Required citation:
FAO. 2019. A framework to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry. Forestry Working Paper no. 12.
Rome.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISSN 2664-1070 [Online]
ISSN 2664-1062 [Print]

ISBN 978-92-5-131547-7
E-ISBN 978-92-5-133104-0 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2019

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Cover photograph: © FAO/Honduras Forestry

CONTENTS

Executive summary

Acknowledgements

Acronyms

1. Background

2. Approach taken to develop an assessment framework

2.1 Defining ‘community-based forestry’

2.2 Defining ‘tenure’

2.3 A typology for community-based forestry regimes based mainly on tenure

2.4 Key social indicators associated with community-based forestry management

2.5 Criteria and indicators for the assessment framework

3. Process for conducting the assessment

4. Application of the assessment framework

References

Boxes and tables

Boxes

Box 1. Definition of community forestry

Box 2. The bundle of rights

Box 3. Spectrum of generic types of community-based forestry based on level of rights and responsibilities

Box 4. Summary of rights associated with each generic community-based forestry regime

Box 5. Description of key social indicators

Box 6. Criteria and indicators to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry

Tables

Table 1. Policy objectives for each community-based forestry regime

Table 2. Area of forest under different tenure regimes

Table 3. Number of people and groups involved in community-based forestry regime

Table 4. Institutionalization of community-based forestry into mainstream government planning and programmes

Table 5. Civil society organizations to represent community-based forestry stakeholders

Table 6. Assessment of tenure of community-based forestry regime

Table 7. Assessment of the extent to which responsibilities enable or constrain community-based forestry management

Table 8. Characterization of community-based forestry regime

Table 9. Summary of the enabling environment for the community-based forestry regime

Table 10. Change in forest area and condition

Table 11. Change in level of threats

Table 12. Change in availability of forest products

Table 13. Change in key social indicators

Table 14. Change in key financial indicators

Table 15. Overall effectiveness of community-based forestry

Table 16. Comparison of effectiveness of the various community-based forestry regimes

Table 17. Overall effectiveness of community-based forestry compared with other forest tenure regimes

Executive summary

Community-based forestry (CBF) was implemented in countries with the premise that these would help improve governance of forests and local livelihoods. In the last four decades, there has been significant expansion in the area under CBF involving a broad array of initiatives that favour people’s participation in forestry. CBF has evolved over the years towards institutionalization into mainstream national development programmes; empowerment of user groups; emergence of civil society organizations to represent CBF interests; restitution and privatization of forest land (mainly in Central and Eastern Europe); expansion of smallholder forestry, particularly in Asia; commercialization of forest goods and services; connections between smallholders/communities and private companies; and incorporation of a wider range of policy objectives into CBF (FAO 2016).

Various studies have attempted to document the extent, transitions and impact of CBF systems, but many of these have taken the case study approach, and there is little clarity of performance of these at the national levels. Lack of reliable data on effectiveness of CBF hinders analysis at the national, regional and global scales. It also makes it difficult to guide policy dialogue and to make informed decisions. Meanwhile, studies on the effectiveness of CBF that do exist indicate mixed performance. Some show major success with regards to improvements in forest governance and livelihoods of local communities. However, most of them suggest that CBF is delivering significantly below its potential.

This assessment framework can serve to provide important insights into the successes, as well as the continued shortcomings of CBF at the country level. It can also provide a means for determining and tracking the extent and effectiveness of the broad spectrum of CBF initiatives. Based on the level of devolution of rights and responsibilities, the tool categorizes the range of CBFs into participatory conservation, joint forest management, community forestry (partial to full devolution) and smallholder private forestry. The tool provides for an assessment of the institutionalization of CBF regimes in government and civil society, level of empowerment of local stakeholders involved in the CBF regime, the range and strength of rights, the various responsibilities as well as constraints to CBF. With regards to effectiveness, the tool provides for assessing changes in natural capital; social, institutional, and human capital; and the financial capital of CBF participants. The document provides for indicators that may be used across countries. This tool focuses on formal CBF initiatives recognized by statutory law, as the informal CBF arrangements not recognized by statutory law will likely be too diverse to allow for a national level assessment.

