2014Unpublished venueRequires access

Participatory Forest Management - Panacea or Pretence?

Kerstin Pfliegner

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This study of six Eastern Arc forest reserves around the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania investigates the policy promises of Joint Forest Management (JFM): Improvement of forest quality, household livelihoods and forest governance. While there are signs of improved forest quality, JFM leads neither to improved livelihood opportunities for the majority of villagers, nor improved forest governance. JFM provides preferential forest access to the village elite. For poor families with limited land ownership, forest closure due to JFM reduces the ability of livelihood diversification. A disjuncture between the created Village Forest Committees and existing village governance bodies prevents local accountability and transparency with regard to forestry matters. This allows those who benefit to reinforce a regime that keeps them in control. Apart from responsibility to patrol, the communities have not been provided secure and predictable rights by the state that makes a difference in terms of livelihoods or empowerment. Thus, JFM in the study sites is rather pretence than a genuine devolution of power from the state forest department to the forest adjacent communities.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study of six Eastern Arc forest reserves around the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania investigates the policy promises of Joint Forest Management (JFM): Improvement of forest quality, household livelihoods and forest governance. While there are signs of improved forest quality, JFM leads neither to improved livelihood opportunities for the majority of villagers, nor improved forest governance. JFM provides preferential forest access to the village elite. For poor families with limited land ownership, forest closure due to JFM reduces the ability of livelihood diversification. A disjuncture between the created Village Forest Committees and existing village governance bodies prevents local accountability and transparency with regard to forestry matters. This allows those who benefit to reinforce a regime that keeps them in control. Apart from responsibility to patrol, the communities have not been provided secure and predictable rights by the state that makes a difference in terms of livelihoods or empowerment. Thus, JFM in the study sites is rather pretence than a genuine devolution of power from the state forest department to the forest adjacent communities.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study of six Eastern Arc forest reserves around the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania investigates the policy promises of Joint Forest Management (JFM): Improvement of forest quality, household livelihoods and forest governance. While there are signs of improved forest quality, JFM leads neither to improved livelihood opportunities for the majority of villagers, nor improved forest governance. JFM provides preferential forest access to the village elite. For poor families with limited land ownership, forest closure due to JFM reduces the ability of livelihood diversification. A disjuncture between the created Village Forest Committees and existing village governance bodies prevents local accountability and transparency with regard to forestry matters. This allows those who benefit to reinforce a regime that keeps them in control. Apart from responsibility to patrol, the communities have not been provided secure and predictable rights by the state that makes a difference in terms of livelihoods or empowerment. Thus, JFM in the study sites is rather pretence than a genuine devolution of power from the state forest department to the forest adjacent communities.

Key concepts: Joint Forest Management, Livelihood, Forest management, Business, State forest, Accountability, Corporate governance, Forest protection

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Participatory Forest Management - Panacea or Pretence? — Research Paper | ScholarLens