Benefits of community-based forestry in the US: lessons from a demonstration programme

Danks, Cecilia

doi:10.1505/ifor.11.2.171

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our approach uses a framework to systematically manage diverse information about CF and is published as Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji (2013). The framework organises evidence and data around a set of 'design principles' widely found to support successful common property management (Ostrom, 2012), including context and history which are important keys to understanding CF (Danks, 2009). This generates a descriptive point-in-time 'profile' of each case using a common set of 'variables'.…”

Section: Research Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies

Ambrose-Oji

Lawrence

Stewart

2015

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies

Ambrose-Oji

Lawrence

Stewart

2015

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The answer might be useful in order to predict how the ecological outcomes might change. Several other studies concluded with similar results (Shackleton et al, 2002;Flint et al, 2008;Charnley & Poe, 2007;McDermott & Schreckenberg, 2009;Maharjan et al, 2009;Danks, 2009;Lawrence et al, 2009;McDermot, 2009;Vyamana, 2009;Pandit et al, 2011;Andersson & Agrawal, 2011;. However, benefits for the direct user might not be always positive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…However, benefits for the direct user might not be always positive. Especially if they are distributed unfairly, this may increase inequity between the forest users (McDermott & Schreckenber, 2009;Maharjan et al, 2009;Danks, 2009;Lawrence et al, 2009;McDermot, 2009;Vyamana, 2009;Pandit et al, 2011). This aspect is not researched within the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Forestry in Germany, a Case Study Seen Through the Lens of the International Model

Schusser¹,

Krott²,

Logmani³

et al. 2013

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent and on-going international research, especially on community forestry in developing countries, has begun to question the success of the international community forestry concept that was introduced more recently, by the end of the 1970s. Though it appears that community forestry does contribute to a positive ecological outcome, further analysis seems to reveal that other advantages promised by the model, i.e., devolution of power to the local resource users and improvement of their livelihoods, simply do not happen.In comparison the German Community Forestry as a concept was first introduced during the 18th century. This article investigates the ways in which German community forestry works and, given that it's continued existence represents a measure of success, whether it can be a model for community forestry worldwide. To ascertain this, we analyse 11 community forests in Germany, applying power theory and methodology to identify the powerful actors and these actors' interests. In addition, we also analyse the outcomes of community forestry.The results show that the researched community forests are sustainably managed, but that powerful actors control this management. The direct forest user is not very involved and benefits only slightly. Therefore, the article concludes that the German community forestry cannot be a worldwide model, but that it is nevertheless an interesting model in practice if the goal is to manage forest resources sustainably.

show abstract

“…Although definitions of community-based forestry (CBF) are as diverse as its practice (Baker and Kusel 2003;Christoffersen et al 2008, Danks 2009Glasmeier and Farrigan 2005), the term is used here to describe forest management, forest protection and forest-based industries which are undertaken collaboratively to enhance the social and environmental sustainability of rural communities. CBF in the US shares many elements with CBF worldwide, including sustainable resource management, rural development, capacity-building, shared decision-making, innovations in ownership and community learning, and the manufacturing and marketing of forest products (Charnley and Poe 2007;Danks 2009;Glasmeier and Farrigan 2005;Gray et al 2001).…”

Section: Community-based Forestry and Forest Certificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBF in the US shares many elements with CBF worldwide, including sustainable resource management, rural development, capacity-building, shared decision-making, innovations in ownership and community learning, and the manufacturing and marketing of forest products (Charnley and Poe 2007;Danks 2009;Glasmeier and Farrigan 2005;Gray et al 2001). CBF initiatives involve unique projects, processes and practices that have evolved based on local needs and values (Christoffersen et al 2008).…”

Section: Community-based Forestry and Forest Certificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Certify? Motivations, Outcomes and the Importance of Facilitating Organizations in Certification of Community-Based Forestry Initiatives

Crow

Danks

2010

Small-scale Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite documented challenges, many community-based forestry (CBF) initiatives pursue forest certification. This study asked community-based forestry practitioners in Vermont what influenced their decisions to seek or not seek certification and what outcomes were realized from certification. Relationships, public image, value alignment and feedback on management practices were most commonly cited as both motivations for and results of certification. Expectations for economic benefits were low and price premiums for products were only occasionally realized. Informants complained of the increasing cost, complexity and time commitment required of certification. Overall, however, certified CBF informants felt certification was worth the expense. Group certificates and external funding significantly reduced certification costs to grassroots CBF initiatives. This study highlights the importance of facilitating organizations that can provide outreach, secure funding, understand the rules, handle documentation and develop markets for certified products.

show abstract

Benefits of community-based forestry in the US: lessons from a demonstration programme

Cited by 12 publications

References 36 publications

Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies

Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies

Community Forestry in Germany, a Case Study Seen Through the Lens of the International Model

Why Certify? Motivations, Outcomes and the Importance of Facilitating Organizations in Certification of Community-Based Forestry Initiatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About