Blog List

Thursday 21 September 2017

Equity in Community Forestry: Insights from North and South

International Forestry Review 11(2):157-170. 2009 
https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.11.2.157

 Equité dans la foresterie communautaire: aperçus du nord et du sud
Justicia social en la silvicultura comunitaria: experiencias del Norte y del Sur

 Author

Author Affiliation

M.H. McDermott
Rutgers University, Department of Human Ecology, Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Rd, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA; School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton S017 1BJ, UK.
Author for correspondence: 
K. Schreckenberg
Rutgers University, Department of Human Ecology, Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Rd, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA; School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton S017 1BJ, UK.
Author for correspondence: 

SUMMARY

Who benefits from community forestry — and who gets left out? Soon after it emerged as a significant trend in the global South in the 1980s, practitioners, advocates and scholars began to ask such questions of community forestry. The distributional impacts of its more recent development in industrialised countries have been less examined. More unusual still has been the explicit attempt to exchange experience between North and South. In response, a symposium was organised to bring together participants of two Ford Foundation-funded projects on community forestry in the US, Nepal, Kenya, and Tanzania. Enriched by additional cases from the United Kingdom and Asia, this introductory article and issue report on the symposium's results. These include the finding that, while community forestry can reduce social inequity, it generally does so by generating positive change at community and higher levels, rather than by delivering benefits directly to poor and marginalised households.
Qui bénéficie de la foresterie communautaire; et qui est laissé sur le bord du chemin? Les spécialistes, ceux qui la pratiquent et ceux qui la soutiennent, commencèrent à poser de telles questions à la foresterie communautaire peu après son émergence en tant que courant notable dans le Sud global dans les années 80. La distribution de ses impacts dans ses développements plus récents dans les pays industrialisés ont été moins examinés. L'essai explicite d'échange d'expérience entre le Nord et le Sud est vraiment peu habituel et a entraîné l'organisation d'un symposium pour permettre la rencontre des participants de deux projets de foresterie communautaire fondés par la Fondation Ford aux USA, au Népal, au Kenya et en Tanzanie. Cet article introductif qui comprend un rapport sur les résultats du symposium est enrichi par des cas additionnels du Royaume-Uni et d'Asie. Ils incluent la découverte que, alors que la foresterie communautaire peut réduire l'inégalité sociale, elle l'obtient souvent en créant des changements aux niveaux communautaires, et aussi plus larges, plutôt qu'en livrant les bénéfices directement aux foyers démunis et marginalisés.
¿Quién se beneficia de la silvicultura comunitaria, y quién está excluido? Poco después del surgimiento de la gestión forestal comunitaria en los países del Sur en los años 1980, los especialistas, defensores del modelo y profesionales del ramo empezaron a plantearse estas preguntas. Sin embargo, los impactos de la distribución de su crecimiento más reciente en países industrializados no han sido sujetos a un examen tan riguroso, y ha habido muy pocos intentos explícites de intercambiar las experiencias entre Norte y Sur. En respuesta a esta situación, se organizó un simposio con el objeto de reunir a los participantes de dos proyectos de gestión forestal comunitaria financiados por la Fundación Ford en Estados Unidos, Nepal, Kenia, y Tanzania. Con la incorporación posterior de estudios adicionales del Reino Unido y de Asia, este artículo introductorio informa sobre las secuelas de este simposio. Entre otros resultados, se concluye que si la gestión forestal comunitaria es capaz de reducir la injusticia social, suele ser a través de la generación de cambios que benefician a escala comunitaria o a mayor escala aún, y no mediante la creación de beneficios directos para hogares pobres y marginalizados.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, B. 1997. “Bargaining” and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1): 1–51. Crossref
Arnold, J.E.M. 2001. Forests and people: 25 years of community forestry. FAO, Rome. 134pp.
Baker, M. and Kusel, J. 2003. Community forestry in the United States., Island Press, Washington D.C. 247pp.
Beckley, T. 1998. Moving toward consensus-based forest management: a comparison of industrial, co-managed, community and small private forests in Canada. Forestry Chronicle 74: 736–744. Crossref
Bray, D.B., Merino-Perez, L. and Barry, D. 2005. The community forests of Mexico. Managing for sustainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin. 372pp.
Brighton, D. 2009. Incorporating social equity in conservation programs in the Northeastern US International Forestry Review 11(2): 197–206. Link
Brown, D., Malla, Y., Schreckenberg, K. and Springate-Baginski, O. 2002. From supervising ‘subjects’ to supporting ‘citizens’: recent developments in community forestry in Asia and Africa. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 75, ODI, London.
Carney, D. (ed.) 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? DFID, London.
Carter, J. with Gronow, J.2005. Recent experiences in collaborative forest management. A review paper. Occasional Paper No. 43. CIFOR, Bogor.
Charnley, S. and Poe, M. 2007. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 301–336. Crossref
Cheng, A.S., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Ballard, H., Broussard, S., Danks, C., Daniels, S.E., Mcdermott, M., Seidl, A.F. and Sturtevant, V. 2006. Ford Foundation community-based forestry demonstration program research component final report. Available at: http://welcome.warnercnr.colostate.edu/frws/cbf/docs/ford_research_report_final_2006.pdf
Chomitz, K.M. 2006. At loggerheads: Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank, Washington D.C. 304pp.
Cohen, A.P. 1985. The symbolic construction of community. Routledge, London. 128pp. Crossref
Conley, A. and Moote, M. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16:371–386. Crossref
Conroy, C., Mishra, A. and Rai, A. 2002. Learning from self-initiated community forestry management in Orissa, India. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 227–237. Crossref
