Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest management in Tanzania

Scheba, Andreas; Mustalahti, Irmeli

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.007

Cited by 92 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Knowledge claims and uses are key mechanisms of institutional choice and recognition, shaping the legitimacy of representation and the directionality of accountability. The professionalization of environmental management, promoted by foreign donors and policymakers, rationalizes the limited devolution of power to local communities, who are seen as lacking technical capacity and inclined to use resources inefficiently and unsustainably (Lebel et al, 2005;Poteete and Ribot, 2011;Faye, 2015;Lund, 2015;Rutt et al, 2015;Scheba and Mustalahti, 2015). This justifies the preponderance of technocrats on resource management committees, particularly in IWRM, given its emphasis on scientific data and expertise for rational planning (Lemos et al, 2010;Orlove and Caton, 2010;Taddei, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who counts, what counts: representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub‐basin, Burkina Faso

Roncoli

Dowd-Uribe²,

Orlove

et al. 2016

Natural Resources Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who counts, what counts: representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub‐basin, Burkina Faso

Roncoli

Dowd-Uribe²,

Orlove

et al. 2016

Natural Resources Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This "going back-approach" (cf. [81]) of the author may add value to this research, through understanding of the context and subsequent critical analysis. Accordingly, the research carried out expert consultation, carefully chosen following Krott's [12] actor categories among the government bureaucracies (e.g., MoEF, BFD, DoE, and PC), foreign donor organizations (e.g., UNDP, German Federal Enterprise for International Co-operation (GIZ), and US Forest Service), multilateral NGOs (e.g., International Union for Conservation of Nature-Bangladesh and Arannayk Foundation), and academics and researchers (University of Dhaka and Khulna University, Bangladesh)-considering their connection in planning, policy making and policy implementation on SFM issues in Bangladesh.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The last two decades of forest policy discussions have been dominated by calls for sustainable management of forest resources. Consequently, multiple international and domestic policies, supporting sustainable forest management (SFM), have evolved in numerous jurisdictions. Policies in developing countries often rely on foreign donors' projects, which supplement domestic SFM policy. These policies assign various policy tasks to specific public bureaucracies, who then compete for these very tasks, as well as the related staff and budgets. Therefore, project and policy task assignment greatly influences bureaucratic power. This article analyzes the distributive effects of SFM policy on power (in terms of coercion, incentives and dominant information) among relevant domestic and foreign donor bureaucracies in Bangladesh. Concepts from power theory, bureaucratic politics theory, and concepts of policy and policy process were combined to analyze 121 Bangladeshi SFM policies from 1992-2013, which assign a total of 1012 policy tasks to specific public bureaucracies. Using qualitative content analysis, inferences about power were assigned to specific competing bureaucracies by the totality of SFM policies made. Results identify domestic and foreign bureaucracies whose power distribution benefit most from the SFM policies viz. their competitors. It is concluded that bureaucracies gaining the most power set the limits and directions in designing, implementing and evaluating various elements of any national SFM policies.

show abstract

“…In Tanzania, for a VLFR to be declared and recognized by the responsible ministry, it has to be at least five hectares but there is no specific maximum area limit. For instance, the Angai forest currently managed as a CBFM scheme was estimated to be 139,420 ha (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015).…”

Section: Examining Community Based Forest Management (Cbfm) Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community forestry frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa and the impact on sustainable development

Duguma¹,

Atela²,

Ayana³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community based forest management (CBFM) has been implemented in Africa since the 1980s. Three main objectives, which are currently part of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), underlie the formation of CBFM. They are (1) enhancing community engagement in forest management, (2) reducing rural poverty, and (3) promoting forest resources conservation. We examine CBFM frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and CBFM schemes' contribution to selected sustainable development goals relevant to the forestry sector. Five SSA countries, Ethiopia, Kenya, Cameroon, Uganda, and Tanzania were chosen for the study because of their long-term engagement in CBFM. The analysis was based on desk review of literature from Web of Science!, Scopus, and Google Scholar!, and interviews with individuals representing institutions leading CBFM implementation in the countries selected. We found countries were strong in devising policy and legal provisions and articulating formalities for establishing CBFM. Major weaknesses were observed in monitoring CBFM performance, benefit sharing, and product management. The analysis of CBFM schemes' contribution to SDGs was largely positive, though with several cases of no considerable impact and few reports of negative impacts. The contributions of CBFM schemes to SDGs was constrained by weaknesses in the CBFM frameworks. Enhancing CBFM schemes contribution to SDGs requires addressing the major weaknesses observed in the CBFM frameworks.

show abstract

Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest management in Tanzania

Cited by 92 publications

References 41 publications

Who counts, what counts: representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub‐basin, Burkina Faso

Who counts, what counts: representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub‐basin, Burkina Faso

International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh

Community forestry frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa and the impact on sustainable development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About