Affirmative Policy in Nepal’s Community Forestry: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Dean Liu and Version 1 by Alessandra Piccoli.

Decentralized forest management is criticized for not involving women in decision-making.

T Researche rstudy exploresd what the introduction of affirmative policy in community forestry committees

means for the participation of women in decision making in four cases in the middle hills of Nepal.

The qualitative analysis of interviews and observations draws on feminist political ecology, a women’s

participation typology, the critical mass theory and gender justice. TResearche findings centre on rs investigated the

importance of electoral procedures, the role of authorities, the role of the familial context and whether

and how women internalized and contested patriarchal norms. The women’s quota was found to have

had as yet little impact on substantive participation, yet the enhanced exposure of female committee

members to the discrepancy between the gender equality discourse introduced in community forestry

and the persistent male domination seemed to create, in a few women performing as critical actors,

an enhanced awareness of male suppression; an awareness that is a prerequisite for contestation

of those patriarchal norms denying women access to power over forest and, generally speaking, of

gender injustice. This research reports examples of women, brought in the executive committees by

the studied affirmative policies, successfully contesting traditional gender roles and gender injustice,

negotiating for them and for the other women, a more effective and meaningful participation in the

management of Community Forests 

  • affirmative action
  • feminist political ecology
  • gender

1. Contextualization of Gender and Reservation Policies in Nepal

Nepalese society is patriarchal and highly hierarchical, especially along gender, caste, ethnicity and class relations, conceptualizing gender as the “economic, political and cultural attributes associated with being a man or a woman” [30][1] (p. 3). The caste system originates in Hindu religion and was introduced and incorporated into the Nepalese social hierarchy through the civil code of 1854. Although it is no longer legally valid, the intentions of the code continue to structure social interaction, and especially people from disadvantaged castes, also known as Dalits, are excluded from social, political and economic activities. Similar to Agarwal’s [31][2] characterization of Indian society, gendered behavioural norms limit Nepalese women’s aspirations for voice and education and impose a gender-specific division of labour, and the structure of the social space constrains their mobility [20][3]. As a result, women may not participate on an equal footing with men in public gatherings and therefore do not have access to public information. They may not move freely beyond the domestic sphere and are severely disadvantaged when trying to find employment outside the household or to engage in entrepreneurial activities [32,33][4][5]. It has been observed that even when women do try to change their livelihood activities to cash-earning activities, they still generally work in rural enterprises or in the commercialization of farm products, reinforcing their link with farm and forest; conversely men have much more freedom to look for wage-based jobs or to out-migrate [34][6]. Culturally, men are valued higher than women [35][7], and patrilocal marriage practices together with patrilineal inheritance and kinship [36][8] combined with the traditional male hegemony over timber-focused forest management [37][9] serve to reinforce this norm. Further, women’s subjectivities are formed within the prevailing habitus of male hegemony—using Bourdieu’s concept—meaning that women perceive male privileges and their own subordination as reasonable and natural [38][10].
In a descriptive sense, Nepal has gone relatively far in promoting women’s political participation. The Constitution of Nepal was promulgated in 2015 and amended in 2016, after ten years of civil war and eight years of transitory constitution. It strongly promotes equal rights for women and for any marginalized part of the society as it requires that “at least one third of the total number of members elected from each political party representing in the State Assembly must be women”. The same provision applies to representation in the Federal Parliament [39][11]. The Local Government Operation Act 2017 requires 40% of women’s representation at the ward level. Similar reservation policies are also provided for at Municipality and District level [40,41,42][12][13][14]. Given the percentages of representation required by these new legislations, according to the ‘story of the critical mass theory’ [16][15], a transformation from descriptive to substantive participation is not unlikely. There is little evidence, however, that such a transformation is taking place in the legislative sphere or that the participation of women has spread to the judiciary and executive spheres, as might be expected if the social climate of political life had become much more inclusive [43][16]. Further, it is not clear that the elected women represent women generally [44,45][17][18]. The relatively high proportion of women in the constituent assembly, therefore, has not translated into governance. Problematics of substantive participation and representation remain, perhaps reflecting a tokenistic approach to the inclusion of women in decision-making.
Images of Nepalese women result from traditional and modern Nepalese sources as well as international influences, given that the country receives substantial amounts of foreign financial assistance. In 2014/15, 41% of the total budget allocated to public projects came from foreign grants and loans, and this dependency likely means that public policies reflect donors’ as well as national political agendas [46][19]. Nepal’s national impetus for instituting social inclusion, including gender equality, may therefore, at least to some degree, reflect international agendas such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which commits international society to achieving gender equality and empowering all women [47][20]. A discrepancy between traditional Nepalese and international norms [33,48][5][21] and between theories and women’s and men’s lived experiences [49][22] is possibly one of the reasons why policy instruments and implementation practices differ. However, there are also different yet co-existing international notions of women [13][23], and images of vulnerable or resourceful women in developing countries can be invoked depending on the purposes [50,51][24][25].

