What does equitable distribution mean in community forests?

It is increasingly recognised that efforts in sustainable development dealing with natural resources management must account not only for their ecological effectiveness, but also whether they achieve this in a socially beneficial and just manner. Studies on distributive social equity in sustainable natural resources management have often taken a limited view as to what is considered fair criteria and worthwhile metrics of distribution. Community-based forest management is a particularly insightful case for social equity, as achieving fair or just outcomes is an implied or explicit objective of such programmes, and they are increasingly promoted in national and international policies. This study further develops our understanding of the choices around distributional equity, including critically considering what outcomes could be measured and how a “fair” distribution could be defined. We consider the implications of adhering to different distributional norms, illustrating the potential differences through an empirical case study of community-based forest management in Indonesia. We expand the metrics under scrutiny to include non-monetary measures of subjective well-being, political engagement, community social capital, and core needs like material welfare and education, and examine the changes in levels and distribution of these variables. We compare the changes to what could theoretically be expected under egalitarian, pro-poor, or merit-based distributional norms. Our results demonstrate how meeting equity objectives depends on what definition of a fair and just distribution is employed. Some metrics, such as core well-being, show positive changes more consistently than others, like subjective well-being. Studies on social equity (and critiques of them) therefore need to be cautious of the potential to cherry-pick results. Using a range of carefully defined and justified metrics and distributional norms might illuminate not only how well programs achieve their objectives, but also how communities may differ in their perceptions and opinions on well-being and equity.