The data not collected on community forestry.

Conservation and development practitioners increasingly promote community forestry as a way to conserve ecosystem services, consolidate resource rights, and reduce poverty. However, outcomes of community forestry have been mixed; many initiatives failed to achieve intended objectives. There is a rich literature on institutional arrangements of community forestry, but there has been little effort to examine the role of socioeconomic, market, and biophysical factors in shaping both land-cover change dynamics and individual and collective livelihood outcomes. We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on community forestry to examine and quantify existing knowledge gaps in the community-forestry literature relative to these factors. In examining 697 cases of community forest management (CFM), extracted from 267 peer-reviewed publications, we found 3 key trends that limit understanding of community forestry. First, we found substantial data gaps linking population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical characteristics to both environmental and livelihood outcomes. Second, most studies focused on environmental outcomes, and the majority of studies that assessed socioeconomic outcomes relied on qualitative data, making comparisons across cases difficult. Finally, there was a heavy bias toward studies on South Asian forests, indicating that the literature on community forestry may not be representative of decentralization policies and CFM globally.

Framing community forestry challenges with a broader lens: case studies from the Brazilian Amazon.

Community forestry initiatives have been shown to reduce rural poverty while promoting the conservation and sustainable use of forests. However, a number of challenges face communities wanting to initiate or maintain formal, community-based forest management. Through a grounded theory approach, this paper uses three case studies of community forest management models in the eastern Amazon to create a framework showing challenges faced by communities at different phases of formal management. The framework shows that, in the development phase, four root problems (land ownership, knowledge acquisition, community organization, and adequate capital) need to be addressed to obtain legal management permission. With this permission in hand, further challenges to operationalization are presented (deterring illegal loggers, maintaining infrastructure, obtaining necessary managerial skills and accessing markets). The interrelatedness of these challenges emphasizes that all challenges need to be addressed in a holistic manner for communities to maintain a profitable and self-sufficient operation. This contradicts current development approaches that only address part of this framework. The framework proposed here can be used as a starting point for community forestry initiatives in other regions.