Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 2510 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 91-102

Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communities


1 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima, Peru
2 University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
3 University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address:
Peter Cronkleton
Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima
Peru
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.97481

Rights and Permissions

Forest tenure reform has opened economic and livelihood opportunities for community forestry management through the devolution of management rights under broader decentralisation reforms. However, the transfer of rights and associated power to forest communities is usually partial. The view of property as composed of 'bundles of rights' allows for the disaggregation of rights transferred from government to local people. In practice, it is common that rights held by natural resource stakeholders encompass only part of the rights bundle. This partial transfer of rights shapes community forestry institutions and the manner in which they function. When communities and state agencies share responsibilities and benefits of forest management, they collaborate within co-management systems. Co-management systems are attractive to governments because they open avenues for local participation in resource governance and more equitable benefit-sharing while maintaining some level of state control. However, co-management systems can place a greater burden on community level actors without providing the corresponding benefits. As a result, co-management can fail to meet expectations. In response, the promotion of community forestry may require greater emphasis on adjusting forest regulatory frameworks, institutions, and agencies, to allow more freedom by community-level actors in developing forest management systems.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7086    
    Printed225    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded1380    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 15    

Recommend this journal