Over the years, one thing that has become increasingly evident is that there can be no single model for community forestry. Countries in the region have different historical, political, social, and economic settings, and this has given rise to a variety of community forestry modalities. In some areas, rural communities living in or near forestland may use forest resources according to some form of indigenous management system. In other locations, local communities are being seen as legitimate partners for the effective management of forest resources that, until recently, have been managed by government forestry authorities. Approaches taken vary from country to country. For example, in Nepal, access and use rights to forests are given to forest user groups, whereas, in Vietnam, forestland is allocated to individual households. On the other hand, in Thailand, many community forestry initiatives are happening on the ground without any national framework to legitimise these local efforts. In contrast, the legal framework for community forestry is widely recognised in the Philippines, but it has yet to be translated into a reality that benefits local communities. At present most community forestry activities are planned and implemented within the individual country context (social, economic, political, and environmental). While this is important, many of the problems facing any one country in promoting community forestry are also common to other countries. Analysis of these issues and strategies to address them will be more effective if carried out jointly at the regional level rather than at the individual country level. The most common problems are lack of sustainable and intensive forest management, livelihoods, governance, and institutional and role of stakeholders' issues. The vison of the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) is for local communities in the AsiaPacific region to become actively involved in the equitable and ecologically sustainable management of forest landscapes. The implementation of this vision must be undertaken in the context of current international evidence about community forestry and poverty linkages and based on current international commitments to reach the poor. The linkage of forestry development with poverty is a logical one. The evidence shows that community forestry intervention has provided positive outcomes for communities in developing countries, including the poorest people. This evidence (with examples from policy, strategic, and operational levels in at least one country, Nepal) provides a basis for suggesting that there is a significant potential for community forestry to achieve positive outcomes on a global scale. * A new forestry law will come into effect from April 2005 that will enable forest management through communities. Mike Nurse and Yam Malla 1 Manager, Regional Analysis and Representation, 2 Executive Director, Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) Community forestry explained Community forestry as a term means different things to different people, depending upon their background and experiences. The Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) currently defines it as follows. ‘Community forestry involves the governance and management of forest resources by communities for commercial and non-commercial purposes, including subsistence, timber production, non-timber forest products, wildlife,