• Community-Based Forest Management: Beyond “Resources”
• Forests and communities: Idealization or solution?
• Two initiatives for Community-Based Forest Management
• Community forests’ on-going battle with corporate forestry
• Community forests in international processes

 

- Community-Based Forest Management: Beyond “Resources”

What are we talking about when we speak of “community-based forest management”?

First, there is the term “management”. According to the VOX dictionary, it refers to the “art or practice of training horses” and also “to conduct, control, take charge of.” The “forest management” which arose in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was a corollary of the process of fencing in communal forests and, later, the application of state control over forests. Finally, the term became closely associated with the production of timber for commercial purposes.

Then there is the term “resources”, which so often goes together with “management”. This too is a very culturally specific word. Most communities who use and care for their local communal forests are not “managing” them as “resources”. Management implies control, unilateral exploitation and separation between the subject and the object (the “expert” and the forest to be “managed”). Knowledge becomes fragmented and specialized and techniques to address forests are applied more and more from outside. Integration among systems breaks down, and in the cracks, local knowledge and its ways of relating with the world are buried. Specialized techniques acquire the status of universal paradigms, excluding other practices. What Vandana Shiva calls a “monoculture of the mind” takes root, finding one expression in the separation of “scientific” agriculture and “scientific” forestry, which, in many local knowledge systems, are an ecological continuum.

“Natural resource management” should be recognized as a relatively recent, largely Western construction. “Resources” implies that the significance of whatever is to be exploited rests with an end “product”. It is a term belonging to industrial capitalism, going back to around 1800. Before then, no one spoke of “resources.” Even now, in many parts of the world, if not in most parts of the world, people do not look at trees, land, seeds or water as resources. Communal goods are not resources. They are used, they have a use value as food, housing, medicine, etc., but not in the way in which a resource is used, as a raw material for an industrial market. Furthermore, the term “natural” presupposes a specific industrial form, historically determined, of separating people (“not natural”) from nature.

Talking about our surroundings in terms of "natural resources management" encodes certain ways of valuing, preserving, and exploiting land, water and living things. These values and categories are not universal, and practical problems and conflicts result when this point is overlooked. Local people often have different ways of categorizing, valuing, and exploiting their natural surroundings. This means that the local population and outsiders arriving with a technical or “scientific” training to “manage natural resources” may not be “talking” about the same thing – even though they may be using the same language.

The vision according to which all stands of trees are “timber resources”, for example, is one root of the confusion between industrial monoculture tree plantations and forests that has constantly been denounced by WRM.

The local significance of practices regarding what experts call “natural resources” in a given community will only be fully revealed when they are linked with other aspects forming part of the cognitive world of that community, such as its ways of getting food and shelter, of preserving and transmitting knowledge, of conceiving cycles, of relating to the environment, and of conducting spiritual, family and community life.

Should we then try to adapt the definition of “community-based forest management” to different livelihood practices? Or should we abandon the term altogether as having a dangerous practical bias? What models can link local practices, including local knowledge, to national and international efforts to preserve biodiversity?

To attempt to integrate the concept of “community-based forest management” with contrasting local practices would at least have the merit of forcing “outside” organizations to make implicit definitions explicit, transforming them into an object of debate. Otherwise, it could turn out that communities who are the victims of ideological, economic and historic exclusion – which are often made to appear, from an “expert” or “specialist” standpoint, as “lacks” – would become subject to yet another form of exclusion. People who work to identify, document and reconstruct local ways of forest use must in any case learn to listen in ways that have not yet been institutionalised -- that is, to break away from their “monoculture of the mind” to detect not what is known, but what is not perceived because of deafness.

In the great diversity of traditional practices and, in spite of the differences, it is possible to identify some characteristics that are common to many societies in their use of biodiversity:

*They tend to be based on principles of reciprocity and give and take;

* They tend to be holistic, not distinguishing what is material from what is spiritual, perceiving the forest in its complex weave of interacting ecological systems in which the community is yet another element, implying that the forest’s significance goes much beyond the confines of economy and maximization of individual profit;

* They generally have a close link with cultural identity and local self-determination. For some peoples, the characteristics of a landscape contain meanings (expressed both textually and orally through folklore, myths and songs) that are an integral part of the way in which they reproduce their culture. Forcibly changing the landscape (by environmental destruction or alteration), or forcibly separating people from their environment, can have devastating effects.