Danks, C. 2009. Community-based forestry in the US: diverse activities and institutions with common goals.International Forestry Review 11(2): 171–185. Link
Danks, C. 2008. Institutional arrangement in community-based forestry. In: Donoghue, E. and Sturtevant, V. (eds). Forest community connections. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Diop, A. and Fraser, R. 2009. Social, economic, and political capital in Alabama's Black Belt region: A community-based forestry approach to poverty alleviation. International Forestry Review 11(2): 186–196. Link
Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (eds). 2003. Local forest management: The impacts of devolution policies.Earthscan, London. 208pp.
Engel, S. and Palmer, C. 2006. Who owns the right? The determinants of community benefits from logging in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 8(4): 434–446. Crossref
Fomete, T. and Vermaat, J. 2001. Community forestry and poverty alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 25h(i), Overseas Development Institute, London.
Glasmeier, A.K. and Farrigan, T. 2005. Understanding community forestry: a qualitative metastudy of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case. The Geographical Journal 171(1): 56–69. Crossref
Hobley, M. 2006. Where in the world is there pro-poor forest policy and tenure reform? Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington D.C.
Klooster, D. 2000. Institutional choice, community, and struggle: A case study of forest co-management in Mexico. World Development 28(1): 1–20. Crossref
Lawrence, A., Anglezarke, B., Frost, B., Nolan, P. and Owen, R. 2009. Community forests and woodlands in Great Britain: perspectives from policy and practice. International Forestry Review 11(2): 281–297. Link
Lawrence, A. 2007. Beyond the second generation: towards adaptiveness in participatory forest management.CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2, No. 28, 1–15.
Mahanty, S., Fox, J., Nurse, M., Stephen, P. and Mclees, L. (eds). 2006. Hanging in the balance: equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia. RECOFTC, Bangkok and East-West Center, Honolulu. 222pp.
Mahanty, S., Guernier, J. and Yasmi, Y. 2009. A fair share? Sharing the benefits and costs of collaborative forest management. International Forestry Review 11(2): 268–280. Link
Maharjan, M.R., Dakal, T.R., Thapa, S.K., Schreckenberg, K. and Luttrell, C. 2009. Assessing the benefits of pro-poor community forestry in the Nepal Churia region. International Forestry Review 11(2): 254–267. Link
McCarthy, J. 2006. Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: Community Forestry in British Columbia and the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(1): 84–104. Crossref
Mcdermott, M.H. 2009. Equity first or later? How U.S. community-based forestry distributes benefits.International Forestry Review 11(2): 207–220. Link
Mcdermott, M.H. 2009. Locating benefits: expanding decision-spaces, resource access and equity in U.S. community-based forestry. Geoforum 40(2): 249–259. Crossref
Mcdougall, C., Prabhu, R. and Fisher, R. 2007. Discussion and conclusions. In: Fisher, R., Prabhu, R. and Mcdougall, C. (eds). Adaptive Collaborative Management of Community Forests in Asia. Experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines, pp206–225. CIFOR, Bogor.
Mcpherson, G., Simpson, J., Peper, P., Maco, S. and Xiao, Q. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five us cities. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 411–416.
Menzies, N.K. 2007. Our forest, your ecosystem, their timber. Communities, conservation, and the state in community-based forest management. Columbia University Press, New York. 264pp. Crossref
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 298pp. Crossref
Oyono, P.R., Ribot, J.C. and Larson, A.M. 2006. Green and black gold in rural Cameroon: Natural resources for local governance, justice and sustainability. Environmental Governance in Africa Working Paper No. 22. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. and Daugherty, P.J. 2006. What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources 19(1): 33–52. Crossref
Reed, M.G. and Mcilveen, K. 2006. Toward a pluralistic civic science? Assessing community forestry. Society and Natural Resources 19(7): 591–607. Crossref
Ribot, J. 2002. Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., Zorlu, P. and Moss, C. 2007. A way out of poverty? A review of the impacts of PFM on livelihoods. Keynote paper, 1st National PFM Conference, 6–8 June 2007, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) HQ, Muguga, Kenya. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2984.pdf
Schreckenberg, K. and Luttrell, C. 2009. Participatory forest management: a route to poverty reduction?International Forestry Review 11(2): 221–238. Link
Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L. and Wunder, S. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries. World Development 33(9): 1383–1402. Crossref
Sunderlin, W., Dewi, S., Puntodewo, A., Muller, D., Anglesen, A. and Epprecht, M. 2008. Why forests are important for global poverty alleviation: A spatial explanation. Ecology and society 13(2): 24 [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art24/ Crossref
Vyamana, V.G. 2009. Participatory forest management in the Eastern Arc Mountain area of Tanzania: who benefits? International Forestry Review 11(2): 239–253. Link
WORLD BANK. 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wyckoff-Baird, B. 2005. Growth rings: Communities and trees: lessons from the Ford Foundation community-based forestry demonstration program, 2000–2005. The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C. 225pp.
For the purposes of this analysis, we focus on ‘contemporary’ community forestry initiatives by governments, donors and civil society designed to be relevant to current circumstances (Arnold 2001), excluding traditional or indigenous forest management, in particular longstanding municipally owned community forests (as in New England) and tribal forests in the US.
These include participatory forest management, community-based forest management, community-based forestry, adaptive collaborative management, joint forest management and other variants. In this paper we generally use the term community forestry unless referring to a country-specific form known by a particular name.
Note that these papers do not cover some key examples of contemporary community forestry programmes such as Canada (Beckley 1998, McCarthy 2006, Reed and McIlveen 2006), Mexico (Klooster 2000, Bray et al. 2005) and Cameroon (Fometé and Vermaat 2001, Oyono et al. 2006).
To reduce repetition all papers in this issue are referred to only by the authors' names.