2. The Gendered Nature of Community Forestry in Nepal

Forest decentralization in Nepal is considered quite successful in terms of conservation [5,52][26][27]. A national programme is in place which, according to the last available data, involves more than 16 million people in about 22,500 Forest User Groups (FUGs), managing a total forest area of 2,359,577 ha [42][14]. Concerns with women’s participation in community forestry, however, was not a strong priority at the beginning of the programme. When forest decentralization was initiated in the late 1970s, the focus was on forest conservation and fulfilment of basic needs such as firewood and small timber; there was not much talk about women’s participation [21,42,53][14][28][29]. Gradually, concerns with gender equality emerged [54][30]: gender quotas in FUGs’ executive committees (hereafter ‘committees’) were introduced and implemented in some places and established formally in 1989 [55][31] and systematically in 1995 [56][32]. The current rules, introduced by the Guidelines for the Community Forestry Development Programme [22][33], require that at least 50% of the members of the community forestry committee should be women, one of two key posts (chairperson and secretary) should be occupied by a woman and at least one of the signatories of the bank accounts should be a woman. The enforcement of these requirements is facilitated by the need for periodical renewals of forest operational plans; forest products cannot be commercialized without a valid plan. Further, in a given household, one woman and one man should be registered as members of the community forest users group, and 50% of the attendants at the general assembly should be women [22][33]. Subsequent to these rules the number of women in community forestry committees has been greatly enhanced, but according to Chhetri [57][34], their participation is far from substantive.

Forestry in Nepal is still predominantly a male domain, with men occupying the large majority of positions in both central administration and educational institutions [58,59,60][35][36][37]. Forest officers tasked with promoting affirmative action in community forest user groups reportedly perceive this to be largely a donors’ agenda [14][38]. The reported discrimination of women in community forestry continues in terms of differential access to forest resources, economic resources arising from forest management, information and participation in decision-making [32,61,62][4][39][40]. New opportunities for women’s involvement have been reported, where men have migrated in search of job opportunities, creating a space for women to attend assemblies and voicing their opinion [23][41] and where smaller arenas of interaction have been provided [63][42], although being present at FUG meetings cannot in and of itself be taken to imply participation in the process [20][3].


