Participatory Forest Management: An Overview

"Participatory forestry refers to processes and mechanisms that enable those people who have a direct stake in forest resources to be part of decision-making in all aspects of forest management, from managing resources to formulating and implementing institutional frameworks. More specifically, community forestry refers to a component of participatory forestry that focuses on local communities as key stakeholders for sustainability." (Food and Agriculture Organization)

Participatory forest management (PFM) can be defined in various ways, but is, generally, the active inclusion of rural communities in the management and utilisation of state-owned or formerly state-owned forest natural forests and woodlands. Having offered this and several other definitions of PFM, this 7-page paper offers some trends in this communication strategy: PFM has become increasingly common in the last 25 years, with the forest area under community tenure or management estimated to be approaching 25% in global terms (White and Martin, 2002). As PFM has grown, there have been a wide variety of activities and institutional arrangements instituted under the rubric of PFM; specific country examples are offered and different variables of different forms of PFM are summarised in the form of a table.

The authors explain that early support for PFM was motivated by donors' interests in improving the conservation status of forests that were largely out of reach (both in terms of physical access and resource availability) of forest departments. However, a shift in emphasis toward use of PFM as a route to poverty reduction took place within the context of a global focus on poverty reduction (as illustrated by the Millennium Development Goals and the promotion of national Poverty Reduction Strategies) and the recognition that many of the world's economically poorest people live in and around forests.

While "There is an expectation that PFM can bring substantial benefits in terms of livelihood security and poverty reduction, as well as providing important indirect benefits to the poor in terms of improved local governance and empowerment. At the same time, there is growing concern that PFM approaches may not be as pro-poor as they could be....Co-management processes, and the institutional arrangements that oversee their implementation, may easily be dominated by wealthier, more powerful members of the community, producing an outcome that perpetuates or even reinforces social inequity..." It is difficult, according to the authors, to assess just what these implications are, for there is a lack of solid impact evidence related to PFM in part due to the difficulty of measuring the range of costs and benefits for different groups of people (e.g., for women and marginalised ethnic groups, etc.); little research attention has been paid to the distribution of benefits within communities.

Reflecting on these PFM conceptions, trends and evaluation-related challenges, the authors cite Menzies (2002) - who, based on a review of community-based forest management in 6 countries - argues that partners in PFM projects need to work to reach a shared understanding that keeps communities at the centre of forest management. In other words, PFM initiatives need to become more responsive to local situations - understanding how policy, legal, and institutional frameworks can alter the impact of PFM. "In particular, they need to address concerns that the benefits from PFM may not be sufficient to cover the costs imposed on poor communities, which raises doubts over the longer-term viability of the approach....The challenge now is to manage forest resources for multiple benefits, requiring communities not only to reconcile competing internal interests, but also to manage a complex interface with both the state (representing the public interest, nationally and globally) and the forest industry."