Elsevier

Forest Policy and Economics

Volume 56, July 2015, Pages 27-37
Forest Policy and Economics

Community forest management and REDD +

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examine interactions between REDD + and community forest management (CFM).

  • In Nepal, existing CFM sites are being strengthened using REDD + funding.

  • In Tanzania, the forest area under CFM is being expanded using REDD + funding.

  • New institutional arrangements are needed to satisfy REDD + criteria.

  • REDD + brings opportunities and challenges to CFM sites and institutions.

Abstract

The urgent need to limit anthropogenic carbon emissions has led to the global initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD +). One option to facilitate the design and implementation of REDD + is to build on the experiences of community forest management (CFM). Despite tensions between the central objectives of REDD + and CFM, the two policy interventions share the objective of managing forests sustainably. REDD + projects can build on and benefit from the environmental, social, human, and institutional capital associated with existing community forest governance. Using a comparative case approach with studies from Nepal and Tanzania, we illustrate interactions between REDD + and CFM. In Nepal, most REDD + pilot projects have been located in community forest sites, especially in high-carbon forests. In Tanzania, REDD + funding is being used to expand the area of forest under Participatory Forest Management. Our study also highlights how community forestry institutions may need to be modified to satisfy key REDD + criteria. Greater institutional coordination, equitable benefit sharing mechanisms, and higher community capacity for monitoring, reporting, and verification are key areas needing change. There are significant risks, but the vast experience and significant successes of CFM can improve prospects for achieving REDD + objectives in other less-industrialized, forested countries.

Introduction

The urgent need to limit anthropogenic carbon emissions has led to the global initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD +), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector and to promote forest conservation in less-industrialized countries. But designing national architectures for REDD + that integrate local actions on forests with national level outcomes in ways which are effective (at reducing emissions), efficient (in doing so in an economically viable manner) and equitable (in distributing costs and benefits among stakeholders) continues to be challenging (Angelsen, 2009). One option to facilitate the design and implementation of REDD + is to build on the experiences of community forest management (CFM). CFM refers broadly to forest use and governance arrangements under which the rights, responsibilities, and authority for forest management rest, at least in part, with local communities (Agrawal et al., 2008). Though not a panacea, research on community governance of tropical forests has found that this approach is often more effective in improving forest management, with better environmental and socio-economic outcomes than compared to existing alternative management regimes (Klooster and Masera, 2000, Gautam et al., 2002, Benneker and McCall, 2009).

Identifying how CFM can be used to contribute to REDD + goals, and the potential benefits and risks in doing so, requires careful analysis of available evidence because the objectives and mechanisms of the two sets of policy interventions do not always overlap. Formal CFM was developed principally to protect forests in order to support the subsistence and income-generating extractive activities of forest-dependent communities (Arnold, 2001). Communities often harvest timber, fodder, firewood, and non-timber forest products from these forests, and make charcoal (Agrawal and Angelson, 2009). In contrast, REDD + was developed foremost to mitigate climate change by reducing terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions (Miles and Kapos, 2008). In the early developmental stages of REDD +, the generation of livelihood benefits was considered a secondary ‘co-benefit’ (Angelsen, 2009). More recently, REDD + policy formation and program implementation have emphasized social safeguards, with livelihood benefits as an important component of the initiative. The main REDD + funding programs, including the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations REDD program, now view carbon, biodiversity, and livelihood goals as being inseparable, and these multiple conservation and development objectives are intertwined within the REDD + discourse (UN-REDD, 2010, FCPF, 2012).

Despite differences, there is substantial overlap between the goals of REDD + and CFM in terms of long-term forest protection. Both interventions share the objectives of maintaining forest cover, limiting forest conversion to other land-uses, and maintaining forest integrity. Further, the two interventions share an approach to achieving this objective: by creating incentives for avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, often (but not always) including the generation of socioeconomic benefits for forest-dependent people.

There are considerable risks involved in using CFM as a vehicle to implement REDD +. The introduction of REDD + objectives and programs can alter existing ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional equilibria in the forest landscapes in which they are developed and implemented (Benneker and McCall, 2009). There are widespread fears that REDD + programs could restrict traditional patterns of resource access for forest-dependent communities (Bushley and Khatri, 2011, Karky and Skutsch, 2010), motivate a partial recentralization of forest management rights (Phelps et al., 2010), or slow the decentralization process (Ribot et al., 2006). Changes initiated or catalyzed by REDD + may therefore result in either positive or negative impacts on CFM institutional arrangements (Putz and Redford, 2009).

With these risks in mind, from an alternative perspective there are clear opportunities for emerging REDD + policies and programs to benefit from CFM by building upon the capital, assets, and institutions associated with CFM arrangements. Many CFM systems have developed substantial natural capital (e.g. healthy forests), institutional capital (e.g. specifically designed forest user-associations), human capital (e.g. forest management, monitoring, and enforcement capacity), and social capital (e.g. forest-user communities with a high level of commitment to CFM) (Arnold, 2001). REDD + interventions can harness and build upon this existing capital in two ways. First, REDD + funding can be used to achieve mitigation objectives in current CFM sites. Community forest governance arrangements may already maintain forest conditions for sustainable resource use, even if they were not designed with the objective of achieving verifiable emissions reductions or carbon stock values. With the right incentives, it may be possible to build on existing CFM institutions and local community capacities to achieve REDD + objectives. Second, REDD + initiatives can expand the area of forest owned, managed, or designated for use by indigenous people and communities. Such forests account for approximately 15.5% of forests globally (RRI, 2014). Increasing the extent of forests managed by communities is one mechanism by which to invest REDD + funds toward achieving reduced deforestation and forest degradation goals, while satisfying REDD + requirements such as additionality and permanence.