The modern concept of “community-based forest management” includes the idea of “participation”. However, “participation” may not be the same as consensus, democracy or self-determination. Attempts are sometimes made to plug this gap through formalities aimed at “prior informed consent”, but control may still remain in the hands of external agents (who may be “experts”, NGOs, state officials or all of these working together), who often become empowered by local knowledge but do not share their own local knowledge with the community. It must be ensured that this relationship – like relationships with ecosystems – is reciprocal. Genuine “participation” would involve a “dialogue of knowledges.”

To quote Vandana Shiva once again, “Alternatives exist, but are excluded. Their inclusion requires a context of diversity. Shifting to diversity as a mode of thought, a context of action, allows multiple choices to emerge.”

One way of starting to back away from noxious paths is to become aware of, and to shift, some of the terms we use. In place of terms such as “natural resource management”, it can be stimulating to experiment with terms such as “community relationships with the forest” and similar terms that reflect the community ecological practices that now, more than ever, must be sustained and built on, not only for the welfare of forest communities, but to safeguard what is left of the biodiversity on which we all depend.

Article based on information from: “Integrating Culture into Natural Resource Management: A Thematic Essay,” Kenneth D. Croes, http://www.icimod.org/iym2002/culture/web/reference/integrating_culture/part1.htm ; “Monocultures of the Mind”, Vandana Shiva; and comments and ideas by Larry Lohmann, e-mail: larrylohmann@gn.apc.org

---

top

- Forests and communities: Idealization or solution?

Why was it that millenary practices for forest use, now known as “Community Forest Management” arose in traditional communities? Why have these practices been so natural for them?

Perhaps we should start by talking about the ecosystem. Fritjof Capra, in “Ecology, Community and Agriculture,” http://www.ecoliteracy.org/pdf/ecology.pdf , defines it very clearly: “An ecosystem . . . is not just a collection of species but a community, which means that its members all depend on one another. They are all interconnected in a vast network of relationships, the web of life."

The following concepts -summarized from Capra's work- allow for a better understanding of the issue.

For the community to perpetuate itself –says Capra- the relations it maintains must be sustainable. Since its introduction in the early 1980s, the concept of sustainability has often been distorted, co-opted, and even trivialized by being used without the ecological context that gives it its proper meaning. What is sustained in a sustainable community is not economic growth, development, market share, or competitive advantage, but the entire web of life on which our long-term survival depends. In other words, a sustainable community is designed in such a way that its ways of life, businesses, economy, physical structures, and technologies do not interfere with nature’s inherent potential to sustain life.

Furthermore, when we begin to understand the principles of ecology at a deep level, we see that they can also be understood as principles of community. Indeed, you could say that ecosystems are sustainable because they are living communities. So, community, sustainability, and ecology are inseparably connected.

This is taken up by western science in the new systemic theory, in the recognition that there is a basic pattern of life that is common to all living systems. That basic pattern is the network. There is a web of relationships among all the components of a living organism, just as there is a network of relationships among the plants, animals, and microorganisms in an ecosystem, or among people in a human community.

Systems theory is not needed for this understanding. Throughout the ages without developing a scientific framework in our sense of the term, Indigenous cultures have had an ancestral systemic understanding of nature and of their place in it — an understanding in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context —what some have called 'systemic wisdom.' They based their relationships on this knowledge, following a model of cooperation, partnership and networking that made the beginning of life possible three billion years ago.

The above concepts developed by Capra serve to establish a theoretical framework for the concept of “Community forest management” and to dissipate doubts that it originates from a romantic vision – that presently would not be “politically correct.”

The world has changed. Globalization has reached nearly all the corners of the planet to convert nature into just another merchandise, forests have been invaded, altered and deteriorated – if not destroyed – and traditional cultures run the risk of being demolished. This cannot be ignored.

Many of us watch this process with alarm and put our efforts into identifying the causes of this state of things. Delving deeply into the underlying causes enables us to reflect on the path we must take to find a way out. We know that situations are diverse and all have their complexities, but it is also true that along the path with its many branches, a point is finally reached where a simple and dramatic option is faced: this way or the other, yes or no. We say this to explain positions that may sometimes seem Manichaean or simplistic.

Our point of reference is forest defence in the broad sense, with a political and social vision, integrated to the peoples who have belonged to the forests, who have depended on them. These peoples forged the diversity of their cultures around the forests, they achieved their livelihoods conserving them, and they hoisted up their identity and dignity. Now, still in a common destiny with the forests, they are persecuted, displaced, robbed.