The tool may be used at any point of time to assess performance of all or specific CBF regimes or initiatives at the national level. An assessment can be especially useful to inform revision of forest policies and laws, in the design of new forestry initiatives such as REDD+ policies and programmes, or to strengthen forest-based enterprises. When the assessment is conducted using a participatory approach involving government and non-government stakeholders, the tool can help to develop a common vision for strengthening performance of CBF initiatives in the specific country.

Well-performing CBF has the potential to rapidly restore forests in ecological terms and scale up sustainable forest management to the national level, while improving local livelihoods of billions of the most marginalized people around the world. In doing so, CBF has the potential to contribute significantly to a range of Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 15 for supporting sustainable management of natural resources, SDG 1 for reducing poverty, SDG 2 for reducing hunger, SDG 10 for reducing inequality, and SDG 8 for fostering decent work and economic growth.

Acknowledgements

This assessment framework was prepared by Don Gilmour under the overall technical guidance and coordination of Dominique Reeb, former Team Leader, Social Forestry, and former Forestry Officer Fred Kafeero (currently FAO Representative in Tanzania), in the FAO Forestry Department.

The framework includes contributions from a group of experts from around the world during a technical meeting held in Rome in May 2015. The following members of the peer review group are warmly acknowledged: James Bampton, Jan Bock, Peter Branney, Peter Cronkleton, Said Iddi, Yam Malla, Cecile Ndjebet, Mauro Salazar, Pedro Walpole and Yonas Yemshaw.

The assessment framework was subsequently tested in nearly 20 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Experiences from the testing process were incorporated into the revision of the framework. FAO is grateful to the country consultants that contributed to the testing of the framework, in particular Ananie Abanda, Innocent Babili, Sony Baral, Mamadou Lamine Bodian, Rebeca Dumet, D. Enkhsaikhan, Muhammed Jaiteh, Alkali Jarjusey, George Kajembe, Felix Kalaba, Ohn Lwin, Stanley Makindi, Blaise F N’Guimbi, Léon Nguimbi, Khamila O’Reilly Becerra, Nidup Peljor, Guybertho Raveloson, Anthony Sangeda, Mauro E Salazar, Iryna Skulska, Levand Turyomurugyendo and Maria del Carmen Velasco.

The testing, revision and finalization process was further supported by Safia Aggarwal, Didier Habimana and Jean-Claude Nguinguiri of the FAO Forestry Department.

The document benefited also from inputs received from FAO experts during the peer review, including Andrew Taber, Jeffrey Campbell and Mette Wilkie. Many thanks to Malachite Marketing and Media for editing, graphic design and layout.

Acronyms

CBF Community-Based Forestry

CSOs Civil society organizations

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FRA FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment

NGO Non-governmental organization

NWFPs Non-wood forest products

PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

RECOFTC Center for People and Forests

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

RRI Rights and Resources Initiative

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

ToR Terms of Reference

1 Background

During the past decade considerable attention has been paid to community-based forestry (CBF) and related forest tenure transformations. Both the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) have carried out regional and global assessments to chart these changes (White and Martin, 2002; FAO, 2011; RRI, 2014). The reports have highlighted a substantial increase during the past two decades in forest land under various types of CBF regimes. The associated transfer of power to local people inherent in these regimes involves various combinations of user rights, responsibilities and decision-making. However, there has not been a systematic assessment of the extent and effectiveness of the various types of CBF regimes around the world. Most approaches to assessing the extent and effectiveness of CBF have tended to take a case study approach. Few of these provide results to a national level and there are even fewer examples of regional or larger-scale assessments. One exception is a comprehensive assessment of 14 countries in the Asia and Pacific region recently carried out by the Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC) (2013).

The various CBF reviews in the past decades have highlighted the importance of transferring appropriate tenure rights to local communities and smallholders. They have also underscored the importance of other enabling conditions necessary for such systems of forestry to thrive. The purpose of this assessment is to assess at the country level the extent of CBF, the status with regards to the enabling conditions, and the impact of CBF on forests and local livelihoods.

2 Approach taken to develop an assessment framework

2.1 DEFINING ‘COMMUNITY-BASED FORESTRY’

This framework builds upon the extensive work of various organizations on community forestry over the past decades, and in particular on FAO reviews of community-based forestry (Arnold, 1992; Arnold, 2001; Gilmour, 2016). Following the approach taken in the FAO 2001 review of community forestry (Arnold, 2001), this assessment includes both collaborative forestry (forestry practised on land that has some form of communal tenure and requiring collective action) and smallholder forestry (forestry practised by smallholders on land that is privately owned). However, this assessment excludes agroforestry, i.e. fruit, fodder and timber trees integrated into farming systems, because the focus here is on the management of forests rather than scattered trees in the farming systems; although it is also recognized that the distinction between agroforestry and smallholder forestry is not always clear-cut.

