IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v11y2023i2p336-345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Forest Management: Weak States or Strong Communities?

Author

Listed:
  • Bas Arts

    (Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands)

  • Jelle Behagel

    (Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands)

  • Jessica de Koning

    (Coastal and Marine Management, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands)

  • Marieke van der Zon

    (Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Community forest management (CFM) has become an influential approach in the sustainable use, management, and conservation of forests worldwide. It ranges from community-based self-governance of local village forests to co-management approaches with state forest agencies in public forests. However, analyses show complex relationships between states and communities in CFM. At least three ideal types can be identified. The first refers to local communities that collectively decide to manage surrounding forests themselves due to a lack of state involvement. As a manager of the public good, such absence of the state may easily lead to deforestation and forest degradation that such communities wish to avoid. A second type refers to the co-management approaches of local communities and state forest agencies. Here, forest officials and community members cooperate in managing local forests. A final type refers to indigenous communities with strong customary forest institutions whose territorial claims are recognized by the state. While communities always need specific institutions, knowledge, and tenure rights in place to make CFM perform, each ideal type presupposes various degrees of state capacity and state autonomy. The article concludes that weak states (to some degree) and strong communities (of a certain kind) may indeed form a “convincing liaison” in CFM, although it is not the only arrangement that may produce (some) positive social and environmental impacts on the ground, as the cases explored illustrate.

Suggested Citation

  • Bas Arts & Jelle Behagel & Jessica de Koning & Marieke van der Zon, 2023. "Community Forest Management: Weak States or Strong Communities?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 336-345.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:336-345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/6325
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    2. Stewart Patrick, 2006. "Weak States and Global Threats: Assessing Evidence of Spillovers," Working Papers 73, Center for Global Development.
    3. Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    4. Linda Etchart, 2022. "Indigenous Peoples and International Law in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Laws, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Blankstein, Charles S & Zuvekas, Clarence, Jr, 1973. "Agrarian Reform in Ecuador: An Evaluation of Past Efforts and the Development of a New Approach," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 73-94, October.
    6. Southgate, Douglas & Sierra, Rodrigo & Brown, Lawrence, 1991. "The causes of tropical deforestation in Ecuador: A statistical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 19(9), pages 1145-1151, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antje Daniel & Hans-Joachim Lauth & Eberhard Rothfuß, 2023. "Local Self‐Governance and Weak Statehood: A Convincing Liaison?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 272-279.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davis, Emily Jane & Hajjar, Reem & Charnley, Susan & Moseley, Cassandra & Wendel, Kendra & Jacobson, Meredith, 2020. "Community-based forestry on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Chris D. Arnot & Martin K. Luckert & Peter C. Boxall, 2011. "What Is Tenure Security? Conceptual Implications for Empirical Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 297-311.
    3. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    4. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    5. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    7. Cropper, Maureen & Griffiths, Charles & Mani, Muthukumara, 1997. "Roads, population pressures, and deforestation in Thailand, 1976-89," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1726, The World Bank.
    8. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    9. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    11. Brazee, Richard J. & Southgate, Douglas, 1993. "A Mathematical Model For Developing Ethno-Biologically Diverse Tropical Forests," Working Papers 11895, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Training Project.
    12. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.
    13. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    14. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    16. Mengina Gilli & Muriel Côte & Gretchen Walters, 2020. "Gatekeeping Access: Shea Land Formalization and the Distribution of Market-Based Conservation Benefits in Ghana’s CREMA," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Xiaorun Wang & Qiong Cao, 2024. "Adopting environmental sustainability: the financial consequences of clean energy and technology acceptance in the energy transition," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Abbas El‐Zein & Rola Nasrallah & Iman Nuwayhid & Lea Kai & Jihad Makhoul, 2006. "Why Do Neighbors Have Different Environmental Priorities? Analysis of Environmental Risk Perception in a Beirut Neighborhood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 423-435, April.
    20. repec:bny:wpaper:0106 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Lambini, Cosmas Kombat & Nguyen, Trung Thanh, 2014. "A comparative analysis of the effects of institutional property rights on forest livelihoods and forest conditions: Evidence from Ghana and Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 178-190.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:336-345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.