Living Landscapes the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development-RachaelHannay

8/13/2019 Living Landscapes the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development-RachaelHannay

1/67

Living Landscapes: the Vision and Role of Community

Forestry in Sustainable Development

By Rachael M. Hannay

January 2010

Rok Village Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia Photograph by R. Hannay

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the Degree of Masters of Art in Development and EmergencyPractice, Oxford Brookes University


2/67

Living Landscapes: the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development

ii

Abstract

This paper will review the background and evolution of community forestry in Asia, and in

particular Southeast Asia, exploring the importance of forests for rural communities.

Moreover, it will explore ways in which the state and local communities can forge new

relationships and systems of forest management that provide local communities with security

of tenure and an enabling environment in which rural people can benefit from forest

resources.

Forests as common property resources have traditionally been managed by rural communities

but these systems have been consistently undermined by both colonial and state rule.

Indigenous systems and institutions for forest governance are now being promoted by NGOs

and civil society groups as more sustainable and equitable alternatives to state management,

especially when they incorporate local knowledge and decentralised decision making.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive examination of how community forestry has

established itself as an important development and conservation strategy and of the obstacles

it faces at both the local and national levels.


3/67


iii

Personal Statement

I feel very passionately about the subject of this piece of work and about the relationship

between mankind and the natural world in general. Ever since I was young I have been

fascinated by tropical forests and the multitude of life and beauty they contain. When I was

fourteen I produced a school project entitled If we use rainforests, must we destroy them?

about industrial logging and the need to preserve these incredible environments. I feel as

passionately today as I did then about these issues.

In my life I have been incredibly fortunate to have travelled extensively and witnessed the

ways different cultures and peoples relate to their natural environments. Having been brought

up in a western culture that often feels removed from nature I have found inspiration in

cultures which seem to have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the natural world that

surround them. My travelling inspired me to undertake a BA in Social Anthropology and

subsequently continue with this MA in Development and Emergency Practice.

It is my hope that my work will lead me into the field of natural resource management, either

in further postgraduate research or for an NGO. I feel the subject of this work is especially

timely with so much international debate concerning the role of forests in mitigating climate

change. I attended the Peoples Climate Change Summit in Copenha gen during the COP 15,

December 2009, and found the experience of NGOs and Indigenous P eoples from all around

the world coming together to discuss issues relating to natural resources, climate change,

social and environmental justice, inspiring and motivating and I feel fortunate to have been

part of it.


4/67


iv

Acknowledgements

Firstly I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the Community Based Natural

Resource Management Learning Institute in Cambodia for giving me the chance to have somany experiences that I shall never forget. Thank you to all the staff for making me feel

welcome and for being so kind.

I am extremely grateful to my parents because with their never-ending love and support, I

have been able to do the things I always dreamed of. I would also like to say thank you to my

partner Ross, who has always been very supportive of my dreams and was even

understanding of the fact he wouldnt see much of me for a whole year! Thanks to Carin for

being such an amazing friend, for listening to me when Im stressed and for alway s cheering

me up! I would like to acknowledge the efforts and support of Miguel Alexiades who

supervised this work and who provided advice and encouragement as well as David

Sanderson for being an inspiring teacher.


5/67


v

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii

Personal Statement .......................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. v

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................. vii

List of Figures and Tables.............................................................................................. viii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Geographical Focus ............................................................................................... 3

What are the Aims of this Dissertation? ............................................................... 3

Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 4

Methods of Research ............................................................................................. 5

Influential Sources ................................................................................................ 6

Chapter One Why are Forests Important? ............................................................... 8

1.1 Forest Dependence .......................................................................................... 8

1.2 Role of Forests in Poverty Reduction ............................................................. 9

1.3 Forests Environmental Services and Ecosystem Protection ...................... 10

Chapter Two History of Human-Forest Relations in Southeast Asia ................... 12

2.1 Pre-colonial Times ........................................................................................ 12

2.2 The Colonial Era (1500-1950) ...................................................................... 13

2.3 The Modern Era (1950-2009) ....................................................................... 13

Chapter Three What is Community Forestry? ....................................................... 17

3.1 The History of Community Forestry ............................................................. 17

3.2 What are the Objectives of Community Forestry? ........................................ 19

3.3 Community Forestry in Southeast Asia: Case Studies .................................. 20

3.3.1 Krui Forest Gardens, Indonesia .......................................................... 20


6/67


vi

3.3.2 Flood Forests, Cambodia .................................................................... 21

3.4 Community Forestry as part of Sustainable Development Goals ................. 21

Chapter Four - Community Issues .............................................................................. 24

4.1 Are Communities the Best Managers of Forests? ......................................... 24

4.2 Exploring the Community in C ommunity Forestry ................................... 26

4.3 What does Participation m ean in Community Forestry? ........................... 29

Chapter Five Common Property Theories and Local Institutions ....................... 33

5.1 Tragedy of the Commons.............................................................................. 33

5.2 Forests as Common-Pool Resources ............................................................. 36

5.3 Forest Management and Local Institutions ................................................... 37

5.3.1 Elinor Ostrom....................................................................................... 38

5.4 Design Principles for Successful Forest Management .................................. 38

5.5 Critique of Design Principles ........................................................................ 41

Chapter Six Devolution and Decentralisation of Forest Management ................. 44

6.1 The Beginnings of Devolution and Decentralisation Policies ...................... 44

6.2 What is Devolution and Decentralisation? ................................................... 45

6.3 Some General Problems ................................................................................ 46

6.4 Relationship between Communities and Forestry Departments ................... 47

6.5 Decentralisation in Cambodia Case Study ................................................. 48

6.6 What are the Limiting Factors for Devolution and Decentralisation? .......... 49

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................. 51

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 53


7/67


8/67


viii

List of Figures and Tables

Figures: Figure 1: Definitions of poverty alleviation and sub -definitions in the context of

forest resource use

Figure 2: A conventional view of the relationship between community and resourcemanagement

Figure 3: An alternative view of community management

Tables: Table 1: Population of forest-dependent people in Southeast Asia

Table 2: Drivers of community forestry

Table 3: Significant events in the development of community forestry

Table 4: Attributes of resource and users

Table 5: Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resourceinstitutions

Table 6: A typology of approaches to devolution and decentralisation

Cover Photograph by Rachael Hannay, 2009.


9/67

1

Introduction

The greatest threat to the worlds forests is people, and one of the major

threats to the worlds people is the loss or degradation of the worlds forests. People and forests are thus inextricably linked

(Spears, 1999, pp. 25)

There is little doubt that today there is a profound sense of urgency regarding the sustainable

management and conservation of our natural environment. Growing concerns about the

impact of climate change, deepening disparities in global wealth and the loss of ecosystems

and biodiversity mean the challenges for international development agencies, conservationists

and governments are great. Links between environmental degradation and poverty are well

documented (Fisher, 2000; WRI, 2005) yet how to tackle these problems in combination

seems daunting especially with the addition of population growth and the increasing scarcity

of natural resources.