The definition of community forestry currently used by RECOFTC, as shown in Box 1, is favoured in this assessment as an umbrella description of all initiatives that fall under the generic rubric of CBF, because of its comprehensive nature. The only caveat is that this assessment is concerned with the extent and effectiveness of formal CBF initiatives in rural areas recognized in statutory law, while acknowledging that informal initiatives not recognized by statutory law can be very effective locally. This is because informal initiatives are often very diverse, the extent may be unknown, and effectiveness may be difficult to generalize. The use of ‘community forestry’ as an umbrella term is avoided because of the specific connotation it conveys in many countries. In particular, ‘community forestry’ as applied in most countries focuses on forest management by communities, and does not include smallholders, a group that is explicitly included in this assessment.

2.2 DEFINING ‘TENURE’

CBF implies that communities hold tenure rights to defined areas of forest land. Tenure is generally defined as a ‘bundle of rights’[1] and it can take many forms. The major rights of relevance to this discussion are presented in Box 2 below. It is based on the framework described by Schlager and Ostrom, 1992 as modified by RRI, 2012.

2.3 A TYPOLOGY FOR CBF REGIMES BASED MAINLY ON TENURE

The precise form of management under CBF regimes (particularly the level of empowerment) varies from country to country and also within countries, depending on a host of factors. In most countries, the government does not relinquish ownership of the land, but it may devolve management rights to communities. Mexico and Melanesian countries[2] in the Pacific region are exceptions, with their long-standing recognition of community ownership rights. In this assessment, the distinction is retained between the ownership of forest land by communities and smallholders, and devolved management rights on government-owned land.

Most countries have their own country-specific names for different types of CBF, which can lead to some confusion when trying to make comparisons between countries. Each form of CBF tends to have its own package of rights and responsibilities, and hence empowerment. For example, in the Philippines, CBF regimes where communities have management rights of forest land have included Community-Based Forest Management Agreements, Community-Based Timber Enterprises, Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreements, Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title and Protected Area and Community-Based Resource Management Agreements. Similarly, in Nepal, at least six different CBF regimes have evolved, of which ‘community forestry’ is just one (Ojha, 2014). Indigenous reserves that incorporate forest land should be included as CBF regimes.

‘Community forestry’ is a term used in many countries, but the package of rights and responsibilities of communities in managing forest land under this regime varies considerably among countries. Hence, there is a need to categorize the distinguishing features of the different types of CBF regimes so that meaningful comparisons can be made both within and among countries.

While a precise typology of CBF regimes is difficult, different regimes can be categorized in terms of the rights and responsibilities of communities and smallholders in planning, implementation and benefit-sharing. This tells us a lot about the extent to which CBF is likely to achieve its objectives. Boxes 3 and 4 show a spectrum of generic types of CBF based largely on rights.

According to O’Hara (2013), there are five generic types of CBF regimes that range from passive participation of communities in forest governance and management, to active control over forest resources. These include: participatory conservation, joint forest management, community forestry with limited devolution, community forestry with full devolution (e.g. indigenous territories and reserves under full control of communities), and private smallholder forest ownership.

2.4 KEY SOCIAL INDICATORS ASSOCIATED WITH CBF MANAGEMENT

In most countries it is recognized that CBF has the potential to have significant positive social impacts. These can be categorized as contributions to social/institutional and human capital, equity and inclusiveness. These social indicators are elaborated in Box 5.

2.5 CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

The starting point in developing a framework for the assessment was to identify key attributes on the extent and effectiveness of each CBF regime, and then to decide how these can be grouped into criteria and indicators that will give a meaningful impression at a national level. The criteria and indicators also have to be generic enough to allow for comparability among countries and regions. The many attributes needed for the indicators have to be obtained largely from existing government sources, project databases, or scientific and technical literature.

It is tempting in such a task to collect as much information as possible. But, while some countries have comprehensive databases, many do not. As far as possible, indicators were selected on the basis of assembling the minimum set of attributes needed to make judgements on the extent and effectiveness of CBF at the national levels. It is hoped that relevant information will be available in most countries. Some of the indicators require quantitative data, but this can be supplemented with interpretations and qualifications based on a review of relevant literature and expert analysis. This is a challenging task and it would need to rely on expert interpretation of a range of diverse and often incomplete data sets.

