the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development

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 Emergency Practice, Oxford Brookes University”

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

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 NGO‟s 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.

ii


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 People‟s Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen during the COP 15, December 2009, and found the experience of NGO‟s and Indigenous Peoples 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.

iii


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 so many 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 wouldn‟t see much of me for a whole year! Thanks to Carin for being such an amazing friend, for listening to me when I‟m stressed and for always 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.

iv


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 v


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 Community Forestry ................................... 26 4.3 What does „Participation‟ mean 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

vi


Abbreviations and Acronyms

CBNRM

Community-Based Natural Resource Management

CDP

Commune Development Plan

CF

Community Forestry

CPR

Common-Pool Resource/Common-Property Resource

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FUG

Forest User Group

IIED

International Institute for Environment and Development

JFM

Joint Forest Management

MA

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MDG‟s

Millennium Development Goals

NGO

Non Governmental Organization

NRM

Natural Resource Management

NTFP

Non Timber Forest Product

PAR

Participatory Action Research

PRA

Participatory Rural Appraisal

RRA

Rapid Rural Appraisal

SIDA

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

vii


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 resource management



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 resource institutions



Table 6: A typology of approaches to devolution and decentralisation

Cover Photograph by Rachael Hannay, 2009.

viii

Introduction “The greatest threat to the world‟s forests is people, and one of the major threats to the world‟s people is the loss or degradation of the world‟s 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 range from 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 subsequent economic 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.

1


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 providers 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 people‟s lack of rights, limit how much they can benefit from environmental assets and, consequently, their motivations to invest in them (Bass, 2006). Indigenous communities and NGO‟s 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 the management of forests. Increasingly, community forestry is being recast as a political issue, 2


driven by an emerging people‟s 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 humanecosystems. The diversity of cultural groups, combined with one of the world‟s richest 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 examine the 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 3


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 Hardin‟s 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

4


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 NGO‟s 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 the field 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

5


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

6


include Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Resources for the Future (RFF), Community Forestry International (CFI) and Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).

7


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.

8


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

Country

Cambodia Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam

Total Population 2000 (million)

Number of forest-dependent people (million) and percentage of total population

Total forest Area (million hectares) and percentage of total land area classified as „state forest‟

11 210 76 62 79

1.4 (13%) 80 (38%) 25 (33%) 10 (16%) 25 (32%)

9.3 (52%) 181.2 (60%) 15.8 (51%) 14.8 (25%) 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, no opportunity to be heard and powerlessness (World Bank, 2001, pp.15). In this regard, forestbased 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: 9


POVERTY ELIMINATION POVERTY ALLEVIATION

POVERTY AVOIDANCE

Forests provide permanent exit from poverty via savings, investment, accumulation and asset building Forests as:

POVERTY MITIGATION

  

Source of subsistence Seasonal gap filler “Safety net” in emergencies

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 to finance 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 „capability 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 about „poverty 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

10


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 earth‟s biodiversity (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 earth‟s 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 marketbased 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).

11


Chapter Two History of Human-Forests Relations in Southeast Asia This chapter reviews the history of human uses of Southeast Asia‟s 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 16th 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 decisionmaking) 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 of forest tribes is reflected 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

12


2.2 The Colonial Era (1500-1950) Southeast Asia‟s colonial period began in the early 16th 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 other colonial 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 1850‟s 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 of concessions 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 Asia‟s newly independent states largely retained forest management policies of their former colonial government‟s, 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

13


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 14


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 Asia‟s 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 (CPR‟s) 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 15


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).

16


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 1970‟s - 1990‟s as a response to different combinations of factors but consistently the key drivers have been:

Table 2. Drivers of community forestry 1. Deforestation and degradation as a result of decades of overexploitation from industrial logging. 2. Collective action and protest by local communities that have challenged centralized bureaucratic forest governance structures and destructive resource extraction practices often tied to broader national struggles for democratization and resource access. 3. Recognition that state governments do not have the resources to enforce forest management laws and regulations and require assistance in carrying out forest management responsibilities. 4. Pressure on national governments to address rural poverty and social inequality on 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 NGO’s, banks and foundations to support CF worldwide. Adapted from Warner, (1997)

17


Community forestry as an approach to enable the sustainable utilization of forest resources arose during the 1970‟s when the development strategies of the 1950‟s and 1960‟s 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 1970‟s reflected the early focus in rural development programmes on meeting the „basic needs‟ of the poor (Arnold, 2001). As rural development evolved 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 1970‟s 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 1980‟s 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 (NTFP‟s) should add to the perceived value of the tropical forest 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

18


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

Mid 1970’s

FAO and SIDA convene expert group on Forestry and Local Community Development to draw on initiatives in India (social forestry), Thailand (Forest Villages), Tanzania (village afforestation) and others.

Late 1970’s 1978 World Forestry Congress devoted to “Forests for People” served to give the concept of CF rapid and intensive exposure. 1979 FAO World Congress on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. New World Bank Forest Policy. Early 1980’s First generation of projects focus mainly on creating new village level resources to meet local subsistence needs through afforestation. Accumulating experience from projects and research identifies forests and trees as sources of food, income, employment and household security. Mid and late 80’s

Second generation of projects emphasise local control and management of existing forest resources and multiple roles of trees in farming systems. Focus on working through local institutions.

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 forestry exist. An example put forward by RECOFTC (2008) reads: "community forestry involves the governance and management of forest resources by communities for commercial and noncommercial purposes, including subsistence, timber production, NTPP‟s, 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”.

19


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 community 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 restrictive rules and regulations established to help improve forest conditions. Pagdee et al. (2006) write that theoretically speaking, the definitions of CF‟s success should integrate outcomes of ecological sustainability, social equity, and economic efficiency in which objectives for longterm 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 1990‟s a coalition of NGO‟s 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 NGO‟s and research institutions 20


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 Government‟s 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 for controlled 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 population‟s 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 a sustainable basis. These directives also stress the need for more social justice and equity in 21


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 an international legally binding treaty, often regarded as a key document regarding sustainable 22


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 MA‟s main message is that we are spending the Earth‟s 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‟ (including 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 the Millennium Development Goals (MDG‟s). A report by the IIED entitled „Environment for the MDG‟s‟ 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).

