Abstract
Equity aspects of private tree-planting programmes in Nepal are discussed from a brief review of the literature and an analysis of data from a preliminary survey (by informal discussion and questioning) and field observations in 2 villages. The literature review indicated that in recent years, there has been increasing interest in planting trees on private land in Nepal, but that this primarily benefits land-wealthy people. As there is little absolute landlessness in Nepal, shifting emphasis away from establishing private forests (on fairly large private plots) to planting on small pockets of private, non-agricultural marginal land (edges of fields, creek beds, etc.) may better benefit small farmers. The data collected in the surveys were on: landholding size by household; tree density by landholding size; numbers of trees per farmer in each landholding category; trees per ha by land type (khet - irrigated fields suitable for rice cultivation; bari - rainfed terraces for growing maize and millet; marginal land and abandoned terraces; and stream banks, gullies and landslides) and landholding size; land types (area and %) in each village; and distribution of bari land by landholding size. Tree density was not related to landholding size, although the av. number of trees per farmer increased with landholding size. Most trees were on streambanks, gullies and landslides or on bari land, with some on marginal land and very few on khet. Although the marginal lands appear underused for tree planting there is very little of this type of land available for use by farmers owning <1.5 ha of land. The benefits to the poor of private planting on this land are, therefore, likely to be limited, although it is suggested that private planting could lead to reduced pressures on common forest resources. This in turn could increase access to these resources by the poorest farmers and landless people; however, private planting should be seen as a supplement, and not an alternative, to plantings on common lands. The problem of land privatization for forest purposes is discussed and the need for it to be equitable emphasized; increased land privatization, unless accompanied by extensive redistribution, could reduce the access of poor farmers to forest products.