Box 6 shows the key criteria and indicators that were selected which, when considered together, will enable a judgement to be made of the extent and effectiveness of CBF in a country at the national level. This box also indicates the specific Tables (1-17) which would need to be completed as part of the assessment.

Section 3 outlines the process and application for undertaking the assessment framework and describes the logic behind the selection of indicators for each of the criteria. The more important CBF regimes that exist in a country should be included in the assessment irrespective of whether they occur across the entire country or are concentrated in one geographic or administrative region such as a state or province.

3 Process for conducting the assessment

This assessment framework is intended to help identify the key CBF tenure arrangements in a country, their strengths and limitations, and the impact on social/human/institutional, natural and financial capital. The assessment is intended to be carried out at the national level, but including key CBF regimes that occur in rural areas of the country, irrespective of whether they are found throughout the country or in a specific region such as a state or province.

The assessment is intended to use a collaborative and inclusive process involving consultations with all key government and non-government stakeholders.

The following process is recommended for conducting the assessment:

1. Identify national consultant – As a first step, a national consultant should be identified to lead this assessment. Ideally, the consultant will have previous experience working with non-state stakeholders such as local communities or smallholders in the forestry sector. The consultant should liaise with the Ministry or Department of Forestry and other stakeholders through the course of the assessment.

2. Define scope of assessment – The national consultant should work with government and non-government stakeholders as needed to define the scope of this assessment (i.e. identification of the CBF types to be assessed) (See Boxes 3 and 4). This would be further validated with interested stakeholders during the first introductory workshop noted in Step 4.

3. Desk review – The framework includes a series of tables requiring qualitative and some quantitative information. The national consultant should use existing government sources, project databases, and secondary literature to complete the tables. Several of the tables include a numerical rating on a scale of 0—5: 0 suggesting no provision or impact, and 5 suggesting full provision or impact. These ratings will be subjective but are intended to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the CBF situation in country. Thus, 0 = no provision or impact, 1= very weak provision or impact, 2 = weak provision or impact, 3 = some provision or impact, 4 = strong provision or impact, and 5 = very strong provision or impact. The national consultant should provide his or her rating and justification under the ‘overall assessment’.

4. Introductory workshop – The national consultant in agreement with the government should consider holding an introductory workshop with stakeholders including relevant government institutions, key informants, experts from academia, research organizations, representatives of local community members, relevant NGOs, civil society groups, forest users, private sector operators, and others. The workshop should serve to orient participants to the assessment, present the process for conducting this assessment, share major findings from the desk review, and solicit input on gaps in information identified through the desk study.

5. Key informant interviews – To fill in gaps in information and to obtain diverse perspectives, the consultant should conduct interviews with a broad set of key informants knowledgeable about the forest tenure systems in country. These individuals may include the stakeholders noted above. Key informant interviews would be used to validate findings and to fill gaps, particularly in regard to the implementation of CBF.

6. Field-level data collection – Where possible, the consultant should consider obtaining field-level information from stakeholders on successes and challenges in the implementation of the CBF, functioning of institutions, and implications for stakeholders. This would involve choosing the particular tenure system to assess, selection of pilot sites, and conducting focus group discussions with a wide range of stakeholders to obtain different perspectives.

7. Validation workshop – Information obtained through the above steps should be validated in a national-level workshop, involving the same stakeholders as those consulted earlier. The workshop would provide the opportunity to not only validate the findings, but more importantly, to agree on priority areas for strengthening CBF. The workshop should also serve to validate the numerical ratings to indicators provided by the consultant to the degree possible. However, since the ratings are general impressions of the situation, and there will be disagreements among participants, the validation should place emphasis on refining the contents of the assessment, rather than focus on obtaining agreement on the ratings. Overall, the validation workshop will be critical for building consensus on the findings and on the priority areas of work.

8. Final report – Finally, the consultant should prepare a national assessment report including: i) an introductory section providing a brief overview of CBF in the country, ii) the completed tables with a paragraph or two of text in each table to explain and qualify the data and provide the sources of information, and iii) a succinct analysis of information collected highlighting key differences and similarities observed for the various CBF regimes. The consultant may consider also developing brief summary sheets (no more than two pages) on each CBF type analysed for use in the validation workshop.