23


Chapter Four Community Issues

“The focus of community forestry is and should remain at the local level, where local 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 community forestry. Increasingly, development and conservation efforts are being centred on the idea that 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 meaningful „participation‟ is actually happening on the ground. 4.1 Are Communities the Best Managers of Forests? For the past few decades many NGO‟s, 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 24


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 this valuable 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 more sustainability 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 one‟s ability to control one‟s 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 in their lifestyles”. Real participation can also reduce such adverse psychological consequences 25


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 a combination of these three ideas that most of the advocacy for community rests. 26


Figure 2. A conventional view of the relationship between community and resource management. Agrawal and Gibson, (1999), pp. 636

Community as small area and/or number of individuals Community as set of shared understandings (about resource use)

Desirable resource use and conservation outcomes

Community as homogeneous social structure

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

Institutional arrangements

Community groups vary by: Size Work Norms Resource dependence

Resource Management Outcomes

Processes of decision making and enforcement

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

27


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. BorriniFeyerabend (2000) writes that indigenous communities have tended to create themselves around a body of natural resources that they could manage together. In other words, in traditional 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 reinforce imbalances of power, with the weaker and underprivileged social groups being least 28


represented in decision making structures so it is important that other stakeholders in comanagement 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 29


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 have increased the development community‟s 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 community forestry it is debatable whether it is readily available to policy-makers and effectively utilised in the development of CF activities. She warns there is a gap between what is known (by researchers, project personnel and community members) and what is utilised (by policy-makers, planners and project designers) and that this hinders the development of effective policies and planning.

30


Kok Lak Commune, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia

Photo by R. Hannay

Sustainable use and management of forests necessitates meaningful dialogue and respect amongst the diverse groups of stakeholders. Through such action gaps can be bridged between the all too often polarised groups such as state and society, development practitioners and conservationists, those with „power‟ and those without. Community forestry is founded on the belief that each stakeholder group has a right to be part of decision-making processes and that ultimately an adaptive and collaborative approach between all interest groups is the fair way to manage natural resources. Because forests are known „arenas of conflict‟ in which there are many social groups and individuals with diverse and often competing claims on forest resources, attempts to forge better relationships between stakeholders is no easy task and often needs external facilitation, usually in the form of NGO‟s. To manage conflicts and negotiate next steps, Guijt (2007) argues that forums are needed which can facilitate participation and dialogue amongst all stakeholders, which the author refers to as “socially negotiated learning”. Guijt (2007) asserts that learning is a social process and that societies, communities and stakeholder groups must learn how to innovate and adapt in response to changing social and environmental concerns. She argues that it is 31


more than placing faith in scientific discoveries or hoping that market mechanisms will iron out imbalances; it is about people coming together to negotiate over values, goals, interests and the development of collective interests and common strategies for action. Guijt (2007) states that social change requires learning of some form, and seeks an alternative to two classic strategies for governance: 1. Government and experts should make decisions for society and „solve our problems‟ OR 2. Believing that social change should be left largely to market forces with minimal guidance by government. Failure at both ends of this spectrum of governance mechanisms has fed the interest in social learning and more participatory forms of democratic governance. Genuine and meaningful participation by all stakeholder groups but particularly communities is an essential part of community forestry and Flint et al. (2008) state that the measure of success for communitybased natural resource management (CBNRM) is found in the inclusion of multiple, conflicting perspectives, and in the emergence of interaction and dialogue.

32


Chapter Five Common Property Theories and Local Institutions In this chapter I will critically review Hardin‟s influential paradigm of „The Tragedy of the Commons‟ contrasting it with Ostrom‟s extensive work on common-property resource theory. The ability of communities to manage natural resources sustainably has been a highly debated and controversial topic over the last forty years and the work of Elinor Ostrom and other supporters of CBNRM have been influential in the growth of community forestry. Community forest management arrangements, or the sets of rules and norms that guide decisions about resource management by community members, have received increasing attention from governments, donors and NGO‟s over the past decade or so. These organisations want to understand how community institutions work and how they can be supported, re-orientated or recreated to advance particular environmental and development goals. This chapter will examine whether there is such a thing as a blueprint or a recipe for successful local forest governance and what are the ingredients.

5.1 Tragedy of the Commons In 1968 an article was published in Science journal that was to frame the debate about common property for the next 30 years or more and exert considerable influence upon international development and environmental policy. This article was Garrett Hardin‟s Tragedy of the Commons which argued that common property systems allow individuals to benefit at a cost to the wider community, and therefore are inherently prone to decay, ecological exhaustion and collapse. Hardin makes a case for the strict management of common goods via increased government involvement and/or international regulation bodies (Radkau, 2008). Hardin was influenced by the work of economist Adam Smith (1776) who had asserted that a system of individuals pursuing their private interests will automatically serve the collective interest. Hardin believed this would end in disaster and employed a key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons, to show how. When a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, Hardin reasoned, a self-interested “rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. The tragic result of each person thinking this way, however, is ruin of the commons, and thus of 33


everyone using it. Hardin was further influenced by, and agreed with, the work of Thomas Malthus (1798), regarding the idea that successive population increases on a fixed area would deplete the natural resource base beyond a sustainable state. As a result of Hardin‟s article, it became part of both popular and scholarly belief that unless natural resources were strictly in the domain of private or state property, their fate was an inevitable ruin (Hardin, 1968), although as Ostrom (1999) points out, Hardin‟s work does not predict well when government ownership will perform appropriately or how privatisation will improve outcomes. The central flaw in Hardin‟s „Tragedy of the Commons‟, which he himself acknowledged, was that he failed to distinguish between truly unregulated „openaccess‟ (in which resources can be accessed by anyone at any time without restraint) and „common property‟ (where access is shared, but is exclusive to particular social groups who define the rules-of-use). Hardin later said the tragedy he wrote about only occurred in “unmanaged commons” and twelve years after the article had been published gave a speech which included: “As a result of discussions carried out during the past decade I now suggest a better wording of the central idea: under conditions of overpopulation, freedom in an unmanaged commons brings ruin to all” (Hardin, 1980). Hardin‟s article launched a large body of vibrant and vitally important scholarship and research on the relationships between social organization and human use of the environment. Several authors, such as Ostrom (1990; 1999), Berkes (1989), and Stevenson (1991) disagreed with Hardin's view that successful collective action is impossible and amongst others, present the case for an institutional approach based on formal or informal regulatory mechanisms that govern the access and use of natural resources at the community level. This area of study now includes major scholarly institutions such as the International Association for the Study of the Commons, which holds biennial conferences in venues across the globe in which scholars examine precisely the theoretical and empirical gaps that Hardin‟s essay so clearly (albeit unintentionally) helped to identify (Walker, 2009). The possibility that local forest users themselves would find ways to organise had not seriously been considered in much of the policy literature until the 1980‟s (Ostrom, 1999) when growing evidence from many field studies called for a serious rethinking of Hardin‟s theory, which by this time had become the conventional thinking. More and more case studies of forest communities and local systems of resource management showed that users in 34


