Day 1 - Wednesday, 3 August 2016    15.45 - 17.15   

Community forestry success stories from the Asia-Pacific

The socioeconomic needs of communities are a key consideration for sustainable landscape management and restoration efforts. Community forestry enables communities to manage forests sustainably, to maximize the benefits, but also protect and conserve these resources. Successful community forestry programs improve livelihoods, forest regeneration and biodiversity outcomes.

Community participation in decision-making can allow traditional knowledge and practices in conservation, reforestation and fire management to be utilized.

The success of community forestry lies in striking the right balance between the sustainable management of the forest landscape and its people.  It has long been the subject of research, policy reform and development initiatives. Knowledge-sharing of effective models, the development of policies that clarify resource rights, and local monitoring methods can inform the development of future successes in community forestry programs.

Experts in this space shared their insights and discussed successes in the region.


  • What constitutes ‘success’, and how can it be measured?
  • What lessons have been learned from community forestry success stories?
  • Can there be greater sharing of community forest projects to help inform new projects?
  • How can the private sector better engage in community forestry projects?

Background reading:

Baynes, J. Herbohn, J. Smith, C. Robert, F. & Bray, D. 2015, ‘Key Factors Which Influence The Success of Community Forestry in Developing Countries’ Global Environmental Change, Vol. 35, pp.226-238.

Lambrick, FH. Brown, ND. Lawrence, A. & Bebber DP. 2014 ‘Effectiveness of Community Forestry in Prey Long Forest, Cambodia’ Conservation Biology, Vol 28, 2, pp.375-381.

Newton, P. Schaap, B. Fournier, M. Cornwall, M. Rosenbach, DW. DeBoer, J. Whittemore, J. Stock, R. Yoders, M. Brodnig, G, & Agrawal, A. 2015 ‘Community Forest Management and REDD+’ Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 56, pp.27-37.