Unpacking the ‘Joint’ in Joint Forest Management

Sundar, Nandini

doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00154

Cited by 154 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…State monopolies over forest management in much of the developing world, generally using the methods of scientific forestry, were manifestly failing. They often lacked legitimacy and were frequently unable to provide the commodities and public goods promised by the advocates of scientific forestry (Gauld, 2000;Sundar, 2000). In the theoretical realm, the`tragedy of the commons' and`prisoner's dilemma' models of resource use that had dominated much postwar resource-management thinking were effectively challenged by a growing body of evidence and theory showing that common-property systems and other alternatives to centralized state control or privatization could be as or more effective in managing resources (Gauld, 2000;Ostrom, 1990;Poffenberger, 1996).…”

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the remarkable congruence between the proliferation of community forestry initiatives in North America in recent years and the ascendance of particular forms of neoliberalism. In it I argue that, in the United States in particular, such initiatives are best understood as hybrids between ‘rollout’ neoliberalism and contemporaneous trends in the management of protected areas and state-owned forests. This interpretation contributes to recent arguments that the environment has been understudied as an arena through which neoliberalism has been actively constituted, rather than simply a passive recipient of ‘impacts’. Moreover, surprisingly little academic work has explored the imbrications of specific changes in environmental governance and evolving neoliberalism in the latter's ‘First World’ geographic hearths, such as the USA and the United Kingdom. In this paper I undertake such an investigation with respect to community forestry in the United States. The paper traces the major antecedents, introduction, and institutionalizations of community forestry in the United States, and shows how their conceptualizations and enactments of ‘community’ are structured by hegemonic neoliberal ideas, making community forestry in this context supplementary, rather than oppositional, to neoliberal restructurings. Exploration of the current Bush administration's enthusiastic adoption of central elements of community forestry bolsters this interpretation. Finally, the conclusion draws implications from this case for debates in political ecology.

show abstract

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such reforms range from the titling of land parcels to indigenous communities to sharing timber revenues (Larson et al, 2010). At least five forms of tenurial reform can be identified: a) state-community collaborative or joint management, empowering communities to secure their livelihood interests, including meeting their food and nutrition needs, in forest management plans (Sundar, 2000;Bampton et al, 2007); b) formal community rights supported by concurrent reforms in state institutions (Bray and Merino-Pérez, 2002); c) national laws granting rights to communities for forest management, but still focusing narrowly on subsistence use, as in the case of Nepal (Sunam et al, 2013); d) pro-poor forest tenure reforms (leasehold forestry) allowing poor households to grow annual and perennial crops (Thoms et al, 2006); and e) institutional arrangements for enhancing the access of indigenous people to land resources (e.g. indigenous forest rights in Mexico (Toledo et al, 2003)).…”

Section: Reforms Related To Tenure and Resource Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

1. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition

Vira¹,

Agarwal²,

Jamnadass³

et al. 2015

Forests and Food: Addressing Hunger and Nutrition Across Sustainable Landscapes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrefaceConnecting the dots W ith the establishment of the Global Forest Expert Panels (GFEP) initiative in the year 2007, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) created an international mechanism which effectively links scientific knowledge with political decision-making on forests. The GFEP responds directly to key forest-related policy questions by consolidating available scientific knowledge and expertise on these questions at a global level. It provides decision-makers with the most relevant, objective and accurate information, and thus makes an essential contribution to international forest governance.This report entitled "Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition" presents the results of the fourth global scientific assessment undertaken so far in the framework of GFEP. Previous assessments addressed the adaptation of forests and people to climate change; international forest governance; and the relationship between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people. All assessment reports were prepared by internationally recognised scientists from a variety of biophysical and social science disciplines. They have all been presented to decision-makers across relevant international policy fora. In this way, GFEP supports a more coherent policy dialogue about the role of forests in addressing broader environmental, social and economic challenges.The current report reflects the importance of policy coherence and integration more than any previous GFEP assessment. It comes at a time when the United Nations General Assembly seeks to adopt a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and converge with the post-2015 development agenda. In this context, the eradication of hunger, realisation of food security and the improvement of nutrition are of particular relevance. By 2050, the international community will face the challenge of providing 9 billion people with food, shelter and energy. Despite impressive productivity increases, there is growing evidence that conventional agricultural strategies will fall short of eliminating global hunger and malnutrition. The assessment report in hand provides comprehensive scientific evidence on how forests, trees and landscapes can be -and must be -an integral part of the solution to this global problem. In other words, we must connect the dots and see the bigger picture.The review of the International Arrangement on Forests by the member states of the United Nations Forum on Forests provides a unique opportunity to integrate forests into the SDGs in a holistic manner and to promote synergies in the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda across multiple levels of governance. It is my hope that those with a responsibility for forests, food security and nutrition at all levels will find this report, and its accompanying policy brief, a useful source of information and inspiration.

show abstract

“…Initial community funds may also be provided. In many states, JFM resolutions mandate that villagers be solicited to make micro-plans for forests (Sundar 2000). Organizing into a VFI can result in access to wage employment and fuelwood through forest management activities such as lopping, clearing of debris, and cutting.…”

Section: Community Forestry and Joint Forest Management In Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…JFM caught on very quickly, and by 2001 some 45,000 JFM groups were protecting approximately 12 million hectares of government forests (Kumar, 2002). 1 However, several authors and practitioners contend that JFM falls short of its goals, and that in many cases it has had a negative effect on fuelwood use by the poor (Khare and others 2000, Sundar 2000, Sarin and others, 1988. We pursue this line of reasoning and ask whether participation in JFM or other forms of traditional community forestry programs has resulted in a change in forest resource consumption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%