Cited by

R.R. Bastakoti and C. Davidsen. (2017) Optimism, Hopes and Fears: Local Perceptions of REDD+ in Nepalese Community Forests. International Forestry Review 19:1, 1-16.
Online publication date: 21-Apr-2017.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (380 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
P.k. Sarker, MD. S. Rahman and L. Giessen. (2017) Empowering State Agencies through National and International Community Forestry Policies in Bangladesh. International Forestry Review 19:1, 79-101.
Online publication date: 21-Apr-2017.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (538 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
L. Chinangwa, A.S. Pullin and N. Hockley. (2017) Understanding Community Criteria for Assessing Forest Co-Management Programmes: Evidence from Malawi. International Forestry Review 19:1, 17-28.
Online publication date: 21-Apr-2017.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (163 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
J. Liu and J.L. Innes. (2015) Participatory Forest Management in China: Key Challenges and Ways Forward. International Forestry Review 17:4, 477-484.
Online publication date: 3-Feb-2016.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (180 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
G. Patenaude and K. Lewis. (2014) The Impacts of Tanzania's Natural Resource Management Programmes for Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation. International Forestry Review 16:4, 459-473.
Online publication date: 17-Sep-2014.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (121 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
S. Rantala and L.A. German. (2013) Exploring Village Governance Processes behind Community-Based Forest Management: Legitimacy and Coercion in the Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. International Forestry Review 15:3, 355-367.
Online publication date: 25-Sep-2013.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (114 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
R. Aru, J.D. Nichols, J.C. Grant, A.J. Leys, K. Glencross, M. Sethy, K. Convery and R. Viranamangga. (2012) Constraints to Whitewood (Endospermum medullosum) Plantation Development on Santo Island, Vanuatu. International Forestry Review 14:4, 414-423.
Online publication date: 9-Jan-2013.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (213 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
E. Beauchamp and V. Ingram. (2011) Impacts of Community Forests on Livelihoods in Cameroon: Lessons from Two Case Studies. International Forestry Review 13:4, 389-403.
Online publication date: 30-Dec-2011.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (114 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
M. Richards and S.N. Panfil. (2011) Towards Cost-Effective Social Impact Assessment of REDD+ Projects: Meeting the Challenge of Multiple Benefit Standards. International Forestry Review 13:1, 1-12.
Online publication date: 18-Apr-2011.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (163 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
B. Buffum, A. Lawrence and K. J. Temphel. (2010) Equity in Community Forests in Bhutan. International Forestry Review 12:3, 187-199.
Online publication date: 30-Sep-2010.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (163 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
A.M. Larson, D. Barry and Ganga Ram Dahal. (2010) New Rights for Forest-Based Communities? Understanding Processes of Forest Tenure Reform. International Forestry Review 12:1, 78-96.
Online publication date: 13-May-2010.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (162 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
M.H. McDermott. (2009) Equity First or Later? How US Community-Based Forestry Distributes Benefits. International Forestry Review 11:2, 207-220.
Online publication date: 11-Mar-2010.
Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (894 KB) : Rights & Permissions 
For further details log on website :
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1505/ifor.11.2.157
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...