It is now these communities that, in preparing strategies for forest conservation or restoration, can contribute with their traditional knowledge, their culture, their sustainable practices for the use of nature. WRM does no more than follow them, support them, and amplify their voices. We are not demanding that the communities continue living in the same way as their ancestors did – it is possible that some now no longer want to. There is no doubt that modern life has brought amenities to which an equitable access would be valid. But although we are conscious that at this point in many cases the proposals for community forest management will only be partial solutions to totally deteriorated situations, this does not prevent us from highlighting – and a theoretical framework is useful for this purpose – what we consider to be the ultimate causes of destruction, thus tracing a generic referent in the search for solutions.

It is not a question of goodies and baddies. Applying a systemic analysis makes it possible to analyze the relationships established by the actors in our planetary community. In this respect, at the root of the processes of forest and culture destruction, time and time again we have identified the artifices of globalization with all its ingredients: large-scale production, uniformisation, loss of diversity, market monopolization, capital accumulation, mega-projects, profit and commercialization invading all spheres of life, together with all the impacts we endeavour to denounce in our bulletins, publications and information material.

Likewise, the intention is not to dictate solutions (each case will search for its own) but to identify what we consider to be the ingredients of these solutions: the establishment of structural conditions to recreate the values of cooperation and partnership that enable communities to exist, redefining relationships between individuals in conformity with those values (this is where equity, inclusion and participation come in) and with the environment (which is equivalent to evicting commercialism from nature with its corollary of exploitation and degradation on the one hand, and to restoring cycles, exchanges, interrelationships and diversity, on the other).

This is what we are working on.

---

top

- Two initiatives for Community-Based Forest Management

In 2002, a number of organizations and individuals working together to influence the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), created the Global Caucus on Community-Based Forest Management, which was successful in influencing government delegates to “recognize and support indigenous and community based forest management systems to ensure their full and effective participation in sustainable forest management.” (article 45h of the WSSD Report)

The overall goal of the Caucus is "to create political spaces to advance community based forest management at the local, national and global level", within a vision where "local communities and Indigenous Peoples assert their rights and assume their responsibilities to manage and use their forests. The stated mission of the Caucus is to advocate and promote "the rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples to manage their forests and forest resources in ways that are socially just, ecologically sound, and economically viable. (see full Caucus description at http://www.forestsandcommunities.org )

In January 2004, a number of organizations concerned about forests and forest peoples’ rights held a strategy meeting at the World Social Forum to discuss ways of moving forward on those issues. The result was the Mumbai Forest Initiative, a statement of principles aimed at creating a global movement based on a common approach to forest conservation and to the respect of forest peoples’ rights. That approach is detailed in a set of 10 principles, the first of which states that "the people living in and using forests for their survival needs are the true managers and governors of these forests and enjoy inalienable rights over forests.", while the second principle underscores that "the protection and conservation of forests demand that these rights be ensured. (see Mumbai Forest Initiative at http://www.wrm.org.uy/statements/Mumbai.html )

These two recent processes are a ray of hope in a world where mainstream forestry continues empowering power and disempowering local communities. Regardless of their different origin and possible differences, they clearly share a common approach and aim at similar objectives. Welcome both!

---

top

- Community forests’ on-going battle with corporate forestry

A long way from the tropical rainforests of Amazonia, British Columbia (BC), the western most province in Canada, has been characterized as "Brazil of the North" for its rate of forest liquidation. The British Columbian forests are dominated by large corporate tenures and large scale extraction. But there is a glimmer of change as community forests emerge, and with them, a new way of doing forestry and forest management. One of these community forests belongs to Kaslo, a small town on the shores of Kootenay Lake, in south-east British Columbia.

In 1997, the Kaslo community was awarded a community forest, giving the people of the community a greater say in managing the local forest. This forestry operation started with a wide range of people, much wider than the people traditionally involved in BC forests (BC forests are about as male dominated as a bachelor party, with only the token female stripper). One of those people is Susan Mulkey.

Susan Mulkey came to the Kaslo community forest as facilitator with a background in social work, with no direct experience in forest management. As a board member for five years, Susan helped the community forest get off the ground – and put her facilitation skills to work. The Kaslo community forest operated using consensus for decision-making to negotiate between the vastly different perspectives that make up small communities.

