community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? *

ANRV323-AN36-18 ARI 20 August 2007 15:45

Community Forestry inTheory and Practice: WhereAre We Now?∗

Susan Charnley1 and Melissa R. Poe2

1USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon 97205;email: [email protected] of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:301–36

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/07/1021-0301$20.00∗ The U.S. Government has the right to retain anonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to anycopyright covering this paper.

Key Words

community-based forest management, forests, forest communities,governance, livelihoods, sustainability

AbstractCommunity forestry refers to forest management that has ecologi-cal sustainability and local community benefits as central goals, withsome degree of responsibility and authority for forest managementformally vested in the community. This review provides an overviewof where the field of community forestry is today. We describe fourcase examples from the Americas: Canada, the United States, Mex-ico, and Bolivia. We also identify five hypotheses embedded in theconcept of community forestry and examine the evidence supportingthem. We conclude that community forestry holds promise as a vi-able approach to forest conservation and community development.Major gaps remain, however, between community forestry in the-ory and in practice. For example, devolution of forest managementauthority from states to communities has been partial and disap-pointing, and local control over forest management appears to havemore ecological than socioeconomic benefits. We suggest ways thatanthropologists can contribute to the field.

301

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Nontimber forestproducts (NTFPs):plants, lichens, andfungi used for food,medicine, floralgreens, horticulturalstocks, fiber, dye,oils, resins, andchemical extracts

INTRODUCTION

Forests cover 30% of the earth’s land area, to-taling nearly four billion hectares (FAO 2006),but today represent about two-thirds of theirhistorical expanse (Myers 1997) (Table 1).In the brief five-year interval between 2000and 2005 scientists estimate an average an-nual net loss of 7.3 million hectares of for-est occurred—5.8 million hectares (79.5%) ofwhich were primary forest—mainly as a re-sult of forest conversion to agriculture, withAfrica and South America experiencing thegreatest net losses (Table 2). Although de-forestation rates have actually slowed sincethe 1990s, they remain a concern. Also wor-risome are processes of forest degradationoccurring within remaining forests, in manyplaces resulting in simplification of foreststructure, biodiversity loss, and alteration offorest ecosystem processes and functions. Thecauses of deforestation and forest degradationare many and complex ( J.F. McCarthy 2006,Peluso 1992, Rudel 2005, Sponsel et al. 1996,Vandermeer & Perfecto 2005, Wood & Porro2002).

Although reliable tallies of forest peoplesare hard to come by, most estimates agree that400–500 million people live in and around theworld’s forests, and many more—both rural

Table 1 Global forest covera. Source: FAO 2006

RegionTotal area

(million ha)Forest area

(million ha)a% of land area

forested% of global

forestAfrica 3031 635.4 21.4 16.1Asia 3177 571.6 18.5 14.5Europeb 2298 1001.4 44.3 25.3North andCentral America

2273 705.8 32.9 17.9

Oceania 856 206.3 24.3 5.2South America 1784 831.5 47.7 21.0Global total 13,418.5 3952 30.3 –

a“Forest land” as reported here is defined as land spanning more than 0.5 hectares (ha) and having trees higher than5 m with a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. Forest land does not includeland that is predominantly under agricultural or urban use, “other wooded land,” and “other land with tree cover,”which together account for 11% of the earth’s total land area.bThe Russian Federation is reported as part of Europe; of the 1001.4 million hectares of forest land in Europe,809 million hectares (80.8%) lie within the Russian Federation.

and urban—depend on forest resources forcooking and heating (Arnold 1992, CIFOR2006, Lynch & Talbott 1995, White & Martin2002). Hunter-gatherers and shifting culti-vators inhabiting forests derive their liveli-hoods directly from forests (Byron & Arnold1999). People living in communities withinand around forests use forest products forfood, fuel, medicine, construction, fodder forlivestock, and as a fallback when agriculturaland other economic activities are inadequateto sustain the household economy. Peoplealso depend on the ecosystem services thatforests provide, such as water for householduses and soil for agricultural production. Inaddition, many people depend on forests forincome generation, for example, working inthe wood products industry, developing smallenterprises based on timber and nontimberforest products (NTFPs) (McLain & Jones2002), or working as artisans (Byron & Arnold1999). Finally, forests play an important rolein peoples’ sociocultural systems and pro-foundly influence their sense of place, ideolo-gies, and identities. Some authors have noteda geographic correlation between the world’sforests and the distribution of the world’s ru-ral poor (e.g., Sunderlin et al. 2005, Wunder2001). Deforestation and forest degradationcan exacerbate poverty among people who

302 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 2 Annual changes in forest area, 1990–2005. Source: FAO 2006

Region

Net change1990–2000(1000 ha)

% change1990–2000

Net change2000–2005(1000 ha)

% change2000–2005

Africa −4375 −0.64 −4040 −0.62Asia −792 −0.14 1003 0.18Europe 877 0.09 661 0.07North and Central America −328 −0.05 −333 −0.05Oceania −448 −0.21 −356 −0.17South America −3802 −0.44 −4251 −0.50Global total −8868 −0.22 −7317 −0.18

depend on forest products and services to sup-port their livelihoods (Chomitz 2007).

To date, anthropologists have made majorcontributions to our understanding of the so-ciocultural and ecological relations betweenpeople and forests (e.g., Moran & Ostrom2005). For example, they have demonstratedthat the distribution of forests and indigenouspopulations is correlated in some parts of theworld (e.g., Chapin 2002) and noted that ar-eas of high biodiversity overlap with placeswhere traditional communities maintain con-trol over resource management (Maffi 2005).They have documented the extensive ecolog-ical knowledge regarding forests that manylocal and indigenous populations maintain,and forest management practices that are eco-logically sound (e.g., Carlson & Maffi 2004,Fairhead & Leach 1996, Smith & Wishnie2000). They have also highlighted strugglesover forest access, use, ownership, and con-trol, and associated human rights issues (e.g.,Haenn 2005, Nygren 2005, Sturgeon 2005;on access, see Ribot & Peluso 2003). Althoughsome colonial and postcolonial governmentshave recognized and formalized the custom-ary forest management practices and institu-tions maintained by forest communities, inmost of the world’s forests, these have been re-placed by state bureaucracies that control for-est management, with negative consequencesfor forest peoples (e.g., Peluso & Vandergeest2001, Sivaramakrishnan 1999).

Concern over the problems confrontingforests and forest peoples has, since the late

Access: the abilityto derive benefitfrom things (in thiscase, forests), basedin a “bundle ofpowers”

1970s, led to efforts to address them simul-taneously through community-based forestmanagement approaches in various guises.Today these approaches are generally labeled“community forestry.” Definitions and termsfor community forestry abound in the lit-erature (see Glasmeier & Farrigan 2005 fora review), and the forms it takes on theground vary widely. In this review we use theterm to refer to forest management that hasthree characteristics. In community forestry,(a) some degree of responsibility and author-ity for forest management is formally vestedby the government in local communities; (b)a central objective of forest management isto provide local communities with social andeconomic benefits from forests; and (c) eco-logically sustainable forest use is a centralmanagement goal, with forest communitiestaking some responsibility for maintainingand restoring forest health. By forest commu-nities and forest peoples we mean communi-ties and peoples that have social, cultural, andeconomic ties to nearby forests, recognizingthat “community” is a debated concept thatcan be defined in multiple ways. Our emphasisin this review of community forestry as a fieldis on government-sanctioned, de jure formsof forest management by communities, ratherthan on customary or de facto forms of for-est use and management by them. We do notaddress agroforestry, a form of resource man-agement in which trees and other large woodyplants are integrated into farming systemsto produce increased social, economic, and

www.annualreviews.org • Community Forestry 303

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


environmental benefits by diversifying pro-duction (see Schroth et al. 2004 for anoverview of this topic).

The term community forestry has beenused for community-based forest manage-ment initiatives associated with private for-est lands (e.g., Best & Wayburn 2001), forestsheld as common property (e.g., Bray et al.2005), and forests on indigenous peoples’lands (e.g., LTC/IES 1995). Here we fo-cus on community forestry associated withstate lands (also commonly referred to asgovernment-owned lands or public lands). Wealso include some examples from other own-erships where communities and governmentsshare management authority. Official reportsof forest ownership across the spectrum ofprivate, common, and state are limited by alack of information and are often complicatedby contested, overlapping, and unrecognizedclaims (White & Martin 2002). Nevertheless,public forests are estimated to comprise morethan 80% of the world’s forests (Table 3)(FAO 2006), and communal ownership of for-est land appears to be more common in devel-oping countries than in developed countries(Table 4) (White & Martin 2002).

Our purpose is to take stock of the fieldof community forestry both in theory and inpractice some 30 years after its emergence.

We begin by tracing a brief history of commu-nity forestry. Then we look at how commu-nity forestry is currently being practiced in se-lected case examples from the Americas. Thenumber of eligible cases is vast in both publi-cations and in the gray literature; we focus onexamples from the published, peer-reviewedliterature. Next we identify a set of hypothe-ses underlying the concept and practice ofcommunity forestry, examining the evidencesupporting these hypotheses to test whethercommunity forestry is a viable approach toforest conservation and community develop-ment. We conclude by summarizing wherethe field of community forestry is now, ex-ploring future directions, and suggesting waysthat anthropology can better engage with andcontribute to the field.

COMMUNITY FORESTRY: ABRIEF HISTORY

Anthropologists and other social scientistshave documented many ways in which in-digenous and local peoples have sustainablymanaged forests in the past through tech-niques such as practicing swidden agriculturefor crop production (Conklin 1957, Denevan& Padoch 1988, Dove 1985); practicingsuccession management to produce food,

Table 3 Forest ownership 2000. Source: FAO 2006

RegionForest areaa

(1000 ha)

% Total forestedarea shown in

Table 1 Private (1000 ha) Public (1000 ha)b Other (1000 ha)Africa 552,326 84.3 9951 (2%) 539,248 (98%) 3127 (<1%)Asia 566,388 100 28,329 (5%) 534,845 (94%) 3214 (<1%)Europe 998,071 100 99,631 (10%) 897,059 (90%) 1380 (<1%)North & CentralAmerica

698,285 98.7 208,525 (30%) 462,477 (66%) 27,284 (4%)

Oceania 204,933 98.5 48,575 (24%) 125,527 (61%) 30,831 (15%)South America 136,240 16 23,528 (17%) 103,379 (76%) 9333 (7%)Global Total 3,156,243 79.1 418,538 (13%) 2,662,534 (84.5%) 75,170 (2.5%)

aNot all countries reported figures for forest ownership; thus, data are in relation to the total forested area of those reporting regions.bPublic ownership category includes government-owned and -managed forests and forests set aside for communities but ultimately owned bygovernments.

304 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 4 Distribution of forest ownership (expressed in percent of total forest)a. Source:White & Martin 2002

Publicb Privatec

CategoryAdministered

by government

Reserved forcommunity and

indigenous groupsCommunity/indigenous

Individual/firm

Developing countries 71% 8% 14% 7%Developed countries 81% 1% 2% 16%Global total 77% 4% 7% 12%

aLow-end estimates extrapolated from 24 countries of the top 30 forested countries. Data are derived fromgovernment reports on legal tenure and do not account for claims made by forest peoples without official sanction.bPublic ownership is defined as all lands owned by central, regional, or local governments; administration of publiclands may be undertaken by government entities or local communities, including indigenous groups, on asemipermanent, but conditional basis.cPrivate ownership is defined as rights over a specific area that cannot unilaterally be terminated by a governmentwithout due process and compensation; private rights (of both individuals and groups) are generally more secure andinclude rights to access, sell, manage, and exclude others.

construction materials, medicinal plants, andother desired species (Irvine 1989); burning toenhance the distribution and populations ofplant and animal species important for hunt-ing and gathering (Boyd 1999, Vale 2002);and planting and enriching soil to create for-est patches (Fairhead & Leach 1996, Posey1985). As European powers established colo-nial rule beginning in the sixteenth century,they appropriated much of the forest estatein countries around the globe, claiming itas state property and altering and often un-dermining customary forest tenure (Ribot &Peluso 2003) and management systems (e.g.,Poffenberger 1999, 2000). Commercial tim-ber extraction was largely unregulated untilthe nineteenth century, when colonial gov-ernments began to establish centralized, bu-reaucratic forest departments to implement“modern,” scientifically based approaches toforestry following the European model (Guha2000). Since World War II, industrial-scaletimber extraction conducted by states andprivate-sector timber companies having log-ging concessions or other forms of access tostate lands has been the dominant form offorestry practiced on state forest lands in manytropical and temperate regions.

Community forestry emerged in differ-ent places between the 1970s and 1990s as

Tenure: relations ofresource ownershipand controlsanctioned by socialinstitutions

a response to different combinations of fac-tors, but key drivers have been deforesta-tion and forest degradation occurring as aresult of decades of overexploitation from in-dustrial logging (Poffenberger 2006); collec-tive action and protest by local communitiesthat have challenged centralized, bureaucraticforest governance structures and destructiveresource extraction practices, often tied tobroader national struggles for democratiza-tion and resource access (Bray 1991, Guha1989, Rangan 2000); recognition that manystate governments do not have the resourcesto enforce forest management laws and regu-lations and require assistance in carrying outforest management responsibilities (Wily &Mbaya 2001); pressure on national govern-ments to address rural poverty and social in-equality on the part of intergovernmental or-ganizations such as the World Bank, UnitedNations Forum on Forests, and the Food andAgriculture Organization (Arnold 1992); re-sistance to the top-down approaches to devel-opment assistance, practiced in the 1960s and1970s, that were seen by communities as un-just and irrelevant and a push for more decen-tralized, bottom-up approaches to develop-ment (Chambers 1983); and the availability offinancial and technical assistance from inter-national development agencies, foundations,


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


banks, and nongovernmental organizationsto support community forestry worldwide(Colfer & Capistrano 2005). As such, the riseof community forestry can be viewed as part ofa larger movement toward community-basednatural resource management and conserva-tion that began in developing countries inthe 1980s and in developed countries duringthe 1990s (Borgerhoff Mulder & Coppolillo2005, Brosius et al. 2005, Western et al. 1994),which was itself a response to similar ecolog-ical and social factors.