The objective of this paper is to assess whether and how REDD + interventions are building on existing CFM structures. We focus on two case-study countries, Nepal and Tanzania; both countries have a strong history of CFM, and both are implementing REDD + architectures and activities. The analysis enables us to understand and illustrate the opportunities for REDD + objectives to be achieved by taking advantage of existing CFM structures, and to identify areas where policy changes and capacity development might improve these opportunities. The focus of this paper, therefore, is on the opportunities for REDD + implementation to benefit from CFM. The risks to CFM posed by REDD +, are non-trivial and should not be ignored. Some of these risks are indicated above, and we return to them in the Discussion. However, in-depth exploration of these risks is adequately covered by other scholars (Benneker and McCall, 2009, Bushley and Khatri, 2011, Karky and Skutsch, 2010, Phelps et al., 2010, Ribot et al., 2006).

Section snippets

Methods

We selected Nepal and Tanzania as the focal countries for our study because they have a long history of CFM and have played leading roles in developing and establishing national REDD + strategies. In addition, the countries represent geographically and institutionally distinct forms of CFM. Because Nepal and Tanzania have played a leadership role in devolving forest management rights to local communities they cannot be considered representative of forest management arrangements among

Results

We used information from the literature review and interviews to characterize whether and how REDD + interventions are building on existing CFM structures in Nepal and Tanzania. The information and discussion in the 3 Results, 4 Discussion sections that follow represent a synthesis of these two sources.

Discussion

A close articulation between REDD + and CFM can help ensure that REDD + benefits reach forest-dependent communities, and that CFM is aligned with national and global interests in conserving forests to reduce carbon emissions (The REDD Desk, 2013). Here, we discuss the emergence of CFM-based REDD + initiatives, as indicated through the development of policy and practice in Nepal and Tanzania, and the institutional arrangements needed to support these interactions.

Conclusions

There is significant potential for accomplishing REDD + objectives in CFM sites, and REDD + can benefit from the established successes of CFM in one or more ways. First, REDD + can make use of the natural, human, social, and institutional capital associated with existing community forest sites to achieve REDD + goals. REDD + funding can help to overcome the historical financial barrier to effective CFM, by increasing the capacity for management activities such as rule-enforcement. Second, REDD +

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The Program on Forests (PROFOR) and the Social Development Department (SDV) at the World Bank (project number: P129184). We are grateful to Krister Andersson, Birendra Karna, William Magrath, Charles Meshack, Baruani Mshale, Simon Rietbergen, Klas Sander, Julius Thaler and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft.

References (65)

  • A. Agrawal et al.

    Changing governance of the world's forests

    Science

    (2008)
  • A. Angelsen

    Realising REDD +: National Strategy and Policy Options

    (2009)
  • J.E.M. Arnold

    Forests and People: 25 Years of Community Forestry

    (2001)
  • J.F.R. Bampton et al.

    Collaborative forest management in Nepal's Terai: policy, practice and contestation

    J. For. Livelihood

    (2007)
  • S. Baral et al.

    Above-ground carbon stock assessment in different forest types of Nepal

    Banko Janakari

    (2009)
  • C. Benneker et al.

    REDD strategies: a case study from Mexico

  • T. Blomley et al.

    Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: 1993–2009: Lessons Learned and Experiences to Date

    (2009)
  • T. Blomley et al.

    Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania

    Oryx

    (2008)
  • N.D. Burgess et al.

    Getting ready for REDD plus in Tanzania: a case study of progress and challenges

    Oryx

    (2010)
  • B.R. Bushley et al.

    REDD +: reversing, reinforcing or reconfiguring decentralized forest governance in Nepal

    Discussion Paper Series

    (2011)
  • A. Chhatre et al.

    Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2009)
  • R. Dangi

    REDD +: issues and challenges from a Nepalese perspective

  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Higher-Level Overview of NGO REDD + Portfolio

    (2012)
  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG)—“Making REDD Work for Communities and Forest Conservation in Tanzania”

    (2012)
  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Jane Goodall Institute (JGI)—“Building REDD readiness in the Masito Ugalla ecosystem pilot area in support of Tanzania's national REDD strategy”

    (2012)
  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: African Wildlife Foundation (AWF)—“Advancing REDD in Kolo Hills Forests”

    (2012)
  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: CARE International in Tanzania—“HIMA Piloting REDD in Zanzibar Through Community Forest Management”

    (2012)
  • Deloitte

    Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD + Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI)—“Combining Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification in South Eastern Tanzania”

    (2012)
  • FCPF

    Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 2012 Annual Report

    (2012)
  • FCPF

    Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Emission Reductions Program Idea Note

    (2014)
  • A.P. Gautam et al.

    GIS assessment of land use/land cover changes associated with community forestry implementation in the Middle Hills of Nepal

    Mt. Res. Dev.

    (2002)
  • R. Hagen

    Lessons Learned From Community Forestry and Their Relevance for REDD +

    (2014)
  • Cited by (57)

    • Natural and financial impacts of payments for forest carbon offset: A 14 year-long case study in an indigenous community in Panama

      2022, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Forest carbon offset projects cannot be considered a panacea for resource conservation or for nature and sustainable livelihoods. However, understanding the failures and successes of such projects is integral for its improvement (Andersson et al., 2018; Mahanty et al., 2013; Newton et al., 2015). The case of the Tierra Colectiva in Panama demonstrates how focusing on cash and in-kind payments for agroforestry and reforestation practices can broaden livelihood portfolios and keep income disparities steady, allowing households to pursue alternative avenues to meet livelihood needs and outcomes while lessening threats from deforestation and degradation.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text