Abstract

Social forestry, in contrast to traditional forestry, is intended to meet biological/environmental, procedural and equity goals. Social forestry projects may not fulfill this multiplicity of goals either because priority is given to a single goal or because various factors including the structure and norms of implementing institutions and the distribution of local power overwhelm procedural and distributive intentions. Thus, despite participatory and equitable project designs, social forestry projects may result in the distribution of benefits to the rich and costs to the poor and products that either have little local value or lose their value over time. Factors leading to these outcomes are explored and countervailing measures considered