In many parts of the world there remain large tracts of forests, mainly tropical, which are

extremely important providers of benefits to people on multiple levels. These benefits rangefrom providing food and shelter for local communities, to regulating global temperatures and

maintaining essential environmental systems such as hydrological cycles and biodiversity.

Forests are therefore important at both the local and global level. However much of the

tropical forests in developing countries are being deforested and degraded at an alarming rate

and are subject to mounting pressures of agricultural expansion, biofuel plantations, cattle

ranches and so on. Forest resources are also subject to multiple, overlapping claims and are

frequently arenas of conflict (Ellsworth, 2002). While agricultural expansion and subsequenteconomic growth has benefitted many people, there are also many rural communities that

depend upon forest resources for their basic needs. The potential of forests for poverty

alleviation coupled with the fact that forests can play a key role in mitigating climate change

has stimulated a demand within the international political community and civil societies for

better forest management that is sustainable and can provide both social and environmental

benefits.


10/67


2

In most countries with endowments of the worlds remaining natural forests the government

claims most or all of the forests as publicly owned but there has been increasing debate over

the last few decades about whether governments are the best managers of forests. The

concept that forests are more effectively managed in the hands of local communities rather

than under state control is gaining support from donors and international organizations. Since

the FAO World Forestry Congress in 1978 there has been growing recognition by many

international organisations and governments that communities should play a central role in

the management of local forests, on which many rural people are dependent. Increasing

pressure from NGOs and civil society groups has produced a shift from industrial forest

policies towards those aimed at meeting community needs, addressing poverty reduction and

conservation. As one forester famously wrote, Forestry is not about trees, it is about people.

And it is about trees only insofar as trees can serve the needs of people (Westoby, 1987).

The importance of forests as provider s of livelihoods and poverty safety nets has received

growing attention over the past few decades. Poor people depend more on environmental

assets than those who are better-off, and yet they find these assets both difficult to access and

increasingly degraded under the management of the state and private interests. Governance

failures, notably poor peoples lack of rights, limit how much they can benefit from

environmental assets and, consequently, their motivations to invest in them (Bass, 2006).

Indigen ous communities and NGOs are questioning the effectiveness of state forest

management, especially in those countries where private forests concessions have been

prevalent and the claims of indigenous groups ignored. Many people believe that a new

system of forest management is needed in which local people have the power and authority to

make decisions about their local resources and have the ability to benefit from them.

One proposed strategy is community forestry. Community forestry is perhaps most

accurately and usefully understood as an umbrella term denoting a wide range of activities

which link rural people with forests, trees, and the products and benefits to be derived from

them (Gilmour & Fisher, 1991). More specifically it is a pro -community model that seeks to

redress the imbalance of power between governments and local communities, and advocates

recognition of local forest management systems along with clear and legal land tenure and

rights regarding use and benefits of forest resources. The question of control is arguably the

most important and controversial issue in the debate regarding the role of communities in themanagement of forests. Increasingly, community forestry is being recast as a political issue,


11/67


3

driven by an emerging peoples movement. As this work will show, the forest is a contested

domain and the nature of this tension is a primary topic which needs to be understood if

community forestry is to play a part in the goals of sustainable development.

Geographical Focus

This piece of work will focus on Asia and in particular the countries of Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia is one of the richest regions in the world in terms of its varied human-

ecosystems. The diversity of cultural groups, combined with one of the worlds riches t

genetic pools has resulted in a multiplicity of forest-use systems. The forests of Southeast

Asia are largely located in tropical biomes and have a consistently high temperature

throughout the year. There are five important forest bio-regions in Southeast Asia: lowland

evergreen rain forests, swamp forests, mangrove forests, monsoon forests and montane

forests (Poffenberger, 2000). Due to their natural features, each major forest type plays a

unique role in the region as a distinctive habitat for biodiversity and in providing resources

for human societies. In each forest environment, local communities have been managing the

resources for thousands of years evolving in distinctive ways within these different physical

contexts presenting specialized needs and opportunities for local stewards.

What are the Aims of this Dissertation?

The aim of this dissertation is to examine whether community-based forest management (as

opposed to other forms of state and private management) will lead to more sustainable and

equitable forest management in Asia. This will involve examining the key areas of

controversy and debate surrounding community forestry as well as the potentials and

limitations of community forestry in contributing to sustainable development. I will examinethe interplay between research, policy and practice; how they have influenced each other over

the last fifty years in the area of natural resource management.

According to Agrawal (1999) and Fisher (2008), it is important when examining natural

resource management to extend the focus beyond the local or site level and look at the factors

needed for an enabling environment at the local, national and international levels, in order to

fully understand the complexities of community-based natural resource management(CBNRM). With this in mind I have attempted to illustrate the bigger picture that community


12/67


4

forestry is part of, since the causes of poverty and loss of biodiversity occur at a variety of

levels. As Mayers and Bass (1999) point out, it is fair to say that policies that affect forests

are a reflection of the dramas being played out on dozens of stages at the same time and it is

meaningless to attempt to understand what is happening to forests and the people who depend

upon them without seeing the bigger picture of political and economic realities from

pressures for local control, to globalisation of markets, capital flows and technology, to rising

inequality. The debates and obstacles that arise in relation to community forestry are part of a

much broader issue; namely who should own and manage public goods such as water, forests

and the atmosphere and who should make decisions that will affect such resources? In other

words my hope is that through exploring community forestry, issues relevant to a much wider

debate will be raised and recommendations and conclusions far-reaching.

Organization of the Study

This paper will begin with an overview of the benefits that forests provide to both the human

population and the natural world and how forest resources frequently provide a life line for

the rural poor. Chapter Two will chart the historical progression of the relationship between

rural communities and forests within Southeast Asia. It will document traditional systems of

forest management and how these systems have, over time, been affected by colonial rule and

state control and the implications for forest communities.

Chapter Three will explain community forestry as a development intervention, including its

objectives and definitions of success. The history of community forestry will also be

mapped out, from its beginnings to its formal inception. Chapter Four will examine the

concept of community since it is an integral part of community forestry and because despite

the increasing popularity of community-based conservation and development projects, the

concept of community is rarely defined (Agrawal, 1999).Chapter Five will examine common-pool resource theory and what conditions are suggested

as favourable for robust local institutions . In particular it will analyse Hardins infamous

work The Tragedy of the Commons along with its impacts and critics while also examining

Ostroms design principles for successful local forest management. I will also explore the

social dynamics that regulate common-pool resource use at the local level.

Chapter Six will look at how local institutions interact with other levels of management at the

regional and national levels. Issues surrounding decentralisation and devolution provide the


13/67


5

main discussion and the implications of these efforts for local livelihoods and sustainable

forest management.

