Site Gede,
Bogor 16680, Indonesia, http://www.cigar.org/cifor.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, California, U.S.A.
Poffenberger, M. (2000). Forest policies and social contexts, part IV (edited), Communities and forest management in South
Asia, A regional profile of WG-CIFM, The working group on community involvement in forest management, IUCN.
Pokharel, B.K. (2006). Contribution of community forestry to people‟s livelihoods and forest sustainability: experience from
Nepal, World Rainforest Movement, Maldonado 1858-11200 Montevideo-Urugway, 23/01/2006
Simpani Community FUG, (2005). Five years‟ operational plan and constitution, Manahari, Makawanpur, Nepal.
Wiersum, K.F. (2004). Social forestry and community forestry, Encyclopaedia of Forest Sciences, The Netherlands.
Wiersum, K.F.( 2009) „Community Forestry between Local Autonomy and Global Partnership: Quo Vadis with
Environment and Climate Change Payments?‟ Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study Research: design and methods, Beverley Hills, Sage Publications.