Uniting forest and livelihood outcomes? Analyzing external actor interventions in sustainable livelihoods in a community forest management context

Abstract

External actor interventions in community forest management (CFM) attempt to support communities with developing forest institutions and/ or improving their livelihoods portfolio. Common pool resource (CPR) scholars Uniting forest and livelihood outcomes? 533 argue that forest institutions are required to prevent overharvesting of the forest resource stock (appropriation dilemma), and to encourage investment in its maintenance (provision dilemma). The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) has been widely used to analyse the influence of interventions on rural livelihoods portfolios. As interventions in CFM span the academic divide between CPR and SLA literatures, analysis of such interventions through either a CPR or SLA lens risks overlooking intervention activities, significant outcomes of the intervention, and the interplay between these outcomes. We propose here an analytical framework which combines CPR and SLA insights and ascertain its applicability by analysing interventions in a forest dependent community in Andhra Pradesh, India. We developed multiple indicators to measure the community's ability to deal with appropriation and provision dilemmas, and their livelihoods portfolio. Using data from forest plots, household questionnaires, focus group meetings and interviews, we analysed the intervention approaches, activities and outcomes. Our results show that a community's ability to deal with appropriation and provision dilemmas both affects, and is affected by its livelihoods portfolio. These intricate and dynamic interplays strongly influence the direct and indirect outcomes of intervention activities. Incorporating the synergy between the CPR and SLA perspectives in our analytical framework led us to a much more nuanced understanding of intervention approaches, activities and outcomes than would have otherwise been gained from a single perspective framework.Keywords: Common pool resources, community forestry, India, interventions, rural development, sustainable livelihoods Acknowledgements: We are extremely grateful to all the community members in East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh for sharing their experiences with us, logistical support and hospitality. We also greatly appreciate the time and patience shown by the external actors at the heart of this research whose honest responses to our questions enabled us to gain valuable insights into their daily work. We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Livelihood capitals on income inequality among rural households: evidence from China

“…All the individuals from every income level can benefit from forest land in the south of China (HOGARTH et al, 2013). The forest land can provide the timber products and non-timber products (BARNES et al, 2017), such as the development of tourism; therefore, the forest lands have a potential to earn more income. DAS (2010) and PRADHAN (2014) argued that forest income reduces income inequality.…”

Conserving Tropical Forests: Can Sustainable Livelihoods Outperform Artisanal or Informal Mining?

“…With increasing recognition that threats to biologically important landscapes are linked to social and economic pressures [12][13][14], some argue that forest management and sustainable livelihood perspectives should be combined [15]. As such, a challenge that arises is how to make conservation a more attractive and viable option for individuals and local communities, in service of both ecological and consumptive economic values.…”

The global-local nexus and sustainable forest management: institutional translations in Brazil and Caatinga biome

“…Many of those studies explore how external interventions, specifically from governments and civil society organisations, seek to balance the objective of strengthening the livelihood of local communities with achieving forest conservation objectives (e.g. Barnes et al 2017). Studies that discuss this role of local communities are focused on several forest management strategies, with Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and Community Forest Management (CFM) being two important examples (Arts and de Koning 2017).…”

“…Much has been done to understand how external interventions can result in better practices of local communities and how they can realise positive outcomes for local livelihoods and forest conservation objectives (Barnes et al 2017). Studies on CFM moreover suggest that forest management strategies are 'negotiated' through the articulation of externally introduced ideas and norms with locally embedded practices, making local communities thus a part of a multilevel governance context (Arts and de Koning 2017; De Koning 2014).…”

“…More practically, the question is how external interventions by states or other (transnational) actors, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), connect to local livelihoods and their socialecological contexts (Cleaver 2012). For example, Barnes et al (2017) found the success of interventions in community forestry in a region of India to be related to how well these interventions connected to the livelihood portfolio of communities. These portfolios also represent specific forms of resource use that are related to the specific socio-ecological contexts the communities are part of.…”