Methods of Research

I was determined that in order to produce the best dissertation I could, it should be informed

by a period of fieldwork. After many weeks of sending emails to relevant NGOs I was given

the opportunity to work with a charity in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, for a period of three

months. The NGO in question was the Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Learning Institute (CBNRM LI) which worked primarily in the areas of community forestry

and fisheries with a strong emphasis on capacity building at the local level and building

relationships between rural communities, local levels of government and forestry

departments. Despite the majority of my time being spent in the central office I did get the

chance to visit some community forestry project sites where I also designed and assisted with

a week long period of participatory action research (PAR) with four local villages in the

north-east of the country bordering Vietnam and Laos.

As well as carrying out invaluable work with local communities all over Cambodia, the NGO

also fostered an environment of shared learning. As such there were weekly seminars,

presentations and discussions with local university students and professionals working in thefield of natural resource management (NRM), which all staff could attend. My time in

Cambodia was immensely valuable as I was able to understand the complexities of

community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) far better, in both a broad sense

because many of the issues experienced in Cambodia can also be witnessed in other

developing countries with tropical forests and also issues particular to Cambodia. I believe

that through talking to a diverse range of people, who were kind enough to share their time

with me, I was able to gain insights that cannot be found in books!

After returning to the UK I finally decided that my dissertation should not be centred upon

the experiences of community forestry in Cambodia as I had originally planned for two

reasons. Firstly I felt that despite having worked in the area of community forestry for three

months my actual time in the field had only totalled five days and did not produce the series

of semi-structured interviews I had planned on. Language had been a problem since I went to

the field with the community forestry team within CBNRM LI, all of whom were Cambodian

nationals, yet the communities we worked with spoke a local language and so much of the


14/67


6

information had to be interpreted twice in order for me to understand. I felt that a good deal

of the meaning may have been lost in this double translation and my confidence in using the

primary data waned. Secondly I feel that most of the problem issues and debates relating to

community forestry in Cambodia such as lack of secure land tenure and ineffective

decentralisation efforts are also problems for those working towards CF in the Asian region

as a whole. While my time in Cambodia has certainly informed my thinking about

community forestry, the majority of this dissertation is founded upon desk-based research in

the UK.

Influential Sources

There is a bewildering array of work devoted to the area of community-based natural

resource management, community-based conservation and community forestry in the form of

policy documents, research papers and books. Due to the interconnected nature of issues

relating to poverty and the environment, I found it challenging at times not to become

sidetracked and to remain focused and selective.

Background reading on the development of ideas and concepts relating to communities

managing natural resources and the historical progression of community forestry informed

my early research. Publications of particular importance include: People and Forests:

Communities, Institutions and Governance, edited by C. Gibson, M. McKean and E. Ostrom

(2000), Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power by R.

Fisher (2008) and The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development (2005) edited by J.

Sayer. During my research it became clear that there were a number of authorities on the

subject of community forestry, namely Arun Agrawal and Elinor Ostrom. As a result, their

extensive writings have been central to my reading.

My background in Social Anthropology and continued interest in the social dynamics of

development and conservation efforts led me to read the work of anthropologist Carol Pierce

Colfer (The Complex Forest, (2005); The Equitable Forest (2004) and Peter Brosius

(Communities and Conservation, 2005) who argues that anthropology has an important role

in showing how the environment is represented, claimed and contested.

I also referred to particular websites on a regular basis to read new research papers and

reports which provided up to date information and thinking on community forestry. Key sites


15/67


7

include Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Resources for the Future (RFF),

Community Forestry International (CFI) and Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).


16/67


8

Chapter One

Why are Forests Important?

1.1 Forest Dependence

It is estimated that some 60 million highly forest-dependent people live in the forests of Latin

America, West Africa and South East Asia (White & Martin, 2002) while Resources for the

Future (2009) state there are 1.6 billion forest dependent people living in developing

countries. Dependence upon forest resources differs substantially between individuals and

communities and can range from dependence upon forests as a dominant source of

subsistence and cash income to supplementary usage. The latter would include not only primary forest users but also those among the poor who trade, further process and consume

forest products, including those in urban areas (Byron and Arnold, 1999). People depend

upon forests for a wide range of resources including timber, game, fruit and medicinal plants

which may be used for subsistence purposes or sold in local markets (Sunderlin, 2005).

Community-owned and managed forests comprise less than 10 percent of forests globally,

yet, although individual forest commons are small in area, they are crucial to the livelihoods

of rural people in the developing world (Agrawal & Chhatre, 2009).

While the forests of Southeast Asia were sparsely inhabited by scattered groups of people for

thousands of years, that scenario has changed dramatically in the last century. A study by

Poffenberger (2006) estimates that there may be over 140 million forest dependent people in

Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, representing about one-third of

the populations in those nations. This estimate includes individuals who live on or near

forestland and are dependent on it for a significant portion of their livelihood requirements.


17/67


9

Table 1. Population of forest dependent people in Southeast Asia. Poffenberger, (2006), pp. 59

CountryTotal

Population 2000(million)

Number of forest-dependent people (million) and

percentage of total population

Total forest Area (millionhectares) and percentage

of total land area classifiedas state forest

Cambodia 11 1.4 (13%) 9.3 (52%)Indonesia 210 80 (38%) 181.2 (60%)Philippines 76 25 (33%) 15.8 (51%)Thailand 62 10 (16%) 14.8 (25%)Vietnam 79 25 (32%) 9.5 (28%)

1.2 Role of Forests in Poverty Reduction

An issue that has attracted renewed attention in recent years is the potential of forests to

reduce and prevent poverty, particularly in developing countries (Sengupta & Maginnis,

2004). The reason for this increased emphasis is due to the recognition that although not all

forested areas are poor and not all poverty is found in forested areas, there is nonetheless a

significant overlap between the forest and poverty maps of the world (FAO, 2009). Poverty

can be defined as a pronounced deprivation of well-being related to lack of material income

or consumption, low levels of education and health, vulnerability and exposure to risk, noopportunity to be heard and powerlessness (World Bank, 2001, pp.15). In this regard, forest-

based poverty alleviation (FBPA) is an encompassing term, where forest resources are used

either to avoid or to mitigate poverty, or to eliminate, or both. Sunderlin et al. (2004), state

that there are three principal ways to achieve FBPA:

1) to prevent forest resources from shrinking if they are necessary for maintaining

well-being;

2) to make forests accessible and redistribute resources;

3) to increase the value of forest production.

According to Sunderlin (2004) there is potential for forestry to contribute towards poverty

alleviation in Southeast Asia and other developing nations since poorer people tend to rely on

forest resources for most of their subsistence needs, as a safety net in the event of

emergencies, as a gap filler in the event of seasonal shortages and, occasionally, as a means

to permanently escape poverty. The figure below, adapted from Sunderlin (2004) illustrates

this thinking:


18/67


10

POVERTYELIMINATION

POVERTYALLEVIATION POVERTY

AVOIDANCE

POVERTYMITIGATION

Figure 1. Definitions of poverty alleviation and sub-definitions in the context of forest resource use. Sunderlin,(2005), pp. 5

Edmunds and Wollenberg (2003), argue that poverty reduction can also be achieved through

enhancing the agency of the poor to transform their production capabilities and their lives.

