ASIA

- The Initiative on Good Forest Governance in Asia: In Support of CBFM and Wider Processes

The seed for the initiative on Good Forest Governance (GFG) in Asia was planted at the Forest, Trees and People Program (FTPP) meeting held in Daman, Nepal, April 2000. Partners at that meeting recognized the need to involve civil society more actively in community-based forest management (CBFM), as well as the possible roles of a regional association to support this process.

Two years later, the GFG seed began to germinate with the support of a Ford Foundation grant to the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) aimed at testing:

* The feasibility of a GFG program with existing and new RECOFTC partners
* Whether a regional association or alliance to support GFG would be needed
* Whether the GFG initiative could be linked to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) process to gain mutual leverage

During the past months, a series of planning events in Thailand --coupled with GFG workshops and related events at the WSSD PrepCom IV in Bali and the Summit in Johannesburg-- have led to the development of workplans, new partnerships, and the launching of an Asian Alliance for GFG.

GFG Framework and Objectives

The underpinning rationale, conceptual framework and possible functions of the GFG initiative were articulated in a draft position paper.(1)

The GFG framework (see below) has been adapted from the 'governance map' developed by Hobley and Shields (2) for analyzing and improving the relationships among key actors in CBFM- forest users, natural resource management (NRM) agencies and the political environment.

Through various consultations and refinements, the main objectives of the GFG initiative have evolved into the following:

1. To understand the practice of and factors contributing to good forest governance, and to serve as a clearinghouse for best practices, lessons learned, and other information relevant to GFG.

2. To support GFG initiatives at different levels in Asian countries, and to monitor the effects of wider political processes on forest governance.

3. To develop effective channels of communication to (a) enable forest users to increase their voice and impact, and (b) improve the relationships among a diverse group of stakeholders.

Networking and Information Support

In an effort to disseminate relevant information and stimulate discussion and interaction among those interested in Good Forest Governance and community-based forest management RECOFTC has set up the following communications channels:

* A web page devoted to the GFG initiative (http://www.recoftc.org/forgov.html)
* A listserv for GFG partners (gfgasia@yahoogroups.com)
* A listserv for members of the Global Caucus on CBFM, which emerged during PrepCom IV in Bali and now comprises nearly 200 people worldwide (globalcbfm@yahoogroups.com)

It is hoped that these channels, along with the WRM website and bulletin, will be used routinely and frequently by GFG and CBFM partners to promote networking, information sharing and peer support.

GFG Workplans

The various planning and workshop events have enabled the formulation of GFG country-level workplans by partners from Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. These represent a rich array of activities at the local and national levels, focusing on themes such as:

* developing and institutionalising arrangements for learning
* strengthening community forest user federations
* improving relationships among users, forest departments and policy makers
* sharing of field processes
* building capacity for GFG and CBFM
* contributing to policy development
* building upon decentralisation, devolution and democratisation processes

Together, these country activities provide a solid foundation upon which regional activities may be developed for greater synergy and complementarity. Four regional activities have emerged as priorities:

* Compiling and analysing national/local level assessments of GFG
* Developing criteria and indicators for GFG processes
* Forging regional/international linkages to leverage local processes
* Designing and testing GFG training

Next Steps

Partners emerged from Johannesburg with a shared vision and shared commitment to GFG. Among the next steps agreed to were the following:

1. Move ahead with local and national activities
For example, Nepal is implementing plans for a national workshop on GFG, development of criteria and indicators for GFG in Community Based Forest Management, and training of facilitators on user group formation with GFG principles.

2. Consolidate GFG work-plans, finalise terms of reference for interim working group and facilitator, and mobilise human resources to get things moving.

3. Focus on the passage of the Thai community forestry bill
This movement has greatly benefited from letters sent to the Thai Prime Minister from CBFM Global Caucus and WRM members.

4. Continue to link with the CBFM Global Caucus
For example, notable progress on identifying people and activities (e.g., protected areas) for the World Forestry Congress in Quebec in 2003.

5. Use GFG framework to analyse country situation and adapt as needed

RECOFTC has offered to host and support an interim secretariat for GFG during the initial two-year feasibility phase. Efforts are underway to mobilise:

* An interim working group to provide overall governance and guidance; and
* An interim facilitator who can assist the working group and interim secretariat.

