Recent decades have seen a rapid movement towards decentralising forest rights and tenure to local communities and indigenous groups in both developing and developed nations. Attribution of local and community rights to forests appears to be gathering increasing momentum in many tropical developing countries. Greater local control of forest resources is a response to the failure of government agencies to exercise adequate stewardship over forests and to ensure that the values of all stakeholders are adequately protected. We reviewed evidence of the impact of decentralised forest management on the biodiversity values of forests and conclude that special measures are needed to protect these values. There are trade-offs between shorter-term local needs for forest lands and products and longer-term global needs for biodiversity and other environmental values. We present evidence of local forest management leading to declining forest integrity with negative impacts on both local forest users and the global environment. We advocate greater attention to measures to ensure protection of biodiversity in locally-managed forests.
Recent decades have seen a rapid movement towards decentralising forest rights and tenure to local communities and indigenous groups in both developing and developed nations. Attribution of local and community rights to forests appears to be gathering increasing momentum in many tropical developing countries. Greater local control of forest resources is a response to the failure of government agencies to exercise adequate stewardship over forests and to ensure that the values of all stakeholders are adequately protected. We reviewed evidence of the impact of decentralised forest management on the biodiversity values of forests and conclude that special measures are needed to protect these values. There are trade-offs between shorter-term local needs for forest lands and products and longer-term global needs for biodiversity and other environmental values. We present evidence of local forest management leading to declining forest integrity with negative impacts on both local forest users and the global environment. We advocate greater attention to measures to ensure protection of biodiversity in locally-managed forests.
Isolated communities on small islands are often characterized as vulnerable and marginalized. We studied the recent history of Laingpatehi, a village on Ruang Island off the north coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia to show that the marginalization-vulnerability nexus can be offset by capacity and social cohesion to enable sustainable livelihoods. The island has been impacted by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and competition for marine resources from mainland-based fishermen. The community has shown a remarkable ability to cope and proper in the face of a series of external hazards. We used a sustainable livelihoods approach to identify the assets that enabled the villagers to cope. Strong social cohesion was central to the ability to organize the community and confront hazards. A diversified livelihood strategy drawing on the small island environment and its coastal and marine resources, income generating activities in a distant satellite village, and significant remittances from employment in other parts of Indonesia underpinned people's capacities to face hazards. Government assistance played a supporting role. The case of Laingpatehi demonstrates how remoteness, rather than being a source of vulnerability, can provide access to existing resources and facilitate innovation. Disaster risk reduction strategies should focus more on reinforcing these existing capacities to deal with hazards and less on physical protection and postdisaster responses.
Interpreting discourses among implementers of what is termed a "landscape approach" enables us to learn from their experience to improve conservation and development outcomes. We use Q-methodology to explore the perspectives of a group of experts in the landscape approach, both from academic and implementation fields, on what hinderances are in place to the realisation of achieving sustainable landscape management in Indonesia. The results show that, at a generic level, "corruption" and "lack of transparency and accountability" rank as the greatest constraints on landscape functionality. Biophysical factors, such as topography and climate change, rank as the least constraining factors. When participants considered a landscape with which they were most familiar, the results changed: the rapid change of regulations, limited local human capacity and inaccessible data on economic risks increased, while the inadequacy of democratic institutions, "overlapping laws" and "corruption" decreased. The difference indicates some fine-tuning of generic perceptions to the local context and may also reflect different views on what is achievable for landscape approach practitioners. Overall, approximately 55% of variance is accounted for by five discourse factors for each trial. Four overlapped and two discourses were discrete enough to merit different discourse labels. We labelled the discourses (1) social exclusionists, (2) state view, (3) community view, (4) integrationists, (5) democrats, and (6) neoliberals. Each discourse contains elements actionable at the landscape scale, as well as exogenous issues that originate at national and global scales. Actionable elements that could contribute to improving governance included trust building, clarified resource rights and responsibilities, and inclusive representation in management. The landscape sustainability discourses studied here suggests that landscape approach "learners" must focus on ways to remedy poor governance if they are to achieve sustainability and ...
[Extract] Initiated more than two decades ago through forest legislations and policy reforms in Cameroon, community forestry has experienced mixed opportunities partly due to its evolution. After humble beginnings, it is now better established due to a review of the legal framework. With the demand for environmental standards, it attempts to align with the green economy. In Cameroon, the reforms aimed, among other objectives, at implementing a forestry based on people (Bigombe, undated). According to the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), these reforms concerned the institutional, legislative and regulatory frameworks and a new mapping of forest territories (Minsouma, 2008). The participation of local communities in forest resource management was at the centre of this reform via the introduction of decentralized forest management concepts. In its approach, community forests encompass (i) communal forests; (ii) community forests; (iii) the annual forest royalties; and (iv) community managed hunting zones (Oyono et al., 2007). One of the main expectations is to transform these efforts into a dynamic process to empower rural communities in forest resources management; this will ultimately contribute to improving their livelihood options and foster local development. This dual objective of ensuring the balance between conservation and development matches the approaches of both sustainable development and green economy. The contribution of this natural resource management model to the green economy is poorly understood.
