Justifications for PFM approach - (Brown (1999) with minor adaptations)Proximity: Local people are closest to the forest and therefore best placed to manage it.
Impact : Their livelihood activities have a direct effect on the condition of the forest, their involvement in its management makes round practical sense.
Equity : Given that forests are often an important source of rural livelihoods, CFM has the potential to strengthen livelihood security.
Capacity : Recent experience of community (eg: in Nepal & West Africa) forestry suggestions that it can improve forest quality and condition to a greater extent than Govts. Can when acting alone.
Bio-diversity: CFM is often viewed as means of supporting bio-diversity conservation.
Cost Effectiveness: Govts. Often perceive local forest management as an effective means of cutting forest management cost.
Adaptation: Almost by definition flexible and adaptive management cannot be delivered centrally, local circumstances and interests must be incorporated.
Governance: Involving communities and community institutions in forest management may help to introduce discipline into the management of the sector and offer. Significant checks and balances on otherwise unregulated public services.
Development Philosophy: PFM tends to fit well with the wider development assistance strategies of the international community, stressing local participation, decentralization and 'subsidiary' as well as the promotion of civil society.