This week we discussed a very interesting meta-analysis of deforestation in protected areas versus community managed forests. The authors found that deforestation rates were lower in community managed areas compared to protected areas and also that the variation was smaller in community managed forests. We discussed the generality of these results and also how representative the sample can be considered since most of the case studies came from Latin America (11/16) and only a few from Africa or Asia. This might be of relevance since the threats and pressures are different in different regions.

We found it interesting to learn about the tool they had used for their meta-analysis, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (OCA), and the neat tables they used to sum their findings in. I am still a bit puzzled about Table 2 and the fact that the reported average rate there does not match with the reported mean rates of forest cover in the text (eg. PA _text: -1.47; PA _table: -2.77). The statistical analysis of the deforestation rates were also discussed, especially the choice of significance level 10 % and possible outliers (eg. Costa Rica BCNP1 with deforestation rate -19.4, see table 2). We also considered the variables that were identified for the analysis and spotted that many possibly relevant variables related to illegal actions, corruption, law enforcement, lack of resources and staff, were missing. Some of these variables were discussed in later sections were the authors reported for example guerilla and illicit coca cultivation.

In general, I think we all liked the discussion where the authors compared their results to key findings reported by others. The sad fact is that deforestation is taking place both in protected areas and community managed forests. We also considered leakage (i.e. moving deforestation activities outside PA boarders) and problems related to quantity vs. quality of forest cover.

Towards the end of our meeting the discussion tended to move towards solving global problems and saving the world; everything from population growth, contraceptives and education were on the agenda. We were trying to consider the forest from the point of view of local communities dependent on forest resources and found both pros and cons with both PAs and community manages areas. I guess one of the key factors we identified as important is the time-aspect and how fast the degradation is likely to affect people both on local and global scales.

So, participants, feel free to add your own comments, as you promised!

Porter-Bolland et al. 2011. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management. In press.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034