The limits and failures of existing forest governance standards in semi–arid contexts

Abstract

Dry forests today are managed following the standards of scientific forestry imported in the tropics in the XIX th century by the colonial empires. The model proved efficient to control deforestation and regulate production but its evolution even after decolonization increased the segmentation between forests and agriculture and the lack of consideration for local knowledge by the forest administration. The process of decentralization of forest management that disseminated in the 1990s aimed at bringing back local communities within the formal management of forests. However the results of this process, often restricted to a simple transfer of tools and techniques, have fallen below expectations. If discourses shifted towards a better recognition of local needs, knowledge and constraints, the day-to-day implementation of participatory forest management in the dry lands remains fraught with administrative inefficiencies and a mistrust of local communities. Sustainable management of dry forests is yet to be invented.

Natural Resource Management Schemes as Entry Points for Integrated Landscape Approaches: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso

“…CAF forests are located within multifunctional parkland agroforestry landscapes that highlight historical integration of forests and food production (Gautier et al 2015 ; Westholm 2016 ). This stems partly from frequent climate vulnerabilities and resource degradation (soil and land degradation) of the region and the search for food safety nets (Koffi et al 2016 ).…”

Implications of Ethnoecological and Phytoecological Studies for the Sustainable Management of the Mozogo-Gokoro National Park (Cameroon)

“…He adds that with the requirement for greater transparency and accountability, it can be more effective, increasing social inclusion for greater societal legitimacy, to reduce conflicts and inequities, maximize resources, capacities and skills for the benefit of stakeholders. However, in a context of state governance of protected areas, distrustful attitudes and bureaucratic red tape often hinder the involvement of some stakeholders in the management process [51]. Evaluations of management effectiveness should therefore be regular exercises, integrated into the management and planning cycles of protected area administrations [40].…”

Fuelwood territorialities: <i>Chantier d'Aménagement Forestier</i> and the reproduction of “political forests” in Burkina Faso

“…Secondly, the CAF model is based on contemporary participatory forestry paradigm, but it also continues to draw on colonial forestry norms. These norms include the designation of areas subdivided in forest management worksites under specific fuelwood management plans and terms of reference (Gautier et al, 2015). In order to create a CAF, a forest management plan (plan d'aménagement forestier) must be elaborated, and it must identify when and where fuelwood can be cut -typically a CAF area is divided into 15 plots that are exploited each year on rotation basis of 1 plot per year over 15 years.…”