Strict protected areas formed earliest approach to conserve forests but this failed because it created livelihood related threats due local dependence on resources.
Participatory forest management (PFM) such as CFM was adopted after global shifts in conservation to include a wide range stakeholders and livelihood needs. The adoption of PFM had to two objectives, 1. Improve livelihoods of adjacent communities and 2. Conserve biological resources. However, studies have shown mixed debates on PFM impact on livelihood and forest conservation over spatial scale. It is upon this that the study will contribute to this debate using a case of Mabira CFR where CFM has in operation for a decade. The study will use comparison technique: Forest conditions (CFM compartment vs Non Compartment); Livelihoods (CFM households Vs Non CFM households; CFM household Livelihood in 2006 vs 2016).
Research questions: How has forest health (species diversity, forest vegetation cover, Population structure, human disturbances and forest restoration) in CFM compartment changed in comparison with Non CFM compartment? Have participant households’ livelihood assets (Physical, human, financial, natural and social) and strategies increased or improved after engaging in CFM.
Progress to date:
Proposal writing in progress
Draft Proposal finalization due to Friday 16th September 2016