In recent years, Nepal has been heralded as a global leader in community-based forest conservation. By handing over nearly a third of its nationally owned forest to local villagers in the 1980s, the country reversed years of deforestation and effectively doubled its forest cover between 1992 and 2016. For many in rural Nepal, these forests are a lifeline, providing essential subsistence resources such as firewood for cooking and fodder for livestock.
But a new study from the University of Notre Dame suggests these environmental successes may exclude Nepal's most vulnerable groups from their accompanying economic benefits. The National Science Foundation-funded study, published in Nature Sustainability, analyzed data from more than 500,000 households to reveal that while the program has reduced overall rural poverty, it also widened the gap between the country's social elite and its marginalized populations. Researchers found that the benefits of forest decentralization — ranging from timber sales to microloans — flowed disproportionately to dominant ethnic and caste groups.
"When we hear the success stories, it's remarkable what Nepal has achieved," said study co-author Krister Andersson, Notre Dame Professor of Sustainable Development in the University's Keough School of Global Affairs . "At the same time, the program doesn't always impact everyone equally and can leave some of the poorest households behind."
Among the study's several co-authors are on-the-ground collaborators from ForestAction Nepal and the Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies. The study focuses on the country's local government-supported forest management groups, which oversee the forests, collect fees and reinvest profits into their communities.
The 'gatekeeper' effect
Nepal's community forestry program was built with equity in mind. Government guidelines mandate that marginalized groups be represented on executive committees and that 35 percent of forest income be allocated to poverty alleviation programs.
Yet the data reveals a different reality. The researchers found that while the program reduced poverty among historically advantaged groups such as the Brahmin, Chhetri and Newar, the impact on marginalized Dalit or Janajati households was significantly smaller or, in some cases, barely noticeable.
"Caste membership is closely correlated with education, income and economic indicators," Andersson said. "The ones who gained the most were those in high-caste groups. Lower-caste groups weren't negatively affected — nobody became worse off — but they were left behind."
The study points to a "gatekeeper" effect: Members of dominant social groups are often better equipped to navigate the bureaucratic hurdles of forest management.
"If you are richer and have more education, you are more likely to have contacts when it comes to the commercialization of products, for example," Andersson said. "People who know how to navigate the system will see opportunities when those changes come. They don't necessarily exploit, but they take advantage, and that increases the gap."
A growing divide
The research comes at a pivotal moment. Since the study's primary data was collected, Nepal has transitioned to a federal state, and many rural villagers have moved away from forest-dependent livelihoods due to international migration.
Despite these shifts, the problem of "elite capture" — where local leaders monopolize resources — remains a persistent challenge. In areas with the forest program, this wealth gap was about 15 percent larger than in areas that did not have the program at all.
The researchers noted that while the program does not necessarily make marginalized populations worse off, it enriches advantaged groups at a much faster rate, creating a local increase in rural inequality. Andersson compared the policy shift to an "external shock."
"Similar to when a natural disaster occurs, these kinds of changes tend to widen the gap between those with education and resources and those without those things," he said.
Reimagining forest conservation
These findings are likely to be of interest to countries beyond Nepal, co-author Nathan Cook said, since community-based natural resource management is a cornerstone of global sustainability efforts.
"The solution is not to abandon decentralization, but to reform it," said Cook, assistant professor in the Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Indianapolis. In the study's conclusion, the researchers suggested that stricter monitoring of equity provisions and the introduction of targeted payment schemes could help level the playing field.
As Nepal moves toward the commercialization of its forests through newer programs, the risk of excluding poor populations may grow, the researchers said. High-value timber production often prioritizes the needs of the wealthy over subsistence needs — such as firewood or livestock fodder — that marginalized groups rely on for survival.
For the international community, which has funneled millions into Nepal's forestry model, the study serves as a sobering reminder, Andersson said.
"A forest can be thriving even as community members managing it are not benefiting from it equally," he said. "But there's still potential for programs like Nepal's to be improved so they alleviate poverty and inequality. Future research and policy work should focus on this goal."
