Livelihood impacts of plantation forests on farmers in the greater mekong subregion: A systematic review of plantation forest models

Background and Objectives: Plantation forests remain a highly contested element of rural development. Successive reviews of large-scale plantations established under land concessions identify predominantly negative impacts on local farmers’ livelihoods. Although concession models of plantation development have been common in the global South, other models characterised by different forms of land tenure, labour arrangements, and plantation design have also emerged. The impacts of these models on the livelihoods of local farmers are likely to be more varied. This paper presents the results of a systematic review on the impacts of different models of plantation forests on the livelihoods of local farmers in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two of more than 1000 publications were identified as meeting review criteria and were assessed systematically to identify how plantation forests impacted on the natural, financial, human, physical, and social assets of proximate rural communities. Plantation models included: state forest plantations; land and land-sharing concessions; land purchase programs; and “enrolled”, contracted, and independent smallholders. Results: The results confirm those of earlier studies that land concessions delivered lasting livelihoods benefits only to few communities. A small number of positive examples among these cases demonstrate, however, that these plantation models are not necessarily detrimental to local livelihoods. Other plantation forest models, based on contract farming, land purchase, and independent smallholders have generally brought economic benefits to local people, although differentially. Research Highlights and Conclusions: Overall, this review suggests that plantation forests are not inherently positive or negative for local livelihoods, and all plantation models have the potential to contribute positively to local livelihoods. Future research on this topic needs to adopt more holistic livelihoods perspectives.