4 Application of the assessment framework

This section presents the series of tables referenced in Box 6. In particular, Tables 1 and 2 identify the CBF regimes that occur in the country and collate basic information about them. These should be completed once for all tenure types. Tables 3—15 assessing the enabling environment, effectiveness and summary of CBF should be completed separately for each different type of CBF regime. The easiest approach may be to complete Tables 3 to 15 for one CBF regime, then repeat the exercise for each of the other CBF regimes.

Table 16 allows for all the regimes to be brought together for comparison. Table 17 has been included to obtain an impression of the effectiveness of CBF compared with that of other forest management regimes. This should be completed for each CBF regime in the country.

Where information is not available, the relevant cell in the table can be marked as ‘n/a’.

CRITERION 1: EXTENT AND TYPE OF CBF

A workable approach to assess the extent and type of CBF can be sought in examining the context within which CBF operates, the extent to which it is institutionalized into government and civil society, and the level of empowerment of community and smallholder groups to exercise effective forest management.

INDICATOR 1.1: CONTEXT OF CBF

Indicator 1.1a: Policy objectives of each CBF regime in the country

The different CBF regimes (essentially different types of tenure) in a country reflect different policy objectives. It is useful to clarify these, as CBF effectiveness needs to be judged against its objectives. These objectives may be stated explicitly in government policy statements or legislation, or they may need to be inferred from other documents. For example, it may be inferred that CBF aims to address forest degradation and improve livelihoods, without this being explicitly stated. Table 1 provides a framework to list the different types of CBF in a country and to summarize their policy objectives.

Indicator 1.1b: Area and percent of forest land under different tenure regimes

The area of land under each CBF regime can generally be sourced from government databases, supplemented by data from other sources. Table 2 provides a format for the summation of forest land held under different regimes.

As noted, in many countries the land under CBF regimes is held under a variety of tenure arrangements where the strength of tenure rights varies. Each of the different tenure categories can be listed separately (by area in ha and % of total forest land). Hence, categories 2.1 and 3 in Table 2 should be subdivided by CBF regime, if applicable.

Indicator 1.1c: Number of people and groups involved in each CBF regime

The number of people and groups[3] involved in each type of CBF regime will give an indication of the relative importance of CBF across the rural landscape, and Table 3 provides a framework to record this information.

In applying the assessment framework from this point onwards, separate tables should be filled out for each CBF regime in the country (e.g. smallholder forestry, community forestry, indigenous protected areas and village forestry) – with the exception of Table 16, where the different CBF regimes in the country are brought together for comparison.

INDICATOR 1.2: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CBF IN GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY

Indicator 1.2a: Institutionalization of CBF regime into government policy, legislation, planning and programmes

In many countries, formal CBF started as relatively small-scale policy experiments where essential inputs (such as technical skills and budget) were often provided by external agencies. Experience suggests that it often takes some years for CBF to be tested, assessed and refined to ensure it is suitable for a country’s specific conditions. It is only after there is a degree of confidence among policy-makers that CBF is a useful forest management modality that it is integrated into national development priorities and supported by government institutions. Significant scaling up and expansion from project- to programme-scale requires, among other things, the development of an enabling regulatory framework. Scaling up is only possible where governments take strong ownership and where the CBF regime generates sufficient benefits to communities to outweigh costs. The extent to which CBF has been institutionalized into government policy, legislation, plans and programmes is an indication of the likelihood that CBF will succeed and make a significant contribution to both national development and community objectives. Table 4 provides a framework to document the extent to which CBF is institutionalized into government plans and programmes.

Indicator 1.2b: Civil society organizations (apart from CBF membership groups) to represent CBF stakeholders

As noted above, in some countries where CBF has made significant contributions to local livelihoods and the national economy, it has become institutionalized into regular government activities. In some cases it has made the further transition to become a people’s programme that is driven to a large extent by civil society advocacy rather than a government line agency. In such cases, civil society organizations (CSOs) have emerged that represent CBF stakeholders and often act to balance community interests with those of government and other forest stakeholders. They could include networks, alliances, associations or federations that have a specific mandate to represent and advocate for CBF. An indication of the presence of such organizations is a measure of the likely resilience and effectiveness of CBF. The presence or absence of organizations that represent CBF stakeholders can be recorded in Table 5 along with an indication of the type of membership.

