Sustaining Participatory Forest Management: Case Study Analyses of Forestry Assistance from Tanzania, Mozambique, Laos and Vietnam

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.

Can REDD+ Reconcile Local Priorities and Needs with Global Mitigation Benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania

“…Small financial benefits of PFM have limited the interest of communities and public officials to invest their time and efforts to sustainable forest management (Mustalahti 2009). Immediate financial needs are prioritized over long-term benefits even at the cost of increased future vulnerability.…”

Participatory Forest Carbon Assessment and REDD+: Learning from Tanzania

“…PRA methods help to shift the positioning of scientific inquiry from the researcher, who acts as a facilitator, to the participants who guide the collection of data and their local analyses [13]. PRA methods allow local people to apply their indigenous knowledge, experience, and capacity to share information [14,15]. Both men and women attended PRA exercises convened in each of the studied villages for two days.…”

Payments for environmental services and community-level socioeconomic wellbeing: Comparing programs in Vietnam and Australia

“…Many reviews of community environmental management and PES advocate for strong community involvement and claim that community involvement is a crucial feature of successful programs (Baker et al 2001;Colfer 2005;Sheil et al 2006;Boissière et al 2009;Mustalahti 2009;May 2010;Tole 2010;Altman 2012;Thuy et al 2013;KimDung, et al 2013;Measham & Lumbasi 2013). This suggests that PES are more successful when communities are consulted about the nature and extent of their involvement and provide the impetus for the program.…”

“…Indeed, Pham et al (2010: 64) argue that 'intermediary boundary organizations' such as NGOs, the state or community groups in Vietnamese PES programs can be crucial, acting 'as service and information providers, mediators, arbitrators, equalizers, representatives, watchdogs, developers of standards and bridge builders'. However, the study village was typical of wider findings that outside organisations can undermine program success when they focus on measurable outputs rather than holistic sustainability, undermine local people's interests, customs and cultures and leave communities without impetus for environmental preservation (Colfer 2005;Mustalahti 2009;Pham et al 2010;Bayrak et al 2013;Measham & Lumbasi 2013). Thus, assuming that communities benefit from PES programs at all, wellbeing benefits can be gained from PES when outside organisations, including the state, provide targeted support and empower communities for the long-term rather than merely impose their will on communities in the short-term.…”