The main objective of the community forestry should be to protect forests while meeting the demand of the community depended on it i.e. sustainable development. The community exercises the rights on the forest products harvested sustainably, in return they provide care and protection to the forest. The idea of community forestry was originated to incorporate all the stakeholders while sharing the mutual benefit instead of imposing strict restrictions.
Locally we had this conflict between the environmental need on one side and local farmers, herders and the forest industry on the other.
When I worked at the environmental protection agency there were a project to get the farmers and herders engaged by providing information for species of interest to look for, an they did get a printed form to fill in for such including time and day for the observation.
While we certainly could not get everyone to participate, those who did would do a very good job - and even though others did disagree, it did in many cases change the ways of the entire community. And they also learned it could be for their own benefit, such as leaving a damaged tree in place - one which can have many species of interest such as fungus and lichens or be a place for woodpeckers to get worms and insects - while it would not provide good wood for burning or construction.
Now your question was about the community conversation, there is one aspect I were somewhat more involved in personally.
The attempts into getting a deal with the forest industry did look good at first, as they did show and interest in negotiation, last couple of years and with very little forests that fit their needs they have broken both the law and the agreement. These last years I have run into a long number of examples where clearcutting had been made in areas which we indicated were of extreme importance for frogs and salamanders - who are the base for the ecosystem as their larvae provide nourishment for dragonflies and birds alike. While adult frogs and salamanders are eaten again by birds but also by a long list of both small and larger mammals.
So sadly I have not had any good experience in trying to find a consensus solution with the commercial industry, but I mention it here anyway as one thing that you might try.
In short, forest resource conservation as well as enhancing the livelihoods of the local communities. How we can achieve these perhaps another big question? These require different approaches like participatory forest management, Joint forest management or CDM techniques, etc.
Active and full participation of community forest user group members in an inclusive manner to protect, manage and sustainably utilize forest ecosystem services ensuring sustainable functioning of forest ecosystem. Gunjan Kumari
Pytanie: W jakich gatunkach drzew leśnych można zastosować ochronę społecznościową?
Zapytanie jest nieprecyzyjne, gdyż nie chodzi często o konkretny gatunek drzewa, ale ważniejsza jest jego funkcja w środowisku w danym momencie wzrostu lub hodowli. Najwyższą formą ochrony jest Pomnik Przyrody Prawnie Chroniony.
Inną kwestią jest fakt że nie chodzi też o konkretny gatunek czy osobnik, ale o całą formację na danym terenie. Na przykład wszystkie drzewostany górskie pełnią funkcje ochronne: chronią glebę przed spływem, umacniają glebę korzeniami, są schronieniem dla licznych gatunków zwierząt i roślin, kształtują miejscowy klimat.
W wielu krajach, gdzie gospodarka leśna jest prowadzona w sposób zrównoważony, wygląda to tak, że pozyskujemy mniejszą masę drewna niż przyrasta w ciągu roku. Dzięki temu lesistość systematycznie wzrasta, oraz możliwe jest przebudowywanie drzewostanów do docelowych składów gatunkowych, zgodnych z siedliskiem czyli glebą i klimatem.
The idea of benefit sharing so that, especially local and tribals people residing in forest fringes can be engaged in conservation efforts with government support and off course, the conflicts between forest products utilization, resource sharing, and biodiversity must be considered.