Decentralisation in Cambodia has long been propagated as a means to enhance local engagement with governance structures. But in the forestry sector, even limited devolution of powers often constrains local user groups with excessive bureaucratic burdens. In addition, entrenched political economy interests tend to inhibit effective governance. To investigate the apparent institutional malaise that seems to characterise community forestry sites in Cambodia, this study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate capacities to engage in collective action on forest governance. In our two case studies, community forestry is characterised by the exclusion of younger and poorer households from formal meetings, high costs and limited benefits for members, informal information channels where women and poorer households are excluded, low levels of formalisation, high enforcement costs and massive external pressures. The article calls for community forest entities to develop locally-adapted graduated sanction mechanisms through the receipt of greater support for internal monitoring and enforcement.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the popularity of integrated conservation and development approaches to protected area management, adjacent communities increasingly face livelihood dilemmas. Yet understanding of how market processes and conservation enforcement interact to influence livelihood responses remains limited. Targeting eight villages in Nam Et-Phou Louey (NEPL) National Park in northern Lao PDR, we draw on survey data with 255 households, 93 semi-structured interviews, and meso-level data on village conditions to examine how residents navigate associated livelihood dilemmas. A cluster analysis reveals five livelihood types with divergent capacities to engage in market development and cope with enforcement pressures. We show how market linkages, historical conservation interventions, and local access conditions shape livelihoods and differences between villages. Our approach yields a nuanced picture of how global conservation efforts result in an uneven distribution of costs and benefits at local scales. Conservation measures must account for highly divergent capacities to cope with access loss and diversify livelihoods.