The contribution of community forestry to climate change adaptive capacity in tropical dry forests: lessons from Myanmar

Lin, T. H., et al., 2019. International Forestry Review

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

While community forestry (CF) is increasingly promoted as a climate change adaptation strategy, few analyses have examined the contribution of CF to adaptive capacity. We used a sustainable livelihood approach and Ostrom’s design principles for managing commons, to assess how CF confers climate change adaptive capacity in two communities in Myanmar. Our findings indicate that CF provides tangible contributions to human and social capital, by increasing landless and female forest users’ knowledge of forest management. However, CF has yet to enhance the physical, financial, and natural capital within these communities. The major challenges preventing the enhancement of socioeconomic benefits include limited community participation and weak institutional systems for monitoring and conflict resolution. We argue that CF increases community engagement in natural resource management, but in the absence of effective monitoring and decision-making, socioeconomic benefits to communities from CF programs may be limited. Our results elucidate important factors limiting the uptake and progress of CF as a viable climate change adaptation strategy in Southeast Asia, and indicate that comparative research is needed to better understand the factors that influence CF efficacy in forest- and natural resource-dependent communities globally.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-262-2
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    "Intervention description: community forestry empowers rural communities address climate change through secured land tenure, long- term forest-based livelihood opportunities, and inclusive decision-making… “forestry practices which directly involve direct forest users in common decision- making processes and implementation of forestry activities.” … In both villages, com- munity members developed their CF in 2015 with the support of a development organization and gained legal approval for their CF through the CFC in 2018….The incentives for community members to participate in CF activities range from receiving technical knowledge and training for forest conservation, obtaining funds for growing seedlings, to securing customary land rights. The CFUGs have developed rules to limit timber extraction and prevent unregulated activities in the CF. These rules accommodate the local needs of community members by allowing non-CF members to graze their livestock and collect NTFPs without paying a fee.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  No effect Outcome measures were ‘sustainable livelihood asset scores’ based on scores of indicators of each type of asset – scores were determined from interviews/focus groups with households and key informants Other: changing temperature and precipitation regimes that are threatening villagers livelihoods Relevant sustainable livelihood assets were [1] natural capital provided by the community forests. not all indicators of natural capital are relevant though as some pertain to agriculture but one relevant is Natural resource diversification index (inverse of the number of activities dependent on natural resources) where it was found that it had no effect “Poor forest quality in the CF areas of the two study sites hinders management activities as few households have the incentive to invest in managing forest resources with low commercialization prospects.” [2] financial capital – again only some indicators relevant: Reliability of income source index (rating based on a four-point Likert Scale) “Households engaged in resin production rated income from forests as one of the most reliable income sources, highlight- ing opportunities to improve income reliability as more people are involved in the forest sector.” General conclusion by the authors is that the CF have yet to have an effect overall on these measures hence coded as no effect
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Thit Gyi Taw, in the dry zone of Myanmar, specifically in Myaing Township, Magway Region (21.61° N, 94.85° E).

  • Country: Myanmar
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical forests |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based (general)

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness determined based on perceptions of local stakeholders on the effects of the intervention (no control)
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: N/A
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: "same as outcome measure because linked to specific group of people and their perceptions of how intervention has affected them PLUS: Social capital such as social cohension and access to climate change information + “Accordingly, CF has created opportunities for people in disadvantaged groups such as women and land- less households to increase their social mobility by improving their knowledge of forest management.”  all contributing to adaptive capacity to climate change (positive) *b/c climate impact was no effect and these other measures of adaptive capacity were positive, coded as positive"
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-262-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    "Intervention description: community forestry empowers rural communities address climate change through secured land tenure, long- term forest-based livelihood opportunities, and inclusive decision-making… “forestry practices which directly involve direct forest users in common decision- making processes and implementation of forestry activities.” … In both villages, com- munity members developed their CF in 2015 with the support of a development organization and gained legal approval for their CF through the CFC in 2018….The incentives for community members to participate in CF activities range from receiving technical knowledge and training for forest conservation, obtaining funds for growing seedlings, to securing customary land rights. The CFUGs have developed rules to limit timber extraction and prevent unregulated activities in the CF. These rules accommodate the local needs of community members by allowing non-CF members to graze their livestock and collect NTFPs without paying a fee. farmers in TYK have turned to the production of resin from sha trees (Acacia catechu)—a traditional medicine and filler in the popular stimulant Betel nut—to supplement incomes."

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  No effect Outcome measures were ‘sustainable livelihood asset scores’ based on scores of indicators of each type of asset – scores were determined from interviews/focus groups with households and key informants Other: changing temperature and precipitation regimes that are threatening villagers livelihoods Relevant sustainable livelihood assets were [1] natural capital provided by the community forests. not all indicators of natural capital are relevant though as some pertain to agriculture but one relevant is Natural resource diversification index (inverse of the number of activities dependent on natural resources) where it was found that it had no effect “Poor forest quality in the CF areas of the two study sites hinders management activities as few households have the incentive to invest in managing forest resources with low commercialization prospects.” [2] financial capital – again only some indicators relevant: Reliability of income source index (rating based on a four-point Likert Scale) “Households engaged in resin production rated income from forests as one of the most reliable income sources, highlight- ing opportunities to improve income reliability as more people are involved in the forest sector.” General conclusion by the authors is that the CF have yet to have an effect overall on these measures hence coded as no effect
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Tha Yet Kwa village, the dry zone of Myanmar, specifically in Myaing Township, Magway Region (21.61° N, 94.85° E)

  • Country: Myanmar
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical forests |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based (general)

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness determined based on perceptions of local stakeholders on the effects of the intervention (no control)
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: N/A
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: "same as outcome measure because linked to specific group of people and their perceptions of how intervention has affected them PLUS: Social capital such as social cohension and access to climate change information + “Accordingly, CF has created opportunities for people in disadvantaged groups such as women and land- less households to increase their social mobility by improving their knowledge of forest management.”  all contributing to adaptive capacity to climate change (positive) *b/c climate impact was no effect and these other measures of adaptive capacity were positive, coded as positive"
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: