Current forest management schemes ineffective, study says

A study has found that the system used to protect forest biodiversity and people in poor nations is ineffective. The Study, which is being published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, has found the Community Forest Management (CFM) Scheme patchy, with the impact on the local communities involved poor.

Andrew Pullin from Bangor University, Wales who co-authored the study says, “In the past, the model has been to protect areas at a (national) level, which meant the government set up a protected area and managed it”. Now he says the approach has led to problems, “Local people were resenting the implementation of a protected area because, perhaps, it used to be theirs and then it belonged to the government. It was possible that they were being prevented from using the areas as they formerly had done and it was not benefiting them, therefore they were probably not respecting it or looking after it in a stewardship way.”

As a result, CFM schemes were developed where power was given to the local communities. This has received backing from many funding avenues due to the assumption that it was a more ethical way to manage the forests. However, inconsistent monitoring and evaluation of the localised schemes has led to problems.

"Each study would use a different set of measures, sometimes very locally relevant so that it was very difficult to come to overall conclusions about the effectiveness of the programme."

Pullin recognises the importance of considering the human dimension to forest conservation as well as the obvious benefits like carbon storage and biodiversity protection, but he adds, "The global community is investing billions of dollars in these programmes, so if they are not working then we are investing a large amount of money, and we are not achieving our goals of biodiversity protection and increased human well-being."

“The problem tends to be is that we seem to be investing in these programmes without really taking a longer term view of the effectiveness… It is almost done on belief and very broad assumptions on their effectiveness without really vigorous evaluation of whether they work or not. We cannot go forward blindly investing more and more money in these programmes and not evaluate whether they have been working.”