IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v58y2015icp92-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study

Author

Listed:
  • Schusser, Carsten
  • Krott, Max
  • Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C.
  • Logmani, Jacqueline
  • Devkota, Rosan R.
  • Maryudi, Ahamad
  • Salla, Manjola
  • Bach, Ngo Duy

Abstract

Community forestry is a complex collective action by forest users that takes place within a broader network of multiple actors at local, national and international levels. This paper looks at all relevant actors and tests the hypothesis of whether they have a significant influence on the outcomes of community forestry. The empirical basis comprises 57 cases of community forestry in four developing and one developed country. The cases were selected to represent a variety of political conditions and best practices, defined as success in the achievement of high outcomes. The actors were theoretically defined, and we identified political, economic and societal actors. Additionally, their power and interests were theoretically defined and observed in the field studies. The group of powerful actors desires specific outcomes for the local users of the community forests. As far as the ecological outcomes, some 40% of the powerful actors prefer sustained forest stands, and 20% also find biodiversity to be important. With regard to the economic contribution to the local users, 25% of powerful actors support only a subsistence level for the local users, and 25% prefer higher economic contributions. Within the social outcomes, 40% of powerful actors accept devolution of some information and decision rights to the local users, but only 2% would grant them full empowerment. The interests of the powerful actors were compared with the outcomes achieved in practice. A comparison shows that within each outcome there is a congruence of 82–90% between the interests of powerful actors and the outcomes for local users. We interpret these findings as empirical evidence that powerful actors have a significant influence on the outcomes of community forestry for the local users.

Suggested Citation

  • Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C. & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahamad & Salla, Manjola & Bach, Ngo Duy, 2015. "Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 92-101.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:58:y:2015:i:c:p:92-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300101
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torniainen, Tatu Juhani & Saastamoinen, Olli Juhani & Petrov, Anatoly Pavlovich, 2006. "Russian forest policy in the turmoil of the changing balance of power," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 403-416, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2004. "In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about collective action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 215-232, December.
    4. Adhikari, Bhim & Williams, Frances & Lovett, Jon C., 2007. "Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 464-478, January.
    5. Vakil, Anna C., 1997. "Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 2057-2070, December.
    6. Nygren, Anja, 2005. "Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 639-655, April.
    7. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    8. Theesfeld, Insa, 2004. "Constraints on Collective Action in a Transitional Economy: The Case of Bulgaria's Irrigation Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-271, February.
    9. Vodouhê, Fifanou G. & Coulibaly, Ousmane & Adégbidi, Anselme & Sinsin, Brice, 2010. "Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 505-512, September.
    10. Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2009. "Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 808-818, July.
    11. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    12. Chakraborty, Rabindra Nath, 2001. "Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 341-353, February.
    13. Blaikie, Piers, 2006. "Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1942-1957, November.
    14. Perez-Cirera, Vanessa & Lovett, Jon C., 2006. "Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: A local user groups model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 341-352, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stanzel, Jens & Krott, Max & Schusser, Carsten, 2020. "Power alliances for biodiversity—Results of an international study on community forestry," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Movuh, Mbolo C. Yufanyi & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahmad & Salla, Manjola, 2016. "Comparing community forestry actors in Cameroon, Indonesia, Namibia, Nepal and Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 81-87.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. García-López, Gustavo A., 2019. "Rethinking elite persistence in neoliberalism: Foresters and techno-bureaucratic logics in Mexico’s community forestry," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 169-181.
    7. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Gbedomon, Rodrigue Castro & Floquet, Anne & Mongbo, Roch & Salako, Valère Kolawolé & Fandohan, Adandé Belarmain & Assogbadjo, Achille Ephrem & Glèlè Kakaї, Romain, 2016. "Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of community based forest management: A case study from Tobé-Kpobidon forest in Benin, Western Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 46-55.
    13. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    14. Ana Guzman Ruíz & Edwin Hes & Klaas Schwartz, 2011. "Shifting Governance Modes in Wetland Management: A Case Study of Two Wetlands in Bogotá, Colombia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(6), pages 990-1003, December.
    15. Rasolofoson, Ranaivo A. & Nielsen, Martin R. & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "The potential of the Global Person Generated Index for evaluating the perceived impacts of conservation interventions on subjective well-being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 107-118.
    16. Petrick, Martin & Gramzow, Andreas, 2012. "Harnessing Communities, Markets and the State for Public Goods Provision: Evidence from Post-Socialist Rural Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2342-2354.
    17. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara & Jericó-Daminello, Camila & Sessin-Dilascio, Karla & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina & Wortmann, Lukas & de Almeida Sinisgalli, Paulo Antonio & Meyer, Angela & G, 2015. "Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: The Marujá case study in Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 182-191.
    18. Chankrajang, Thanyaporn, 2019. "State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand's community forestry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 261-273.
    19. Sirak Robele Gari & Alice Newton & John D. Icely & Maria Mar Delgado-Serrano, 2017. "An Analysis of the Global Applicability of Ostrom’s Design Principles to Diagnose the Functionality of Common-Pool Resource Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Chan, Cheryl & Armitage, Derek & Alexander, Steven M. & Campbell, Donovan, 2019. "Examining linkages between ecosystem services and social wellbeing to improve governance for coastal conservation in Jamaica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    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:eee:forpol:v:58:y:2015:i:c:p:92-101. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.