INDICATOR 1.3: LEVEL OF EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS FOR CBF REGIME

Indicator 1.3a: Rights associated with CBF regime

It is generally hypothesized that the stronger each of the rights in the ‘bundle of rights’ that constitutes tenure is held, the more effective CBF is likely to be in terms of achieving its intended policy objectives (See Section 2.3 for a description of each of the rights). Hence, an assessment of the presence of each right and its strength will assist in judging the validity of this hypothesis and the likely effectiveness of the type of CBF regime under consideration.

Strong rights are those that are embedded in a country’s constitution or statutory law. Weak rights are those that are contained in lower levels of the regulatory framework, such as ministerial directions, rules and regulations. Strong rights cannot be revoked easily or modified by bureaucratic discretion. Locally recognized rights that are not formally recognized by the state would be weak, even though they may be locally effective. Table 6 outlines an assessment matrix for rights associated with the CBF regime.

Indicator 1.3b: Responsibilities associated with CBF regime

In most countries, communities and smallholders are required to accept a range of responsibilities in exchange for the rights to manage their forests and share in the benefits. These are generally prescribed in the regulatory framework (laws, policies, rules and regulations, etc.) and may include preparing a management plan, carrying out a forest inventory, obtaining approval from government officials to harvest and/or sell forest products, etc. These responsibilities provide insights into why some CBF regimes deliver on their objectives, while other seemingly similar regimes deliver less well. Table 7 provides a framework for assessing the extent to which various responsibilities enable or constrain effective implementation of CBF.

Indicator 1.3c: Characterization of CBF regime by generic type

Based on the assessments carried out in Tables 6 and 7, an evaluation can be made of where the CBF regime being assessed is located on the spectrum shown in Boxes 3 and 4. The results can be entered into Table 8.

OVERALL SUMMARY OF ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR CBF REGIME

Summary of key indicators to assess level of enabling environment for the CBF regime

Summarize the enabling environment for CBF regimes in Table 9 using ratings from Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7. The table should be completed for each tenure regime separately.

CRITERION 2: EFFECTIVENESS OF CBF

The effectiveness of CBF can be considered from the viewpoint of the policy objectives that are set[4]. These are frequently framed to include both biophysical and socio-economic outcomes that collectively contribute to sustainable forest management and enhanced livelihoods. The framework for this assessment defines livelihoods in terms of three key capital (or asset) classes: natural; social, institutional, human; and financial capitals (adapted from the livelihoods framework described by DFID, 1999). This approach was chosen as these three types of capital are frequently reported on in the literature and, taken together, provide a comprehensive picture of the most common CBF outcomes.

Most assessments of the effectiveness of CBF have been carried out on a case study basis, and there are few examples of scaling up case study results to a national scale. For this reason it may be necessary to judge the effectiveness of CBF by making assessments based on as many case studies as possible.

INDICATOR 2.1: NATURAL CAPITAL

Indicator 2.1a: Change in area and condition of forest for CBF regime

The most important indicators of changes to the natural capital (i.e. those concerning the biophysical outcomes) relate to the forest itself, its condition and biodiversity. Changes in forest condition since the commencement of a CBF regime can be judged from indicators such as changes in area of forest, wood volume or biomass and regeneration. Changes in biodiversity can be judged from changes in species diversity over time. In many cases these changes will need to be inferred from case studies. Table 10 outlines a framework for recording the relevant changes for the CBF regime under consideration.

Indicator 2.1b: Change in level of threats for CBF regime

Another indication of the effectiveness of a CBF regime is a reduction in the level of threats that can be associated with improved overall management since commencement of the regime. Table 11 provides a framework to record relevant changes.

Indicator 2.1c: Change in quantity of forest products sustainably harvested for CBF regime

Changes in the quantity of forest products harvested give an indication of the extent to which CBF is able to meet the forest product needs of communities and smallholders. The most common forest products accessed by communities and smallholders include timber, woodfuel, poles, fodder, wildlife and NWFPs. Table 12 gives a framework for assessing the changes in the quantity of forest products sustainably harvested for the CBF regime since commencement.

INDICATOR 2.2: SOCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL/HUMAN CAPITAL

Indicator 2.2a: Change in key social indicators of social/institutional and human capital, equity and inclusiveness for CBF regime

Improvement in social outcomes is generally an explicit part of the rationale for adopting CBF. Table 13 provides a framework for assessing the impact of CBF on key social indicators since commencement of the regime (Box 5 gives descriptions of the first four of these indicators).