Integrated approaches to natural resource management are often undermined by fundamental governance weaknesses. We studied governance of a forest landscape in East Lombok, Indonesia. Forest Management Units (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan or KPH) are an institutional mechanism used in Indonesia for coordinating the management of competing sectors in forest landscapes, balancing the interests of government, business, and civil society. Previous reviews of KPHs indicate they are not delivering their potential benefits due to an uncertain legal mandate and inadequate resources. We utilized participatory methods with a broad range of stakeholders in East Lombok to examine how KPHs might improve institutional arrangements to better meet forest landscape goals. We find that KPHs are primarily limited by insufficient integration with other actors in the landscape. Thus, strengthened engagement with other institutions, as well as civil society, is required. Although new governance arrangements that allow for institutional collaboration and community engagement are needed in the long term, there are steps that the East Lombok KPH can take now. Coordinating institutional commitments and engaging civil society to reconcile power asymmetries and build consensus can help promote sustainable outcomes. Our study concludes that improved multi-level, polycentric governance arrangements between government, NGOs, the private sector, and civil society are required to achieve sustainable landscapes in Lombok. The lessons from Lombok can inform forest landscape governance improvements throughout Indonesia and the tropics. ; Forestry, Faculty of ; Non UBC ; Forest and Conservation Sciences, Department of ; Reviewed ; Faculty
Integrated approaches to natural resource management are often undermined by fundamental governance weaknesses. We studied governance of a forest landscape in East Lombok, Indonesia. Forest Management Units (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan or KPH) are an institutional mechanism used in Indonesia for coordinating the management of competing sectors in forest landscapes, balancing the interests of government, business, and civil society. Previous reviews of KPHs indicate they are not delivering their potential benefits due to an uncertain legal mandate and inadequate resources. We utilized participatory methods with a broad range of stakeholders in East Lombok to examine how KPHs might improve institutional arrangements to better meet forest landscape goals. We find that KPHs are primarily limited by insufficient integration with other actors in the landscape. Thus, strengthened engagement with other institutions, as well as civil society,is required. Although new governance arrangements that allow for institutional collaboration and community engagement are needed in the long term, there are steps that the East Lombok KPH can take now. Coordinating institutional commitments and engaging civil society to reconcile power asymmetries and build consensus can help promote sustainable outcomes. Our study concludes that improved multi-level, polycentric governance arrangements between government, NGOs, the private sector, and civil society are required to achieve sustainable landscapes in Lombok. The lessons from Lombok can inform forest landscape governance improvements throughout Indonesia and the tropics.
The concept of forest landscape restoration (FLR) is being widely adopted around the globe by governmental, non‐governmental agencies, and the private sector, all of whom see FLR as an approach that contributes to multiple global sustainability goals.Originally, FLR was designed with a clearly integrative dimension across sectors,stakeholders, space and time, and in particular across the natural and social sciences.Yet, in practice, this integration remains a challenge in many FLR efforts. Reflecting this lack of integration are the continued narrow sectoral and disciplinary approaches taken by forest restoration projects, often leading to marginalisation of the most vulnerable populations, including through land dispossessions. This article aims to assess what lessons can be learned from other associated fields of practice for FLR implementation. To do this, 35 scientists came together to review the key literature on these concepts to suggest relevant lessons and guidance for FLR. We explored the following large‐scale land use frameworks or approaches: land sparing/landsharing, the landscape approach, agroecology, and socio‐ecological systems. Also, to explore enabling conditions to promote integrated decision making, we reviewed the literature on understanding stakeholders and their motivations, tenure and property rights, polycentric governance, and integration of traditional and Western knowledge. We propose lessons and guidance for practitioners and policymakers on ways to improve integration in FLR planning and implementation. Our findings highlight the need for a change in decision‐making processes for FLR, better understanding of stakeholder motivations and objectives for FLR, and balancing planning with flex-ibility to enhance social–ecological resilience.
Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. ; Fil: Chan, Kai M. A. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Boyd, David R. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania ; Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Singh, Gerald G. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania ; Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago ; Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia ; Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia ; Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido ; Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá ; Fil: Cheung, William W. L. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina ; Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gregr, Edward J. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón ; Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba ; Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania ; Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto ; Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana ; Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España ; Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía ; Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania ; Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania ; Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil ; Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China ; Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S. Indiana University; Estados Unidos