The Kaslo Community Forest began to have some success: they were profitable, improving participation and democratic involvement, managing for a diversity of values including ecological, consumptive water use, visuals and recreation, and primarily local people were employed in the forest – directly benefiting the local community. The old boys club dominating management decisions began to slowly include broader and more inclusive perspectives.

But this was not a smooth transition, as Susan explains it, “The dominant groups in the community, the ones who have traditionally held control – the mill owners, contractors – many were, and some still are very threatened by our work. Here I am, a short, female social activist, talking about doing things differently in forests, talking forest management, talking consensus, talking diversification. The old guard is terrified of all that stuff.” Some people in the community, particularly ones who have traditionally held all the power, strongly resisted these changes, resenting the so-called “women’s build relationships approach”, which was less valued, and often seen as soft, or unnecessary.

The corporate, industrial forest forces are still very strong in Kaslo, as in all of British Columbia. At the last Kaslo Community Forest election, the ‘old boys’ managed to wiggle their way onto the board (the main decision-making body), and now they are once again dominating the local forest, bringing a totally different approach to forest management than the past few years.

So, what happens when industrial forestry takes over the community forest? One thing is for certain, the Kaslo community forest is definitely at threat of remaining a ‘community’ forest, as Susan Mulkey reports: “All those things that make a community forest different than corporate forest management are being eroded – the decision making system, stewardship education, gentle forest management approaches, increased public consultation and participation.” But, Susan goes on, “This has been an enormous learning experience. We have learned how important governance is, and setting up governance regulations in a way that will not allow one interest to dominate over all the others. We should have built in mechanisms to avoid this sort of situation, while remaining attentive to the need for a democratic process. For example, we should have entrenched in our by-laws the governing principles and values such as consensus decision making process, mechanisms to ensure diverse community representation."

For some of us it is difficult to view community forests, or community based forest management as a threat, when it seems to be the ideal way to put democracy, social justice and ecology back into forestry. But to some of the people and institutions who have profited and gained from old corporate forestry, community forests and the new people they can bring to the decision making table (particularly women) are threatening. The challenges for changing forestry and forest management does not stop at gaining community forestry tenures, or increasing participation in management. Challenges are on-going – particularly to ensure that community forests, or community based forest management do actually mean something different in the relationships of people at the community level; to ensure that they truly are contributing to a democratization of forestry.

By: Jessica Dempsey, e-mail: jdempsey@interchange.ubc.ca , based on an interview with Susan Mulkey, a member of the Kaslo Community Forest, and an executive member of the British Columbia Community Forest Association.

---

top

- Community forests in international processes

For years governments have been discussing about forests and making "legally-binding" and "non legally-binding" agreements with the stated aim of protecting the world's forests. It is therefore a useful exercise to look into those agreements in relation with community-based forest management, to see what role –if any– governments have assigned to the communities actually living in or depending on the forests.

The 1992 Earth Summit

The forest crisis was one of the major issues at the root of the global concerns that gave rise to the convening of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. However, what governments did commit themselves to do on forests (Chapter 11 of Agenda 21) was totally insufficient and so was what they actually did not agree to make commitments on (the Forest Principles). One of the reasons for finding those two documents so poor is precisely the fact that they practically ignore the rich experience in forest management held by indigenous peoples and local communities.

Agenda 21, Chapter 11: Combating deforestation

Agenda 21 was the plan of action agreed upon at the Earth Summit to deal with some of the major environmental and social problems being faced by humanity (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm). It contains 40 chapters, among which number 11 is specifically focused on the issue of deforestation (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter11.htm). This chapter is divided in 4 programme areas, the second of which deals with "Enhancing the protection, sustainable management and conservation of all forests, and the greening of degraded areas, through forest rehabilitation afforestation, reforestation and other rehabilitative means".

One would assume that this is where communities would come into the picture but, unfortunately, that assumption is wrong: communities are only assigned –at best– a marginal supportive role or –at worse– are perceived as part of the problem.

The term "community forestry" is in fact only used once and only in the context of "Carrying out revegetation in appropriate mountain areas, highlands, bare lands, degraded farm lands, arid and semi-arid lands and coastal areas … "

As an example of marginal supportive role, the first point in the section on "management-related activities" states that "Governments, with the participation of the private sector, non-governmental organizations, local community groups, indigenous people, women, local government units and the public at large, should act to maintain and expand the existing vegetative cover wherever ecologically, socially and economically feasible, through technical cooperation and other forms of support."