Some of the earliest examples of com-munity forestry come from Asia, where theygrew out of social forestry efforts that be-gan in the 1970s (Arnold 1992, Glasmeier& Farrigan 2005, Pardo 1995). Asia’s socialforestry programs were a response on thepart of state governments and internationaldonors to the problems of deforestation andthe ecological effects of industrial forestry,combined with growing rural populationswho faced hardships obtaining fuel wood andother forest products. These programs gener-ally entailed planting vast numbers of mostlyfast-growing, exotic trees in wood lots, onplantations, and on farms to increase the sup-ply of fuel wood, fodder, and small-diameterwood for timber, pulpwood, and construc-tion to better meet the needs of forest com-munities. This strategy also aimed to relievepressure on natural forests, which would bemanaged for conservation and industrial tim-ber production, consistent with state inter-ests (Poffenberger & McGean 1996). Socialforestry programs were largely unsuccessful atrelieving pressure on natural forests. Worse,they did not meet peoples’ needs for a broadrange of forest products and services; theydid not address controversial issues of for-est access, property rights, and governance;and they did little to alleviate rural povertyamong forest peoples (Poffenberger 1999,2000). Community forestry emerged as an al-ternative approach to addressing these needs.Nepal, the Philippines, and India were pio-neers in the community forestry movementin Asia.

In Nepal, government legislation in 1978formally recognized the rights of villagersto manage some government forest landsthrough territorially based political institu-tions called Panchayat (Acharya 2002). In1993 a Forest Act was passed, which togetherwith subsequent regulations and policies fa-cilitated the transfer of forest use rights andmanagement authority over state forest landsto local forest users. Community Forest UserGroups were established and legally autho-rized to make forest management decisions.By the early 2000s, nearly one-quarter of thepotential community forest area in Nepal wasbeing managed by Community Forest UserGroups (Acharya 2002).

In the Philippines, social forestry be-came the official government approach toforest conservation and development in1982 (Donoghue et al. 2003). In 1989, aCommunity-Based Forest Management pro-gram was launched that proposed transferringforest management responsibility from thestate to local communities. The Philippinesadopted a community forestry program by ex-ecutive order in 1995. Under the program,geographically defined communities obtain25-year renewable leases on state forest landspreviously held under timber license agree-ments by international timber companies.Community groups are responsible for for-est management and protection in the areaunder leasehold, and they have the rightto harvest, process, and sell forest productsfrom these areas once management plans havebeen approved by the government. Incomegenerated is reinvested in forest conserva-tion and community development projects(Donoghue et al. 2003). More than one-thirdof the state forest land in the Philippineshas been delegated to communities for man-agement, a figure much higher than that ofother southeast Asian countries (Poffenberger2006).

India formally instituted Joint Forest Man-agement in 1990, creating an opportunity forforest communities to participate in man-aging state forest lands through joint forest

306 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


management agreements (Poffenberger &McGean 1996). Under Joint Forest Manage-ment, state forest departments work in col-laborative partnership with local village For-est Protection Committees to manage stateforests, supervising their activities. Commu-nities share some of the timber harvest andobtain other forest benefits and participate inforest planning, management, and protection(Sundar 2000). Since the early 1990s, 85,000village committees have been formed thatprotect more than 17.3 million hectares of for-est land, representing 27% of India’s forests.The program is estimated to encompass 8.3million families, half of which are scheduledcastes and tribes (World Bank 2006).

In Africa, community forestry initiativesare relatively new; most began emergingin the 1990s to address problems of forestloss and degradation (Wily & Mbaya 2001).Wily & Mbaya (2001) characterize two formsof community forestry that exist in east-ern and southern Africa: the benefit-sharingparadigm and the power-sharing paradigm.The benefit-sharing paradigm entails givingforest peoples access rights to forests; shar-ing the benefits derived from forests (mainlyrevenue generated from forest products, es-pecially wildlife, or jobs associated with ex-ploiting those products); and/or making lo-cal investments in community developmentprojects. Community involvement in forestmanagement is generally limited to assist-ing with protection functions, such as pa-trolling. The goal is to obtain the cooperationof forest peoples in state-dominated forestmanagement schemes. The benefit-sharingapproach prevails in southern Africa. Thepower-sharing paradigm involves forest com-munities as managers and entails devolvingsome degree of forest management author-ity to local forest users, and then decidinghow the forest should be used. The goal isto provide incentive for communities to en-gage in sustainable forest use and manage-ment, given their strong vested interests inforest resources. This approach is more re-cent; is fairly well developed in Tanzania and

Devolution:transfer of power andassets to nonstatebodies (e.g., citizens,forest userorganizations) notcreated or controlledby the state

Lesotho; and is emerging in Namibia, Malawi,and Uganda (Wily & Mbaya 2001).

Jeanrenaud (2001) and Wiersum et al.(2004) discuss the evolution of communityforestry in Europe. In Australia, communityforestry is a new concept and literature onthe topic is limited (Bellinger & Gale 2004).Community forestry in the Americas is dis-cussed in detail below.

COMMUNITY FORESTRY INPRACTICE: EXAMPLES FROMTHE AMERICAS

Community forestry initiatives show wideglobal variation. As with other community-based natural resource management andconservation initiatives, they are context-specific, making it difficult to generalizeabout them or to develop typologies (Brosiuset al. 2005, Glasmeier & Farrigan 2005). Herewe review selected examples of communityforestry from the Americas (Canada, theUnited States, Mexico, and Bolivia) to give abetter feel for what it looks like in practice.Owing to the limited space available for thisreview, we focus on the Americas because(a) there is little in the way of publishedliterature that compares and contrasts thecurrent status of community forestry in theAmericas as a region; (b) examples from theAmericas illustrate a broad range of formsthat community forestry can take, from thatin which formal devolution (Edmunds &Wollenberg 2003, Ribot et al. 2006) of forestownership, responsibility, and managementauthority has been quite limited (the UnitedStates) to that in which it has been extreme(Mexico); and (c) we are most familiar withthe literature from this region. Ferroukhi(2003) and Larson (2003) provide overviewsof community forestry in Latin America. Formore on specific Latin American countriessee Elias & Wittman (2005) and Ferroukhi& Echeverria (2003) (Guatemala), Nygren(2005) and Tucker (1999) (Honduras),Larson (2002) (Nicaragua), and Toni (2003)(Brazil).


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Canada

Nearly half of Canada is forested (Beckley2003), 94% of this forest land being state(Crown) land, with 71% owned by provincesand 23% owned by the federal government(Bull & Schwab 2005). The dominant forestmanagement paradigm on Crown lands hasbeen industrial timber production throughlong-term leases to private forest productscompanies that have their own mills (Beckley1998). Under this model, forest manage-ment decision-making power rests largelywith forest industry and provincial and federalgovernments.

In the 1990s public critique of and contro-versy over this model and its ecological conse-quences led to experimentation with alterna-tive approaches to forest management. Someof these approaches focused on increasingpublic participation in the management pro-cess, with a shift to socially, economically,and ecologically sustainable forest manage-ment as a priority. Examples are Canada’sModel Forest Program, initiated in 1992 (Bull& Schwab 2005, Duinker et al. 2003), andforest industry stakeholder advisory commit-tees (McGurk et al. 2006), which representedsignificant advances in public participationin forest management. Other approaches in-clude Crown forest comanagement by com-munities and private industry (Bull & Schwab2005, Chambers 2004) and community forestsas a new form of tenure on Crown land (al-though some community forests date to the1940s) (Teitelbaum et al. 2006). In Canada,comanagement occurs when local forest usersshare forest management power and respon-sibility with the government, industrial lease-holders, or forest owners (Beckley 1998). For-est comanagement by communities and thegovernment exists in only a few cases inCanada (Beckley 1998).

Community forests have been establishedin Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia(see Teitelbaum et al. 2006 for a review). Inthe Canadian context, a community forest canbe defined as a “public forest area managed

by the community as a working forest for thebenefit of the community” (Teitelbaum et al.2006, p. 417). British Columbia’s CommunityForest Agreement Program provides one ex-ample. Established as a pilot program in 1998and becoming official in 2004, it gives com-munities tenure over defined areas of Crownland in a manner analogous to the leasingof Crown forests to private companies ( J.McCarthy 2006). Under a community forestagreement, the forest remains in state owner-ship, but communities obtain significant man-agement rights and responsibilities. After aninitial five-year probation period the commu-nity can apply for tenure lasting 25–99 years.Community forests range from a few hundredto nearly 61,000 hectares in size ( J. McCarthy2006).

Communities as forest management insti-tutions must be legal entities and place based.They have included First Nations, municipalgovernments, environmental nonprofit orga-nizations, and local societies and coopera-tives ( J. McCarthy 2006), and their objectivesvary from place to place. Community benefitsfrom the program include greater control overforest management through development ofmanagement plans, decision-making author-ity over timber harvesting, more local jobsin the wood products industry, and revenuesfrom timber production. The provincial gov-ernment retains substantial control over forestmanagement, however. Whether communityforests should and do adhere to higher eco-logical standards than does the forest indus-try in timber production has been a subjectof debate. To date, community forests occupy∼1% of the forest land in British Columbiaand produce ∼1% of the timber volumethere, but are rapidly increasing in number ( J.McCarthy 2006).

United States

Forest land covers 33% of the United States.Of this percentage, 43% is in governmentownership and managed mainly by the U.S.

308 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Forest Service (Smith et al. 2004). Com-munity forestry initiatives in the UnitedStates have occurred in association with pri-vate (Communities Committee 2005), tribal(IFMAT 2003, Poffenberger 1998), and pub-lic (Kusel & Adler 2003, McCullough 1995)forest lands. Here we focus on communityforestry associated with federal lands in thewestern United States.

Industrial timber production based onprinciples of sustained yield dominated publiclands forestry in the United States from the1940s through the 1980s, with professionalforesters managing national forests with lit-tle citizen input, and private forest productscompanies gaining access to timber by bid-ding on timber sales (MacCleery & Le Master1999). By the 1980s a shift in public values re-garding forests, citizen concern over the en-vironmental consequences of industrial tim-ber production on public lands, and a call toincrease public participation in federal forestmanagement led to intense conflict and a se-ries of lawsuits that ultimately brought abouta paradigm shift in federal forest managementin the 1990s. The results were (a) a dramaticcutback in timber harvesting on public lands(MacCleery & Le Master 1999); (b) “ecosys-tem management” as a new approach to for-est management, which emphasized ecosys-tem conditions and biodiversity conservation(Cortner et al. 1999); and (c) a flurry of at-tempts to improve collaborative forest man-agement processes (Conley & Moote 2003,Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000). This shift alsocreated the space for experimentation withcommunity forestry approaches. Communityforestry associated with public forest landsarose largely in response to the decline in tim-ber harvesting and timber industry restructur-ing, both of which caused job loss and industrydivestment in many forest communities.

There has been widespread acceptance ofthe notion of increasing public participationin federal forest management in the UnitedStates through collaborative mechanisms aspart of the trend toward democratizing en-vironmental decision-making that has spread

since the 1970s (most recently manifested inthe 2005 Forest Planning rules). However,there has been resistance to, and lack of po-litical support for, giving communities tenurerights to public forests on the part of govern-ment and environmental groups. Constraintsinclude legal barriers, fear that communitycontrol will cause forest degradation, and con-cern that community management will fa-vor local over national interests in publiclands. This resistance, coupled with insuffi-cient grassroots pressure from below, has re-sulted in little meaningful devolution of forestmanagement to communities to date.

Instead, community forestry initiativeshave relied heavily on collaborative part-nerships between forest management agen-cies and local community groups to achievethe goals of conserving and restoring for-est ecosystem health in a manner that simul-taneously improves the well-being of forestcommunities (Baker & Kusel 2003, Brendler& Carey 1998, Gray et al. 2001, Wyckoff-Baird 2005). These collaborations have typ-ically sought to link investments in foreststewardship on public lands with economicopportunities for forest communities. Someexamples include creating forest-based jobsin restoration, conducting timber harvestingto achieve desired ecological conditions, sup-porting small value-added processing busi-nesses (e.g., furniture making), developinguses and markets for restoration byproducts(e.g., small-diameter wood and biomass), in-creasing opportunities for NTFP production,and establishing markets for ecosystem ser-vices. Additional goals are local empower-ment, community capacity building, and moreequitable benefit sharing (Baker & Kusel2003, Wyckoff-Baird 2005).

Cases of community forestry associatedwith public forest lands in the United Statesare described in Colburn (2002), Danks (2000,2003), Kusel & Adler (2003), Wilson (2006),and Wyckoff-Baird (2005). Many innovativeattempts at community forestry are beingtried, but there is still a long way to go.The federal government still retains final


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ejido: Mexicancommon propertysystem in whichgroups of individualshave legal rights to agiven piece of land

Agrariancommunity:Mexican commonproperty systembased on landsgranted tocommunities by theSpanish Crown,often correlated withancestral lands

decision-making authority over federal for-est management; devolution of authority tocommunities to manage federal forests hasrarely occurred (but see London 2002); and itis often illegal to privilege local communitiesand workers in hiring, contracting, and timbersales, except under limited legal authorities inspecific contexts.

Nevertheless, collaborative forest man-agement has increased, partnerships betweendiverse community stakeholders and landmanagement agencies have been built, somenew forest restoration jobs have been cre-ated, some value-added businesses have beensuccessful, and markets for restoration by-products are expanding. Little information isavailable regarding the impact of communityforestry on poverty alleviation, social equity,and forest conservation and restoration in theUnited States (Glasmeier & Farrigan 2005).It is perhaps best viewed as an evolving move-ment for conservation and community de-velopment that is gaining political and eco-nomic momentum, holding hope for forestcommunities as they adapt to changing pro-ductive relations with forests and proactivelytake advantage of new opportunities associ-ated with changing federal forest managementparadigms.