many locations had organised themselves to use, vigorously protect, and in some cases enhance local forests. This emerging evidence in favour of community-based forest management was in contrast to the now recognisably poor record of forest management both by the state and private interests. So while Hardin had advocated increased state control and centralised forest management, Ostrom and her peers now called for a rethinking of policies and practices and pointed towards an increase in community management and decisionmaking regarding local forest resources. Ostrom (1990) writes that “what one can observe in the real world is that neither the state nor the market is uniformly successful in enabling individuals to sustain long-term, productive use of natural resource systems. Further, communities of individuals have relied on institutions resembling neither the state nor the market to govern some resource systems with reasonable degrees of success over long periods of time”. Ostrom (1999) does consent that not all indigenous or traditional systems of management have been successful and writes “of course the performance of self-governed common-pool resource institutions varies across systems and time. Some self-governed resources have survived and flourished for centuries, while others have faltered and failed”.

While community forestry strongly advocates that local communities must form the central part of any forest management system it is also true that “any activity in the remaining forests of Asia necessarily demands accommodation of multiple interests. No forest is any longer a single stakeholder affair (Edmunds and Wollenberg, 2003). Agrawal (1999) writes that “although it is convenient to talk about the community and the state, or about the local and external, they are linked together in ways that it might be difficult to identify the precise line where local begins and the external ends”. A further important point to be made is that such coarse classifications of private, community, and state ownership are inadequate as causal explanations of successful or unsuccessful outcomes in forest management. It is insufficient to say that resources are better governed simply because they are under common or private property regimes, or in a bad condition because they are managed by governments (Agrawal & Chhatre, 2006).

35


5.2 Forests as Common-Pool Resources The terms Common-Pool Resource and Common-Property Resource (CPR) refer to a natural or man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to make it costly (but not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use (Ostrom 1990). Common-pool, or common-property, resources are characterised by difficulty of exclusion and generate finite quantities of resource units so that one person‟s use subtracts from the quantity of the resources available to others. Examples of CPR‟s include pastures, fishing grounds, water and forests.

The debate about CPR management over the last four decades has been blurred by a conceptual misunderstanding about the nature of such resources caused by Hardin‟s unfortunate use of the term „the commons‟ to describe an „open access‟ regime. Resources used in common are variously referred to as „open access‟, „common-pool‟, „common property‟ and „the commons‟. However, Hardin‟s „common‟ is essentially an „open access‟ resource, where decision-making arrangements governing access to, allocation of and control over the resource are absent. Hardin argued that common-pool resources without clear ownership would necessarily become degraded. Community forestry (CF) does not advocate systems of „open access‟, but rather clear and legal property rights for communities or groups of forest users and recognition of local, traditional systems of forest management. Ostrom (1999) writes that destruction or degradation of forest resources is most likely to occur in open-access forests where those involved, or external authorities, have not established effective governance (eg. who has access, mechanisms for conflict resolution). Hardin‟s theory applied to forest resources presumes that forest users themselves were incapable of organising to overcome the temptations to overharvest. Extensive empirical research however has challenged this theory and illustrated the many ways that forest users themselves have devised rules that “regulate harvesting patterns so as to ensure the sustainability of forest resources over time” (Ostrom, 1999).

It has been well documented in the literature concerning community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) that clear ownership of land and/or legal access 2, creates incentives 2

Ribot and Peluso (2003) define ‘access’ as “the ability to derive benefits from things” including material objects, persons, institutions, and symbols. In this case ‘things’ refer to natural resources. 36


for resource protection and sustainable management (Gibson et al., 2000). It is also a significant issue that forests are not divided up and allocated to individuals; multiple ownership of a large area of land such as a forest is far more beneficial for biodiversity and ecosystems than parcelling up the forest into plots (through fences etc.). The benefits of a communal system go beyond biodiversity. Some parts of a forest may have poorer soil quality than others or have a higher density of a particularly useful plant. If people only have ownership or access rights to one small plot they may not consider the rest of the land around them. For example, if an individual owns a plot upstream and chooses to cut the trees this will increase soil erosion and sediment in the river which may negatively impact upon those with plots further down the river (flooding, less fish etc). Common property with strong management institutions is a far more appropriate arrangement for forests and other commonproperty resources (CPR‟s) where particular individuals share rights to a resource base – not open to all but to a specified group who hold their rights in common (shared private property).

5.3 Forest Management and Local Institutions Scholarship regarding the commons (Ostrom, 1990, 1992; Baland and Platteau, 1996) has highlighted the importance of local knowledge and the institutional arrangements people forge to achieve successful local level resource management. There is a vast body of literature on the management of forests as common-property and a great deal has been learned about the social basis for effective collective action at the local level (Agrawal, 2001). Essentially, forest management by local communities requires people to agree or consent to some forms of regulated access to, and use of, forest resources. This involves cooperation, negotiation and institution building. Empirical research has shown that individuals with an interest in a CPR are not by definition locked in a position that leads to „tragedy‟, but that individuals can work together in crafting rules regulating the benefits produced by a CPR; in other words; decision-making arrangements, or institutions, provide a mechanism to transcend the commons‟ dilemma and may prevent the resource from being degraded (e.g. Ostrom, 1990; Wade, 1988). Agrawal (1999) defines „institutions‟ as sets of formal and informal rules and norms that shape interactions of humans with others and nature. Institutions are not fixed and are subject to change and be reshaped. Institutions should be understood, therefore, as provisional agreements on how to accomplish tasks. Moreover, „successful‟ CPR institutions can be defined as those which enable individuals to 37


achieve productive outcomes in situations where temptations to free-ride and shirk are ever present (Ostrom, 1990).