Another example: the need to undertake "supportive measures to ensure sustainable utilization of biological resources and conservation of biological diversity and the traditional forest habitats of indigenous people, forest dwellers and local communities" is only addressed within the framework of protected area systems.

Shifting cultivation is highlighted as part of the problem when chapter 11 states the need of "Limiting and aiming to halt destructive shifting cultivation" and of "including data on shifting cultivation and other agents of forest destruction." The solution is simple: "to support … in particular women, youth, farmers and indigenous people/shifting cultivators, through extension and provision of inputs and training." However, that "solution" implies that shifting cultivation is not perceived as a traditional and sustainable system used by communities throughout the tropics and that they need to be "educated" to make them abandon that system.

Government delegates that negotiated this chapter, while unwilling to empower local communities and indigenous peoples, did acknowledge that they hold knowledge and one of the activities to be implemented is to carry out "surveys and research on local/indigenous knowledge of trees and forests and their uses to improve the planning and implementation of sustainable forest management." The question then is: if they do hold knowledge, why are they not empowered to manage their forests?

The Forest Principles

At the Earth Summit, governments did not manage to reach an agreement on a Convention on Forests and they eventually made public a "Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests." (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm) The length of the title does not correspond to the depth of its substance. As in Agenda 21, community forest management is not mentioned as the solution to the problem of deforestation.

On the contrary, the solution lies on States, which "have the sovereign and inalienable right to utilize, manage and develop their forests ... including the conversion of such areas for other uses within the overall socio-economic development plan and based on rational land-use policies." Which basically means that governments have the sovereign right to destroy "their" forests –which in the tropics were owned by local communities before the modern states even existed.

Forest people can of course –if the government so wishes– be allowed to participate: "Governments should promote and provide opportunities for the participation of interested parties, including local communities and indigenous people, industries, labour, non-governmental organizations and individuals, forest dwellers and women, in the development, implementation and planning of national forest policies." However, the true managers of the forest are not only put in the same basket as those who destroy it (industry), but they can only "participate" in decisions to be taken by government.

The Forest Principles do go a step further than Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 as regards to forest communities by stating that "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."

Although not clearly evident, the above can be understood as meaning that indigenous peoples and local communities should be assigned clear rights over forests as a means of ensuring forest conservation. If this were so, it would have meant a major step in the right direction. However, this approach was not promoted in the international processes that took place during the following ten years.

The Forest Principles also go beyond Chapter 11 on indigenous peoples' knowledge when they say that "Appropriate indigenous capacity and local knowledge regarding the conservation and sustainable development of forests should, through institutional and financial support and in collaboration with the people in the local communities concerned, be recognized, respected, recorded, developed and, as appropriate, introduced in the implementation of programmes. Benefits arising from the utilization of indigenous knowledge should therefore be equitably shared with such people." Here again the question: if indigenous peoples' knowledge is so important, why not put them in charge of managing their forests?

United Nations processes on forests

In 1995, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), which in 1997 came up with a set of Proposals for Action regarding the conservation of forests (http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/ipf-iff-proposalsforaction.pdf). Subsequently, in 1997, ECOSOC established the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), which finalized its work in 2000, with an additional set of proposals for action (http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/ipf-iff-proposalsforaction.pdf). Although not legally-binding, these proposals were the result of long negotiation processes that governments agreed to implement.

Neither the IPF nor the IFF put community forests at the core of the solution to the forest crisis. Although they do include some aspects that were totally absent in the Rio processes, they are clearly insufficient for ensuring forest conservation through community involvement. In this respect, it is interesting to note, that while the IPF contains a section on "Proposals for action to enhance private-sector investment", it does not include a section on enhancing community forest management.

The IPF proposals include some positive wording regarding the "recognition and respect for customary and traditional rights of, inter alia, indigenous people and local communities" and "secure land tenure arrangements", which we strongly believe to be the starting point for enhancing community forest management, but the IPF waters down its own wording by adding "in accordance with their national sovereignty, specific country conditions and national legislation." The translation of this UN language is that those countries whose legislation do not recognize customary rights can use this excuse for not respecting those rights and that "national sovereignty" will be used to counter any international pressures to do so.