Tackling causes of restricted access to productive forest resources and actually increasing

control over the use of those resources can have positive impacts on the rural poor in

developing countries. Changes in access to resources such as property reform, access tofinance and land reform through land distribution or greater access rights to landless people

will increase income and overall capabilities as well as contributing to increasing production

and productivity in national economies. This way of thinking about poverty as a ca pability

deprivation (Sen, 1999 ) rather than simply a lack of income provides a broader and more

appropriate way to consider poverty especially in relation to natural resources since people

can be defined as poor because of their limited assets (which may be used to generate

income) as well as limited income. Angelsen and Wunder (2003) suggest talking aboutpoverty and human wellbeing in relation to forest and poverty linkages since greater control

over forest resources or greater security of tenure can have a significant effect on the

wellbeing of communities without necessarily raising income levels.

1.3 Forests - Environmental Services and Ecosystem Protection

Tropical forests are receiving increasing attention in the international political arena as they

perform multiple functions including poverty reduction, preservation of biodiversity and

Forests provide permanentexit from poverty via savings,investment, accumulation and

asset buildin

Forests as:

Source of subsistence Seasonal gap filler Safety net in emergencies


19/67


11

carbon sequestration. Forests retard soil loss and erosion and help protect land and people

from natural disasters which are thought to be increasing in frequency due to climatic

changes. Forests also improve air quality and help maintain regional climates, especially

patterns of rainfall. A large proportion of the earths b iodiversity (species, genetic, and

ecosystems), which may have significant environmental and economic value, is found in

forests and in fact tropical forests account for more than half of the earths plant and animal

species (Sharma et al., 1992).

The need to reduce deforestation and degradation of forests is becoming greater as climate

change becomes a deepening global concern. Deforestation in the tropics now accounts for

approximately twenty percent of anthropogenic global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of

carbon dioxide, making it the second largest contributor to climate change after the

combustion of fossil fuels (Ebeling & Yasue, 2008). International meetings and events such

as the recent COP 15 and Forest Day 3 in Copenhagen aim to highlight the importance of

forests for future climate outcomes. Newly proposed carbon markets aim to make forests

more valuable standing than being cut down by placing a financial value on the carbon stored

in them. There is a myriad of issues and complex problems within efforts to create market-

based mechanisms and carbon trading schemes and this piece of work cannot extend to a full

discussion about newly proposed policies such as REDD. However, a recent and important

article by Agrawal and Chhatre (2009) has found links between local ownership and control

of forests and the fight against climate change. They concluded that transfer of ownership

over larger forest commons patches to local communities, coupled with payments for

improved carbon storage, can contribute to climate change mitigation without adversely

affecting local livelihoods (Agrawal & Chhatre, 2009, pp. 17667).


20/67


12

Chapter Two

History of Human-Forests Relations in Southeast Asia

This chapter reviews the history of human uses of Southeast Asias forests. In explaining the

roles communities can play in forest management in the future, it is useful to reflect how they

have been engaged as stewards of forest resources in the past. By better understanding the

forest management experiences of the past, proponents of greater community engagement in

forestry may see ways to re-establish or adapt these management forms to respond to future

challenges.

2.1. Pre-colonial Times

Until the 16 th century and the arrival of European explorers, the forests of the Asia Pacific

region were mostly used by local communities for hunting and gathering, and distinct forms

of shifting cultivation. Forest resources were utilized and managed by indigenous groups,

often through complex systems of reciprocities and solidarities. Such systems were embedded

into local cultures and accommodated for differences in power and roles (including decision-

making) within holistic systems of reality and meaning (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2000). Dialogue

and discussion among interested parties (what some, today, refer to as co -management)

were widely practiced in some of these societies. In others, different social values (religious

authority, caste predestination, cultural norms, etc.) determined most natural resource

management (NRM) decisions and the related sharing of costs and benefits. Communal

property was generally widespread, and constituted a crucial element in the cohesion and

sustainability of traditional NRM systems (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2000). Poffenberger (2006)

adds that many forest-dwelling cultures in Southeast Asia viewed their lands as resources

held in trust for future generations and as legacies of their ancestors. This custodial role offorest tribes is reflec ted in the words of a tribal elder from Irian Jaya: The ancestors made

these goods (the land) at the beginning of time...and their descendants must be handed these

goods in unimpaired condition in the future. 1

1 Salisbury, R.F., 1962, p.61


21/67


13

2.2 The Colonial Era (1500-1950)

Southeast Asias colonial period began in the early 16 th century with the arrival of Spanish

and Portuguese explorers, followed by the Dutch, the English and the French. The Spanish

were the first to attempt to establish territorial control in the Philippines while the othercolonial powers exploring the region were more interested in trade. It was not until the early

nineteenth century that other colonial powers were struggling to take physical and

administrative control of the Asian states.

The depleted forests of Europe led colonial powers to increasingly depend on Asian countries

for materials for ship repair and construction and the first forests set aside by Europeans were

designated as sources of timber for boat building (Poffenberger, 2006). By 1677, the Dutch

were already negotiating with Javanese rulers to secure access to the rich teak forests of the

northern coast and by the nineteenth century commercial timber extraction was widespread.

Burma and Thailand were heavily logged for teak and much of the lowland Philippines was

intensely harvested from the 1850s on. In Indonesia, the Dutch colonial administrators

brought German foresters to Java in 1849 to establish a modern system of forest management

and in Thailand modern forestry began in 1896 with the creation of the Royal Forest

Department. British timber merchants operated freely throughout Thailand and Burma during

the second half of the nineteenth century, bribing government officials to gain control ofconcessions that were virtually unregulated (Poffenberger, 2001). With few exceptions, the

relationship between households and the community, and natural resources, changed

dramatically with the arrival of the colonial powers and consolidation of their foothold in the

colonies.

2.3 The Modern Era (1950-2009)

After World War II, Southeast Asias newly independent states largely retained forest

management policies of their former colonial governments, officially designating forestlands

as state domain. Western concepts of nature preservation, silviculture, and industrial forestry

provided a scientific basis for developing management goals and mechanisms for

administering newly demarcated public forestlands. Indigenous forest management practices,

such as long rotation swidden agriculture, agro-forestry and hunting and gathering regimes,

often found little or no recognition in these new systems of land tenure and forest laws as


22/67


14

they were based on European concepts of land ownership, reflecting very different modes of

production and legal traditions.

