Forest governance Sustainable forest management

countries participating in unredd program and/or forest carbon partnership facility.

although majority of forests continue owned formally government, effectiveness of forest governance increasingly independent of formal ownership. since neo-liberal ideology in 1980s , emanation of climate change challenges, evidence state failing manage environmental resources has emerged. under neo-liberal regimes in developing countries, role of state has diminished , market forces have increasingly taken on dominant socio-economic role. though critiques of neo-liberal policies have maintained market forces not inappropriate sustaining environment, in fact major cause of environmental destruction. hardin s tragedy of commons (1968) has shown people cannot left wish land or environmental resources. thus, decentralization of management offers alternative solution forest governance.

the shifting of natural resource management responsibilities central state , local governments, occurring, part of broader decentralization process. according rondinelli , cheema (1983), there 4 distinct decentralization options: these are: (i) privatization – transfer of authority central government non-governmental sectors otherwise known market-based service provision, (ii) delegation – centrally nominated local authority, (iii) devolution – transfer of power locally acceptable authority , (iv) deconcentration – redistribution of authority central government field delegations of central government. major key effective decentralization increased broad-based participation in local-public decision making. in 2000, world bank report reveals local government knows needs , desires of constituents better national government, while @ same time, easier hold local leaders accountable. study of west african tropical forest, argued downwardly accountable and/or representative authorities meaningful discretional powers basic institutional element of decentralization should lead efficiency, development , equity. collaborates world bank report in 2000 says decentralization should improve resource allocation, efficiency, accountability , equity linking cost , benefit of local services more closely .

many reasons point advocacy of decentralization of forest. (i) integrated rural development projects fail because top-down projects did not take local people s needs , desires account. (ii) national government have legal authority on vast forest areas cannot control, thus, many protected area projects result in increased biodiversity loss , greater social conflict. within sphere of forest management, state earlier, effective option of decentralization devolution -the transfer of power locally accountable authority. however, apprehension local governments not unfounded. short of resources, may staffed people low education , captured local elites promote clientelist relation rather democratic participation. enters , anderson (1999) point result of community-based projects intended reverse problems of past central approaches conservation , development have been discouraging.

broadly speaking, goal of forest conservation has historically not been met when, in contrast land use changes; driven demand food, fuel , profit. necessary recognize , advocate better forest governance more given importance of forest in meeting basic human needs in future , maintaining ecosystem , biodiversity addressing climate change mitigation , adaptation goal. such advocacy must coupled financial incentives government of developing countries , greater governance role local government, civil society, private sector , ngos on behalf of communities .

national forest funds

the development of national forest funds 1 way address issue of financing sustainable forest management. national forest funds (nffs) dedicated financing mechanisms managed public institutions designed support conservation , sustainable use of forest resources. of 2014, there 70 nffs operating globally.