By Chun K. Lai, RECOFTC, http://www.recoftc.org/forgov.html, e-mail: forgov@recoftc.org

(1) "Moving Towards Good Forest Governance in Asia and the Pacific: A Draft Position Paper Prepared as Part of Indonesian People's Forum During PrepCom IV of WSSD to stimulate dialogue and interest in GFG." RECOFTC, Bangkok, May 2002.
(2) Hobley, M. and Dermott Shield. 2000. "The Reality of Trying to Transform Structures and Processes: Forestry in Rural Livelihoods." Working Paper 132. ODI, London.

top

India's experiments with Joint Forest Management (JFM) grew out of attempts by forestry officials to accommodate 'tribal' demands to manage their own forests. [The indigenous peoples of India are officially referred to as 'Scheduled Tribes']. Under JFM forests remain the property of the State under the jurisdiction of Forest Departments but local communities are contracted to manage the forests and retain a portion of profits from the sale of harvests. The extent to which profits are shared with the communities varies considerably from state to state in India, as does the degree of forest department intervention.

However, JFM is notable for the low security of tenure it provides to participants. In most states, the Forest Protection Committees established to co-manage forests with the Forest Departments lack legal personality and have no status outside their relationship to the government agencies. Many of those involved in JFM thus see the process as just another means by which the Forestry Departments are able to organise local labour to improve public lands. However some in the forest service have argued that State intervention is crucial to ensure that the weaker sections of communities benefit from and are not further marginalised by JFM.

In the mid-1990s, large-scale foreign assistance, notably through concessional loans from the World Bank, was provided to help 'scale up' joint forest management. Notionally, the programme now embraces the whole country. However, the programme has begun to run into serious problems. One set of problems derives from the lack of real political will in some States to implement the programme. In Indian states where the programme was 'home grown' and implanted by leading foresters, the scaling up has been relatively successful. In these states, the existence of a least some committed foresters, active social movements pressing for reform and a network of concerned NGOs, has ensured that mechanisms have developed to monitor progress and provide accountability. However, in other states which have accepted the programme mainly as a result of national policy change and the provision of outside funds, these checks and balances have been lacking. Forestry Department officials have resisted what they see as an erosion of their authority. Joint Forest Management schemes have thus been implemented half-heartedly, with inadequate community preparation and with too much authority being retained by officials. In these circumstances scope for the application of local institutions, knowledge and initiative has been frustrated and enthusiasm for JFM has been correspondingly weak.

A second set of problems has come from the inflexible application of the JFM concept. JFM was originally conceived by foresters as a way of encouraging the rehabilitation of degraded 'forest' lands. The programme is thus only applied in areas where natural forests are already lost and local communities require help to restore forest cover and achieve (or regain) a more sustainable forest management system. Ironically this has meant that those communities which have not significantly depleted their forests do not qualify for the programme. Many of the tribal groups in Central India have been caught out by this Catch 22.

In other areas, tribals have felt excluded from JFM because opportunities to participate have been monopolised by higher caste groups who have been able to use their greater access to officials to secure participation in the JFM scheme. Marginalised and technically landless groups like the tribal peoples have thus seen 'degraded lands' and 'wastelands' that were important to their livelihoods annexed to JFM, leaving them further impoverished.

Surprisingly, despite its policy on indigenous peoples, World Bank support for JFM, has not helped focus attention on the special needs of indigenous peoples. In January 2000, the World Bank abruptly pulled out of the Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project after tribal groups frustrated at the way JFM was being imposed on their traditional lands without their rights or interests being accommodated travelled all the way to Delhi to visit the World Bank office and voice their complaints. Denied access to the building, the tribals camped in the compound until the Bank accepted a petition from the group. World Bank staff privately admit that the project was not developed in accordance with its policy and was thus indefensible. Alarmed by this experience and facing complaints through the Inspection Panel, World Bank staff in India have discussed whether or not they should wind up their involvement in JFM altogether.

Among the lessons learned from the JFM experience are the following:

* communities can only benefit if they also have adequate lands for subsistence outside forests
* long term benefits require that a major share of the profits be retained by the communities
* forestry officials need re-training and given incentives to devolve decisions to communities
* forestry department commitment must be real and not a token response to aid agencies
* arrangements should be fitted to local forest management traditions not prescribed from above
* the programme should be extended to include healthy forests
* special provisions are needed to accommodate the needs and rights of indigenous peoples

In general, however, most indigenous peoples in India see JFM as an (inadequate) first step towards the restitution of their rights.

By Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, e-mail: marcus@fppwrm.gn.apc.org

top

- Towards Community Forestry in Indonesia

Forests in Indonesia have been rapidly depleting since the 1960s when the practice became prevalent of handing out logging concessions to military commanders. Logging quickly expanded to supply cheap logs to the Japanese timber industry principally to produce plywood. Under heavy pressure from government-directed colonisation programmes forest loss escalated, a process further exaggerated by large-scale schemes, some developed with foreign assistance, to expand tree crops in 'conversion forests'. In the mid-1970s, the Indonesian government restricted and then banned the export of unprocessed logs which had the effect of providing a protective market for a domestic plywood and timber processing industry, which developed a voracious appetite for timber. Demand soon outstripped supply and hastened the extension of the logging frontier into the remoter parts of Kalimantan, Sulawesi, the Moluccas and 'Irian Jaya' (West Papua). By the late 1980s, NGOs were estimating deforestation in Indonesia at around 1 million hectares a year, a figure long denied by the government. Recent studies put the rate of forest loss even higher --at some 3 million hectares per year-- and note that over half of all timber is being extracted illegally.

As the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry has noted:

"In the early 1980s, in what could be considered one of the largest land grabs in history, the government implemented a forest zonation system that classified most of the Outer Islands as forestlands. Seventy-eight percent of Indonesia, or more than 140 million hectares were placed under the responsibility of the Department of Forestry and Estate Crops. This included over 90% of the outer islands. Estimates place as many as 65 million people living within these areas. According to the Department of Forestry, the creation of the State forest zone nullified local 'Adat' rights, making thousands of communities invisible to the forest management planning process and squatters on their ancestral lands. As a result, logging concessions, timber plantations, protected areas, and government-sponsored migration schemes have been directly overlaid on millions of hectares of community lands, causing widespread conflict. Yet, in fact for many local people, traditional law, or 'hukum Adat', still governs natural resource management practices."

Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, the political protection afforded to his cronies has gradually been eroded and reform-minded politicians and officials have begun to push, tentatively for wider reforms in forest policy. Under pressure from NGOs and a civil society that grows daily more confident of itself, the Forestry Department has felt obliged to give way, at least in part, to demands for community access to and control of forests.

One area of dispute focuses on exactly which areas are classified as State Forests. Recently released official figures show that only 68% of the areas claimed as State Forests have actually been fully demarcated and gazetted, but no clear maps are available to help communities find out if they live in the gazetted areas or the remaining 32% which formally still remain under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Agrarian Lands. Besides many communities are now questioning the legality by which the forest lands were demarcated and gazetted. Formally required procedures to consult the local administration and affected communities were often not run through, opening up the possibility that the annexation of community lands to establish State Forests could now be challenged in the courts.

A vigorous civil society movement has emerged to challenge State control of forests including several broad alliances of NGOs and other civil society elements such as the Coalition for the Democratisation of Natural Resources (KUDETA), the Communication Forum on Community Forestry (FKKM), the Consortium for Supporting Community-Based Forest System Management (KpSHK) and the Alliance of the Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN). While their tactics and priorities vary, all have called for a devolution of control of forests to local communities. All these initiatives have benefited from considerable financial support from development NGOs and foreign Foundations.

The Forestry Department has taken various steps to accommodate this pressure. In January 1998 it passed a special decree recognising the rights of communities in Krui in West Lampung to have permanent control of their forests under community management. In mid-1999, the Government engaged in a consultation exercise with NGOs in drafting a new Forestry Act but the process broke down when it transpired that while a more-or-less open external drafting process was underway which involved civil society groups, the Ministry was simultaneously drafting its own version internally. It was the internal draft which was submitted to Parliament and ratified despite widespread objections including from former Ministers of the Environment and of Forests. Shortly after another piece of law was also passed in the period, Ministerial Decree, SK 677/1999 (revised in 2001 as SK 31/2001) which establishes a process by which communities can set up as cooperatives and secure 25 year leases to forests subject to government approval of the local management plans.

Although many NGOs are critical of the limited progress that these pieces of law represent, others consider them to be important steps towards a recognition of community rights in forests. The struggle for a reassertion of community forestry in Indonesia is really only just beginning.

By Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, e-mail: marcus@fppwrm.gn.apc.org

top

- Indonesia: Changes and Challenges of the Community-Based Forest Management Movement

The Indonesian NGO movement has been supporting CBFM start since 1995. The main message of the start-up phase was that most of the CBFM models that developed in a sustainable way were based on community wisdom, culture and custom.