Mexico

Mexico has 64.2 million hectares of forest land(more than 33% of the total land area), overhalf of which is primary forest (FAO 2006). Anestimated 12 million people and 8000 com-munities live in and around Mexico’s forestsand depend on them for subsistence and cashincome (Klooster 2003). Sixty to 80% ofMexico’s forest land is located within com-mon property regimes (Antinori & Bray 2005,Klooster 2003), and community forestry isthe dominant mode of timber production inMexico. In fact, Mexico has the largest sec-tor of community-managed common prop-erty forests dedicated to timber productionin the world, with ∼2400 timber-producingcommunity forests (Bray et al. 2006). Twelve

percent of the legal wood harvest in Mexicois currently certified as environmentally sus-tainable (Klooster 2006).

Policies of property ownership and for-est management that provide the institutionalbasis for community forestry in Mexico arerooted in a dynamic history of peasant-staterelations. Most of Mexico’s forest peoples re-side in ejidos or comunidades agrarias (agrariancommunities), where members have rights toa combination of individual plots and com-munal holdings. Ejidos—comprised of agri-cultural lands and forests—were created forlandless peasants following Mexico’s postrev-olution agrarian reform in 1917. Mexico’s en-trance into the North American Free TradeAgreement in 1992 ended the subsequent cre-ation of new ejidos. Since then, existing ejidoshave been undergoing a process of land titling,transferring a system of state property withcommunity usufruct rights into secure com-mon and individual private property (Klooster2003, Merino Perez 2001). Agrarian com-munities hold common property with securetenure rights based on prerevolution [1910]land grants and are often, but not always, com-posed of indigenous people. Forests in bothejidos and agrarian communities cannot betransferred to individual private ownership; ifan ejido were to dissolve (agrarian communi-ties cannot dissolve), the forests would convertto state property. Individual forest ownershipis relatively uncommon in Mexico (Klooster2003, 2006; Taylor 2003). Ejidos and agrariancommunities (hereafter referred to as com-munities) have communal governance struc-tures (largely consistent with traditional gov-ernance) that form the basis of communityforestry enterprises (Bray et al. 2006).

Despite strong communal forest tenure,timber production on community forests wascontrolled and operated by the central gov-ernment and forest industry concession hold-ers from the 1940s until the 1970s througha system that brought little benefit to com-munities (Klooster 2003). Grassroots protestsand legal reforms led to the devolution of for-est management and production in the 1970s

310 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and 1980s and ushered in community forestryenterprises. Today, communities are heavilyinvolved in all logging operations, some com-munities have their own sawmills, and othershave created value-added processing facilitiessuch as furniture production (Antinori & Bray2005, Klooster 2003). De jure rights to for-est management not withstanding, commu-nity forestry in Mexico today is best seen as aform of comanagement. Commercial timberand NTFP production on communal lands issubject to environmental regulations and for-est use authorizations controlled by the gov-ernment, which stipulate the species, quantity,method, and location of harvest (Bray et al.2006, Mathews 2006).

Although Mexico’s community forests areheralded as a successful world-class modelof community forestry, challenges remain.These include problems of internal (com-munity) conflict, corruption, covert privati-zation (e.g., illegal and clandestine loggingby a group of community members), heavyand unstable regulatory frameworks, and dis-trust between communities (Bray et al. 2006).In addition, neoliberal restructuring since the1990s has brought new pressures to privatizethe forestry sector; government funding fa-vors creating plantation forests through jointventures between communities and commer-cial forestry companies on ejido lands, overcommunity forestry (Klooster 2003). Despitethese challenges, community forestry in Mex-ico has shown remarkable resilience in theface of ongoing forestry and agrarian policyshifts and will likely continue in the vanguardof community forest management (Mathews2006).

Bolivia

More than half of Bolivia is forested (58.7million hectares), and 20% of Bolivia’s forestshave been designated for conservation (FAO2006). Up until the mid-1990s the stateclaimed ownership rights to all forested ar-eas, but much of the valuable forest landwas held under concession by private timber

Decentralization:partial or completetransfer of power andassets from centralstates to lower-levelbranches ofgovernment orrepresentative localinstitutions

companies (Pacheco 2005). Commercial ex-tractive activities in Bolivia’s forests through-out the past century have focused on speciessuch as mahogany (Swietenia spp.), Brazil nuts(Bertholletia excelsa), and rubber (Hevea spp.).Access to these economically valuable for-est products was limited largely to powerfulelites through the barraca system (forest con-cessions to private entrepreneurs) (de Jonget al. 2006, McDaniel 2003, Pacheco 2005).Growing concerns over forest sustainability,democratization of forest management, ne-oliberal reforms, and demands from peasantand indigenous groups have prompted a ma-jor overhaul of Bolivia’s land and forest tenureregimes and management institutions over thepast ten years (de Jong et al. 2006, Larson2003), representing one of the most extensiveefforts in Latin America to decentralize forestmanagement (Pacheco 2005).

Two reforms have been crucial to Bolivia’sdecentralization (Ribot et al. 2006) and de-volution efforts: the transfer of forest man-agement to municipal governments (to whichlocal residents can be elected), and the grant-ing to indigenous communities of exclusiveaccess to forest resources within their ter-ritories. Both have laid the groundwork fora shift toward community forestry (Larson2005). In the former case, state forest landshave been decentralized to municipal govern-ments, and municipal forest reserve areas havebeen created. Local user associations (such assmall logging firms, peasant/farmer organi-zations, or any interested group) can requestand be assigned access to forest resources inmunicipal forest reserve areas through con-cessions, contingent on approved forest man-agement plans (de Jong et al. 2006, Larson2003). Up to 20% of Bolivia’s state forest landscan be transferred to municipal governments.In the latter case, Bolivian state forests be-come indigenous territories, representing de-volution of ownership and giving indigenouspeoples exclusive access to forest resources. Inboth cases, the central government retains thepower to approve forest management plansfor extractive uses; noncommercial forest uses


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


do not require authorization. In 2002, ∼1million hectares of Bolivia’s forest land hadbeen approved for community forest man-agement by indigenous groups, small loggingfirms, and other local forest users (Pacheco2005). The remaining 80% of Bolivia’s forestsare national forests under central govern-ment authority (Larson 2003). In the remain-der of this section we focus on municipalforests.

Prior to decentralization, municipal gov-ernments had limited discretionary powerover forests and limited financial resourcesor other incentives to manage them. Today,municipal governments are responsible formanaging municipal forest reserve areas. Mu-nicipalities propose areas to be protected asforest reserves, oversee activities that takeplace inside of municipal forest reserve ar-eas, inventory forest resources, create forestand soil use plans, support and train local usergroups, and promote local participation inforest management (Pacheco 2005). Munic-ipal governments also have increased finan-cial capacity to manage forests derived fromforest resource use fees, property taxes, andnational budget allocations (Pacheco 2005).Their power to make autonomous decisionsis limited, however, because major decisionspertaining to rights, concessions, resourceuse, and taxation are reserved for the centralgovernment (Larson 2003).

To date, the socioeconomic outcomes ofBolivia’s forest decentralization and devolu-tion programs have been mixed. After tenyears of legal reforms promoting communityforestry, implementation on the ground hasbeen slow (Larson 2003, Pacheco 2005). Thecreation of municipal forest reserve areas hasbeen complicated by overlapping and uncer-tain rights to indigenous territories and pro-tected areas, lack of information about thelocation of state forest lands, and conflictsbetween barraca entrepreneurs (former con-cession holders) and newly recognized in-digenous and peasant communities (de Jonget al. 2006, Larson 2005). In addition, politi-cal patronage, political party dynamics, elite

stakeholders, and tenure conflicts still in-fluence forest management (de Jong et al.2006).

On the positive side, local people have le-gal access rights to forest resources that theydid not have previously. They also have moreopportunities to participate in forest man-agement decision making. Municipal govern-ments are more accountable to local com-munity groups (Pacheco 2005), and somemunicipal funds derived from forestry areinvested in local community developmentprojects (Pacheco 2005). Capacity build-ing among local groups has occurred (deJong et al. 2006). And, where local peo-ple have accepted decentralization arrange-ments, property rights conflicts and ille-gal encroachment have diminished (Larson2005). In addition, decentralization and devo-lution policies have promoted sustainable for-est management (Pacheco 2005), with trendsin management favoring certified forests (deJong et al. 2006). Bolivia has become a modelfor forest certification in South America(McDaniel 2003).

COMMUNITY FORESTRYIN THEORY

As is apparent from the preceding examplesof community forestry in practice, several hy-potheses underlie the concept and efforts toimplement it. These hypotheses hold that (a)a discrete “community” exists that can serveas the locus of community-based forest man-agement; (b) devolution or decentralization ofrights, responsibilities, and authority from thestate to forest communities occurs to someextent; (c) forest utilization can occur in anecologically sustainable way and be compati-ble with biodiversity conservation; (d ) greaterlocal control leads to healthier forests andmore ecologically sustainable forest use; and(e) greater local control increases local com-munity benefits associated with forests andforest management. In this section we exam-ine these hypotheses more carefully and theevidence supporting them.

312 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The Community

A key ingredient for the success of commu-nity forestry is said to be the presence of anidentifiable community to which forest man-agement authority can be devolved (Pardo1995), suggesting that discrete communitiesexist and can serve as the locus of community-based forest management. The “community”in community forestry is defined differentlyin different cases. Most commonly the com-munity is place based and geographically de-lineated, with local institutions functioning asthe interface between community membersand the state in forest management.

It is important to examine how the com-munity as a unit is understood by commu-nity forestry policy makers and practition-ers. “Community” has been portrayed inthree main ways in the wider literature oncommunity-based natural resource manage-ment and conservation, each of which is prob-lematic: (a) community as a small spatial unit;(b) community as a homogenous social struc-ture; and (c) community as shared norms(Agrawal & Gibson 1999).

The concept of community as a small orlocalized spatial unit can overlook importantforest users. For example, there may be in-conspicuous groups not recognized as mem-bers of forest communities, such as semi-nomadic or migratory people who harvestseasonal NTFPs (McLain 2001, McLain &Jones 1997). Others might be newcomersor immigrants who depend on and stewardforest resources but are dismissed as com-munity members by virtue of their ethnic-ity, family heritage, or failure to be “tradi-tional” residents (Agrawal & Gibson 1999,Gupta & Ferguson 1997, Li 2000). Addi-tional problems are that defining communityboundaries for purposes of allocating forestuse and management rights can be difficultand contentious (Edmunds & Wollenberg2003). Focusing on community compositionor shared space, therefore, may be mislead-ing in terms of analyzing community forestmanagement.

The concept of community as a homoge-nous social structure dovetails with ideasabout its spatial boundaries and is reinforcedwhen many community members share thesame language, cultural practices, and ethnic-ity. Similarity within groups does not nec-essarily mean that resources will be man-aged in egalitarian ways. Social scientistscaution against overlooking the heterogene-ity and extant power hierarchies that ex-ist within rural communities, which mayserve to marginalize less powerful sectors ofthe community (Agrawal & Gibson 1999;Colfer 2005b; Leach et al. 1999; Li 1996,2000; Mohan & Stokke 2000; Nygren 2005;Peluso et al. 1994). Actors experience vary-ing degrees of inclusion and exclusion incommunity-based resource management be-cause decision-making processes are not im-mune to social inequalities (Edmunds &Wollenberg 2003, Li 2000). One example canbe found in Mexico where some individuals(disproportionately women) are not legallyentitled rights holders despite being locallyrecognized as community members throughkinship networks, residency, and other socialfactors (Bray et al. 2005). Identity politics—of gender, class, race, citizenship, age, etc.—within local communities coalesce in uniqueways that empower some individuals and limitothers. Community forestry can risk assert-ing primacy to local power elites, despitewidespread celebration of its democratic prin-ciples (Rocheleau et al. 1996, Sundberg 2003,Zerner 2000).

Finally, the concept of community asshared norms and common interests suggeststhat all group members have similar values andsets of preferences. Although shared normsmay facilitate resource conservation, thesenorms will not necessarily support conser-vation goals established elsewhere. Nor is ittrue that communities necessarily share com-mon interests in resources (Nygren 2005).Women may use certain resources from liv-ing trees (such as leaves and resins) in cook-ing and medicinal applications, whereas menmay want to cut down the same trees to sell


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


the wood (Peluso et al. 1994). Some residentsmay want forests managed for the so-calledurban values of environmental preservation,whereas other residents see forests as con-taining resources to be exploited (Walker &Fortmann 2003). Such conflicts of interestmust be addressed. Recent work emphasizesthe importance of considering many valuesas a way to address diversity in community-based forestry (Anderson 2000, Menzies 2007,Wollenberg et al. 2005).

Although communities are rarely homoge-nous and conflict-free, a number of so-cial scientists have documented instanceswhere simplified community identities havebeen mobilized for important political ob-jectives (e.g., Cromley 2005, Hale 2006, Li2000). Harmonious, traditional, and egalitar-ian concepts of community, although ideal-ized and romanticized, have sometimes hadthe practical political economic effect of help-ing people maintain claims to territory, re-sources, and subsistence livelihoods (Cederlof& Sivaramakrishnan 2006, Li 1996).

The discrete community that can serveas a tidy locus of community-based for-est management rarely exists; nevertheless,communities and institutions that purport-edly represent them will continue to be de-fined for purposes of community forestry.Whether and how these definitions are as-cribed endogenously and exogenously mat-ters. Here we emphasize the need for care-ful understanding of the social, political, andspatial relations and intricacies of communi-ties as they affect the practice of communityforestry.