  1. Manfre, C.; Rubin, D. Integrating Gender into Forestry Research: A Guide for CIFOR Scientists and Programme Administrators; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012.
  2. Agarwal, B. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for south asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev. 2001, 29, 1623–1648.
  3. Nightingale, A. The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2006, 24, 165–185.
  4. Lama, A.; Buchy, M. Gender, Class, Caste and Participation: The Case of Community Forestry in Nepal. Indian J. Gend. Stud. 2002, 9, 27–41.
  5. Bushell, B. Women entrepreneurs in Nepal: What prevents them from leading the sector? Gend. Dev. 2008, 16, 549–564.
  6. Khatiwada, S.P.; Deng, W.; Paudel, B.; Khatiwada, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Wan, J. A Gender Analysis of Changing Livelihood Activities in the Rural Areas of Central Nepal. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4034.
  7. Pokharel, S. Gender Discriminatory Practices in Tamang and Brahmin Communities. Tribhuvan Univ. J. 2009, 26, 85–98.
  8. Brunson, J. Son preference in the context of fertility decline: Limits to new constructions of gender and kinship in nepal. Stud. Fam. Plan. 2010, 41, 89–98.
  9. Bhattari, B. Move over, Men. Women Should Be Included in Decision-Making Roles in the Management of Forests. The Kathmandu Post, 19 February 2017. Available online: (accessed on 31 July 2020).
  10. Chhetri, B.B.K.; Lund, J.; Nielsen, Ø.J. The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73, 113–121.
  11. MoLJPA. Constitution of Nepal, 1st ed.; English Translation; Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Law Books Management Board: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
  12. Local Governance Act 2017, MoFAGA, Government of Nepal. Available online: (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  13. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  14. GON, National Planning Commission. Nepal’s Sustainable Development Goals Progress Assessment Report 2016–2019; Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission: Kathmandu Nepal, 2020.
  15. Dahlerup, D. The story of the theory of critical mass. Politics Gend. 2006, 2, 511–522.
  16. Goodrich, C.G.; Gurung, D.D.; Bastola, A. State of Gender Equality and Climate Change in Nepal International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and UN Women: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2021.
  17. Delaney, A. Nepal’s Women Have a Voice in Politics But No One Is Listening. The Guardian Nepal Poverty Matters Blog. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 18 December 2014).
  18. Khakurel, D. Women’s Participation in Nepal: Debate of Inclusive Proportional Representation; International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011; Available online: (accessed on 18 December 2014).
  19. Alesina, A.; Dollar, D. Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? J. Econ. Growth 2000, 5, 33–63.
  20. SDGs 2030 Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  21. Pun, W. Laws on Inheritance: Women Still Fighting for Equal Rights. Kathmandu Post. 2013. Available online: (accessed on 9 February 2015).
  22. McOmber, C.; McNamara, K.; Ryley, T.; McKune, S. Investigating the Conceptual Plurality of Empowerment through Community Concept Drawing: Case Studies from Senegal, Kenya, and Nepal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3166.
  23. Arnfred, S. Women, Men and Gender Equality in Development Aid—Trajectories, Contestations. Kvind. Køn Forsk. 2011, 1, 51–61.
  24. Tamang, T. Dis-embedding the Sexual/Social Contract: Citizenship and Gender in Nepal. Citizsh. Stud. 2002, 6, 309–324.
  25. Arora-Jonsson, S. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 744–751.
  26. Libois, F.; Baland, J.M.; Delbart, N.; Pattanayak, S. Community Forest Management: The Story behind a Success Story in Nepal (No. 2106); University of Namur, Development Finance and Public Policies: Namur, Belgium, 2021.
  27. Poudel, N.R.; Nobuhiko, F.; Keijiro, O. The impacts of a community forestry program on forest conditions, management intensity and revenue generation in the Dang district of Nepal. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 20, 259–281.
  28. MFSC. Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal; Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1989.
  29. Bartlett, A.G. A review of community forestry advances in Nepal. Commonw. For. Rev. 1992, 7, 95–100.
  30. Gurung, J.D. Getting at the Heart of the Issue: Challenging Male Bias in Nepal’s Department of Forests. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 212–215.
  31. HMGN. Forestry Sector Policy, Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of Nepal; Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1989.
  32. CFD. Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Programme; Government of Nepal—Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation—Department of Forests—Community Forest Division: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1995.
  33. CFD 2009 GoN. Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Programme; Government of Nepal—Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation—Department of Forests—Community Forest Division: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2009.
  34. Chhetri, R.B.; Timilsina, N.P.; Luintel, H.; Regmi, R.; Bhattarai, B.; Magar, R.A. Decentralization and Promotion of Women’s Rights in Nepal: Exploring Constraints, Opportunities and Intervention Avenues; Final scientific report; Forest Resources Studies and Action Team (ForestAction), Nepal and Himalayan Grassroots Women’s Natural Resource Management Association (HIMAWANTI): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2008.
  35. Christie, M.E.; Giri, K. Challenges and experiences of women in the forestry sector in Nepal. Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol. 2011, 3, 139–146.
  36. Giri, K. Gender in Forest Tenure: Pre-Requisite for Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal. In The Challenges of Securing Women’s Tenure and Leadership for Forest Management: The Asian Experience; Rights and Resources Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  37. Rai, A.; Pandey, V.C.; Singh, A.K.; Ghoshal, N.; Singh, N. Butea monosperma: A leguminous species for sustainable forestry programmes. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 8492–8505.
  38. Gurung, J.D.; Lama, K. Incorporating Gender into a Male Domain: A Strategy for Foresters? World Forestry Congress Proceedings, People and Forests in Harmony, 2003; Government of Canada and FAO: Quebec, QC, Canada, 2003.
  39. Pokharel, R.K. Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds: Do They Benefit the Poor? Working Paper No. 31; South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2008.
  40. Parajuli, R.; Pokharel, R.; Lamichhane, D. Social discrimination in community forestry: Socio-economic and gender perspectives. Banko Janakari 2010, 20, 26–33.
  41. Giri, K.; Darnhofer, I. Nepali Women Using Community Forestry as a Platform for Social Change. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 1216–1229.
  42. McDougall, C.; Jiggins, J.; Pandit, B.H.; Rana, S.K.T.M.; Leeuwis, C. Does Adaptive Collaborative Forest Governance Affect Poverty? Participatory Action Research in Nepal’s Community Forests. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 1235–1251.
Video Production Service