The culture and customs of forest communities in Indonesia are influenced by the outside environment, including technology, public regulations and trends in global culture. Globalisation and development speed up the influence of the global culture on customary communities, which are usually found in the remote areas. These new cultural influences are usually more materialistic and individualistic than existing community culture and customs. The CBFM model, which used to be managed with a spirit of communality (both in communal or private land), has been changing towards individualism, from eco-ritualism to the money-orientation. The social, cultural and customary values of land and forest are slowly but surely changing towards commercialisation.

The change towards individualism and materialism is seen in the increasing conflicts over land, forest and other resources among community members. The conflict happens because the rapid changes are affecting the culture of land allocation and management.

Not all communities have changed as described above, but I believe that sooner or later, all community groups (including indigenous and customary communities) will change in this direction.

What should NGOs supporting CBFM do?

When we are aware about this situation, then the question is what should we do? Should we stay promoting the old CBFM model, do we have to find the new model, or, should we go back to the conventional model (the state-based systems of land management)?

In my opinion, I would like to say that we have to promote the CBFM model with some improvements. There are three reasons for that opinion, which are: First, the governance system in Indonesia is not well-managed; and state-based forest management therefore cannot be implemented properly. If the government tries again to force the state-based model of forest management on communities, then there will be more and more conflict in natural resources management between communities, the government and the private sector. Also, we will have more and more corruption, collusion and nepotism in the forestry sector, which in the end will speed up the destruction of the forests. Second, local communities inside or adjacent to forests have a history binding them to that area, making them more responsible in sustaining the forests. Third, local communities have indigenous knowledge which can be a basis for achieving sustainable forest management.

Therefore, the CBFM movement in Indonesia must continue to face a lot of challenges. The supporters of the CBFM movement must be aware about the trends of cultural change in rural communities to avoid wrong assumptions and inappropriate actions.

In facing the challenges in CBFM development, we found some obstacles, which are:

1. The weakness of local institutions (especially lack of conflict resolution mechanisms and enforcement systems)

Based on our experiences, it is difficult for local community institutions to adapt to the new changes and opportunities. There are a lot of community groups who cannot deal with the new changes. That raises a lot of internal conflicts which remain unsolved. Also we found a lot of weakness in the enforcement system. Very often community groups ask the government to solve their conflicts, while the government also has little or no capacity in conflict resolution.

2. The limit of technology and methodology on CBFM

Most of the forest management practices in Indonesia are based on big-scale operations and investment. The CBFM model is based on small-scale and small-investment approaches. Most of the technology and methodology of forest management available in Indonesia only suits big scale operations which imply road building and heavy equipment, and produce big-volumes of wood, and so on.

Based on our experiences of a community sawmill, we had to order most of the equipment from overseas, at great expense. Also, in small-scale forest management it is often difficult to find technical solutions to problems such as how to define the annual allowable cut, rotation, enrichments, etc. Most available experts are familiar with the big-scale pattern but not with small-scale community forestry. We found similar experiences in rattan resources management and processing. In summary, we do not have appropriate technology and methodologies for supporting CBFM in Indonesia, where communities want to produce for a wider market.

3. Lack of Supporting Systems

A support system is needed to help communities with access to market information, capacity building, technical assistance services, credit facilities and development of supporting regulation. To enable the success of CBFM, we have to re-arrange the public services system in Indonesia to meet those needs, and develop the skills to support small scale, community-based forest management.

By Ade Cahyat , Director in East Kalimantan Foundation for Supporting CBFM (SHK Kaltim), e-mail: cahyat@samarinda.org

top

- Community Forestry in the Philippines

The rapid depletion of Filipino forests by logging, mining and settler encroachment was officially acknowledged as requiring a policy response in the late 1980s. The need to limit and regulate logging and to promote community forestry alternatives was accepted by government by the end of the decade. In 1990, the government adopted a Master Plan for Forestry Development which entailed an attempt to 'scale up' previous community-level initiatives in forest management.

Under the plan, communities were entitled to leaseholds of State-owned forest lands under Forestry Stewardship Agreements which gave them rights to plant trees and market forest products over a 25 year period. Concerns were expressed early on in the process that Forestry Stewardship Contracts made no provisions for unresolved indigenous land claims and might even be used to extinguish native rights. Modifications were subsequently introduced to reassure indigenous communities entering into contracts that their historical claims were unaffected.