Governance

An underlying hypothesis of communityforestry is that some decentralization or de-volution occurs from central governments toforest communities of rights, responsibilities,and authority related to forest management.We define decentralization as circumstanceswhen centralized governments transfer somedegree of forest management (e.g., admin-

istrative functions) to lower branches in agovernment bureaucracy, such as municipali-ties or other local institutions. Decentraliza-tion needs to be distinguished from devolu-tion, which we define as circumstances whenpower (e.g., discretionary authority and for-est access) is vested in either local authoritieswith downward accountability to local forestusers or directly in nonstate forest user groups(Fisher 1999, Ribot et al. 2006). Decentraliza-tion and devolution can occur simultaneously,but these are distinct processes that imply dif-ferent outcomes.

What governments decentralize or de-volve varies by case and can include rightsof access to forest products and the benefitstreams they generate, the work of forest man-agement such as forest protection and restora-tion functions, opportunities for a greaterrole and voice in forest management andplanning, administrative functions, decision-making power and authority, and in somecases property rights, with forests transferringfrom government to community ownership.The purpose of the transfer is similarly vari-able, ranging from conflict reduction, moreefficient completion of work, economic devel-opment and poverty alleviation, and ecologi-cal restoration, to democratization and formalceding of expropriated lands and resources.Devolution or decentralization can occur viaseveral mechanisms (Glasmeier & Farrigan2005, Pardo 1995). For example, authority tomanage a specific area of forest can be grantedto a community (Wily 1999), or forest landcan be leased to a community for productionpurposes (Gauld 2000). Alternatively, col-laborative management, partnership, or co-management agreements between the stateand communities can be established (Sundar2000).

On-the-ground experiences with commu-nity forestry have often found that the policymechanism for devolution is in place, but inreality it has only partially been realized. Oneis rather hard pressed to find cases in whichgovernment authorities have fully transferredcontrol over forest use and management to

314 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


local communities (de Jong et al. 2006, Gauld2000, Ribot et al. 2006, Sarin et al. 2003,Sundar 2000, Sunderlin et al. 2005). Thetransfer of secure forest ownership from statesto communities is even more rare (White &Martin 2002). Another challenge occurs whenforest management is decentralized to localgovernments without adequate resources tocarry out their new responsibilities (Fisher1999). Forest management authority in mostcases ultimately remains in the hands of thestate. In Asia for example, Fisher (1999, 2003)finds that the administrative functions associ-ated with forest management are often decen-tralized, but devolution of power over forestresources and their management is extremelylimited. Devolution of rights to use and man-age nontimber forest products is much morecommon than devolution of rights to useand manage more commercially valuable tim-ber resources (Menzies 2007). This failureto transfer power can produce tension whenstate promises fall short of community expec-tations. Some researchers suggest that devolu-tion and decentralization policies may simplyrepresent a change in the way central gov-ernments control forest management and for-est peoples (Edmunds & Wollenberg 2003,Elias & Wittman 2005, Larson 2005). Othertheorists advocate for a continued, if limited,role for central states in community forestry,with a shift from control to support func-tions (Ascher 1995, Shackleton et al. 2002).Examples of such functions include conflictmediation; law enforcement; provision of le-gal, technical, and financial assistance; supportof local community capacity building; anddefending of communities against powerfulexternal interests.

Although full devolution and an equi-table balance of power in forest decisionmaking and control are rare, communityforestry projects have sometimes successfullyimproved forest governance in other waysthat highlight the processural dimensionsof governance. Such improvements includeimproved rights of forest access and manage-ment responsibilities, increased participation

Ecologicallysustainableforestry: forestrythat perpetuatesecosystem integritywhile continuing toprovide wood andnonwood values

in forest management decision making bypeople who previously had no voice, creationof mechanisms for management accountabil-ity, or increased visibility and recognition ofthe most marginalized forest constituents,providing ground on which to negotiate theirinterests in the future (Edmunds & Wollen-berg 2003, Li 1996, Shackleton et al. 2002). Asforest management devolution and decentral-ization policies are relatively new comparedwith central bureaucratic and industrialforestry, assessing outcomes and long-termpatterns of social and political change relatedto governance is an ongoing research need.

Ecologically Sustainable Forestry

A fundamental hypothesis of communityforestry is that forest utilization can occur inan ecologically sustainable way and be com-patible with biodiversity conservation. Somescientists argue that biodiversity can be main-tained only in the absence of human use(Oates 1999, Terborgh 1999). Others arguethat biodiversity evolved in the context of hu-man use and depends on it, evidenced by thefact that the world’s most biodiverse regionsare also the world’s most culturally diverse re-gions (Anderson 2005, Deur & Turner 2005,Maffi 2005). In 2005 ∼11% of the world’sforests were designated for the conservation ofbiological diversity as their primary function(Table 5) (FAO 2006). Most of the world’sforests still lie outside of protected areas, andsome scientists stress that finding ways to usethem sustainably may be the only way to savethem (Hartshorn 1995, Johns 1997). If com-munity forestry is to meet this challenge, it isimportant to examine the potential for timberand nontimber forest product harvesting to beconducted sustainably.

Timber Harvesting. The literature con-tains dissenting opinions regarding whethercommercial timber production can occur in anecologically sustainable way, and in a mannercompatible with forest biodiversity conserva-tion. If sustainable forestry is possible, it has


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 5 Forest land managed for biodiversity protection as main function. Source: FAO 2006

RegionTotal forest areaa

(1000 ha)% of total forested area

shown in Table 1

Forest areadesignated forconservation

(1000 ha)

% of total forest areadesignated forconservation

Africa 455,129 71.6 74,585 16.4Asia 571,567 100 71,541 12.5Europe 991,192 99 37,776 3.8North andCentral America

703,364 99.6 88,927 12.6

Oceania 203,467 98.6 29,366 14.4South America 831,540 100 119,742 14.4Global total 3,756,260 95 421,936 11.2

aNot all countries reported figures on forest lands designated for biodiversity protection. Therefore, data are reported in relation to the totalforested area of those reporting regions.

rarely occurred on an industrial scale (Bowleset al. 1998, Seymour & Hunter 1999). Thereasons are many, but primary among them isthe relative economic profitability of conven-tional compared with sustainable timber har-vesting (Hartshorn 1995, Pearce et al. 2003,Putz et al. 2000).

Little is known about the direct impactsof timber harvesting on tropical moist forests(Vandermeer & Perfecto 2005). Our under-standing of how tropical forests work remainslimited (Bowles et al. 1998, Hartshorn 1995),most economically valuable timber speciesthat occur there are not well understood, ourknowledge of forest regeneration and recov-ery processes following logging is similarlysmall (Chazdon 1998), and undertaking forestrestoration after logging is difficult in tropi-cal forests because of high species diversity(Laurance & Bierregaard 1997). The impactsof logging depend on the intensity with whichharvesting occurs and the nature of the ex-traction process (Bawa & Seidler 1998). Se-lective logging is the most common type ofcommercial logging in tropical moist forests(Vandermeer & Perfecto 2005). Most of thedestructive impacts associated with it are aresult of road building and damage to non-target trees caused by the extraction process( Johns 1997). Even a low level of tree removalcan substantially alter forest structure, how-

ever, with negative effects on biodiversity atthe landscape scale (Bawa & Seidler 1998).Few studies have examined the impact of log-ging on genetic diversity and ecosystem pro-cesses. Over the long term, logged tropicalmoist forests are likely to lose substantial bio-diversity (Bawa & Seidler 1998).

Nevertheless, tropical moist forests are re-silient, with ecological succession setting infollowing logging, resulting in forest regener-ation (Chazdon 1998, Vandermeer & Perfecto2005). How long it takes and what condi-tions are necessary for the recovery of highspecies diversity are the critical issues. Sev-eral scientists believe tropical moist forestscan be managed for sustainable timber pro-duction, the limiting factors being social andeconomic rather than technical (Dawkins &Philip 1998, Johns 1997, Johnson & Cabarle1993).

Regarding temperate forests, the NorthAmerican and European models of industrialtimber production have focused on sustained-yield harvesting based on two key concepts:conducting harvest rotations of trees whenthey are the age at which the average an-nual yield is maximized; and regulating for-est structure so that it has equal areas of ageclasses up to the rotation age (Seymour &Hunter 1999). This approach lacks an ecosys-tem perspective, has rarely been implemented

316 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


at a sustainable level, and has had negativeeffects on biodiversity. Since the 1990s,sustained-yield timber production in temper-ate forests has been replaced in some areasby “ecological forestry.” Ecological forestryentails manipulating forest ecosystems tomaintain a full range of natural disturbancepatterns that are mimicked through manage-ment activities (Seymour & Hunter 1999). Al-though ecological forestry may be better atmaintaining biodiversity than earlier forestrymethods, it is too soon to tell how it will affectbiodiversity (Hansen 1997).

Forest certification emerged in the 1990sas a market-based mechanism to create fi-nancial incentive for more sustainable tim-ber production (Vogt et al. 2000). In 2004 theamount of forest managed under the world’sfour main certification systems was estimatedat 164 million hectares (∼4%) and accountedfor more than 20% of global industrial round-wood production (MEA 2005). By early 2007,the amount of forest managed under certifi-cation had risen to 8.9% (D. Irvine, personalcommunication, 2007). Most certified forestsare not tropical forests, however, where atleast 50% of the world’s biodiversity is found(Myers 1997).

The failure to find models of sus-tainable commercial timber production hasspawned interest in small-scale, community-based forestry enterprises as an alternative ap-proach. A number of strategies are being tried(e.g., Bray et al. 2005, Freese 1997, LTC/IES1995, Primack et al. 1998, Zarin et al. 2004).We examine evidence of their success in thenext section.

Nontimber Forest Products. NTFP ex-traction has often been thought of as beingmore ecologically sustainable and compat-ible with biodiversity conservation than istimber harvesting because it is often as-sumed to have little or no deleterious eco-logical impact (Belcher et al. 2005, Nepstad& Schwartzman 1992, Plotkin & Famolare1992, Ticktin 2004). However, the ecologi-cal and biodiversity impacts of NTFP harvest-

Open access: theabsence of definedproperty rights,whereby access toresources isuncontrolled andopen to anyone, andresource use isunregulated

ing are mostly unknown (Belcher et al. 2005).Studies of the ecological consequences of har-vesting have focused on select life forms (trees,shrubs, and herbs) and plant parts (leaves,fruits, and seeds), with little information re-garding other life forms (e.g., vines, lianas,bryophytes) and plant parts (e.g., roots, bulbs,bark, resin, branches) (Ticktin 2004).

The effects of commercial NTFP extrac-tion depend on the way in which productionis carried out (e.g., frequency and intensity ofharvest, timing of harvest, size of harvestedindividuals, harvest technique) and the con-text in which harvesting takes place (Belcheret al. 2005). Low levels of extraction can have alow impact on biodiversity at the species andlandscape scales. As harvesting intensity in-creases, so does the likelihood of negative eco-logical effects (Belcher et al. 2005). Withoutregulation, commercial NTFP extraction of-ten leads to resource depletion (Kusters et al.2006). The most direct effects of NTFP har-vesting are changes in the rates of survival,growth, and reproduction of harvested indi-viduals, which in turn can affect the structureand dynamics of species populations (Ticktin2004). Less information is available about theeffects of NTFP harvesting at the communityand ecosystem levels, but significant harvesteffects can occur including alteration of for-est structure, composition, and regenerationand changes in plant-animal and plant-plantinteractions (Ticktin 2004).

In the absence of an enforceable regulatorysystem, heavy harvest pressure often resultsin unsustainable harvest levels. A comparativeanalysis of 61 cases of commercial NTFP pro-duction from Africa, Asia, and Latin Americafound that most commercially harvested wildNTFP species were declining in number, withoverexploitation at the species level (Belcheret al. 2005). The better the markets, pric-ing, infrastructure, and demand for a specieswere, the more likely increased harvesting andoverexploitation were, especially where forestresources were open access. However, neu-tral or positive ecological effects from har-vesting have been documented in cases where


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


institutions that increase local control andmanagement over forests and NTFP harvest-ing exist (Neumann & Hirsch 2000).

Some initiatives promote sustainableNTFP production. Brazil’s extractivereserves—natural tropical forest areas de-liberately set aside as reserves where peopleengage in the commercial production ofcertain renewable NTFPs—are one example(Allegretti 1990, Murrieta & Rueda 1995).In their review of the case-study literatureon extractive reserves, Agrawal & Redford(2006) find that the evidence for their successat biodiversity conservation is insufficientto be conclusive. Positive conservationoutcomes associated with extractive reserveshave been documented, however (Ruiz-Perezet al. 2005). The potential for developingNTFP certification systems has been ex-plored (Shanley et al. 2002), but to dateNTFP certification is relatively rare.

Local Control and EcologicalSustainability

The preceding discussion indicates that theecological effects of timber and nontimberforest product harvesting are influenced bythe manner in which harvest is carried outand the presence of forest management in-stitutions that regulate it. A hypothesis im-plicit in the community forestry literature isthat greater local control over forest man-agement will result in more ecologically sus-tainable forestry. This hypothesis is based inpart on the observations that governmentsand private industry have generally done apoor job of managing forests (Colfer 2005a)and that national governments may not havethe resources, or the political will to allocatethe resources, needed to implement existingplans and enforce regulations (Ascher 1995).This hypothesis is also based on several as-sumptions about the relations between peo-ple and forests, summarized as follows. Thepeople who live closest to and are most de-pendent on forests are more likely than arecentral states or corporate stakeholders to

manage forests sustainably because they havethe greatest vested interest in them, and there-fore the most incentive to do so (Wily &Mbaya 2001). In addition, people are morelikely to take responsibility for the health offorest resources if they have a sense of own-ership and control over them (Glasmeier &Farrigan 2005, Wily 1999). Local communi-ties, being geographically close to forests, mayalso be able to carry out protection and rule-enforcement functions more cheaply (Wily1999), although their ability to do so effec-tively may be problematic; local enforcementis subject to peoples’ social, economic, and po-litical interests. Finally, many forest peopleshave traditional and local ecological knowl-edge about forests, and customary institutionsfor managing them, which have resulted inuseful examples of sustainable management(Clay 1988, Colfer et al. 1997, Lawes et al.2004, Posey & Balee 1989, Redford & Padoch1992).