5.3.1 Elinor Ostrom Perhaps the most prolific and influential literature regarding local institutional arrangements for managing common-pool resources (CPR‟s) is by the recent Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom (1990, 1994, 1999, 2002). In her classic work “Governing the Commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action” (1990), Ostrom argues that under certain conditions, when communities are given the right to self-organise they can democratically govern themselves to preserve the environment. Her groundbreaking work on CPR theory has been built up from field studies with forest communities in Asia and Africa. It takes its theoretical grounding from game theory - looking at collective action dilemmas and focusing on the ways in which institutions or rules can be purposively crafted to produce collective action. This work has been central in establishing the significance of local institutions in resource management. Ostrom argues in strong opposition to Hardin‟s infamous “Tragedy of the Commons” asserting that communities are, and indeed have been for many years, capable of organizing themselves in order to manage natural resources sustainably and in a cooperative fashion. Ostrom (1999) writes however that successful local forest management is more likely if certain attributes of both forests and user groups occur and that there are certain design principles or conditions, which if adhered to, can form the basis of successful longterm self-governed systems of common-pool resources.

5.4 Design Principles for Successful Forest Management Common-pool resource (CPR) theory is gaining popularity and its conceptual frameworks are being adopted by organisations such as the World Bank and FAO. Research from scholars of common property has shown communities to be successful and sustainable alternatives to state and private management of resources. Many CPR theorists assert that there are certain conditions or design principles that they believe to be critical to the sustainability of commons institutions. Some conditions have regularly received a mention in CPR literature and these include small group size, clearly defined boundaries of resources and user group membership, ease in monitoring and enforcement and closeness between location of resource and the users (Agrawal, 2001). 38


Table 4. Attributes of Resource and Users

Attributes of the Resource Feasible Improvement: The resource is not at a point of deterioration such that it is useless to organise or so underutilised that little advantage results from organising Indicators: Reliable and valid information about the general condition of the resource is available at reasonable cost Predictability: The availability of resource units is relatively predictable Spatial Extent: The resource is sufficiently small, given the transportation and communication technology in use, that users can develop accurate knowledge of external boundaries and internal microenvironments.

Attributes of the Users Salience: Users are dependent on the resource for a major portion of their livelihood or other variables of importance to them Common understanding: Users have a shared image of the resources and how their actions affect each other and the resource Discount rate: Users have a sufficiently low discount rate in relation to future benefits to be achieved from the resource Distribution of interests: Users with higher economic and political assets are similarly affected by a current pattern of use Trust: Users trust each other to keep promises and relate to one another with reciprocity Autonomy: Users are able to determine access and harvesting rules without external authorities countermanding them Prior Organisational Experience: Users have learned at least minimal skills of organisation through participation in other local associations or learning about ways that neighbouring groups have organised Source: Ostrom (1990)

39


Ostrom defines design principles as conditions that help account for the success of institutions in sustaining a forest or other CPR and gaining the compliance of generation after generation. Based on considerable research on CPR‟s, Ostrom asserts that robust long-term local institutions are characterised by the design principles listed below: Table 5. Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resource institutions

Principle 1. Clearly defined boundaries 2. Congruence

3. Collective-choice arrangements 4. Monitoring

5. Graduated sanctions

6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms 7. Minimal recognition of rights to organise

Explanation Individuals or households with rights to withdraw resource units from the common-pool resource and the boundaries of the CPR itself are clearly defined a. The distribution of benefits from appropriation rules is roughly proportionate to the costs imposed by provision rules b. Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate in modifying operational rules Monitors, who actively audit common-pool resource conditions and user behaviour, are accountable to the users and/or are the users themselves Users who violate operational rules are likely to receive graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) from other users, from officials accountable to these users, or from both Users and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas to resolve conflict among users or between users and officials The rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external government authorities

Source: Adapted from Ostrom (1990), pp. 90

The idea that certain conditions will enhance the success of local governance arrangements is echoed by other authors including Mahanty et al. (2007) who have formulated a set of factors which they believe are likely to create a more equitable distribution of natural resources and include the participation of women in decision-making processes and the allocation of clear roles and responsibilities for relevant stakeholders. Baland and Platteau‟s (1996) conclusions overlap with those of Ostrom; small size of user group, location close to resource, homogeneity among user group, effective enforcement mechanisms and past experiences of cooperation are some conditions they stress as significant. In addition they highlight the importance of external aid and strong leadership. Fisher (1998) concurs with Ostrom about 40


the need for trust among actors and argues that “natural” communities are a better basis for collective action than artificially constructed, or administratively convenient, units. This point is echoed by others including Gibson et al., (2000) who write that common property regimes can be extremely efficient when resource management rules can be simply grafted onto the functions of a pre-existing community organisation, and that local institutions have an increased chance of success in communities that have a history of working together. Other key factors that make for successful common-property regimes according to Gibson el al., (2000) include legal recognition of rights for forest communities, strong social capital and clear demarcation of boundaries to prevent conflict. Agrawal (2001) stresses the durability of institutions as important and argues it is a reasonably straight forward way to produce comparisons between case studies. He writes that most have an implicit sense of successful institutions as those that last over time, constrain users to safeguard the resource, and produce fair outcomes. Ostrom (1999) states that the whole system of managing common-pool resources can fall apart if it is not perceived as fair or equitable by all users and that fair rules are those that keep a relatively proportionate relationship between the assignment of benefits and costs. This has implications for monitoring and the enforcement of rules since those not perceived to be equitable are far more difficult to enforce than if they are perceived to be fair. Agrawal‟s research into the local institutions that govern the daily use of panchayat community forests in Uttar Pradesh, India (1994) illustrates that the failure to sanction rule violators, or mistakenly sanctioning those who did not violate the rules encourages further rule violations or promotes resentment among users against existing institutions. Agrawal‟s research also revealed that villagers with successful community forestry not only realised the importance of monitoring but also devised successful mechanisms to ensure compliance from users.

5.5 Critique of Design Principles There are a number of criticisms that have been directed towards the theory that there exists a formula or set of conditions that enable successful local level forest management. Critics (Steins et al., 2000, Kurian, 2000) argue that in order to prove Hardin‟s theory wrong, Ostrom and other scholars of CPR rushed to illustrate success stories and have provided an incomplete or even misleading picture of what factors lead to successful CPR management, 41


