Community forestry in developed and developing countries: A comparative study

Abstract

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of La probltrnatique entourant la durabilit6 hlogique et konomique industrial forestry led to the revival of community forestry (CF) de la foresterie industrielle a provoqut la renaissance de la in the developing countries. Recently, the developed countries are foresterie communautaire (FC) dans les pays en voie de developpealso examining the feasibility of CF as a land management alterment. Les pays dtvelopp6s se sont depuis peu pencht sur la posnative for the similar reasons. This paper compares the opportunities sibilitt d'utiliser la FC en tant qu'altemative B la gestion du terriand challenges of CF in the developing and developed countries.toire pour des raisons similaires. Cet article compare les possibilitts Particular emphasis is placed on the goals and objectives, participants et les &fis de la FC pour l a pays en voie de &veloppement et &velop and beneficiaries, land tenure, size and management, ecology and p6s L'accent est mis en particulier sur les buts et les objectifs, les economics of CF. Jn the developing countries CF is generally small, participants et les bCntficiaires, la tenure du temtoire, les dimenlabour intensive and geared to meeting the basic needs of the comsions et l'amknagement retenu, l'tcologie et l'tconomie B la base munity people. By contrast, CF in the developed countries is large, de la FC. La FC dans les pays en voie de dCveloppement est capital intensive and market oriented. Notwithstanding the difgtntralement effectuk B une tchelle rtduite, exigeante en terme ferences, CF provides an opportunity for ecosystem management de main d'oeuvre et orient& pour satisfaire les besoins primordiaux to maintain community stability and ecological integrity in both des gens de la cornrnunautC. Par opposition, la FC dans les pays developing and developed countries. dCvelopp6s couvre de grandes superficies, nikessite une importante mise de fonds et orientte en fonction du marcht. Malgrt ces difKey words: community forestry, sustainability, ecosystem manftrences, la FC constitue une avenue permettant l'amtnagement agement, community stability d'un kosyst&me dans le but de rnaintenir la stabilit6 d'un communaug ainsi que son intCgrit6 tcologique tant dans les pays en voie de dtveloppement que dans les pays dtveloppts.

A comparative assessment of community forest models in Cameroon and British Columbia, Canada

“…These observations are in line with typical goals of community forestry in the developed world. As Mallik and Rahman (1994) explain, community forests in developed countries are usually large, capital intensive and market oriented.…”

“…They concluded that finding common criteria for success in different sites is difficult, as each community was successful for different reasons. Mallik and Rahman (1994) compared opportunities and challenges for community forestry in developed and developing countries. They concluded that community forestry in developing countries was generally small, labour-intensive, and geared towards meeting the basic needs of the community people while in developed countries, the communities operated on a larger scale, with more capital and more of a market orientation.…”

“…the socio-economic conditions of the communities within which they exist (Grewal et al, 1990;Sun, 1992;Gunatilake et al, 1993;Mallik and Rahman, 1994). For example, Furness (2008) states that cultural sites of the Cowichan tribe in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) have been protected due to the implementation of the community forest model.…”

Community forestry, Italian style: The Magnifica Comunità di Fiemme

“…Complementing this wide range of objectives is an equally wide variety of situations referred to as community forests -they exist in all sizes, ownerships, forest types, management structures, and silvicultural strategies, to name but a few important dimensions. And they exist around the world, differing markedly between developed and developing countries (Mallik and Rahman 1994).…”

The opportunities and limitations of first nations forestry agreements in British Columbia: Collective experience of the Tl'azt'en nation & the future need for community-based resource management & decision-making.

“…As suggested by Mallik & Rahman (1994), the land tenure arrangement is a critical factor in developing a successful community forestry project. Despite the Sloan Royal Commission (1956) recommendation for change in existing tenure arrangement such as TFLs, the same tenure system still exists and is held not only by industrial based forestry companies, but also by some of the well-known community based forestry projects in BC.…”