Effectiveness of Community Forest Management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. (April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rasolofoson, Ranaivo A.; Ferraro, Paul J.; Jenkins, Clinton N.; Jones, Julia P.G.
• Is Part Of: Biological conservation. Volume 184(2015)
• Page Start: 271
• Page End: 277
• Publication Date: 2015-04
• Subjects: Community Forest Management -- Deforestation -- Impact evaluation -- Matching -- Madagascar -- Payments for Ecosystem Services; Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals; Nature conservation -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environmental Pollution -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0006-3207

Abstract

Highlights: Community Forest Management is not a guarantee of forest conservation. Community forestry allowing commercial forest use did not reduce deforestation. Community forestry not allowing commercial forest use reduced deforestation. Differentiating among types of community forestry is important in impact evaluation. Abstract: Community Forest Management (CFM) is a widespread conservation approach in the tropics. It is also promoted as a means by which payment for ecosystem services schemes can be implemented. However, evidence on its performance is weak. We investigated the effectiveness of CFM at reducing deforestation from 2000 to 2010 in Madagascar. To control for factors confounding impact estimates, we used statistical matching. We also contrasted the effects of CFM by whether commercial use of forest resources is allowed or not. We cannot detect an effect, on average, of CFM compared to no CFM, even when we restricted the sample to only where information suggests effective CFM implementation on the ground. Likewise, we cannot detect an effect of CFM where commercial use of natural resources is allowed. However, we can detect a reduction in deforestation in CFM that does not permit commercial uses, compared to no CFM or CFM allowing commercial uses. Our findings suggest that CFM and commercial use of forest resources are not guarantees of forest conservation and that differentiating among types of CFM is important.