During the 1990s international assistance was poured into the forestry sector by bilateral and multilateral agencies. The Asian Development Bank gave substantial support to plantation development and the World Bank provided additional funds to overall forest sector development. Both lending programmes were modified to accommodate the Forestry Stewardship initiative, while the interests of communities in the face of plantations were promoted through 'contract reforestation' initiatives by which individuals, co-operatives or communities could secure financial and technical assistance for tree-planting schemes. At the same time, USAID targetted community forestry through two large Natural Resource Management Projects which provided special funds for the Department of Energy and Natural Resources to provide outreach to the rural poor. Although indigenous peoples made up at least 30% of the rural poor inhabiting Filipino forests, specific provisions for indigenous peoples were not prominent in the overall programme.

Despite the good intentions on the part of the donors, the overall impact of the forestry reform programme for the rural poor in general and indigenous peoples in particular has not been a great success. The main beneficiaries of the programme have been the plantation and seedling companies that have developed the plantations. Contract reforestation has been less successful in servicing local markets than anticipated and most of the contract reforestation schemes that have endured have been out-grower schemes for large-scale pulp and paper mills such as PICOP. In northern Mindanao, contract reforestation has actually drawn settlers onto indigenous lands and provoked serious conflicts.

NGOs and indigenous spokespersons note a number of other unhappy results of the forestry reform programme. One has been that the sector has become almost entirely dependent on donor support and is deprived of funding and political support from central government. As a result the programme has not been 'rooted' in domestic processes of policy or institutional reform and the connections between the aid-funded reform and local political processes have been weak or absent. Community forestry has thus become a donor-driven enclave within the political economy, tolerated as a way of capturing foreign exchange rather than one promoted to achieve sustainable development. Consequently, the affected communities have been further distanced from national reform politicians and instead of being empowered and better connected to national policy processes find themselves burdened by the new community forestry bureaucracy which has expanded massively thanks to the foreign funding. The overall verdict of many NGOs and community activists is that forestry reform has suffered from too much top-down money. The donor-driven programme tried to build on an incipient civil society initiative before there had been any real institutional change nationally. The result was a programme which swamped the national reform process and which has left indigenous peoples less empowered than before.

By Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, e-mail: marcus@fppwrm.gn.apc.org

top

- Thailand: Forests Communities to Renew Struggle for Rights

More than ten years of negotiations between government officials, local community groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have led to a draft community forest bill which would be Thailand's first legislation recognising the legal status of communities living in and around Thailand's National Forest Reserves to use, manage and protect their forests in co-operation with the Royal Forestry Department.

Last year, the bill had been passed by the Lower House but subsequently was blocked by the Upper House (Senate) which proposed amendments that would basically subvert the intent of the bill and could lead to the resettlement of local communities, particularly ethnic minorities, living in protected forests areas such as national parks. After the Senate (Upper House) amended the draft bill, the draft has been returned to the Lower House (LH) for consideration. Although the bill should have come up for consideration by the Lower House in end September, it has now been postponed to January 2003.

A recent Cabinet reshuffle including the establishment of a new Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as some uncertainty with the political fall-out if the Bill is passed, have supposedly been the reasons that led to the postponement of consideration of the bill, according to some sources within government. When the Lower House does consider the Bill, it has two choices: agree to the Senate's amendments and pass the Bill, or disagree in which case a joint parliamentary committee will be set up to consider the bill. Fortunately, the second option seems more likely at this stage. If the joint committee is set up, it is expected to take a month to consider the amendments, make revisions and send the bill back to both houses of Parliament for consideration.

The Senate's amendments to the Bill have also slowed the whole process down, resulting in frustration for local community groups who needed the Bill to be passed as soon as possible to prevent potential displacement from their homes in forest areas.

Local community groups and NGOs in North Thailand are organising a large conference on community forests and inviting the Minister of the newly-formed Ministry of Natural Resources and other politicians to muster political support. In Bangkok, academics organised a seminar for academics to support the original draft Bill passed by the Lower House. NGOs and academics in Bangkok and elsewhere are starting a postcard campaign, and have printed 60,000 postcards supporting that Bill. About 1,000 academics all over Thailand have already signed a letter supporting the Bill. International support from NGOs and academics is also being received (you can sign and send the sample letter posted in the WRM Web page: http://www.wrm.org.uy/alerts/september02.html#1). All these signatures and support letters will be presented to Parliament by January 2003.

By Rajesh Daniel, TERRA/PER, e-mail: noelrajesh@yahoo.com