Forest policies towards centralisation in the countries of Southeast Asia had a number of

impacts on their forests. Negative impacts include high rates of deforestation, forest

degradation and loss of biodiversity. Brosius (2005) writes that the new nations of the region

vied with each other to sell their resources to extractive industries in the name of

modernisation and development. Multilateral organisations such as the World Bank actively

encouraged countries in Asia and other parts of the world to deforest in the name of

accelerated economic growth (Arnold, 1992). Sustainability concerns in forest management

have frequently been pushed aside when countries reacted to favourable prices and the

rapidly growing market demand for their timber.

Poffenberger (2001) states that the two most striking features affecting relationships between

humans and natural forests during the modern era in Southeast Asia has been the

implementation of greater government control over forest resources and the expansion of

logging throughout the region. Both trends undermined the role of forest-dependent peoples

as resource managers. Governments across Asia have generally granted logging or mineral

extraction rights to a relatively small number of private companies while corruption and

illegal logging have been commonplace (White & Martin, 2002). The large profits made

through timber extraction have rarely been invested in local communities affected and instead

they are often worse off due to the environmental degradation caused by large-scale,

intensive harvesting of timber and the infrastructure that accompanies it such as the

construction of roads and so forth. Indeed it has been the case that forest communities in

Southeast Asia have been regarded by the logging industry and governments as a problem

and an obstacle to the profitable exploitation of the forests (Down to Earth, 2002).

As the arm of the state has stretched ever further in a quest for economic growth through

timber harvesting, mineral extraction and agricultural expansion, rural communities have

become increasingly vulnerable. Communities which had occupied and managed areas of

forest for countless generations suddenly found themselves, according to the state and legal

system, without rights or recognition to their land and vulnerable to displacement and

marginalisation. The assumption of authority by colonial powers and nation states over most

common land and natural resources induced nearly everywhere a demise of traditional NRM

systems (Poffenberger, 2001). The breakdown of local NRM systems ended up inducing the


23/67


15

disempowerment and de-responsibilisation of local communities and attitudes of

confrontation and reciprocal mistrust between local people and the representatives of the state

became widespread. Community-based trial and errors and the detailed discussions of local

NRM practices, wherever they existed, were largely substituted by the coercive imposition of

practices through laws, rules, extension series, the police and the army (Borrini-Feyerabend,

2000). Poffenberger (2006) states that the erosion of customary forest management systems

has generally led to the deterioration of forests in many parts of Asia.

Historically, the trend of the concentration of rights to forest resources (and other natural

resources) to the state was part of the process of nation building with local rights constricting

in response to the increasing rights taken by the state. However, the concentration of rights to

the state has not necessarily led to effective or sustainable management of forest resources.Indeed, between 1900 and 1989, Southeast Asias forest area declined from 250 million

hectares to 60 million hectares. Poffenberger (2006) writes that while state agencies, such as

forest departments and state forest enterprises, have been authorised as resource managers, or

have delegated these responsibilities to private sector timber companies, they have generally

failed to implement management rules on the ground that lead to sustainable use.

When the state assumed rights and ownership over forests the traditional mechanisms that

people had in place regarding access, harvesting etc. were not legally recognised. Among the

rights lost in many instances were the rights of exclusion whereby other communities or

users could be excluded or their access regulated (Ostrom, 1990). Baland and Platteau (1996)

argue that the privatisation of common- pool resources (CPRs) or their appropriation and

regulation by central authorities tends to eliminate the implicit entitlements and personalised

relationships that are characteristic of communal property arrangements.

While local communities lost their rights and responsibilities to manage and benefit from

forest resources, many governments lacked the resources and mechanisms to replace them

leaving a local institutional vacuum and a lack of effective forest management (Ostrom,

2002). This has presented a problem for many governments and so while retaining formal

ownership of the forests, there is a growing recognition that by transferring control back to

the local level many benefits can be accrued both in terms of rural poverty alleviation and

conservation. Schreckenberg et al. (2006) write that in the last few decades central

governments have increasingly devolved forest management to local institutions, within and

outside the government. This move was driven by a number of concerns including reducing


24/67


16

the high costs involved in centralised state management of forests, and a recognition that

existing forest tenure systems often discriminate against rights and claims of indigenous

people and other local communities.

While this signals progress towards social justice for indigenous communities there is a need

for caution. In many countries there are unresolved disputes between local communities and

the state. In many cases the state permits community use of state forests but without formally

recognising traditional land claims. Sato (2000) has coined the term ambiguous lands to

describe forests (and other spaces) that are legally owned by the state but are cultivated and

managed by local people. An example from India (Hobley, 2005) illustrates how the

government devolved management of a forest to a community yet would not permit the

people to sell the forest products thus limiting the benefits available to the local people.Another example, also from India, shows how the government granted management of

degraded forest land to a community and after the trees had regenerated and again become

profitable, assumed control of the land to the detriment of the community (Hobley, 2005).


25/67


17

Chapter Three

What is Community Forestry?

This chapter will chart the history and growth of community forestry as an intervention to

conserve forests and grant more control over forest resources to local communities. It will

further explore how the vision and goals of community forestry are aligned with international

objectives of sustainable development.

3.1 The History of Community Forestry

Community forestry projects and interventions have developed in various places between the

1970s - 1990s as a response to different combinations of factors but consistently the key

drivers have been:

Table 2. Drivers of community forestry

Adapted from Warner, (1997)

1. Deforestation and degradation as a result of decades of overexploitation fromindustrial logging.

2. Collective action and protest by local communities that have challengedcentralized bureaucratic forest governance structures and destructive resourceextraction practices often tied to broader national struggles for democratizationand resource access.

3. Recognition that state governments do not have the resources to enforce forestmanagement laws and regulations and require assistance in carrying out forestmanagement responsibilities.

4. Pressure on national governments to address rural poverty and social inequalityon the part of intergovernmental organisations such as the World Bank, UN Forum

on Forests and the FAO.5. Resistance to top-down approaches to development assistance. Calls for more

grass-roots, decentralised approaches to development.6. More financial assistance from NGOs, banks and foundations to support CF

worldwide.


26/67


18

Community forestry as an approach to enable the sustainable utilization of forest resources

arose during the 1970s when the development strategies of the 1950s and 1960s that

focused on industrial development were being criticised for overlooking rural development

and not meeting the needs of the rural poor. The focus on woodfuels in forestry programmes

in the 1970s reflected the early focus in rural development programmes on meeting the

basic needs of the poor (Arnold, 2001). As rural development evo lved to encompass first

food security and then livelihood security, forestry broadened its focus accordingly to

address a wider range of linkages with rural livelihoods (Warner, 1997).