paying insufficient attention to contextual and external factors. Steins et al. (2000) argue that variables linking collective action and the external world are remarkably absent from the design principles and that explaining success (eg. robust self-governance) on the basis of internal factors alone, does not do justice to the dynamics and uniqueness of CPR management scenarios. Agrawal (2001) likewise argues that insufficient attention is paid by Ostrom (1990) as well as Baland and Platteau (1996) to external forces such as demographic issues and market demands, stating the attention to the locality in preference to the context within which localities are shaped and produced had thus prevented the emergence of a better understanding of how factors such as population, market demand, and state policies interact with local institutional arrangements and resource systems. Agrawal (2001) further remarks that increasing integration with markets usually has an adverse impact on the management of CPR‟s, especially when roads begin to integrate distant resource systems and their users with other users and markets. Kurian (2000) questions the legitimacy of Ostrom‟s design principles in particular, stating that the selection of successful case studies used are remote forest communities quite removed from the state and market. Agrawal (2001) likens this to the work of early anthropologists who often perceived their field sites to be miniature worlds in themselves ignoring the larger socio-political environment while Young (2002) stresses that diverse and multilevel institutions concerned with the management of CPR‟s must be examined within their larger biophysical and social contexts and examined in interaction with each other. While Ostrom and other CPR theorists have perhaps paid insufficient attention to external factors it is possible to find reference to such conditions in Ostrom‟s principles. A closer examination reveals that contextual factors are not completely outside the boundary of her analysis as Ostrom (1999) states that many of the variables are in turn affected by the type of larger regime in which users are embedded. Critics of Ostroms „design principles‟ and other lists of conditions, warn that by providing a recipe or blueprint for successful local natural resource management, policy makers and other external actors seeking to implement them deny communities the right to set their own rules. Steins et al. (2000) further point out that the study of collective action in terms of „successes‟ and „failures‟ raises questions related to normativity: what is „success‟, what is „failure‟?. More importantly perhaps is that the analyst‟s definition of „success‟ may not be the same as those of other stakeholders in the CPR such as local communities. There is however a counter-argument that blueprints are exactly what policy makers and practitioners are looking for in order to scale-up community forestry interventions, especially in the hugely complex 42


and often bewildering arena of community-based natural resource management, although as Agrawal (2001) points out the sheer number of conditions that seem relevant to the successful management of CPR‟s can be overwhelming.

43


Chapter Six Devolution and Decentralisation of Forest Management The previous chapter discussed matters of local self-governance and institutions for successful forest management. At the policy level, the work of Ostrom and other CPR theorists has played an important role in supporting the growing movement of devolution and decentralisation. Forest management across Asia has been centralised under both colonial regimes and independent governments yet many governments are now in the process of devolving power and decision-making authority to local communities and regional government. This sea change in forest policy by many Asian governments‟ points to a new paradigm based on the premise that forest benefits should rightfully go to the people who live in and around the forests. 6.1 The Beginnings of Devolution and Decentralisation Policies During the 1980‟s a confluence of political pressures began to encourage governments to devolve forest management to local individuals and institutions located within and outside of the government (Edmunds & Wollenberg, 2003). One such pressure on many governments in the Asian region has been the shrinking of central budgets, and as such devolution can be seen as a less costly strategy for pursuing sustainable forest management (Arnold, 2001). Smaller budgets has led to cuts in Forest Department staffing, thereby creating large areas of forests (including Protected Areas) potentially unmanaged and unmonitored. Agrawal (1999) points out that if top-down programs to protect resources failed because of the inability of governments to exercise authority at a distance, the reasoning goes, then decentralisation of authority to those social formations that are located near the resource might work better.

The rise of environmental and green lobbies and local revolts such as the Chipko movement in India have also combined to force governments to re-evaluate their position on who should be responsible for forest management. After all, under centralised state management forests have been heavily logged and degraded and local peoples‟ rights neglected. Banerjee (1998) writes that there is no doubt that the centralised forest management systems are partially to blame for the high deforestation rates of the past. Governments across Asia and beyond have typically contracted out forests to timber companies in a system of notoriously ill managed 44


„concession‟ contracts which focus almost entirely on timber extraction. In these situations many people would argue that government ownership of forests in such cases is really about who gets to profit from the timber, and not about providing more environmental services for the broad public interest (Ellsworth, 2002). 6.2 What is Devolution and Decentralisation? Fisher et al. (1998) define „decentralisation‟ as the relocation of administrative functions away from a central location and „devolution‟ as the relocation of power away from a central location (in this sense power can be equated with the capacity or authority to contribute to decision-making). The point is further made that the terms should not be confused since while decentralisation and devolution may occur simultaneously, it is quite possible to decentralise administration functions without devolving the power to make meaningful decisions. At its most basic level, decentralisation aims to achieve one of the central aspirations of just political governance – democratisation, or the desire that humans should have a say in their own affairs (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999). In this sense decentralisation is a strategy of governance to facilitate transfers of power closer to those who are most affected by the exercise of power. According to Edmunds and Wollenberg (2003), a broadly held expectation and indeed a key rationale for devolution policies, has been that it would bring the large numbers of rural poor who live in and around forests better access to forests and more selfdetermination in decisions about local resources.

45


Table 6: A Typology of Approaches to Devolution and Decentralisation. Adapted from Fisher et al., (2000)

It is possible to classify most cases of devolution and decentralisation into 3 basic categories: 1. Governments seek public participation in (generally) large-scale programs, with centrally set objectives. This is a common pattern and can be seen in the Indian model of Joint Forest Management (JFM) which involves communities in forestry activities who receive some benefits on return. The land is under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Department and they set the objectives. In other words, communities participate in government programs, they are granted responsibilities and some benefits but they are given little or no authority. This scenario is essentially decentralisation without devolution. 2. The second type involves the decentralisation of forest management roles from central government to local government, but not to local communities. 3. The third approach involves the handing over of a significant amount of control to local communities or individuals. This approach is widely discussed rhetorically, but there are very few working examples. The broadest application appears to be represented by community forestry in Nepal although there are still problems there.

6.3 Some General Problems While it is assumed that decentralisation will be a positive step in the management of local resources by communities, the process is relatively recent and there are a number of factors which may have a negative, rather than a positive, impact on communities (Warner, 1997). Agrawal and Ribot (1999) write that while advocates of decentralisation justify it on grounds of increased equity, greater participation and responsiveness of government to citizens, most decentralisation efforts fail to increase the powers of local peoples or authorities. An example of unsuccessful decentralisation can be seen in Nepal where some projects are perceived as being achieved simply by directing a stream of monetary benefits toward a group of resource users rather than attempting to create or support local institutions that allow durable decisionmaking (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999).

