Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare?

Global financial donors have invested billions of dollars in "Sustainable Forest Management" to conserve forests and the ecosystem services they provide. A major contributing mechanism, community forest management (CFM), aims to provide global environmental benefits (reduce deforestation,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Frontiers in ecology and the environment 2012-02, Vol.10 (1), p.29-36
Main Authors: Bowler, Diana E, Buyung-Ali, Lisette M, Healey, John R, Jones, Julia PG, Knight, Teri M, Pullin, Andrew S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
basal area
Biodiversity
Biological diversity
Community forestry
Comparators
Data processing
Deforestation
ecosystem services
experimental design
Forest conservation
Forest cover
Forest ecology
Forest management
Forest resources
Forestry policy
Forests
humans
International community
issues and policy
meta-analysis
Poverty
REVIEWS
Sustainable forest management
sustainable forestry
Trees
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Global financial donors have invested billions of dollars in "Sustainable Forest Management" to conserve forests and the ecosystem services they provide. A major contributing mechanism, community forest management (CFM), aims to provide global environmental benefits (reduce deforestation, maintain biodiversity), while also improving local human welfare (alleviate poverty). We have systematically reviewed available evidence of CFM effectiveness and consider the implications of our findings for future investment in CFM programs. There is evidence of CFM being associated with greater tree density and basal area but not with other indicators of global environmental benefits. We found no data on local human welfare amenable to meta-analysis. Poor study design, variable reporting of study methodology or context, and lack of common indicators make evidence synthesis difficult. Given the policy interest in and the planned donor expenditure on CFM, evaluation must be improved so that informed decisions can be made about appropriate investment in this approach.
ISSN:1540-9295
1540-9309
DOI:10.1890/110040