The analysis of the world energy crisis linked the demand for woodfuel to the deforestation

and the deterioration of agricultural areas and forests in Asia and Africa. The torrential floods

in Asia and severe droughts in Africa appeared to support the need for expanding areas under

forest and refocusing rural development activities to include forestry (Arnold, 1992). By the

end of the 1970s many international meetings were underway; perhaps the most important

being the World Forestry Forests for People Congress in 1978. This signalled the

beginning of a sea change in foresters attitudes towards local communities and a wealth of

programs and approaches were created community forestry, agroforestry, joint forest

management, social forestry, community-based forest management, to name a few to

acknowledge and build on the links between people and their surrounding or neighbouring

forests (Pierce Colfer, 2005). Another significant shift came from the World Bank whose

forestry policy shifted from industrially orientated forestry to environmental protection and

meeting community needs. Arnold (1992) states that there was a sense of urgency to establish

community forestry because of the deforestation and woodfuel problems and as such

community forestry very quickly took shape and spread as a concept and policy.

In the 19 80s a broader concept emerged which linked forest management to both the

conservation and rural development approaches. This stemmed partly from the argument that

harvesting of the forest products that rural people exploit and use is less ecologically

destructive than timber harvesting, and therefore provides a sounder basis for sustainable

forest management. It was further argued that increased commercial harvesting of non-timber

forest products (NTFPs) should add to the perceived value of the tropical f orest at both the

local and national levels, thereby increasing the incentive to retain the forest resource rather

than clear it for agricultural purposes or livestock (Arnold, 1992). This thinking was


27/67


19

interpreted as pointing the way to Community forestry, a form of forest management which

could serve both the goals of conservation and poverty alleviation.

Table 3. Significant events in the development of community forestry

Adapted from Arnold, (1992).

3.2 What are the Objectives of Community Forestry?

Community forestry, in the context of modern development and conservation, refers to a

movement and ideology that advocates an increase in the role of local people in the

governance and management of forest resources. Many definitions of community forestryexist. An example put forward by RECOFTC (2008) reads: "community forestry involves the

governance and management of forest resources by communities for commercial and non-

commercial purposes, including subsistence, timber production, NTPPs, wildlife,

conservation of biodiversity and environment, social and religious significance. It also

incorporates the practices, art, science, policies, institutions and processes necessary to

promote and support all aspects of community based forest management.

Mid 1970s FAO and SIDA convene expert group on Forestry and Local CommunityDevelopment to draw on initiatives in India (social forestry), Thailand (ForestVillages), Tanzania (village afforestation) and others.

Late 1970s 1978 World Forestry Congress de voted to Forests for People served to give theconcept of CF rapid and intensive exposure.1979 FAO World Congress on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.New World Bank Forest Policy.

Early 1980s First generation of projects focus mainly on creating new village level resources tomeet local subsistence needs through afforestation. Accumulating experience fromprojects and research identifies forests and trees as sources of food, income,employment and household security.

Mid and Second generation of projects emphasise local control and management oflate 80s existing forest resources and multiple roles of trees in farming systems. Focus on

working through local institutions.


28/67


20

According to Down to Earth (2002), an NGO which campaigns on behalf of the rural poor

and indigenous peoples of Indonesia, community forestry incorporates features of morality

(based on harmony not conflict), social integration (promotes local development based on

community cohesion rather than families being divided through migration to urban areas) and

democracy (decisions about local resources made by local people).

Success in c ommunity forestry has been defined as multidimensional (Pagdee et al., 2006).

A single indication, such as improvement of forest covers, equity of benefit sharing, or

reduction of community poverty, may highlight the success of a certain aspect, but each

indication alone cannot determine the sustainability and success of the CF project. For

example, although forest condition (eg. density, crown cover, and species diversity) may have

improved, fulfilment of local needs may not have improved significantly due to restrictiverules and regulations established to help improve forest conditions. Pagdee et al. (2006) write

that theoretically speaking, the definitions of CFs success should integrate outcomes of

ecological sustainability, social equity, and economic efficiency in which objectives for long-

term use of the resources are well defined so that expectations of users and society at large

remain consistent.

3.3 Community Forestry in Southeast Asia Case Studies

3.3.1 Krui Forest Gardens, Indonesia

In the 1990s a coalition of NGOs together with the Centre for International Forestry

Research (CIFOR) conducted research in Krui District in South Sumatra in order to

understand and support community-based mixed forest gardens. A key element in this

indigenous management system was the collection of resin from the damar tree (Shorea

javanica), which forms the canopy of a multi-storied forest. The dammar forest gardens are

property of Krui families, though they are held under the community and are not transferable

to outsiders. Yearly income per hectare of agroforest is estimated to range from $1200 to

$1800. Research indicates that dammar forest gardens also have high biodiversity values and

important habitats for many endangered mammals such as the Sumatran tiger, rhinoceros and

monkeys. Satellite images indicate that the mature dammar forest gardens in Krui District

cover 54,000 hectares but increasing attempts to expand rubber and palm oil plantations

threaten local livelihoods, Krui culture and biodiversity. Such encroachments by private

sector groups have been stalled by efforts of a coalition of NGOs and research institutions


29/67


21

and resulted in formal recognition from the Government of Indonesia in 1998 (Poffenberger,

2006). Forest garden systems are found throughout Southeast Asia in a myriad of forms and

they are valued sources of livelihood and generally very productively maintained and

protected by local communities (Poffenberger, 2006).

3.3.2 Flood Forests, Cambodia

In Cambodia, Community forestry is increasingly recognised as an important strategy for

sustaining forest resources and for contributing to improved rural livelihoods. Community

forestry projects are increasing in number, mainly due to the Governments supportive policy

of the practice (Heng and Sokhun, 2005). In Kompong Phluk Village on the shores of the

Tonle Sap (great Lake), community members have been protecting the flood forest for nearly

60 years. Forest protection began after clearing of lakeside forests for watermelon production

left the community exposed to violent rainy season storms. The community also realised that

the flood forests were spawning grounds for the fish on which their livelihood depends. For

nearly half a century, through civil wars and social upheavals, the Khmer villages in the area

have gradually built up their resource management systems, most recently with the support of

an FAO project (CBNRM Learning Institute, 2005). At the present time, the village controls

over 15,906 hectares of land and is formally recognised by the provincial government. The

community forestry and fisheries committee follow a resource management plan allowing forcontrolled fuelwood harvesting, monitoring fishing gear and catch levels and generating fees

for management activities. With over 200 different species of fish in the lake, many endemic,

the flood forests protected by the communities provide a crucial habitat for biodiversity

conservation (Evans et al., 2004). The engagement of the communities in managing aquatic

forests, both coastal mangrove and freshwater is expanding in many parts of Southeast Asia

as governments recognise the need for local support in protecting these critical ecosystems

(Poffenberger, 2006).

3.4 Community Forestry as part of Sustainable Development Goals

Over the last few decades there has been a growing awareness of the need to link the

conservation of resources with the development needs of rural populations dependant on

natural resources. The Brundlandt Report, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and

Agenda 21 all emphasise the need to protect forests and the importance of doing so for the

conservation of biodiversity and vital ecosystems, and for socio-economic development on asustainable basis. These directives also stress the need for more social justice and equity in


30/67


22

the sharing of benefits derived from forest resources, goals which correspond to those of

community forestry.