Although community-based managementdoes not ensure conservation outcomes(Menzies 2007), there is evidence that sup-ports the hypothesis that greater local con-trol over forest management will result inmore ecologically sustainable forestry. Satel-lite imagery and geographic information sys-tems combined with more traditional socialscience research methods have made it possi-ble for researchers to analyze how forest coveris correlated with different forest ownershipcategories and governance structures. For ex-ample, Gautam et al. (2002) examined howthe amount of total forested area (defined asareas with at least 10% crown cover, referredto as “high forest,” and shrubland), and thespatial extent of high forest, had changed be-tween 1978 and 1992 in villages that had for-mally devolved management authority overcommunity forests, and those that had not,in one watershed in Nepal. They found thattotal forested area had decreased in both cat-egories of village but that it had decreasedmuch more in villages that lacked communityforestry than in those that had implementedcommunity forestry policies. They also found

318 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


that high forest cover increased six times morein villages with community forestry than inthose without as a result of plantation estab-lishment and natural succession. They con-cluded that community forestry policies inNepal have positive benefits for forest cover(Gautam et al. 2002).

Two studies from Latin America alsodemonstrate positive effects on forest coverassociated with community-based forest man-agement. Nepstad et al. (2006) show that in-digenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon (man-aged by the indigenous peoples who live there)have been as effective at inhibiting defor-estation as have uninhabited protected areas(parks), and they have experienced deforesta-tion rates much lower than those of forestedlands outside protected areas. This finding isparticularly significant given that indigenouslands, unlike parks, tend to be located at thefrontier of agricultural expansion where thepressure for deforestation is high. Bray et al.(2004) show that in ejidos in the Mayan zoneof Quintana Roo, Mexico, where communityforestry has been implemented and loggingand farming are practiced, deforestation ratesbetween 1984 and 2000 were almost imper-ceptible and were comparable with or lowerthan those of regions dominated by protectedareas. They attribute this finding to the estab-lishment of community-based forestry enter-prises during this period, which entailed set-ting up permanent forest areas where loggingwould be conducted sustainably, and creatingcommunity-based forest stewardship institu-tions. Other areas of Mexico outside of pro-tected areas that lacked community forestryinstitutions experienced much higher rates ofdeforestation.

An analysis of forest vegetation density(a proxy measure for forest condition) basedon forest plot mensuration data from 163forests located inside and outside protectedareas found no significant difference in for-est conditions (Hayes 2006). The most impor-tant factors correlated with vegetation densitywere the presence of forest product rules andthe ability of forest users to make those rules,

which were more common in areas not legallyprotected. Other studies have produced simi-lar findings regarding the importance of com-munity involvement in forest management.Salafsky et al. (2001) found that more involve-ment by community members in the designand management of development projectslinked to biodiversity conservation was corre-lated with greater ecological success. Colfer& Byron (2001) found that people who have avoice in forest management and use are morelikely to embrace forest stewardship than arethose who do not. A review of 28 conservationand development projects found that greaterlevels of community input into decision mak-ing were associated with better conservationoutcomes (Brooks et al. 2006). Increasingcommunity input did not guarantee ecolog-ical success, however; effective community-level institutions for regulating resource usewere also needed. In their review of 69 casestudies of community forestry, Pagdee et al.(2006) found that two variables important tosuccess were (a) well-defined property rightsover forests, and (b) strong community insti-tutions for forest use and management. Bothare more likely to exist where forest manage-ment authority and responsibility have beendevolved to local communities. Other stud-ies that document positive ecological effectsfrom community forestry are Poffenberger(2006) for southeast Asia, Wily (1999) forTanzania, and Nittler & Tschinkel (2005) forGuatemala.

Although this body of work supports thehypothesis that greater local control overforest management will result in more eco-logically sustainable forestry, coarse-level as-sessments can obscure the nature of theseecological outcomes. For example, Edmunds& Wollenberg (2003) found that forest coverincreased after forest management devolutionpolicies were implemented in India, China,and the Phillipines. However, increased treecover was the result of reforestation andafforestation projects in which timber andcommercial NTFP species favored by thegovernment were planted, at the expense of


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


species valued by forest communities and forbiodiversity.

If devolving forest management to localcommunities increases the likelihood of con-servation success, which local-level institu-tions for forest management are associatedwith the best ecological outcomes? Common-property theorists in particular have addressedthis question at length (Agrawal 2001). Theyhave found that institutional arrangements,rather than specific forms of property rights(public, private, common), are what is im-portant for sustainable forest use (Ostrom& Nagendra 2006, Tucker & Ostrom 2005).The forms that local forest management in-stitutions take are highly variable and nec-essarily context specific (Gibson et al. 2000).Whatever the form, to be effective they musthave rules regarding who has access and userights to forests, which forest products areharvested and when, harvest technologies, andforest guardianship; sanctions for rule break-ing; and enforcement mechanisms (Gibsonet al. 2000). When local forest users play arole in developing these rules, or consider therules legitimate, they are much more likely tofollow them and to participate in monitoringand enforcement (Ostrom & Nagendra 2006).In turn, increased participation can make localpeople stronger supporters of forest conserva-tion (Agrawal 2005).

Local institutions for forest managementare not the only local variable influencingforest conditions, however. Biophysical,economic, demographic, and socio-politicalvariables also play a role in shaping theecological outcomes of community-basedforest management systems (Agrawal &Chhatre 2006). For these systems to beeffective, the root causes of forest destructionand degradation must also be considered(Wolvekamp 1999). As Sikor (2006) notes,studies that adopt a local perspective onhow people manage forests, including therelationship between local-level governanceinstitutions and forest conditions, often fail toconsider the influence of larger-scale politicaland economic forces. These forces can be

more important than local institutions forforest management in shaping forest con-ditions (Tucker & Southworth 2005). Sikor(2006) reminds us to look at how local forestrelations (including property, governance,and access) are influenced by both local-levelprocesses and larger political and economicforces and at how these linkages affect eco-logical outcomes on the ground. Communityforestry may not always be an appropriateresponse, or the only response needed, toachieve more ecologically sustainable forestry(see also Glasmeier & Farrigan 2005).

Local Control and CommunityBenefits

Not only do writings on community forestryhypothesize that local control over forest useand management will result in better ecologi-cal outcomes for forests, but also they suggestthat local control will produce more socialand economic benefits for forest communi-ties (Colfer 2005a,b). The logic underlyingthis hypothesis is that (a) central governmentsare likely to prioritize national and private-industry interests over local interests in forestmanagement (which often differ), whereas lo-cal communities are likely to prioritize theirown interests; (b) local institutions can re-spond to local needs more efficiently and ef-fectively than can central government insti-tutions because they have more informationabout these needs, understand them better,and are accountable to local people (Ribotet al. 2006); and (c) local control creates moreopportunity for marginalized groups to influ-ence policy (Larson 2003).

What do the social and economic benefitsof community forestry consist of ? A reviewof 69 case studies of community forestry cat-egorized these benefits as follows: more eq-uitable sharing of forest management rightsand responsibilities, more equitable access toand control over forest resources, more eq-uitable distribution of forest benefits amongcommunity members, increased investmentin the future productivity of forests, better

320 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


meeting of local peoples’ needs for forestresources, improvement of the standard ofliving, alleviation of poverty, reduction of con-flict between local communities and govern-ment authorities, control of corruption, res-olution of forest mismanagement problems,and reduction of forest misuse by individ-uals (Pagdee et al. 2006). Another benefitis community capacity building; where com-munities organize to manage local forests,the skills they develop can increase their ca-pacity to organize to address other areas ofcommunity life (Baker & Kusel 2003). Herewe focus on the effectiveness of communityforestry in helping people meet householdsubsistence needs for forest products, provid-ing income generation and employment op-portunities, promoting equitable distributionof forest benefits, and increasing democraticparticipation in forest management.

Assessments of the effectiveness of com-munity forestry in providing community ben-efits are limited. In general, the equity andsocial welfare outcomes of conservation anddevelopment projects are difficult to eval-uate (Saterson et al. 2004), a task compli-cated by a lack of conceptual clarity aroundkey measures, such as poverty (Agrawal &Redford 2006). Monitoring and assessmentto determine whether community forestrydoes more to contribute to social and eco-nomic well-being in forest communities thandoes state-controlled forest management haverarely been done. The limited evidence thatdoes exist suggests that the community ben-efits of forest management decentralizationand devolution policies have been mixed.

Meeting subsistence needs. The ability tomaintain access to forest products is criti-cal for poverty prevention (Wunder 2001).Forest products help households meet theirsubsistence needs, provide a safety net intimes of emergency, and help fill seasonal eco-nomic gaps. Therefore, securing, increasing,or restoring access rights to forests is oftena main objective of community forestry ini-tiatives, at least from the perspective of forest

communities. Where the main desired benefitis increased access to forest resources to ful-fill basic livelihood needs—common in manydeveloping countries (Glasmeier & Farrigan2005, Mallik & Rahman 1994)—local controlis more likely to deliver than is government-dominated forestry (Ascher 1995). The devo-lution of forest management authority to localcommunities has been significantly correlatedwith increased tenure security over forest re-sources, but the devolution of forest man-agement responsibility alone has not (Pagdeeet al. 2006). Devolution also increases the like-lihood that effective local-level institutions forregulating access to forests will develop, withpositive ecological outcomes that can in turnincrease livelihood security.

Exceptions exist, however. In Nepal, forinstance, community forestry policies havecaused poor households in particular to ex-perience reduced access to forest productsneeded for subsistence because harvest reg-ulations have become more stringent, andresource allocations are equally distributedbetween households without considering thedifferent needs of rich and poor households(Malla 2000). Elsewhere, community forestryenterprises that emphasize the production ofcommercially valuable forest products may doso at the expense of managing forest productsimportant for subsistence (Peluso et al. 1994).And in places where community forestry ini-tiatives emphasize afforestation and reforesta-tion, communities may not control decisionsabout which species to plant, resulting inplantations that do not contain species val-ued for community subsistence (Edmunds &Wollenberg 2003).

Income generation and employment.Both timber and nontimber forest productscan make a significant contribution to incomegeneration and employment in forest com-munities. Historically, forest peoples have sel-dom benefited from timber wealth becausenational governments and international mar-kets favor industrial style and scale timber pro-duction by large private companies, and they


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


cannot compete under these conditions. Mostpeople hired for jobs in the wood products in-dustry are nonlocal; extracting timber is skillintensive, and local people often lack the re-quired skills, especially those who are poor(Bliss & Bailey 2005, Sunderlin et al. 2005,Warner 2000). Moreover, employment in log-ging and primary processing is often shortterm and undergoes boom and bust cycles(Power 1996, Warner 2000). In addition, in-creased mechanization has caused timber pro-duction to become capital rather than laborintensive, meaning forestry employment isunlikely to be a source of jobs for many forestpeoples (Wunder 2001). Plantation forestryalso provides little in the way of jobs and in-come for local communities (Charnley 2005).Although there may be ways of redistributingprofits made by forest industry to local com-munities, most forestry companies, states, andpoliticians are unlikely to want to equitablydistribute these profits (Wunder 2001).

Findings regarding whether communityforestry increases forest peoples’ opportuni-ties for income generation and employmentassociated with timber production vary bycase. Often community forestry initiatives areassociated with forests that have low tim-ber value and are in poor ecological condi-tion (Edmunds & Wollenberg 2003, Menzies2007). States either do not devolve controlover forests that have high commercial timbervalue (Ribot et al. 2006), or they devolve con-trol after the most lucrative timber extractionhas already occurred and other investors havemoved on (Li 2005). Alternatively, commu-nity forestry policies emphasize environmen-tal protection and prohibit commercial pro-duction from forests (Malla 2000) or devolvecontrol only if local people agree to conserveand protect remaining forests (Li 2005).

In other cases, community forestry hasfacilitated income generation and employ-ment associated with commercial timber pro-duction. Several attempts have been madeto establish community forestry enterprisesin which communities control timber har-vesting and processing (Bray et al. 2005,

LTC/IES 1995, Primack et al. 1998, Zarinet al. 2004). Successful examples come fromMexico and Guatemala. The Mexican casewas described earlier in this article. In theMaya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala, 13community forestry enterprises have con-cessions to manage roughly a half millionhectares of forest land for timber produc-tion (Nittler & Tschinkel 2005). Althoughthey required substantial financial and tech-nical support from donor organizations andnongovernmental organizations to get estab-lished, and although they have experienceda number of problems, these enterprises areeconomically viable, are expected to gener-ate some five million dollars in wood prod-ucts sales annually, have created local jobs, andhave provided a source of income for manyfamilies. Many have been certified by the For-est Stewardship Council (Nittler & Tschinkel2005). Elsewhere, as in the United States,community forestry initiatives have empha-sized developing local, value-added process-ing businesses and businesses that use woodthat is otherwise uneconomical for the timberindustry to extract (Wyckoff-Baird 2005). Allthese approaches hold promise but require se-cure access to timber or timberlands, capitalinvestment, capacity building, markets, andmarket access. Moreover, the economic bene-fits generated are not distributed to everyone.

NTFPs make an important contribution tothe subsistence economy of most forest peo-ples. In addition, a small subset of NTFPs arecommercially traded in local, regional, and in-ternational markets and are especially valuablein circumstances where there are few alter-nate employment options. A review of 61 casesof commercial NTFP production from Asia,Africa, and Latin America (Belcher et al. 2005)found that commercial NTFP harvesters aretypically quite poor and that the sale of com-mercial NTFPs generally contributes only aportion of the household income, which isusually small. This is partly due to the sea-sonal nature of NTFP gathering and partlybecause most profits go to middlemen that op-erate at positions along the marketing chain

322 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


in between harvesters and consumers. Formost producers, commercial NTFPs are not aprimary revenue-generating source, althoughthey often provide important supplementaryincome (Neumann & Hirsch 2000, Thadani2001). Although NTFPs can generate signif-icant revenues, these revenues tend to accrueto individuals rather than to communities asa whole, to be unevenly distributed amongcommunity members, and may not be sustain-able over the long term (Neumann & Hirsch2000). An analysis of 55 cases of commercialNTFP production from Africa, Latin Amer-ica, and Asia found that the better the liveli-hood outcomes were, the worse the environ-mental outcomes were (Kusters et al. 2006).