46


Results of decentralisation and devolution policies across Asia have certainly been mixed and there is debate concerning the motivations or veracity of devolution efforts. Agrawal (2001) points out that while an increasing number of governments decentralise control over natural resources to forest user groups (FUG‟s), questions about the reasons behind such loosening of control have become extremely important. Anderson (1998) warns about devolution being used as a cost effective strategy for governments to achieve state forest management objectives through communities rather than being a way of promoting rural peoples‟ selfdetermination and economic advancement while Agrawal and Ribot (1999) argue that governments often perform acts of decentralisation as theatre pieces to impress or appease international donors, NGO‟s or domestic constituencies. A further concern regarding decentralisation and devolution efforts is that it can actually enable state actors to extend their reach and control over forests (World Rainforest Movement, 2004). Research by Agrawal in Kumaon, India, noted that even in so-called community forests, the state continues to “outline the ways in which resources can be used, define who is empowered to use these resources, and extend their control further and more intensively into given territories” (Agrawal, 2005).

6.4 Relationships between Communities and Forestry Departments Fisher (1998) argues that one of the main impediments to progress in the Asian region is the reluctance, or inability, of Forest Departments to proceed with or implement devolution of responsibility to the local level, particularly where they perceive that this will threaten their control over a timber resource. Edmunds and Wollenberg (2003) conclude that after looking at case studies from China, India and the Philippines, devolution policies have done little to help forest users shape the forests, protect and promote their livelihoods or establish and maintain their own decision-making process. The authors believe the reason for this lies in divergent interests and capacities between the poor forest users, foresters and public officials. Local officials generally have greater financial resources, media access, legal knowledge and other sources of power and have the capacity to act on their interests at the expense of forest users. Meanwhile foresters have historically been paid low wages and many rely on supplementing them by illegally selling forest products and wild animals and so are keen to retain power over such resources. There are other reasons why people are not keen to forgo their power. For example, Reed (2006) writes that foresters in Lao were reluctant to give up power and allow uneducated villagers to manage the forests as they felt they would lose status and face amongst their families and peers. Because the dealings of particular actors are 47


impelled by their interests, it is likely that the same types of power devolved to different actors will lead to variations in outcomes (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999). Consequently, the nature of decentralisation depends to a significant degree upon who gets to exercise power, and the accountability relations to which they are subject. Many foresters or resource managers are also reluctant to devolve authority because they genuinely fear the outcome of uninformed management (Banerjee, 1998). Some foresters hold the belief that communities do not have the ability to manage forests and in some cases this can be a legitimate concern and capacity building may be needed, but it is not a valid argument against community control of forests. This viewpoint indicates a lack of trust and confidence in communities. According to Anderson (1998) the idea that forests cannot be handed over because communities cannot be trusted to manage them properly is, in any case, based on a simplistic understanding of tenure – an assumption that complete control must be vested in either the Forest Department or communities. Actually, no form of legal tenure anywhere in the world encourages absolute control, so there need not be great concern about a loss of control in handing over forest ownership to communities. A major prerequisite for meaningful decentralisation and devolution, therefore, is to increase levels of trust and understanding between foresters and local communities through increased support for communities and training of local officials (Banerjee, 1998). Better monitoring and different incentives are also needed in order to reduce corruption and illegal activities by Forest Departments and local officials.

6.5 Decentralisation in Cambodia – Case Study In 1996, a UNDP-supported decentralisation programme for the Royal Government of Cambodia named the Seila Programme was established with the aim of strengthening the local governance system and addressing poverty reduction. The Seila programme aimed to build capacity at all levels of government (national, sub-national and grassroots) and to support decentralisation and deconcentration of local development. As part of the project, rural communities were provided with training and capacity-building in order that they could decide the direction of their own local development and build physical capital in the forms of schools, bridges, medical clinics and so forth. The Seila programme gave rise to more devolution and decentralisation initiatives such as the „Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Project led by the Department 48


of Environment. This project enabled forest communities to present their customary land use and traditional resource management systems to local government and forest departments. Participatory land use planning approaches were also used to map the community user areas. The CBNRM project emphasised the need to consider NRM as a governance issue and sought to integrate environmental issues into local commune3 development plans (CDP) (CBNRM Learning Initiative, 2005). Key issues that emerged are that government structures are normally top-down and will take time to build their capacity to listen to communities, that facilitators are not yet comfortable with participatory approaches and community members often lack confidence to discuss issues with authorities due to lack of knowledge on legal rights, legal instruments etc. This is especially challenging for those who are illiterate which can be common in rural areas. Changing attitudes is difficult; especially in the Cambodian cultural context where strict hierarchies exist and questioning superiors is discouraged. It is hoped that through community forestry and devolution policies, forest department staff can re-orientate their traditional role of policing to a role of facilitator and advisor and as a result change the attitudes and behaviour of government staff.

6.6 What are the Limiting Factors for Devolution and Decentralisation? Despite continued emphasis on devolving forest management authorities and responsibilities to local communities across Asia, in practice genuine devolution of authority and power over the forest has occurred only to a limited extent. A growing number of voices point out that decentralisation is not sufficient, or does not and can not work unless some important accompanying measures are in place. As Sengupta and Maginnis (2004) point out, decentralisation has the problem of being only as effective and equitable as the existing underlying social and political structures allow it to be. Thus, to be meaningful, it has to be accompanied by effective democratic structures that ensure that less powerful groups, such as women and the poor, are not excluded or further marginalised. The „International Seminar on Decentralisation and Devolution of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific‟ 4, explored experiences and issues surrounding the implementation of decentralisation and devolution approaches in the region. In a report produced for the conference, Fisher (1998) writes that the tendency so far has been to grant local communities the responsibility for protecting

3 4

Communes in Cambodia are the third-level administrative divisions Davao, Philippines, 30 November – 4 December 1998

49


forest resources, without granting the rights to use them in a major way or make decisions about their management. Often when local use is permitted it is highly circumscribed and generally limited to minor or non-wood forest products. This needs to change if genuine devolution is to occur and goals of greater empowerment and participation of poor communities is to be achieved. Arnold (1992) writes that common to nearly all experience, have been weaknesses in the legal framework and that effective local or joint control requires a willingness and ability of government to legitimise and empower the local controlling institutions, and to help them enforce their rights. Even the most promising approaches tend to be undermined by failures to do so. Governments are commonly slow to amend laws or to implement them and thus even the most robust of initiatives are often threatened by their uncertain legal status. According to Banerjee (1998) there is a need for more political will which can be very slow and seldom happens on its own without some external inputs or pressures.

