Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communities

Cronkleton, P.; Pulhin, Juan M.; Saigal, S.

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.97481

Cited by 86 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In co-management schemes, governments need to provide secure property rights that define who has rights and responsibilities to manage, and to establish guidelines or frameworks that encourage sustainable management practices (Cronkleton et al 2012a). An important step in securing resource rights is apparent in the multiple types of property institutions created to grant to indigenous peoples and extractivist populations rights over Brazil nut-rich forests.…”

Section: The Governance System Policy Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the ‘cornerstone of Amazonian conservation’: a socioecological assessment of Brazil nut exploitation

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Brazil nut (the seeds of the rainforest tree Bertholletia excelsa) is the only globally traded seed collected from the wild by forest-based harvesters across the Amazon basin. The large geographic scale of Brazil nut exploitation and the significant contributions to local livelihoods, national economies, and forest-based development over the last decades, merit a review of the ''conservation-through-use'' paradigm. We use Elinor Ostrom's framework for assessing sustainability in socioecological systems: (1) resource unit, (2) users, (3) governance system, and (4) resource system, to determine how different contexts and external developments generate specific conservation and development outcomes. We find that the resource unit reacts robustly to the type and level of extraction currently practiced; that resource users have built on a self-organized system that had defined boundaries and access to the resource; that linked production chains, market networks and informal financing work to supply global markets; and that local harvesters have used supporting alliances with NGOs and conservationists to formalize and secure their endogenous governance system and make it more equitable. As a result, the Brazil nut model represents a socioecological system that may not require major changes to sustain productivity. Yet since long-term Brazil nut production seems inextricably tied to a continuous forest cover, and because planted Brazil nut trees currently provide a minimal contribution to total nut production basin-wide, we call to preserve, diversify and intensify production in Brazil nut-rich forests that will inevitably become ever more integrated within human-modified landscapes over time.

show abstract

Section: The Governance System Policy Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the ‘cornerstone of Amazonian conservation’: a socioecological assessment of Brazil nut exploitation

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relative levels of power between government and private actors also vary from predominantly private to predominantly government run [3,12]. In developing countries, co-management is predominantly government driven and pre-designed, and the devolution of authority and resource rights to users is often partial [1,13]. Traditional definitions of co-management have been relatively static and structuralist, -emphasizing legal aspects and formal structures/institutions,‖ and have failed to capture -the complexity, variation and dynamic nature of contemporary systems of governance‖ [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing People Back into Protected Forests in Developing Countries: Insights from Co-Management in Malawi

Zulu¹

2013

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines struggles to bring people back into protected forests to enhance sustainable forest management and livelihoods using insights emerging from a co-management project in Malawi. It uses mixed social science methods and a process-based conceptualization of co-management to analyze experiences, and theory of reciprocal altruism to explain major findings of continuing local forest-user commitment to co-management despite six years of conservation burdens largely for minimal financial benefits. It argues that overemphasis on cash incentives as the motivation for -self-interested‖ users to participate in co-management overlooks locally significant non-cash motivations, inflates local expectations, and creates perverse incentives that undermine socio-ecological goals. Some non-cash incentives outweighed cash-driven ones. Findings support broadening of incentives mechanisms, including via nested cross-scale institutional arrangements for holistic management that integrates adjacent forests into forest-reserve co-management. Strengthened institutions, improving community/government and intracommunity trust, improved village forests easing pressure on the reserve, measures minimizing elite capture, and impetus from an external threat, enhanced forest condition. Generous forest rights and appropriate community licensing and benefit-sharing systems also helped. Bureaucratic/donor inefficiencies, wood-extraction challenges, poor forest-based enterprise development, and low resource value undermined performance. Insights on forest-management planning, fair cost-sharing, targeting the poor, and need for social learning are highlighted.

show abstract

“…Forestry development policies typically are accompanied by strict regulations that attempt to frame, condition and standardize community-level decisions (Larson and Pulhin 2012;Cronkleton et al 2012), thus reshaping local institutions, organizations and management practices that must be adapted in response; For example, communal properties can be institutionally complex with internal nested subdivisions for sub-groups or individuals that allocate customary control over forest resources (Ankersen and Barnes 2004). Although rights to forests in such cases may be communal, use and management decisions are more often handled at the household scale (e.g.…”

Section: Definitions Of 'Community Forestry'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing Community Forestry to Manage the Forest–Farm Interface

Cronkleton

Larson

Feintrenie

et al. 2013

Small-scale Forestry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the 2010 Montpellier conference on 'Taking Stock of Smallholder and Community Forestry: Where do we go from here?', researchers, policy-makers and practitioners came together to discuss historical trends and future directions for understanding and supporting forest sustainability and local livelihoods in forestbased communities. A consensus arising from these discussions was that there is a need to reframe and broaden approaches to understand forestry practised by smallholders and communities. The paper highlights three key topics from that discussion: (1) the need to reconsider definitions of community forestry, (2) the need Small-scale Forestry (2013) 12:5-13 DOI 10.1007 to broaden understanding of rights surrounding forest resources and (3) the need to reframe research to focus on management of the forest-farm interface.

show abstract

Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communities

Cited by 86 publications

References 11 publications

Revisiting the ‘cornerstone of Amazonian conservation’: a socioecological assessment of Brazil nut exploitation

Revisiting the ‘cornerstone of Amazonian conservation’: a socioecological assessment of Brazil nut exploitation

Bringing People Back into Protected Forests in Developing Countries: Insights from Co-Management in Malawi

Reframing Community Forestry to Manage the Forest–Farm Interface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About