Governments are of course "encouraged" to allow participation –"where appropriate"- of "indigenous people, forest dwellers, forest owners and local communities in meaningful decision-making regarding the management of state forest lands in their proximity, within the context of national laws and legislation", which is basically meaningless in the vast majority of tropical countries, where the land where those communities have lived since time immemorial is considered –by national laws and legislation– to be state land.

Much emphasis is put in article 40 on TFRK (Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge), but not as a reason for handing over forest management to those who actually possess that knowledge. On the contrary, TFRK is perceived as something very useful that should be handed over to government experts for the planning, development and implementation of national forest policies and programmes. Of course, government delegates visualize knowledge as money (intellectual property rights) and dedicate a number of points to discuss how to share that money and with whom.

Indigenous peoples, forest dwellers and local communities are given a larger role in the most difficult –and economically less attractive– areas, such as in countries with low forest cover "to promote the regeneration and restoration of degraded forest areas", including them in their protection and management.

The farthest the IPF is willing to go is to "invite" (the weakest possible wording in UN language) governments "to consider supporting indigenous people, local communities, other inhabitants of forests, small-scale forest owners and forest-dependent communities by funding sustainable forest management projects, capacity-building and information dissemination, and by supporting direct participation of all interested parties in forest policy discussions and planning."

The following forest forum (the IFF), did little to ensure the implementation of the IPF proposals and added little in the new set of proposals it put forward.

As respects to the issue we are analyzing, one of the few points that deserve highlighting is one that calls on governments to "Support appropriate land tenure law and/or arrangements as a means to define clearly land ownership, as well as the rights of indigenous and local communities and forest owners, for the sustainable use of forest resources, taking into account the sovereign right of each country and its legal framework." But here again, it uses the weakest possible language ("support") and adds the usual wording on sovereignty and national law to enable governments to disregard this proposal.

The same type of weak wording is used in another apparently positive proposal to "Support and promote community involvement in sustainable forest management through technical guidance, economic incentives and, where appropriate, legal frameworks". The last two words of this proposal (legal framework) are watered down with the addition of "where appropriate". Will it ever be appropriate?

World Summit on Sustainable Development

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg, South Africa in August-September 2002. Ten years had passed since the Earth Summit, forests had continued to disappear and what was needed was a new approach to the issue. None of this happened at the summit and the section on forests of the WWSD report (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/636/93/PDF/N0263693.pdf?OpenElement) is probably the weakest of the four analysed here.

There is however an exception in article 45 (h), where governments commit themselves to carry out "actions at all levels" to "Recognize and support indigenous and community-based forest management systems to ensure their full and effective participation in sustainable forest management."

This is the first and only such clear statement from governments on this issue.

That would appear to be a major step forward and should be the starting point for government action in forest conservation. However, the fact that it is included as paragraph "h" (and not "a"), is already showing that the issue is not at the top of the agenda. Nevertheless, it is important for forest campaigners to bear this article in mind when dealing with international processes and actors related to forests to ensure that it is taken on board.

Conclusions

The obvious conclusion resulting from the detailed analysis of the main international agreements and processes on forests is that community-based forest management is basically absent in the governmental approach to forest conservation. Even the positive article highlighted above that came out from the WSSD (45 h) was not the result of an internal change in approach by governments but the outcome of lobbying by the Global Caucus on Community-Based Forest Management, that managed to introduce that article in the process' last PrepCom in Bali.

However, it is very clear that in most cases it is communities that protect the forests, usually struggling against government decisions that open up forests to unsustainable exploitation.

It is difficult to believe that so many government delegates –and their advisors– who have been discussing the problem for so many years, can still be so ignorant on the causes of deforestation and on the actors that either protect or destroy the forests. It is much easier to believe that they have opted to ignore reality and to play the game expected from them: to favour national elites and corporations.

This would explain why processes supposed to be dealing with forests have put so much emphasis in the promotion of monoculture tree plantations disguised as "planted forests" (which are big business for corporations) and so little emphasis in addressing the direct and underlying causes of deforestation (whose ultimate beneficiaries are also corporations). It would also explain why they insist in empowering governments (that have proven to have completely failed in forest conservation ) instead of empowering those local communities that are both able and willing to protect the forests.

One overall conclusion therefore seems to be that that little can be expected from government-led international processes unless a strong community forest movement at the grassroot level is able to put sufficient pressure on national governments to completely change course and devolve ownership and management of forests to communities -where it should have always stayed.