In 1983 the Brundlandt Commission was convened by the United Nations to address the

growing concern about the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural

resources and the consequences of that deterioration for social and economic development.

The resulting Brundlandt Report published in 1987 as Our Common Future", deals with

sustainable development and the change of politics needed for achieving that. The definition

of this term in the report is quite well known and often cited: "Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs. Within this definition of sustainable development, the

concept of 'needs', particularly the essential needs of the world's poor are given overriding priority. The report was able for the first time to bring to the forefront issues relating to equity

and environmental integrity in addition to the traditional objective of economic growth. But

its main feat was the inclusion of intergenerational equity issues that have been largely

ignored in the past.

An important and influential meeting was the United Nations Conference on Environment

and Development (the Earth Summit), which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In this

conference forest destruction and degradation was one of the major issues on the table. The

governments present at the conference committed to certain principles and actions as

described in Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and the Statement of Principles for the Sustainable

Management of Forests. The Forest Principles highlight the growing recognition that forest

communities must be included in forest management and that forests have an important part

to play in sustainable livelihoods:

National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the

rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers.

Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an

economic stake in forest use, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural

identity and social organization, as well as adequate levels of livelihood and well-being,

through, inter alia, those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the

sustainable management of forests (Principle 5a).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), also adopted at the Earth Summit, is aninternational legally binding treaty, often regarded as a key document regarding sustainable


31/67


23

development. The convention recognized for the first time in international law that the

conservation of biological diversity is "a common concern of humankind" and is an integral

part of the development process.

In 2001, the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) detailed the

degradation of ecosystems and highlighted the close links between poverty and

environmental degradation. The MAs main message is that we are spending the Earths

natural capital at excessive rates, straining its ability to support everybody in current and

future generations, but particularly the poorest people. Fifteen of the twenty- four ecosystem

services (includ ing freshwater, climate regulation and air quality regulation) reviewed in the

MA have been degraded or unsustainably used. This represents the loss of a capital asset and

thus undermines human well-being and will prove to be a major barrier to achieving theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs). A report by the IIED entitled Environment for

the MDGs notes that the harmful effects of the degradation of ecosystems services are being

borne disproportionally by the poor, are contributing to the growing inequities and disparities

across groups of people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing poverty and social

conflict (Bass, 2006).


32/67


24

Chapter Four

Community Issues

The focus of community forestry is and should remain at the local level, wherelocal people come together to manage and utilise local natural resources in

ways that blend multiple dimensions of community and ecological well- being(Flint et al., 2008)

This chapter analyses the concept of community as it is a fundamental aspect of commu nity

forestry. Increasingly, development and conservation efforts are being centred on the ideathat greater community involvement and participation will lead to more sustainable and

effective development, yet if communities are not understood as the complex and frequently

differentiated groups of people that they are then these more inclusive efforts too might fail. I

will further examine the reasons why communities might make the best managers of forests

in terms of securing benefits for both local communities and the natural environment. This

chapter will also explore what is meant by community participation and whether, despite

having much support in development and policy circles, genuine and meaningfulparticipation is actually happening on the ground.

4.1 Are Communities the Best Managers of Forests?

For the past few decades many NGOs, civil society groups and scholars have been talking

about the idea that communities might manage their own natural resources and while

governments retain rights as owners of forests, communities are increasingly becoming the

managers. Studies that explore (and often champion) local systems of natural resource

management abound with numerous contributions from Pierce Colfer (2005), Dove (2005)

and Peluso (1992, 2006) in Southeast Asia; Agrawal (2001) and Poffenberger (1996) in India

and Nepal.

The importance of indigenous or traditional knowledge has been championed by many social

and environmental justice advocates as well as academics and researchers. Until quite

recently scientific and western systems of knowledge were considered privileged forms of

knowing and of greater value than local knowledge. In turn, the majority of development


33/67


25

projects and policies were founded almost exclusively on western, science-based knowledge

whilst the views and opinions of local people were frequently overlooked. Community

forestry does not seek to privilege one form of knowing over another; rather it recognises that

indigenous knowledge systems and western scientific knowledge both have much to

contribute to sustainable forest management. While local communities recognise their own

rights and responsibilities to manage forests in their areas, a very real problem is that

indigenous knowledge is held by people whose voices are not heard and who have no

recognised role in formal forest management. As such a valuable human resource is wasted

(Pierce Colfer & Byron 2001). Outsiders are often completely unaware of the complexity and

effectiveness of some traditional management systems. Community forestry seeks to change

this reality through a more collaborative and integrated system of management which

promotes respect for all forms of knowledge and knowing. Local people must be able to have

a voice and their voices must be heard.

A further reason why local people are so important in the management of forests is the social

capital that exists within many forest communities. Pierce Colfer and Byron (2001) write that

in tropical forests, complex and enduring management systems typically have functioned

well in the past and continue to function well in many areas. If the local institutions and

management systems are ignored or effectively replaced by state forestry departments thisvaluable social capital is lost.

According to Brosius (2005), there are also moral reasons why communities should be

allowed to manage their forests, especially since many depend on natural resources for basic

survival and livelihoods. Pierce Colfer and Byron (2001) assert that people should rightly

have control over their own destinies and this translates into secure land tenure with a

reasonably long-term agreement. Longer-term security of land ownership and legally

recognised rights and responsibilities not only creates incentives to manage resources moresustainability but also has implications for the health of local people and cultures. Having

some control over the direction and pace of change is important to the mental health of all

peoples. This sentiment is echoed by Amartya Sen (1999) who argues eloquently that human

well-being is about far more than making enough money; it must include personal liberty and

ones ability to control ones own destiny. Pierce Colfer and Byron (2001) also write about

self-determination, stating that one of the most important functions of participation is in

providing a means for forest-based people to control the speed and direction of changes intheir lifestyles. Real participation can also reduce such adverse psychological consequences


34/67


26

as stress, marginalisation, and related health problems. Active stakeholder participation in

forest management provides a mechanism for dealing with cultural diversity and with the

continually changing interface between people and forests.

Community management of forest resources allows for the continuation of cultural diversity

as well as biodiversity. This is not to say that cultures should not be allowed to evolve but the

current context for forest-based peoples and their cultures seems unnaturally antagonistic to

local systems, based largely on the extreme inequities in power between forest-based peoples

and the groups typically invading their areas. According to Pierce Colfer (2005) this results

in an acceleration of loss of cultures.