The context in which NTFP produc-tion occurs is important in influencing theireconomic contribution to rural households(Belcher et al. 2005, Neumann & Hirsch2000). In cases where markets are good, aproduct is valuable, and land and resourcetenure are secure, households may intensifymanagement of, or cultivate, NTFPs, whichcan bring higher returns and incomes. In re-mote areas where there is poor infrastructureand poor market access, and forest resourcesare open access, competition for NTFPs maycause overexploitation, and low prices and lowbargaining power are common. For NTFPsto generate more income and employmentin forest communities, increased or more ef-ficient commercial production and trade areneeded (Belcher et al. 2005).

Have community forestry policies en-hanced commercial NTFP production oppor-tunities? The evidence is limited and mixed.In the Maya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala,community forestry enterprises have pro-moted commercial NTFP harvesting (chi-cle, xate, allspice), and income from NTFPshas the potential to exceed that from tim-ber (Nittler & Tschinkel 2005). In contrast,community forestry policies in Nepal prohibitpeople from using forest products from com-munity forests for commercial purposes, caus-ing poor people to lose income from NTFPsthat they previously received (Malla 2000). A

review of the case literature on extractive re-serves found inconclusive evidence regardingtheir success at alleviating poverty (Agrawal &Redford 2006).

Payments to protect ecosystem services[e.g., provision of biodiversity habitats, main-tenance of clean water, soil protection, preser-vation of watershed functions, modulation ofclimate, mitigation of global warming (Myers1997)] are other ways in which forests can bea source of revenue to communities. Con-servation and development initiatives usingmarket-based mechanisms for the protectionof forest ecosystem services are emerging(de Jong et al. 2004, Pagiola et al. 2002),but to date, payments to protect ecosystemservices are rare as a basis for communityforestry projects. Nevertheless, paying peo-ple to protect environmental services may bean important strategy for community forestryinitiatives that focus on forest protection andbiodiversity conservation.

Equitable distribution of benefits. A com-mon critique found in the literature oncommunity-based natural resource manage-ment is that these initiatives can serve toreinforce existing power hierarchies and in-equalities in communities rather than bringabout social justice and more equitable shar-ing of social and economic benefits associatedwith natural resources (Brosius et al. 2005).This problem has been documented in thecommunity forestry literature. For example, astudy of forest management devolution poli-cies in China, India, and the Philippinesfound that these policies provided more ben-efits to some forest users—such as better ac-cess to forest products for subsistence andincome generation—but that most of thesebenefits were captured by local elites and non-local residents, and rarely by the poorest andmost marginalized forest users (Edmunds &Wollenberg 2003).

One way to promote more equitable shar-ing of economic benefits is to make provisionsfor investing at least a portion of the prof-its generated by commercial forestry activities


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


in community development projects, ratherthan allowing them to accrue only to a subsetof community members. Community forestryenterprises in Mexico and Guatemala havesuch provisions (Antinori & Bray 2005, Nit-tler & Tschinkel 2005), although they are notalways implemented.

Democratization of forest management.Studies of whether community forestry hasled to increased public participation in forestmanagement, vested more decision-makingpower in local people, and brought aboutmore bottom-up or downwardly accountableforest management report mixed results. Insome cases, community members have gaineda stronger voice in forest management and en-joy increased power and authority to managelocal forests (e.g., Wily 1999). In the UnitedStates, community forestry has emphasizedincreased public participation in forest man-agement, and this has been one of its mainachievements.

In other cases, community forestry poli-cies have increased rather than decreased statecontrol over forest management and forestpeoples. The Gambia provides one exam-ple, where responsibility for the work asso-ciated with forest management was devolvedto forest communities, with access to for-est resources made contingent on perfor-mance of these tasks as specified through con-tracts, and authority over forest managementwas retained by the state (Schroeder 1999).Another example comes from Guatemala’swestern highlands, where decentralizationof forest management has increased statepower and eroded local control over com-munal and municipal forests by establishingnew forest governance institutions that over-ride traditional and customary managementpractices and supplant historic claims to for-est resources and territory, disempoweringindigenous peoples (Elias & Wittman 2005,Sundberg 2003, Wittman & Geisler 2005).

In sum, the literature on communityforestry provides mixed evidence regardingthe hypothesis that devolving or decentraliz-

ing control over forest management leads tobetter social and economic outcomes for for-est communities. To a large degree, its successdepends on the extent to which devolutionor decentralization has actually occurred inpractice and what exactly has been devolved—e.g., rights of access to forest products, forestmanagement tasks, decision-making power,or property rights. Other factors that con-tribute to success include the capacity of com-munities to create local institutions that areaccountable and fairly represent the interestsof all community members; the capacity ofcommunities to represent their collective in-terests in wider social and political arenas;their technical capacity to manage forest re-sources; their capacity to participate in mar-kets in an informed way; and their capac-ity to build community assets using benefitsgenerated from forest management (Menzies2007).

It may be too soon to evaluate fairly thesocial and economic outcomes of communityforestry. Devolution/decentralization policiestake time to implement, and bringing aboutchange in forest governance is a slow process.

CONCLUSIONS: WHERE AREWE NOW?

Differing national political and economiccontexts, forest and forestry histories, and lo-cal relations to forests have caused commu-nity forestry to manifest differently in differ-ent countries and cases. Although it varies byplace, community forestry shares the com-mon goals of improving ecological conditionsin forests and encouraging ecologically sus-tainable forest use practices; increasing socialand economic benefits from forests to localcommunities; and increasing forest communi-ties’ access to and control over nearby forests.Community forestry is relatively young—beginning in the mid-1980s to 1990s in mostcountries—although forest communities havebeen using and managing forests for cen-turies, if not millennia. Outcomes remain in-adequately documented, however.

324 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


On the one hand, community forestry hasbeen accused of being another mechanism forincreasing state control over forest commu-nities and forests (on and off state lands) andfor exploiting the cheap labor of forest peo-ples who are coerced into doing work thatstates do not have the money or resources todo, such as restoring forests these peoples didnot degrade in the first place, as well as polic-ing (Schroeder 1999, Sundar 2000). On theother hand, community forestry represents animportant step for communities toward re-claiming access to and control over foreststhat were appropriated by colonial and post-colonial states and whose management hashistorically been dominated by central gov-ernments and the private industrial forestrysector, with little citizen input. In this regard,it represents a major paradigm shift in howstate forest lands are managed and is signif-icant in terms of the “politics of possibility”( J. McCarthy 2006) because it opens a doorto increasing forest peoples’ rights to forestresources.

Our review of community forestry in the-ory has several main findings. First, we needcareful analysis of the social, political, andspatial relations within communities that aredefined for purposes of community forestryinitiatives and how these relations affect itspractice.

Second, legal and policy rhetoric andmechanisms for decentralizing or devolvingrights, responsibilities, and power often ex-ist. In reality, however, decentralization anddevolution have only partially been realized,with many states retaining significant author-ity over forest management. Without real de-volution of power, the goals of communityforestry will be difficult to achieve becausethey are premised on this transfer.

Third, whether ecologically sustainableforestry is possible from an ecological andsocial standpoint is still a matter of de-bate, clouded by scientific uncertainty. Stud-ies have tried to assess whether biodiversityconservation and community developmentcan be achieved simultaneously (e.g., Agrawal

& Redford 2006, Bowles & Prickett 2001,Freese 1997, Kusters et al. 2006, McShane& Wells 2004, Naughton-Treves et al. 2005,Primack et al. 1998, Zarin et al. 2004),prompting the question of whether it is re-alistic to expect community forestry to helpconserve forests and also produce social andeconomic benefits for forest peoples. An im-portant finding that emerges from some ofthis work is that biodiversity conservation andcommunity development have multiple di-mensions, and trade-offs between specific as-pects of one may be needed to achieve specificaspects of the other. Making trade-offs neednot undermine the entire endeavor; com-munities and other stakeholders must con-sciously negotiate and choose which trade-offs to make.

Fourth, evidence demonstrates that lo-cal control over forest management on stateand communal lands can have positive eco-logical outcomes where effective local-levelinstitutions for forest management exist, es-pecially when local people play a mean-ingful role in developing these institutions.These outcomes include reducing rates of de-forestation, maintaining and increasing for-est cover, and maintaining forest vegetationdensity. However, the social and economicbenefits associated with local control overforest management have been mixed and un-equally distributed, influenced by the degreeto which devolution and decentralization haveoccurred and what has been devolved or de-centralized.

We conclude that community forestry intheory holds promise as a viable approach toforest conservation and forest community de-velopment. Gaps remain, however, betweencommunity forestry in theory and in practice.Further research is needed to better under-stand the workings of “community” in com-munity forestry projects, including who par-ticipates and who does not, why, and howpower and benefits are distributed and cap-tured at the community level. Also needed is abetter understanding of how newly created in-stitutions for forest management established


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


by state community forestry policies articulatewith preexisting, customary institutions forforest management in communities, and howstates and communities negotiate their inter-ests in the decentralization and devolutionprocess. In addition, we need more empiricalevidence to sustain or reject the hypothesesoutlined here. Better understanding of com-munity forestry outcomes, and how the gapsbetween theory and practice can be closed, isstill needed.

How can anthropologists contribute tothis field? Anthropologists to date have con-tributed much to our understanding of re-lated topics: (a) the underlying social, po-litical, and economic causes of deforestationand its consequences for forest peoples (e.g.,Painter & Durham 1995, Sponsel et al. 1996);(b) the extensive ethnoecological and eth-nobotanical knowledge of forests maintainedby forest peoples (e.g., Balee 1994, Carlson& Maffi 2004, Posey 2004); (c) the forestuse and management practices of forest peo-ples, including customary institutions for for-est management, and their ecological effects(e.g., Anderson 1990, Clay 1988, Fairhead& Leach 1996, Posey 2002, Posey & Balee1989); (d ) the effects of conservation anddevelopment interventions on communities(e.g., Brosius et al. 2005, Tsing 2005, Westet al. 2006); (e) the internal dynamics andpower relations at play within communities,including the micropolitics of resource accessand control (e.g., Li 1996); and ( f ) cultureand sense of place as integral to peoples’ strug-gles over rights to land and resources (e.g.,Moore 2005).

These kinds of analyses applied to com-munity forestry initiatives can contribute in

several ways. They can help situate studies ofcommunity forestry in a broader political andeconomic context, making it possible to iden-tify the kinds of interventions needed in con-junction with community forestry initiativesto address problems of deforestation, forestdegradation, rural poverty, and social injus-tice. They can further efforts to integrate tra-ditional and local ecological knowledge intoforest management. They can increase un-derstanding of the relationship between local-level governance institutions and their eco-logical outcomes. And, by exposing the powerrelations and social processes that underliecommunity forestry initiatives, they can pro-vide insight into how community forestrycan be implemented in ways that promotemore equitable participation and distributionof benefits.

Anthropologists can also contribute bybetter addressing the policy arena and incor-porating more serious environmental analysisin their work. Regarding the former, anthro-pological methods that emphasize participa-tory action research with marginalized groupshold promise for helping people in their strug-gles for rights to forests and forest resources(e.g., Hale 2006). Regarding the latter, an-thropologists who collaborate with naturalscientists in interdisciplinary research will bewell positioned to enhance our understandingof the social-ecological dynamics of commu-nity forestry that result from state, commu-nity, and forest interactions. As communityforestry continues to evolve, we call for moreengagement by anthropologists, who can ad-vance our understanding of why communityforestry does or does not achieve its promise,and help find ways for it to do so.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following people for their thoughtful and constructive review comments on anearlier draft of this article: Arun Agrawal, Thomas Beckley, David Bray, Cecilia Danks, Ellen

326 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


M. Donoghue, Richard Haynes, Rebecca J. McLain, Mark Poffenberger, Sara Teitelbaum,Catherine Tucker, and Carl Wilmsen. We also thank Breanne Grazier, Constanza Ocampo-Raeder, and Brinda Sarathy for their excellent help in assembling and summarizing referencematerials.

LITERATURE CITED

Acharya KP. 2002. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 4(2):149–56Agrawal A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources.

World Dev. 29(10):1649–72Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects.

Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressAgrawal A, Chhatre A. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: community forest gover-

nance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev. 34(1):149–66Agrawal A, Gibson CC. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in

natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27(4):629–49Agrawal A, Redford K. 2006. Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: shooting in the

dark? Work. Pap. No. 26, Wildlife Cons. Soc., Bronx, NYAllegretti M. 1990. Extractive reserves: an alternative for reconciling development and envi-

ronmental conservation in Amazonia. See Anderson 1990, pp. 252–64Anderson AB, ed. 1990. Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon

Rain Forest. New York: Columbia Univ. PressAnderson J. 2000. Four considerations for decentralized forest management: subsidiarity, em-

powerment, pluralism and social capital. In Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Man-agement in Asia and the Pacific, ed. T Enters, P Durst, M Victor, pp. 11–22. Bangkok,Thailand: RECOFTC

Anderson MK. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management ofCalifornia’s Natural Resources. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Antinori C, Bray DB. 2005. Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: economicand institutional perspectives from Mexico. World Dev. 33(9):1529–43

Arnold JEM. 1992. Community forestry: ten years in review. CF Note 7. Rome: Food Agric. Organ.U. N.

