Key issues in effective joint forest management

People dependent on forest resources often live in extreme poverty. Communities are being encouraged to participate in forest management as a way to reduce poverty and improve social justice. The success of joint forest management schemes is influenced by local social and ecological conditions.

The majority of the world’s poorest people live in rural areas. People who depend on forests for their livelihoods are often geographically isolated, socially and culturally marginalised. The World Bank estimates that 80 percent of people living in absolute poverty depend on forest resources. This means that forest management is central to poverty reduction.

Joint Forest Management (JFM) refers to systems where communities work with state authorities in forest management. This approach can reduce poverty and increase in social equity. Early approaches to JFM saw communities involved at a low level but still subject to decisions made by the state. Often JFM focussed on the reforestation of marginal lands rather than managing commercially viable forests. However, in modern JFM approaches, communities are central to the management process, giving them more influence over decisions.

JFM can benefit poor communities by increasing their access to and control over lucrative forest resources. However, JFM can also increase problems and conflicts for communities if forest authorities suffer from rent-seeking and poor governance. In some circumstances it may contribute to further marginalisation and poverty, if management structures permit unfair access to valuable resources by restricting participants' access to commercially valuable forest products or change existing of patterns of forest product use.

Key research findings include:

• Community management is an effective way to transfer property rights to rural people.
• Land rights based on community management are more secure for marginalised people, who are often unable to defend their rights to land access through legal systems.
• Community management can improve resource use in tropical forests; different groups use a diverse range of resources, instead of one owner exploiting one or two resources.
• JFM can promote social equity because several groups share control over resources, including marginalised people. If excessive rent seeking can be avoided, collaboration with state forest authorities may improve management and market access by villagers.

Increased community participation in forest management agrees with current changes towards a more diversified understanding of rural livelihoods amongst forestry organisations and development workers. This change in thinking recognises rural people as having complex livelihoods that depend on diverse resources, not as farmers who depend on a single resource. Policymakers must recognise the differences between benefits sharing approaches, in which communities follow external rules and benefits focus on incomes, and power sharing approaches, where participation is based on empowerment and communities are central to decision making.

Key policy lessons include:

• Poverty reduction interventions can work with forest communities to increase income-generating opportunities, such as tree cultivation on farms.
• Property rights must be adjusted to meet local needs; no standardised solutions exist.
• External evaluations show deeper integration and coherence is needed between forestry strategies and rural development initiatives.
• National forest authorities may see community management as a challenge to their professional status and may be resistant to such initiatives; they need training to realise the benefits of JFM. However, under-resourced agencies can utilise JFM to increase outreach of state forest authorities.
• JFM needs to be analysed as a management system on its own right, not as a special case for either state forestry or private forestry.

Source(s):
‘Ownership and Incentives in Joint Forest Management: A Survey’, Development Policy Review, 23 (1): 87-104, by Tuukka Castrén, 2005

Funded by: The article is an independent study with no outside financing

id21 Research Highlight: 18 November 2005

Further Information:
Tuukka Castrén
Senior Adviser
Department for Development Policy
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
PO Box 176 FIN-00161
Helsinki
Finland

Tel: +358 9160 56344
Fax: + 358 9160 56428
Contact the contributor: tuukka.castren@formin.fi

Other related links:
'Working together to protect forests in India'

'Joint forest management in India: a sapling with feeble roots?'

'Are carbon sinks really good for rural people?'

'Can forestry contribute to poverty reduction? A case study of Kyrgyzstan'

United Nations Forum on Forests