2015年-世界发展银行全球_Analysis_of_Community_Forest_Management_in_Madagascar_122页_2mb

Summary of Community Forest Management (CFM) in Madagascar

Core Content

Community Forest Management (CFM) in Madagascar is a policy initiative aimed at promoting sustainable forest use and conservation by transferring management rights to local communities. The report evaluates the effectiveness of CFM in reducing deforestation and improving household well-being, while also analyzing the legal and institutional factors that influence its implementation.

Main Points

1. Madagascar's Natural Resources and Poverty

• Madagascar is home to a significant portion of the world’s biodiversity, with approximately 90% of its flora and 70% of its vertebrates being endemic.
• The country has diverse landscapes, including dense forests, dry forests, and spiny forests, which provide essential ecological services such as water regulation, flood control, and soil conservation.
• Despite its natural wealth, Madagascar faces severe poverty, with about 78.2% of its population living below USD 1.25 a day (PPP) and 91.2% below USD 2.00 a day.
• Rural poverty is higher than urban poverty, and livelihoods are heavily dependent on subsistence agriculture, fragile pastures, and forest resources.

2. Community-Based Forest Management (CFM)

• CFM is a form of community-based natural resources management (CBNRM), which aims to devolve rights and responsibilities to local communities for better conservation and sustainable use.
• The GELOSE law (1996), which is the foundation of CFM in Madagascar, has not been fully implemented due to a lack of supporting decrees and regulations.
• CFM contracts typically involve three parties: the local community (VOI), the resource owner (State or local authority), and the Municipality (Commune).
• The success of CFM depends on the involvement of environmental mediators, land tenure security, and the alignment of objectives between stakeholders.

3. Impact Evaluation

• The report evaluates the impact of CFM on two key variables: deforestation and household well-being.
• Deforestation: There is no statistically significant difference in deforestation rates between CFM and non-CFM areas, even after controlling for implementation quality.
• Non-commercial CFM: While overall CFM may not have reduced deforestation, non-commercial CFM areas showed a small but positive impact, possibly due to better financial support and direct conservation incentives.
• Well-being: No significant improvement in household economic well-being was observed at the municipal level. However, CFM has had a positive impact on households near forest edges.

4. Legal and Institutional Challenges

• Regulatory Gaps: The GELOSE law lacks implementation decrees, and other legal texts on forests and environment are inconsistent, creating confusion and reducing effectiveness.
• Sectoral Inconsistencies: CFM is not well-integrated into non-environmental sector policies, such as land tenure, agriculture, and mining, leading to a lack of synergy.
• Diverging Stakeholder Objectives: VOIs (local communities) are low-influence but high-relevance stakeholders, while the forest administration and municipalities are high-influence and high-relevance. This imbalance may lead to underrepresentation of community interests in decision-making.
• Weak Law Enforcement: Both at the local and national levels, enforcement of CFM laws is lacking due to corruption, limited resources, and poor institutional capacity.

5. Recommendations

• Short-term: Improve the consistency between the GELOSE law, forest law, and land tenure law. Address legal and regulatory gaps and correct inconsistencies in environmental texts.
• Medium-term: Strengthen the capacity of the State and municipalities to implement CFM. Use performance-based payment schemes, such as REDD+ and payment for ecosystem services (PES), to support local communities.
• Long-term: Enhance law enforcement and traceability of forest products. Promote sustainable use through investment in monitoring and control mechanisms, rather than outright bans on commercial activities.

Key Information

• The report uses statistical matching to assess the impact of CFM on deforestation and well-being, controlling for potential biases.
• CFM has been implemented in various forms, including commercial and non-commercial, with the latter showing more promising results in terms of conservation.
• The role of local communities, especially VOIs, is crucial in CFM, but their influence is often limited in policy decisions.
• The success of CFM in Madagascar depends on the alignment of legal frameworks, stakeholder collaboration, and effective enforcement.

Conclusion

While CFM has the potential to support both conservation and development in Madagascar, its effectiveness is limited by legal and institutional weaknesses. Addressing these challenges through improved legal frameworks, better stakeholder coordination, and stronger law enforcement is essential to achieving the desired outcomes of CFM.