Forests in Kenya are managed under different management regimes, including traditional community based forest management, command and control, participatory forest management, leasehold, concessions, and private. Asse...Forests in Kenya are managed under different management regimes, including traditional community based forest management, command and control, participatory forest management, leasehold, concessions, and private. Assessment of these regimes’ impact (positively or negatively) on forest conservation has not been done. The study was done to determine the impact on forest conservation of three management regimes traditional community based forest management, command and control, and participatory forest management. The survey was done through secondary data, focus group discussion, key informant interview, household survey, ecological survey, and land cover and land use analysis through GIS. The results indicate that the forest site under participatory forest management witnessed better forest management. In this site, the forest zone witnessing best management was the one near the forest station where the rangers are located and adjacent to the community that has been involved in forest management and benefited most from project intervention, an incentive for their participation in forest management. The forests under traditional community based forest management faced a high forest degradation rate. Forest under command and control regime witnessed the best forest condition improvement attributed to the management regime not allowing consumptive forest resource utilization. Each regime was best under its’ legislative framework and would facilitate better forest management and contribute to improved livelihoods without compromising forest quality. Participatory forest management was the most preferred management regime contributing to better forest management, improved community livelihoods, and formally involved communities and other stakeholders. Each regime’s appropriateness would be enhanced through stakeholder capacity building, institutional reform, adequate financial facilitation, and appropriate implementation. Therefore, adopting participatory forest management attributes to the other two management regimes would enhance their appropriateness, while appreciating that the management objective determines the regime being implemented in each forest.展开更多
文摘Forests in Kenya are managed under different management regimes, including traditional community based forest management, command and control, participatory forest management, leasehold, concessions, and private. Assessment of these regimes’ impact (positively or negatively) on forest conservation has not been done. The study was done to determine the impact on forest conservation of three management regimes traditional community based forest management, command and control, and participatory forest management. The survey was done through secondary data, focus group discussion, key informant interview, household survey, ecological survey, and land cover and land use analysis through GIS. The results indicate that the forest site under participatory forest management witnessed better forest management. In this site, the forest zone witnessing best management was the one near the forest station where the rangers are located and adjacent to the community that has been involved in forest management and benefited most from project intervention, an incentive for their participation in forest management. The forests under traditional community based forest management faced a high forest degradation rate. Forest under command and control regime witnessed the best forest condition improvement attributed to the management regime not allowing consumptive forest resource utilization. Each regime was best under its’ legislative framework and would facilitate better forest management and contribute to improved livelihoods without compromising forest quality. Participatory forest management was the most preferred management regime contributing to better forest management, improved community livelihoods, and formally involved communities and other stakeholders. Each regime’s appropriateness would be enhanced through stakeholder capacity building, institutional reform, adequate financial facilitation, and appropriate implementation. Therefore, adopting participatory forest management attributes to the other two management regimes would enhance their appropriateness, while appreciating that the management objective determines the regime being implemented in each forest.
