4.7 Article

An Uneven Playing Field: Regulatory Barriers to Communities Making a Living from the Timber from Their Forests-Examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam

期刊

FORESTS
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 3433-3451

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f6103433

关键词

Community forestry; commercialization; forest regulations; livelihoods; sustainable forest management

类别

资金

  1. Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI)
  2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland
  3. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)
  4. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
  5. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community forestry (CF) is widely viewed as the solution to many of the challenges facing forest management and governance in the Asia-Pacific region. However, it is often felt that CF is not delivering on its potential. This paper focuses on one possible limitation: the role of regulations in curbing communities' ability to make a living from their timber resources. The work covers Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam, using policy analyses, national level experts' workshops, and focus group discussions in two CF sites in each country. The results highlight the fact that there are numerous, often prohibitive, regulations in place. One challenge is the regulations' complexity, often requiring a level of capacity far beyond the ability of community members and local government staff. The paper puts forward various recommendations including simplifying regulations and making them more outcome-based, and facilitating key stakeholders, including government and community based organizations, working together on the design and piloting of forest monitoring based on mutually agreed forest management outcomes. The recommendations reflect the belief that for CF to succeed, communities must be allowed to make a meaningful living from their forests, a result of which would be increased investment in sustainable forest management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据