4.2 Exploring the Community in Community Forestry

Community forestry is a pro -community assistance model and as such has focused on the

formation of community-based organisations, awareness raising and building institutional

capacity. The emergence of community-based development and conservation has been

welcomed by many but despite its increasing popularity the concept of community is rarely

defined or carefully examined by those concerned with resource conservation and

management. The terms Community forestry, Community-based Forest Management and

CBNRM have been increasingly employed to describe a wide range of activities associated

with the use and management of natural resources in rural settings. On the surface, invoking

these terms elicits positive connotations. Such terms are associated with a sense of grass-roots

citizen participation that brings the goals of sustainable natural resource management and

community well-being together. Beneath the surface, however, it is clear that no shared

conceptual understanding or use of the core concept community exists (Flint et al, 2008).

Borrini-Feyerabend ( 2007) avoids the thorny use of community altogether and instead

chooses to use terms such as collaborative management and participatory management

while also avoiding issues of communal ties, instead focusing on alliances among individual

stakeholders.

Agrawal and Gibson (1999) argue that some writings (eg. Western and Wright, 1994) on

community-based conservation devote little attention to the concept of community, or

explaining how community affects outcomes. According to Agrawal and Gibson (1999),

much of the literature sees communities in three ways: as a spatial unit, as a homogenous

social structure, and as having shared norms and values. It is on the basis of one or acombination of these three ideas that most of the advocacy for community rests.


35/67


27

Figure 2. A conventional view of the relationship between community and resource management.

Agrawal and Gibson, (1999), pp. 636

Figure 3. An alternative view of community management. Agrawal and Gibson, (1999), pp. 639

According to Flint et al. (2008) community in almost every use implies some level of

interaction. Community is what people who care about each other and the place they live

create as they interact on a daily basis. Flint et al. (2008) take social interaction as the central

element of community that is, community emerges from social interaction. They state that

people have the capacity to manage, utilise, and enhance the resources available to them and

call this ability to act community agency defining it simply as the capacity for collective

action. Using the term community agency focuses attention on the coming together of people

Community as smallarea and/or numberof individuals

Community ashomogeneous social

structure

Community as set ofsharedunderstandings(about resource use)

Desirable resourceuse and conservationoutcomes

Community groups vary by:

Size

Work

Norms

Resource dependence

Institutional arrangements

Processes of decision

making and enforcement

Resource Management

Outcomes


36/67


28

in a local society to address local needs. The will to act collectively comes from their

recognition of shared needs and concerns. Community as shared norms is itself an outcome

of interactions and processes that take place within communities and the presence of

community-level norms can facilitate resource management by preventing certain behaviours,

or encouraging others. But norms should not be taken as a set of beliefs that communities

hold, never to give up (Flint et al., 2008). The authors also make the point that where

communities neither own the land nor have defined collective rights to local natural

resources, the value of a community-based approach is its ability to raise the level and quality

of dialogue and participation in NRM decision-making. Cronkleton et al. (2008) warn that

pro-community approaches are very influential but not a panacea and that often other forms

of help are needed such as a combination of technical assistance, capacity building and

institutional strengthening.

There is a paradox that when talking about community, one must be mindful at once not to

evoke unhelpful narratives of ecologically noble savages while at the same time not

dismissing the reality that many forest communities do in fact have high levels of social

capital, shared beliefs/norms and a close relationship with the natural world. Borrini-

Feyerabend (2000) writes that indigenous communities have tended to create themselves

around a body of natural resources that they could manage together. In other words, intraditional societies the units of natural resource management and the units of social life

tended to coincide.

If equitable sharing of benefits within communities is to be achieved it is of central

importance to understand how benefit distribution is dictated by community conditions

including varying interests, capacities, responsibilities, and relationships between individuals

and groups (Mahanty et al. 2007). Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2007) state that most

communities show internal inequalities and differences, based on ethnic origin, class, caste,economic endowments, religion, social status, gender and age. Agrawal (2001) argues that

gender-related differences are especially significant within groups because of the often

critical role women play in the gathering and harvesting of products from common -pool

resources, the simultaneous position of relative marginality to which they are relegated in

terms of decision making, ownership of assets, and exercising political power. What then

does the heterogeneous nature of communities mean for benefit sharing at the local level? In

all societies, the composition of decision-making bodies is likely to reflect and reinforceimbalances of power, with the weaker and underprivileged social groups being least


37/67


29

represented in decision making structures so it is important that other stakeholders in co-

management arrangements such as NGO s and local state government are aware of local

inequalities. The need to understand community social and political structures is very

important for any NGO working with equity issues in order to identify who are the poor and

disadvantaged within a community and ultimately how community-based natural resource

management arrangements can be made more pro-poor (RECOFTC, 2008).

4.3 What does Participation mean in Community Forestry?

Community forestry seeks to bring together various stakeholders in order to foster more trust

and dialogue and there is a growing consensus that establishing and maintaining appropriate

relationships among highly diverse stakeholders in conservation and development remains a

key issue (Cronkleton et al., 2008). Community forestry is founded on the belief that local

people should form a central part of decision-making processes relating to local natural

resources, or as Warner (1997) states, participation by local communities is the cornerstone

of community forestry. Recognition that forest management needs to be more participatory

has moved steadily from passive interpretations of participation, requiring little more than

that affected communities be informed of decisions made by those in power, to more

substantive measures involving local people in decision-making, and increasingly in the

control and management of the forests they draw upon. However the drive for increased

participation of local people has been primarily a donor objective, not always shared by

governments of rentier states. According to Agrawal and Gibson (1999), in practice, policies

and programmes that actually empower local people to make decisions and set objectives or

at least to have a genuine role in decision-making are rare.

The development of community forestry was in part a response to the recognition that for

effective sustainable forest management to occur, local communities had to become real

partners with the state and other external groups in managing the forests. Unfortunately

participation has not been interpreted as a partnership in many instances, rather it has been

interpreted as community members providing labour (participating) for externally designed

interventions. The challenge is to have the policy, rules and attitudes in place that enable

communities to assume a strengthened role in management decisions (Warner, 1997). There

needs to be a shift from communities being victims of decisions made elsewhere to being

partners in the local forest resource management decisions; true partners, not to merely affirm


38/67


30

external decisions, nor to be co-opted by powerful external interests. Increased dialogue is

not only important between different levels of management (community institutions, local

government, forestry departments etc.) but also between local communities. Cronkleton et al.,

(2008) write that community forestry encourages exchange and sharing of experience among

local communities in similar circumstances and promotes regular contacts which can help

community members realize that others are confronting similar threats to their particular

resource base. The resulting dialogue helps strengthen communities capacity to define

common agendas and collective strategies, resulting in more effective political negotiation

capacities.

Aiding the collection of information has been the development and use of methods and tools

such as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which haveincreased the development communitys knowledge of community -based forest management

and assisted in providing a means for dialogue between communities and external agencies.

However, meaningful participation by communities during policy, programme, project or

activity design and implementation has proved more elusive; all too often communities are

not among the decision-makers that identify the problems and determine the priorities,

objectives and activities. Warner (1997) states that despite the growing knowledge base

around c

Documents

Living Landscapes the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development-RachaelHannay