50


Conclusion

The main aim of this dissertation was 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. In conclusion, there is a large body of evidence, collected from both past and present forest user groups, that supports the theory that communities can act collectively to manage forests sustainably and in ways that provide multiple benefits to the local population and the natural environment. There is also substantial evidence which illustrates how state forest management has frequently led to deforestation, and degradation, as well as the loss of livelihoods for many rural communities and the erosion of important ecosystems. This does not simply mean that forests should be managed by communities alone but rather that all interests, including those of the state that seek to represent the wider public, must be combined in any system of sustainable forest management. Community forestry has the potential to empower marginalised people, deepen democracy, conserve biodiversity, and undermine established (and often oppressive) relations of power. This is happening in many places already to differing extents but it is not easy, nor simple. If community forestry is going to move off the sidelines, it will have to confront an entrenched system of forest degradation, corruption and consumption. My recommendations for community forestry projects, based on my research are as follows 

Increased attention should be given to fostering multi-stakeholder processes that are more effective in representing disadvantaged communities‟ views in accountable ways and negotiating their interests.



More support should be given for developing shared frameworks about the aims of forest management and modes of implementation.



Encouraging joint learning among stakeholders is likely to enable better collaboration and adaptation.



More capacity building is needed to enable communities to participate in such processes strategically and more attention needs to be given to building support for

51


indigenous perspectives and the management systems that local forest communities have developed. 

There is a need to incorporate forest user‟s perspectives into the design and evaluation of devolution programmes.



Increased security of land tenure which will provide a greater sense of stability and well-being amongst communities and long-term incentives to invest in their forests

Community management of natural resources effectively stands at the intersection of conservation, carbon mitigation, and rural development and is therefore an area receiving increased attention and funding from international donors and NGO‟s. The FAO (2009) has even predicted that by 2050, forty percent of the world‟s forests will be managed or owned by communities. It is perhaps still too early to conclude with any certainty whether communities make the best managers of forests but there is growing agreement that community forestry has the potential to contribute to poverty alleviation and conservation goals, provided that decision-makers recognise and act on their potential. Community management of forests as opposed to state management also has to power to provide benefits to far more people than under state control where benefits have typically gone to a small number of private and government interests. Changing socio-economic, political, and environmental conditions present opportunities to enhance the role of forests in meeting poverty and conservation goals but do not guarantee a positive outcome. If forests are to better serve these goals there must be dedicated efforts in that direction. Ultimately there is “impossibility of escape from an uncertain future” (Agrawal, 1999) but we must strive for one in which social and environmental justices are our priorities.

52


Bibliography Agrawal, A. and Chhatre, A. (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. (106), No. (42), pp. 17667-17670. Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality, Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Duke University Press, Durham. Agrawal, A. (2001) Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources. World Development. Vol. (29), No. (10), pp. 1649-1672. Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. C. (1999) Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of the Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development. Vol. (27), No. (4), pp. 629-649. Agrawal, A. and Ribot J. (1999) Accountability in Decentralization: A Framework with South Asian and West African Environmental Cases. The Journal of Developing Areas. Vol. (33), pp. 473-502. [Online] Available at https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ribot/shared/Agrawal%20Ribot%201999%20Decentralization.pdf Agrawal, A. (1994) Rules, Rule Making, and Rule Breaking: Examining the Fit between Rule Systems and Resource Use. In Ostrom, E. et al. (1994) Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, USA. Anderson, J. (1998) Four Considerations for Decentralized Forest Management: Subsidiarity, Empowerment, Pluralism and Social Capital. Davao, Philippines 30 November – 4 December 1998. RECOFTC, Thailand. Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. (2003) Exploring the Forest-Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper 40. CIFOR, Indonesia. Arnold, J.E.M (1992) Community Forestry: Ten Years in Review. FAO, Italy. [Online] Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/U5610E/u5610e00.HTM Arnold, J.E.M. (2001) Forestry, Poverty and Aid. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper 33. CIFOR, Indonesia. Baland, J. and Platteau, J. (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a Role for Rural Communities? FAO, Italy. Banerjee, A.K. (1998) Devolving Forest Management in Asia-Pacific Countries. Davao, Philippines 30 November – 4 December 1998. RECOFTC, Thailand. 53


Bass, S. (2006) Making poverty reduction irreversible: development implications of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK. Berkes F., Feeny D., McCay B.J. and Acheson J.M. (1989). The benefits of the commons. Nature, Vol. (340), pp. 91-93. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2000) Co-management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning by Doing. IUCN, Cameroon. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al (2007) Sharing Power: A Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources. Earthscan Publications, UK. Brosius, J. P. (2005) Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Altamira Press, USA. Byron, N. and Arnold, M. (1999) What future for the peoples of the tropical forests? World Development. Vol. (27), No. (5), pp. 789-805. CBNRM Learning Institute (2005) The Development of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Cambodia: Selected Papers on Concepts and Experiences. CBNRM Learning Institute, Cambodia. Charnley, S. and Poe, M. (2007) Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where are we now?” Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. (36), pp. 301-353. Chhatre, A. and Agrawal, A. (2009) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. (106), No. (42), pp. 17667-17670. Cronkleton, P., et al. (2008) Environmental Governance and the Emergence of Forest-based Social Movements. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper 49. CIFOR, Indonesia. Dove, M.R., Doolittle, A.A., and Sajise, E. (eds) (2005) Conserving Nature in Culture: Case Studies from Southeast Asia. Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, USA. Down to Earth (2002) Special Report: Forests, People and Rights, Down to Earth. Cumbria, UK. Ebeling, J. and Yasue, M. (2008) Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic conservation and human development benefits. [Online] Available at http://www.ecosecurities.com/Assets/12093/pubs%20%20generating%20carbon%20finance%20through%20avoided%20deforestraiton.pdf Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (2003) Local Forest Management: The Impacts of Devolution Policies. Earthscan Publications, UK. 54


