Abstract
This paper introduces case study analysis against an illustrative model, the ‘house model’, which contains a number of key elements for sustaining participatory forest management (PFM). In theory, the elements in the model are basic requirements for ensuring that the participation of local people in forest management will continue after external donor support ceases. In practice, the study shows that none of the four case study projects managed to build the whole ‘house’ nor did they have tangible impacts on all the elements, and long-term sustainability of PFM is still questionable. All four donor-supported projects had limited tangible impacts on access to information and benefits, especially with regards to long-term extension services, markets and marketing information. These were the most difficult elements to influence during and after the projects in all four cases. It is concluded that in order to sustain PFM, there needs to be a solid institutional foundation which as a minimum ensures local people’s access to information and benefits from forests under the PFM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aagaard NK, Svensson L (eds) (2006) Action research and interactive research. Shaker Publications, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2
Bowles IA, Rico RE, Mittermeir RA, Da Fonseca GAB (1998) Logging and tropical forest conservation. Science 5371:1899–1900. doi:10.1126/science.280.5371.1899
Brown D, Schreckenberg K, Shepherd G, Wells A (2002) Forestry as an entry point for governance reform. ODI Forestry Briefing, London
Brown C, Durst PB, Enters T (2005) Perceptions of excellence: ingredients of good forest management. In: Durst PB, Brown C, Tacio HD, Ishikawa M (eds) In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. Asia-Pacific forest commission. FAO with RECOFTC, Bangkok, pp 7–28
Chambers R (1998) Beyond whose reality counts? New methods we now need. Stud Cult Organ Soc 4:279–301
Chambers R (2005) Ideas for development. Earthscan, London, UK
CIFOR (2005) Forests for people and the environment. CIFOR Annual Report 2004. Center for international Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
Cuco A, Songane F, Matusse C (2003) Building linkages between poverty reduction strategy and national forestry programme: the case of Mozambique. In: Oksanen T, Pajari B, Tuomajukka T (eds) Forests in poverty reduction strategies: capturing the potential, vol 47. European Forest Institute, Finland, pp 159–172
Durst PB, Brown C, Tacio HD, Ishikawa M (eds) (2005) In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. Asia-Pacific forest commission. FAO with RECOFTC
FAO (2001) How forests can reduce poverty. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Forestry Department, Forest Policy and Planning Division, Rome, Italy
Ferguson I, Chardasekharan C (2004) Paths and pitfalls of decentralization. What effect is decentralisation having on the quest for sustainable forest management in the Asia-Pacific region? ITTO Trop For Update 14(3):3–6
Fisher RJ (1992) Local organizations in community forestry. In: Veer C, Chamberlain J (eds) Local organizations in community forestry extension in Asia. FAO, Bangkok
Fisher RJ (1993) Creating space: development agencies and local institutions in natural resource management. For Trees People Newsl 22:4–11
Greenwood DJ, Levin M (1998) Introduction to action research—social research for social change. Sage Publications, USA
Grimble R, Laidlaw M (2002) Biodiversity Management and Local Livelihoods: Rio plus 10. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 73, ODI, London, UK
Hobley M (ed) (1996) Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. ODI, UK
Hyakumura K, Inoue M (2006) The significance of social capital in local forest management in Laos: overcoming latent conflict between local people and local forestry officials. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 13:16–24
Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resources management: promise, rhetoric and reality. Soc Nat Resour 13:705–715. doi:10.1080/089419200750035575
Larson AM (2003) Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: towards a working model. Public Adm Dev 23:211–226. doi:10.1002/pad.271
Mustalahti I (2006) How to handle the stick: positive processes and crucial barriers of participatory forest management. For Trees Livelihoods 16(2):151–165
Mustalahti I (2007) Participatory forestry in the crossroads in Laos and Vietnam. Two participatory forestry case studies. Submitted for a book called “Natural Resources and Development” published by Institute of Development Studies, pp 193–235
Mustalahti I, Nathan I (2007) Constructing and sustaining participatory forest management: lessons from Tanzania, Mozambique, Laos and Vietnam. Presented at IUFRO Congress: forests and forestry in the context of rural development, Poland, September 2007
Nhantumbo I (2000). The new resource tenure framework in Mozambique: does it real give the tenancy to the rural communities? Presented at “Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millennium”, the Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 31–June 4
Nygren A (2004) Contested lands and incompatible images: the political ecology of struggles over resources in Nicaragua’s Indio-Maiz Reserve. Soc Nat Resour 17:189–205. doi:10.1080/08941920490270221
Phandanouvong S (2002) Local participation in Ban Som village forestry program, Xebangfai District, Khammouane Province, Lao PDR. Master’s Thesis, University of the Phillippines, Los Banos
Pretty JN, Guijt I, Thompson J, Scoones I (1995) Participatory learning & action. A trainer’s guide. IIED participatory methodology series. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Reason P (1994) Three approaches to participative inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, UK, pp 324–339
Reason P, Bradbury H (2006) Handbook of action research. Sage, London, UK
Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy. The politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA
Ribot JC, Peluso NL (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociol 68:153–181
RoM (2002) Regulamento da lei de florestas e fauna bravia. Boletim da República, Publicação oficial da republica de Moçambique. Republic of Mozambique
Shackelton S, Campbell B, Wollenberg E, Edmunds D (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? ODI natural perspectives no. 76. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK
Sivaramakrishnan K (2000) Crafting the public sphere in the forests of West Bengal: democracy, development and political action. Am Ethnol 27(2):431–461. doi:10.1525/ae.2000.27.2.431
Steel P (2005) Forest and poverty reduction: an economics perspective. Abrovitae 29. The IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter
Stuart-Fox M (2006) The political culture of corruption in the Lao PDR. Asian Stud Rev 30:59–75. doi:10.1080/10357820500537054
Sunderlin WD (2005) Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest and Livelihood Program, Center for international Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
Swantz ML, Ndedya E, Masaiganah MS (2006) Participatory action research in Southern Tanzania, with specific reference to women. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage, London, UK
Taylor PL (2005) A fair trade approach to community forest certification? A framework for discussion. J Rural Stud 21:433–447. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.08.002
Walker A (2004) Seeing farmers for the trees: community forestry and the arborealisation of agriculture in northern Thailand. Asia Pac Viewp 45(3):311–324. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2004.00250.x
Williams PJ, Heinonen P (1998) Developing participatory systems for forest management and conservation in Lao P.D.R: progress and future directions. Mid-term review of the Forest Management and Conservation Programme (FOMACOP) in Lao PDR
Wily LA (2001) Making woodland management more democratic: cases from Eastern and Southern Africa. Drylands issue paper 99. International Institute for Environment and Development
Wright S, Nelson N (1997) Participatory research and participant observation: two incompatible approaches. In: Nelson N, Wright S (eds) Power and participatory development. Theory and practice. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK, pp 43–61
Acknowledgements
The Academy of Finland is acknowledged for financing this study. Thanks are due to Juhani Koponen at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki and Finn Helles, Iben Nathan and PhD students at the Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of Copenhagen for comments and advice during the research and writing process. Special thanks are due to all four research assistants and all case study villages, communities and households as well as project staff and government authorities in all four case study countries for facilitation during the collection of information.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendices
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mustalahti, I. Sustaining Participatory Forest Management: Case Study Analyses of Forestry Assistance from Tanzania, Mozambique, Laos and Vietnam. Small-scale Forestry 8, 109–129 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9072-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9072-0