Ascher W. 1995. Communities and Sustainable Forestry in Developing Countries. San Francisco:Inst. Contemp. Stud. Press

Baker M, Kusel J. 2003. Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the Past, Craftingthe Future. Washington, DC: Island

Balee W. 1994. Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany—The Historical Ecology of PlantUtilization by an Amazonian People. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Bawa KS, Seidler R. 1998. Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity intropical forests. Conserv. Biol. 12(1):46–55

Beckley TM. 1998. Moving toward consensus-based forest management: a comparison ofindustrial, comanaged, community and small private forests in Canada. Forest. Chron.74(5):736–44

Beckley TM. 2003. Forests, paradigms and policies through ten centuries. In Two Paths TowardSustainable Forests: Public Values in Canada and the United States, ed. BA Shindler, TMBeckley, MC Finley, pp. 18–34. Corvallis: Or. State Univ. Press

Belcher B, Ruiz-Perez M, Achdiawan R. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the use andmanagement of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. WorldDev. 33(9):1435–52


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Bellinger S, Gale F. 2004. Models of community forestry. Aust. J. Environ. Manag. 11(1):65–77Best C, Wayburn LA. 2001. America’s Private Forests: Status and Stewardship. Washington, DC:

IslandBliss JC, Bailey C. 2005. Pulp, paper, and poverty: forest-based rural development in Alabama,

1950–2000. In Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land, ed. RG Lee, DR Field,pp. 138–58. Corvallis, OR: Or. State Univ. Press

Borgerhoff Mulder M, Coppolillo P. 2005. Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Bowles IA, Prickett GT, eds. 2001. Footprints in the Jungle: Natural Resource Industries, Infras-tructure and Biodiversity Conservation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Bowles IA, Rice RE, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB. 1998. Logging and tropical forestconservation. Science 280:1899–900

Boyd R, ed. 1999. Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Or. StateUniv. Press

Bray DB. 1991. The struggle for the forest: conservation and development in the Sierra Juarez.Grassroots Dev. 15(3):13–25

Bray DB, Antinori C, Torres-Rojo JM. 2006. The Mexican model of community forest man-agement: the role of agrarian policy, forest policy and entrepreneurial organization. ForestPolicy Econ. 8:470–84

Bray DB, Ellis EA, Armijo-Canto N, Beck CT. 2004. The institutional drivers of sustainablelandscapes: a case study of the “Mayan Zone” in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Land Use Policy21:333–46

Bray DB, Merino-Perez L, Barry D, eds. 2005. The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing forSustainable Landscapes. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press

Brendler T, Carey H. 1998. Community forestry, defined. J. Forest. 96:21–23Brooks JS, Franzen MA, Holmes CM, Grote MN, Borgerhoff Mulder M. 2006. Testing hy-

potheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 20(5):1528–38Brosius JP, Tsing AL, Zerner C, eds. 2005. Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics

of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraBull G, Schwab O. 2005. Communities and forestry in Canada: a review and analysis of the

model forest and community-forest programs. In Communities and Forests: Where PeopleMeet the Land, ed. RG Lee, DR Field, pp. 176–92. Corvallis: Or. State Univ. Press

Byron N, Arnold M. 1999. What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Dev.27(5):789–805

Carlson TJS, Maffi L, eds. 2004. Ethnobotany and Conservation of Biocultural Diversity. Adv. Econ.Bot. 15. Bronx: N. Y. Bot. Garden

Cederlof G, Sivaramakrishnan K, eds. 2006. Ecological Nationalisms: Nature, Livelihoods andIdentities in South Asia. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Chambers FH. 2004. An experiment in community participation of public forest management:the case of Mistik Management Ltd., Saskatchewan. For. Trees Livelihoods 14:175–87

Chambers R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: LongmanChapin M. 2002. Indigenous Peoples and Natural Ecosystems in Central America and Southern

Mexico. Washington, DC: Natl. Geogr. Soc. Cent. Support Nativ. LandsCharnley S. 2005. Industrial plantation forestry: Do local communities benefit? J. Sustain. For.

21(4):35–57Chazdon RL. 1998. Tropical forests—Log ‘em or leave ‘em? Science 281:1295–96Chomitz KM. 2007. At Loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction, and Environment

in the Tropical Forests. Washington, DC: World Bank

328 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


CIFOR (Cent. Int. For. Res.). 2006. Forests and human health. CIFOR Infobrief 11:1–4Clay JW. 1988. Indigenous Peoples and Tropical Forests: Models of Land Use and Management from

Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Cult. Surviv.Colburn CH. 2002. Forest policy and the Quincy Library Group. In Finding Common Ground:

Governance and Natural Resources in the American West, ed. RD Brunner, CH Colburn,CM Cromley, RA Klein, EA Olson, pp. 159–200. New Haven: Yale Univ Press

Colfer CJP. 2005a. The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive CollaborativeManagement. Washington, DC: Resour. Fut.

Colfer CJP, ed. 2005b. The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community, and Resource Management.Washington, DC: Resour. Fut.

Colfer CJP, Byron Y, eds. 2001. People Managing Forests: The Links between Human Well-Beingand Sustainability. Washington, DC: Resour. Fut.

Colfer CJP, Capistrano D, eds. 2005. The Politics of Decentralization: Forests, Power and People.London: Earthscan

Colfer CJP, Peluso NL, Chin SC, eds. 1997. Beyond Slash and Burn: Building on IndigenousManagement of Borneo’s Tropical Rain Forests. Adv. Econ. Bot. 11. Bronx: N.Y. Bot. Garden

Communities Committee Inc. 2005. Proc. Community-Owned Forests: Possibilities, Experiencesand Lessons Learned, Missoula, MT, DVD. New York: Communities Comm. 7th Am. For.Congr./Termini

Conklin HC. 1957. Hanunoo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Shifting Cultivationin the Philippines. FAO For. Dev. Pap. No. 12. Rome: Food Agric. Organ. U. N.

Conley A, Moote MA. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat.Resour. 16(5):371–86

Cortner HJ, Gordon JC, Risser PG, Teeguarden DE, Thomas JW. 1999. Ecosystem man-agement: evolving model for stewardship of the nation’s natural resources. In Ecologi-cal Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management Volume II, ed. RC Szaro,NC Johnson, WT Sexton, AJ Malk, pp. 3–20. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci.

Cromley CM. 2005. Community-based forestry goes to Washington. In Adaptive Governance:Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making, pp. 221–67. New York: Columbia Univ.Press

Danks C. 2000. Community forestry initiatives for the creation of sustainable rural livelihoods:a case from North America. Unasylva 51(202):53–63

Danks C. 2003. Community-based stewardship: reinvesting in public forests and forestcommunities. In Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, ed. JK Boyce,BG Shelley, pp. 243–60. Washington, DC: Island

Dawkins HC, Philip MS. 1998. Tropical Moist Forest Silviculture and Management: A History ofSuccess and Failure. New York: CAB Int.

de Jong W, Becker M, Ruiz S, Gottwald C. 2004. El nuevo regimen forestal en el NorteAmazonico Boliviano. In Retos y Perspectivas del Nuevo Regimen Forestal en el Norte AmazonicoBoliviano, ed. W de Jong, pp. 1–24. Bogor, Indones.: CIFOR

de Jong W, Ruiz S, Becker M. 2006. Conflicts and communal forest management in northernBolivia. Forest Policy Econ. 8:447–57

Denevan WM, Padoch C, eds. 1988. Swidden-Fallow Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Adv.Econ. Bot. 11. Bronx: N.Y. Bot. Garden

Deur D, Turner NJ, eds. 2005. Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on theNorthwest Coast of North America. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Donoghue EM, Cubbage FW, Mercer DE. 2003. Contract NGOs in community-based forestmanagement in the Philippines. J. Sustain. For. 17(4):47–73


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Dove MR. 1985. Swidden Agriculture in Indonesia: The Subsistence Strategies of the KalimantanKantu’. New York: Mouton

Duinker P, Bull G, Shindler BA. 2003. Sustainable forestry in Canada and the United States:developments and prospects. In Two Paths Toward Sustainable Forests: Public Values in Canadaand the United States, ed. BA Shindler, TM Beckley, MC Finley, pp. 35–59. Corvallis: Or.State Univ. Press

Edmunds D, Wollenberg E, eds. 2003. Local Forest Management: The Impacts of DevolutionPolicies. London: Earthscan

Elias S, Wittman H. 2005. The state, forest and community: decentralization of administrationin Guatemala. See Colfer & Capistrano 2005, pp. 282–95

Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

FAO (Food Agric. Organ. U. N.). 2006. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towardsSustainable Forest Management. FAO For. Pap. 147. Rome: FAO

Ferroukhi L, ed. 2003. Municipal Forest Management in Latin America. Bogor Barat, Indones.:CIFOR and IDRC

Ferroukhi L, Echeverria R. 2003. Decentralized forest management policies in Guatemala. SeeFerroukhi 2003, pp. 89–112

Fisher RJ. 1999. Devolution and decentralization of forest management in Asia and the Pacific.Unasylva 50(4):3–5

Fisher RJ. 2003. Innovations, persistence and change: reflections on the state of communityforestry. In Community Forestry: Current Innovations and Experiences, pp. 16–29. Bangkok,Thailand: RECOFTC and FAO

Freese CH, ed. 1997. Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

Gauld R. 2000. Maintaining centralized control in community-based forestry: policy construc-tion in the Philippines. Dev. Change 31:229–54

Gautam AP, Webb EL, Eiumnoh A. 2002. GIS assessment of land use/land cover changesassociated with community forestry implementation in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Mt.Res. Dev. 22(1):63–69

Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E, eds. 2000. People and Forests: Communities, Institutions,and Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Glasmeier AK, Farrigan T. 2005. Understanding community forestry: a qualitative metastudyof the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United Statescase. Geogr. J. 171(1):56–69

Gray GJ, Enzer MJ, Kusel J, eds. 2001. Understanding Community-based Forest Ecosystem Man-agement. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press

Guha R. 1989. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Guha R. 2000. Environmentalism: A Global History. New York: LongmanGupta A, Ferguson J. 1997. Beyond “culture”: space, identity, and the politics of difference.

In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, ed. A Gupta, J Ferguson, pp.33–51. Durham: Duke Univ. Press

Haenn N. 2005. Fields of Power, Forests of Discontent: Culture, Conservation, and the State in Mexico.Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press

Hale CR. 2006. Activist research v. cultural critique: indigenous land rights and the contradic-tions of politically engaged anthropology. Cult. Anthropol. 21(1):96–120

Hansen AJ. 1997. Sustainable forestry in concept and reality. See Freese 1997, pp. 217–45

330 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Hartshorn GS. 1995. Ecological basis for sustainable development in tropical forests. Annu.Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:155–75

Hayes TM. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the ef-fectiveness of protected areas. World Dev. 34(12):2064–75

IFMAT (Indian For. Manag. Assess. Team). 2003. An Assessment of Indian Forests and ForestManagement in the United States, Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Counc., Clear WaterPrint.

Irvine D. 1989. Succession management and resource distribution in an Amazonian rain forest.Adv. Econ. Bot. 7:223–37

Jeanrenaud S. 2001. Communities and Forest Management in Western Europe: A Regional Profile ofthe Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Gland, Switz.: WorldConserv. Union (IUCN)

Johns AG. 1997. Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Johnson NC, Cabarle B. 1993. Surviving the Cut: Natural Forest Management in the HumidTropics. Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst.

Klooster DJ. 2003. Campesinos and Mexican forest policy during the 20th century. Lat. Am.Res. Rev. 38(2):94–125

Klooster DJ. 2006. Environmental certification of forests in Mexico: the political ecology of anongovernmental market intervention. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96(3):541–65

Kusel J, Adler E, eds. 2003. Forest Communities, Community Forests. New York: Rowman andLittlefield

Kusters K, Achdiawan R, Belcher B, Ruiz-Perez M. 2006. Balancing development and con-servation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomes of nontimber forestproduct trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 11(2):Art. 20

Larson AM. 2002. Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: Are local governmentsup to the job? World Dev. 30(1):17–31

Larson AM. 2003. Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: towards a work-ing model. Public Admin. Dev. 23:211–26

Larson AM. 2005. Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector: lessons learned fromAfrica, Asia and Latin America. See Colfer & Capistrano 2005, pp. 32–62

Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO, eds. 1997. Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, andConservation of Fragmented Communities. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press

Lawes MJ, Eeley HAC, Shackleton CM, Geach BGS, eds. 2004. Indigenous Forests and Woodlandsin South Africa: Policy, People, and Practice. Scottsville, S. Afr.: Univ. KwaZulu-Natal

Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I. 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutionsin community-based natural resource management. World Dev. 27(2):225–47

Li TM. 1996. Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations. Dev. Change27:501–27

Li TM. 2000. Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: resource politics and the tribalslot. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 42(1):149–79

Li TM. 2005. Engaging simplifications: community-based natural resource management,market processes, and state agendas in upland Southeast Asia. See Brosius et al. 2005,pp. 427–58

London JK. 2002. American Indian management of federal lands: The Maidu Cultural andDevelopment Group. In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, ed. ET Jones,RJ McLain, J Weigand, pp. 327–44. Lawrence: Univ. Press Kans.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


LTC (Land Tenure Cent.), IES (Inst. Environ. Stud.). 1995. Case Studies of Community-BasedForestry Enterprises in the Americas. Madison: Land Tenure Cent. Inst. Environ. Stud., Univ.Wis. Madison

Lynch OJ, Talbott K. 1995. Balancing Acts: Community-based Forest Management and NationalLaw in Asia and the Pacific. Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst.

MacCleery DW, Le Master DC. 1999. The historical foundation and the evolving contextfor natural resource management on federal lands. In Ecological Stewardship: A CommonReference for Ecosystem Management Vol. II, ed. RC Szaro, NC Johnson, WT Sexton,AJ Malk, pp. 517–56. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci.

Maffi L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29:599–617Malla YB. 2000. Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in

Nepal. Unasylva 51(202):37–45Mallik AU, Rahman H. 1994. Community forestry in developed and developing countries: a

comparative study. For. Chron. 70(6):731–35Mathews AS. 2006. Building the town in the country: official understandings of fire, logging

and biodiversity in Oaxaca, Mexico, 1926–2004. Soc. Anthropol. 14(3):335–59McCarthy J. 2006. Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: community forestry in British

Columbia and the United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96(1):84–104McCarthy JF. 2006. The Fourth Circle: A Political Ecology of Sumatra’s Rainforest Frontier.

Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressMcCullough R. 1995. The Landscape of Community: A History of Communal Forests in New

England. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press New EnglandMcDaniel JM. 2003. History and the duality of power in community-based forestry in southeast

Bolivia. Dev. Change 34(2):339–56McGurk B, Sinclair AJ, Diduck A. 2006. An assessment of stakeholder advisory committees in

forest management: case studies from Manitoba, Canada. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19(9):809–26McLain RJ. 2001. Inclusive community forest management: lessons from Mali, West Africa.

J. Sustain. For. 13:195–203McLain RJ, Jones ET. 1997. Challenging “Community” Definitions in Sustainable Natural Resource

Management: The Case of Wild Mushroom Harvesting in the USA. Gatekeeper Ser. no. 68.London: Int. Inst. Environ. Dev.

McLain RJ, Jones ET. 2002. Introduction. In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, ed.ET Jones, RJ McLain, J Weigand, pp. xvii–xxv. Lawrence: Univ. Press Kans.

McShane TO, Wells MP, eds. 2004. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More EffectiveConservation and Development. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.Washington, DC: Island

Menzies NK. 2007. Our Forest, Your Ecosystem, Their Timber: Communities, Conservation, and theState in Community-Based Forest Management. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Merino Perez L. 2001. Las polıticas forestales y de conservacion y sus impactos sobre lascomunidades forestales. Estudios Agrarios 18:75–115

Mohan G, Stokke K. 2000. Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers oflocalism. Third World Q. 21(2):247–68

Moore DS. 2005. Suffering for Territory: Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe. Durham, NC:Duke Univ. Press

Moran EF, Ostrom E, eds. 2005. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Human-Environment Interactionsin Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Murrieta JR, Rueda RP. 1995. Extractive Reserves. Gland, Switz.: World Conserv. Union(IUCN)

332 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Myers N. 1997. The world’s forests and their ecosystem services. In Nature’s Services: SocietalDependence on Natural Ecosystems, ed. GC Daily, pp. 215–35. Washington, DC: Island

Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K. 2005. The role of protected areas in conservingbiodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:219–52

Nepstad DC, Schwartzman S, eds. 1992. Non-Timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluationof a Conservation and Development Strategy. Adv. Econ. Bot. Vol. 9. Bronx: N. Y. Bot. Garden

Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, et al. 2006. Inhibition of Amazondeforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 20(1):65–73

Neumann RP, Hirsch E. 2000. Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review andAnalysis of Research. Bogor, Indones.: CIFOR

Nittler J, Tschinkel H. 2005. Community Forest Management in the Maya Biosphere Reserve ofGuatemala: Protection through Profits. Washington, DC/Athens: U. S. Agency Int. Dev.,Sustain. Agric. Nat. Resour. Manag. Collab. Res. Support Group/Univ. Georgia

Nygren A. 2005. Community-based forest management within the context of institutionaldecentralization in Honduras. World Dev. 33(4):639–55

Oates JF. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing inWest Africa. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Ostrom E, Nagendra H. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, onthe ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(51):19224–31

Pacheco P. 2005. Decentralization of forest management in Bolivia: Who benefits and why?See Colfer & Capistrano 2005, pp. 167–83

Pagdee A, Kim Y, Daugherty PJ. 2006. What makes community forest management successful:a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19(1):33–52

Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N. 2002. Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-BasedMechanisms for Conservation and Development. London: Earthscan

Painter M, Durham WH, eds. 1995. The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in LatinAmerica. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Pardo R. 1995. Community forestry comes of age. J. Forest. 93(11):20–24Pearce D, Putz FE, Vanclay JK. 2003. Sustainable forestry in the tropics: panacea or folly?

Forest Ecol. Manag. 172:229–47Peluso NL. 1992. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressPeluso NL, Turner M, Fortmann L. 1994. Introducing Community Forestry: Annotated Listing of

Topics and Readings, Rome: Food Agric. Organ. U. N.Peluso NL, Vandergeest P. 2001. Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in

Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. J. Asian Stud. 60(3):761–812Plotkin M, Famolare L, eds. 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products.

Washington, DC: IslandPoffenberger M. 1998. Communities and Forest Management in Canada and the United States:

A Regional Profile of the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management.Gland, Switz.: World Conserv. Union (IUCN)

Poffenberger M. 1999. Communities and Forest Management in Southeast Asia: A Regional Profile ofthe Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Gland, Switz.: WorldConserv. Union (IUCN)

Poffenberger M. 2000. Communities and Forest Management in South Asia: A Regional Profile ofthe Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Gland, Switz.: WorldConserv. Union (IUCN)

Poffenberger M. 2006. People in the forest: community forestry experiences from SoutheastAsia. Int. J. Env. Sustain. Dev. 5(1):57–69


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Poffenberger M, McGean B, eds. 1996. Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management inIndia. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

Posey DA. 1985. Indigenous Management of Tropical Forest Ecosystems: The Case of theKayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agrofor. Syst. 3:139–58

Posey DA. 2002. Kayapo Ethnoecology and Culture. New York: RoutledgePosey DA. 2004. Indigenous Knowledge and Ethics: A Darrell Posey Reader. New York: RoutledgePosey DA, Balee W. 1989. Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies.

Adv. Econ. Bot. 7. Bronx: N. Y. Bot. GardenPower TM. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place.

Washington, DC: IslandPrimack RB, Bray DB, Galletti HA, Ponciano I, eds. 1998. Timber, Tourists, and Temples: Con-

servation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. Washington,DC: Island

Putz FE, Dykstra DP, Heinrich R. 2000. Why poor logging practices persist in the tropics.Conserv. Biol. 14(4):951–56

Rangan H. 2000. Of Myths and Movements: Rewriting Chipko into Himalayan History. London:Verso

Redford KH, Padoch C, eds. 1992. Conservation of Neotropical Forests: Working from TraditionalResource Use. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how nationalgovernments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 34(11):1864–86

Ribot JC, Peluso NL. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociol. 68:153–81Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E, eds. 1996. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues

and Local Experiences. London/New York: RoutledgeRudel TA. 2005. Tropical Forests: Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration in the Late Twen-

tieth Century. New York: Columbia Univ. PressRuiz-Perez M, Almeida M, Dewi S, Costa EML, Pantoja MC, et al. 2005. Conservation and

development in Amazonian extractive reserves: the case of Alto Jurua. Ambio 34(3):218–23Salafsky N, Cauley H, Balachander G, Cordes B, Parks J, et al. 2001. A systematic test of an en-

terprise strategy for community-based biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15(6):1585–95

Sarin M, Singh NM, Sundar N, Bhogal RK. 2003. Devolution as a threat to democraticdecision-making in forestry? Findings from three states in India. See Edmunds &Wollenberg, pp. 55–126

Saterson KA, Christensen NL, Jackson RB, Kramer RA, Pimm SL, et al. 2004. Disconnects inevaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 18(3):597–99

Schroeder RA. 1999. Community, forestry and conditionality in the Gambia. Africa 69(1):1–22Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, eds. 2004. Agroforestry and Biodiversity

Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Washington, DC: IslandSeymour RS, Hunter ML. 1999. Principles of ecological forestry. In Maintaining Biodiversity

in Forest Ecosystems, ed. ML Hunter, pp. 22–61. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressShackleton S, Campbell B, Wollenberg E, Edmunds D. 2002. Devolution and community-

based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate andbenefit? ODI: Nat. Resour. Perspect. 76:1–6

Shanley P, Pierce AR, Laird SA, Guillen SA, eds. 2002. Tapping the Green Market: Certificationand Management of Non-Timber Forest Products. London: Earthscan

Sikor T. 2006. Analyzing community-based forestry: local, political and agrarian perspectives.For. Policy Econ. 8:339–49

334 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Sivaramakrishnan K. 1999. Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in ColonialEastern India. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Smith EA, Wishnie M. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 29:493–524

Smith WB, Miles PD, Vissage JS, Pugh SA. 2004. Forest Resources of the United States, 2002. St.Paul, MN: USDA For. Serv. N. Central Res. Stn.

Sponsel LE, Headland TN, Bailey RC, eds. 1996. Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension.New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Sturgeon JC. 2005. Border Landscapes: The Politics of Akha Land Use in China and Thailand.Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Sundar N. 2000. Unpacking the “joint” in joint forest management. Dev. Change 31:255–79Sundberg J. 2003. Conservation and democratization: constituting citizenship in the Maya

Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Polit. Geogr. 22(9):715–40Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, et al. 2005. Livelihoods, forests,

and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev. 33(9):1383–402Taylor PL. 2003. Reorganization or division? new strategies of community forestry in Durango,

Mexico. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16:643–61Teitelbaum S, Beckley T, Nadeau S. 2006. A national portrait of community forestry on public

land in Canada. For. Chron. 82(3):416–28Terborgh J. 1999. Requiem for Nature. Washington, DC: IslandThadani R. 2001. International nontimber forest product issues. J. Sustain. For. 13:5–23Ticktin T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J. Appl.

Ecol. 41:11–21Toni F. 2003. Forest management in Brazil’s Amazonian municipalities. See Ferroukhi 2003,

pp. 145–78Tsing AL. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.

PressTucker CM. 1999. Private versus common property forests: forest conditions and tenure in a

Honduran community. Hum. Ecol. 27(2):201–30Tucker CM, Ostrom E. 2005. Multidisciplinary research relating institutions and forest trans-

formations. See Moran & Ostrom 2005, pp. 81–104Tucker CM, Southworth J. 2005. Processes of forest change at the local and landscape levels

in Honduras and Guatemala. See Moran & Ostrom 2005, pp. 253–78Vale TR, ed. 2002. Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape. Washington, DC: IslandVandermeer J, Perfecto I. 2005. Breakfast of Biodiversity: The Political Ecology of Rain Forest

Destruction. Oakland, CA: Food First BooksVogt KA, Larson BC, Gordon JC, Vogt DJ, eds. 2000. Forest Certification: Roots, Issues, Challenges,

and Benefits. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressWalker P, Fortmann L. 2003. Whose landscape? A political ecology of the “exurban” Sierra.

Cult. Geogr. 10(4):469–91Warner K. 2000. Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. Unasylva 51(202):3–12West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:251–77Western D, Wright RM, Strum SC. 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based

Conservation. Washington, DC: IslandWhite A, Martin A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition.

Washington, DC: For. Trends, Cent. Int. Environ. Law


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Wiersum KF, Singhal R, Benneker C. 2004. Common property and collaborative forest man-agement: rural dynamics and evolution in community forestry regimes. For. Trees Liveli-hoods 14:281–93

Wilson RK. 2006. Collaboration in context: rural change and community forestry in the FourCorners. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19:53–70

Wily L. 1999. Moving forward in African community forestry: trading power, not use rights.Soc. Nat. Resour. 12:49–61

Wily LA, Mbaya S. 2001. Land, People, and Forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the Beginningof the 21st Century. Nairobi, Kenya: World Conserv. Union (IUCN)

Wittman H, Geisler C. 2005. Negotiating locality: decentralization and communal forest man-agement in the Guatemalan Highlands. Hum. Organ. 64(1):62–74

Wollenberg E, Anderson J, Lopez C. 2005. Though All Things Differ: Pluralism as a Basis forCooperation in Forests. Bogor, Indones.: CIFOR

Wolvekamp P, ed. 1999. Forests for the Future: Local Strategies for Forest Protection, EconomicWelfare and Social Justice. London: Zed Books

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in NaturalResource Management. Washington, DC: Island

Wood CH, Porro R, eds. 2002. Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. Gainesville: Univ.Press Fla.

World Bank. 2006. India: Unlocking Opportunities for Forest-Dependent People. New Delhi: OxfordUniv. Press

Wunder S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests—what scope for synergies? World Dev.29(11):1817–33

Wyckoff-Baird B. 2005. Growth Rings: Communities and Trees. Lessons from the Ford FoundationCommunity-Based Forestry Demonstration Program, 2000–2005, Washington, DC: AspenInst.

Zarin DJ, Alavalapati JRR, Putz FE, Schmink M, eds. 2004. Working Forests in the Neotropics:Conservation through Sustainable Management? New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Zerner C, ed. 2000. People, Plants, and Justice: The Politics of Nature Conservation. New York:Columbia Univ. Press

336 Charnley · Poe

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 36, 2007Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Overview: Sixty Years in AnthropologyFredrik Barth � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1

Archaeology

The Archaeology of Religious RitualLars Fogelin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55

Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern NeolithicIan Hodder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �105

The Archaeology of Sudan and NubiaDavid N. Edwards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �211

A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques intoArchaeological InterpretationA. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �245

Biological Anthropology

Evolutionary MedicineWenda R. Trevathan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �139

Genomic Comparisons of Humans and ChimpanzeesAjit Varki and David L. Nelson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �191

Geometric MorphometricsDennis E. Slice � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �261

Genetic Basis of Physical FitnessHugh Montgomery and Latif Safari � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �391

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

SociophoneticsJennifer Hay and Katie Drager � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 89

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Comparative Studies in Conversation AnalysisJack Sidnell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �229

Semiotic AnthropologyElizabeth Mertz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �337

Sociocultural Anthropology

Queer Studies in the House of AnthropologyTom Boellstorff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17

Gender and TechnologyFrancesca Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 37

The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United StatesE. Paul Durrenberger � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 73

Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:The Political Ecology of the New American WestThomas E. Sheridan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �121

Anthropology and MilitarismHugh Gusterson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �155

The Ecologically Noble Savage DebateRaymond Hames � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �177

The Genetic Reinscription of RaceNadia Abu El-Haj � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �283

Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �301

Legacies of Derrida: AnthropologyRosalind C. Morris � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �355

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �407

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �410

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be foundat http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:301

-336

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

WIB

6242

- U

nive

rsita

ets-

und

Lan

desb

iblio

thek

Due

ssel

dorf

on

12/1

7/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? *

Documents