INDICATOR 2.3: FINANCIAL CAPITAL

Indicator 2.3a: Change in availability of forest goods and services for subsistence use, income generation to households and community groups for CBF regime

Continuing community support for CBF is contingent on community members receiving sufficient benefits from their involvement to outweigh the costs involved. Many, but not all, benefits have a financial value, although it is not always easy to assign a monetary value to them. Much of the rationale for promoting CBF is based on a stated intention of improving the livelihoods of rural people. This generally involves improving access to subsistence goods and services and increasing income from the sale of goods and services. Table 14 provides a framework to assess the change in financial indicators of the major forest goods and services derived from CBF management since commencement of the regime.

OVERALL SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CBF

Summary of effectiveness of CBF regime in enhancing natural, social/institutional/human and financial capital and overall effectiveness

It is useful to obtain an impression of the overall effectiveness of each CBF regime in achieving its objectives. This can be done by combining the ratings for each of the key indicators into one table (Table 15).

Comparative effectiveness of all CBF regimes in a country in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods

In those countries with several types of CBF regime, it is of interest to compare their relative effectiveness in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods. Table 16 provides a framework for making this comparison.

Perceptions of overall effectiveness of CBF regime compared with other forest tenure regimes in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods

As well as rating the effectiveness of CBF in achieving its objectives, it is useful to gain an impression of the comparative performance of CBF against other types of forest management, such as concession logging or direct government forest management, in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods. Table 17 provides a framework for making this qualitative judgement.

References

Arnold, J.E.M. 1992 (reprinted 1995). Community Forestry: Ten years in review. FAO, Rome.

Arnold, J.E.M. 2001. Forests and People: 25 years of community forestry. FAO, Rome.

Becker, G.S. 1994. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boulay, A. 2010. Contract tree farming and smallholders: Drivers of adoption in Thailand. Crawford School of Economics and Government, ANU, Canberra, Australia. (PhD thesis)

DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets. London, U.K. https://www.ennonline.net/attachments/872/section2.pdf

FAO. 2011. Reforming forest tenure: Issues, principles and process. FAO Forestry Paper 165, Rome.

Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176, Rome.

Gilmour, D.A. & Fisher, R.J. 1991. Villagers, Forests and Foresters – The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Harrison, S., Herbohn, J. & Niskanen, A. 2002. Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: What’s in a Name? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 1–11.

O’Hara, P. 2013. From delegation to devolution: Key lessons from 10 years of PFM implementation in SW Ethiopia. NTFP-PFM Programme Briefing Note Number 7, Addis Ababa. http://wetlandsandforests.hud.ac.uk/forests/ntfp_pfm/publications/Briefing%20Notes/Key%20Lessons%20from%2010%20Years%20of%20PFM%20in%20SW%20Ethiopia.pdf

Ojha, H.R. 2014. Beyond the ‘local community’: the evolution of multi-scale politics in Nepal’s community forestry regimes. International Forestry Review 16 (3): 339–353.

Pretty, J. & Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29 (2): 209–227.

RECOFTC. 2013. Community forestry in Asia and the Pacific: Pathway to inclusive development. Bangkok, Thailand.

RRI. 2012. What Rights? A comparative analysis of developing countries’ national legislation on community and Indigenous Peoples’ forest tenure rights. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington D.C.

RRI. 2014. What future for reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, D.C.

Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, August 1992, 68 (3): 249–62.

Sunam, R.K. & McCarthy, J.F. 2010. Advancing equity in community forestry: Recognition of the poor matters. International Forestry Review 12 (4): 370–382

White, A. & Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. Forest Trends, Washington, DC.

Notes

1 A discussion of tenure as a ‘bundle of rights’ is given in FAO (2011) and RRI (2012).

2 These include Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

3 Most collaborative forms of CBF operate on the basis of formal groups rather than individuals. These are generally location based (such as a collection of hamlets, a village or a political-administrative unit), but they may be ethnically based (such as a clan or tribal group). In most situations the defined group is the legally recognized entity to which rights and responsibilities are allocated.

4 There may be situations where policy objectives are found to be problematic in terms of adverse effects on communities, but this needs to be drawn out in the accompanying narrative.