Ellsworth, L. (2002) A Place in the World: Tenure Security and Community Livelihoods, A Literature Review. Forest Trends, USA. Evans, P., Marshke, M. and Paudyal, K. (2004) Flood Forests, Fish, and Fishing Villages: Tonle Sap, Cambodia. FAO and Asia Forest Network, Philippines. [Online] Available at http://www.asiaforestnetwork.org/pub/pub49.pdf FAO (2009) State of the World‟s Forests 2009. [Online] Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0350e/i0350e00.HTM Flint, C.G., Luloff, A.E. and J.C. Finley (2008) Where is “Community” in Community-Based Forestry? Society and Natural Resources. Vol. (21), No. (6), pp. 526-537. Fisher, R. et al (2008) Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power. Earthscan, UK. Fisher, R., Durst, P.B, Enters, T. & Victor, M. (1998) Overview of Themes and Issues in Devolution and Decentralisation of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific. Davao, Philippines 30 November – 4 December 1998. RECOFTC, Thailand. Fisher, R.J (1998) Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Management: A Conceptual Overview. Davao, Philippines 30 November – 4 December 1998. RECOFTC, Thailand. Gibson, C.C., McKean, M, M.A. and Ostrom, E. (eds) (2000) People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press, USA. Gilmour, D.A. and R.J. Fisher (1991) Villagers, Forest and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal Kathmandu. Sahayogi Press, Nepal. Gurjt, I. (2007) Negotiated Learning: Collaborative Monitoring for Forest Resource Management. RFF Press, USA. Hardin, Garrett. (1980) An ecolate view of the human predicament [Online] Available at http://tinyurl.com/t98c. Hardin G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science. Vol (162), pp. 1243-48. Heng, S. and Sokhun, T. (2005) Cambodia Community Forestry. RECOFTC, Thailand. [Online] Available at http://www.recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/publications/The_Grey_Zone/2006/CF_Forum/policy_cam bodia.pdf Hobley, M. (2007). Where in the world is there a pro-poor forest policy and tenure reform? Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC. 55


Hobley, M. (2005) Building State-People Relationships in Forestry. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UK. Kunarattanapruk, K., Chokkianapitak, J. and Saowakontha, S. (1995) Thailand - Dependency on forests and tree products for food security. In B. Ogle, H.C. Chu and N.T. Yen, (eds) Dependency on forests and trees for food security. Phy Ninh, Viet Nam, 5-8 December 1994. International Rural Development Centre, Hanoi, Viet Nam. Kurian, M. (2000) Principles for CPR Theory. The Common Property Resource Digest. No. (53) [Online] Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/E-CPR/cpr53.pdf Mahanty, S., Burslem, K. and Lee, E. (2007) A Fair Share: Experiences in Benefit Sharing from Community-managed Resources in Asia. RECOFTC, WWF and SNV. [Online] Available at http://www.recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/publications/The_Grey_Zone/2007/A_Fair_Share_Part_1. pdf Malthus, T. R. and Appleman, P. (eds) (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population. W. W. Norton, New York. Mayers, J. and Bass, S. (1999) Policy that works for Forests and People. International Institute for Environment and Development, UK. Olson, M. (1971) The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, USA. Ostrom, E. et al. (2002) The Drama of the Commons. National Academies Press, USA. Ostrom, E. (1999) Self-Governance and Forest Resources. Centre for International Forestry Research Occasional Paper 20. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, USA. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, USA. Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. & Daugherty, P. J. (2006) What Makes Community Forest Management Successful: A Meta-Study from Community Forests Throughout the World. Society and Natural Resources. Vol. (19), No. (1), pp. 33-52. Pierce Colfer, C. J and Byron, Y. (eds) (2001) People Managing Forests: The Links Between Human Well-Being and Sustainability. RFF Press, USA. Pierce Colfer, C. J. (2005) The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative Management. RFF Press, USA.

56


Poffenberger, M. (2001) Communities and forest management in Southeast Asia. IUCN, Switzerland. Poffenberger, M. (2006) People in the forest: community forestry experiences from Southeast Asia. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Vol. (5), No. (1), pp. 57-69. Radkau, J. (2008) Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment. Cambridge University, USA. RECOFTC (2008) People and Forests in a Time of Rapid Change: RECOFTC Strategic Plan 20082013. RECOFTC, Thailand. Reed, D. (2006) Escaping Poverty‟s Grasp: The Environmental Foundations of Poverty Reduction. Earthscan, UK. Resources for the Future [Online} Available at http://www.rff.org/Pages/default.aspx Ribot, J. and Peluso, N.J. (2003) A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology Vol. (68), No. (2), pp. 153181. Salisbury, R.F. (1962) From Stone to Steel: The Economic Consequences of Technological Change in New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, USA. Sato, J. (2000) People in Between: Conversion and Conservation of Forest Lands in Thailand. Development and Change. Vol (31), No. (1), pp 155-177. Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C. and Moss, C. (2006) Participatory Forest Management: an overview. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UK. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, UK. Sengupta, S. and S. Maginnis (2004) Forests and Development: Where Do We Stand?. In Sayers, J. (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development. Earthscan Publications, UK. Sharma, N.P. et al (1992) World Forests in Perspective. [Online] Available at http://www.fordev.nau.edu/files/InternationalForestry/FieldCourses/1071/mrw2.WorldForestsInPersp ective.pdf Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T Cadell, London. Spears, J. (1999) Sustainable Forest Management: An Evolving Goal. PROFOR. [Online] Available at http://www.profor.info/profor/Documents/pdf/Spears%20-%20Final%20Document.pdf

57


Steins, N.A., Edwards, V.E. and Roling, N. (2000) Re-designed Principles for CPR Theory. The Common Property Resource Digest. No. (53) [Online] Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/ECPR/cpr53.pdf Stevenson G.G. (1991) Common Property Economics. A General Theory and Land Use Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sunderlin, W. D. (2005) Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics. Vol. (8), No. (4), pp. 386396. Sunderlin, W. D. (2004) Community Forestry and Poverty Alleviation in Cambodia, Lao-PDR, and Vietnam: An Agenda for Research. Bangkok, Thailand 1-2 September 2004. [Online] Available at http://www.adb.org/Documents/Papers/GMS-Forestry/community-forestry.pdf Sunderlin, W.D, Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. (2004) Forests and Poverty Alleviation. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Indonesia. [Online] Available at http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/research/livelihood/Forests-poverty.pdf Wade, R. (1988). Village republics: conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge University Press, New York. Walker, P.A. (2009) From „Tragedy‟ to Commons: How Hardin‟s Mistake Might Save the World. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research. Vol. (1), No. (3), pp. 283-286. Warner, K. (1997) The Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development. XI World Forestry Congress. Available online at http://www.fao.org/forestry/docrep/wfcxi/publi/V5/T26E/1.HTM Warner, K. (2000) Forestry and Sustainable Livelihoods. Unasylva 202 (51) Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x7273e/x7273e02.htm#P0_0 Westoby, J. (1987) The purpose of forests. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

White, A. and Martin, A. (2002) Who Owns the World‟s Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. In Sayers, J. (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development. Earthscan Publications, UK. World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press, Oxford. World Resources Institute (WRI) World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor – Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Initiative. Available online at http://population.wri.org/worldresources2005-pub-4073.html.

58


Young, O.R. (2002) Institutional Interplay: The environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. In Ostrom, E. et al. The Drama of the Commons. National Academies Press, USA.

59