All posts tagged community forestry

Meeting ASEAN’s social forestry targets: How far have we come on meeting the ‘social’ dimensions of social forestry?

by Binod Chapagain and Tian Lin

Since 2012, RECOFTC and the ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry conducted three studies that analyzed government data on the status of social forestry in Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. This blog explores the findings of the three studies to understand the social achievements of national social forestry targets.

Overall, the good news is that governments in the region have made much progress in increasing the number of hectares under social forestry. This means that now, more than ever, more forest area in Asia is managed by local people who possess official community forestry agreements. While this is good news, it’s important to understand what this means in terms of enhancing the well-being and livelihoods of local people.

Upon examining the data, we found a lack of information on the ‘social’ dimensions of social forestry on the national level. Social forestry, also known as community forestry (CF) or community-based forest (CBF) management, is defined in various ways. Principally, definitions of social forestry revolve around the bundle of rights (tenure) of local and indigenous people over forest resources [1]. RECOFTC, as the pioneer social forestry organization in the Asia and the Pacific region, defines it in a broad sense as “…all aspects, initiatives, sciences, policies, institutions and processes that are intended to increase the role of local people in governing and managing forest resources.” Community forestry includes but is not limited to the informal, customary managed land as well as formal, legally-recognized land in a forest landscape. This type of management is intended to provide social, economic and environmental benefits to primary rights holders.

While customary social forestry practices in the ASEAN region have roots in ancient times, formal social forestry has been practiced for the past 30 years. Overall, in terms of meeting national social forestry targets, most countries in the region have progressed at a slow pace. This pace must be accelerated in order to meet the targets countries have set for themselves [2]. The total target for the region is slightly over 20 million hectares [3]. Except for Viet Nam, none of the ASEAN countries have reached 50% of their target. Cambodia and Myanmar are still below 15% of their targets, whereas Thailand and the Philippines are close to reaching 50%. The goal for the Philippines was set for 2008, however, the government of the Philippines has yet to set a new end date. In the ASEAN region, only 10 million hectares (about 4%) of forests are under social forestry out of the total officially designated forest land of 245 million hectares [4]. The status of social forestry by country against the national targets is presented in Figure 1.

2017 Infographic_N_F_03

Figure 1: The status of social forestry by country against the national targets

Figure 2 shows the pace of change in the number of community forests over the last six years. Social forestry area in the region has grown by 3.4 million hectares in six years, between 2010 and 2016 [5]. On average, the growth of social forestry is slightly more than half a million hectares per year in the region.

2017 Infographic_N_F_02

Figure 2: The pace of change in the number of community forests over the last six years

Social forestry, by name, links people to the management of forest land. However, collection of data on land under community management is not systematic. Some countries, including Cambodia and Myanmar, keep records of the number of households involved in social forestry processes, but many other ASEAN countries do not have a system to record this information. RECOFTC has tracked families who are living in rural areas of ASEAN countries and found that about 312 million people, or about 54% of the total population, have close associations with forest resources for their livelihoods. However, the irony is that they have legitimate access to only 4% of the forest resources.

Furthermore, RECOFTC has projected the number of local families who are involved in CF through the use of indirect indicators [6]. Based on estimated figures, RECOFTC finds that that the total number of forest user group members have increased while per capita CF area has decreased. In RECOFTC focal countries, the area of CF has increased by 5.3%, whereas the number of families involved in CF has increased by 17% between 2013 and 2016 [7].

Although social forestry potentially can contribute multiple benefits to society, the pace for bringing these benefits about is slow. Moreover, existing data on social forestry only records forest cover in terms of hectares. The role of social forestry in terms of providing social and economic benefits to people — such as enhancing livelihoods and wellbeing of local communities – needs to be more systematically collected in all ASEAN countries.

RECOFTC studies have found that social forestry has been instrumental to empowering women and marginalized people to develop their leadership capacity. It has also provided employment to local people through the development of enterprises and contributed to their income through supply of timber and non-timber forest products and agro-forestry activities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these all have the ability to contribute to gender equity and reduce hunger and poverty. Furthermore, community-based forest management has helped increase forest areas in some countries, contributing to carbon sinks as well as climate change adaptation. These are also key areas of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Social forestry can demonstrate their contribution to SDG targets if ASEAN governments improve their record keeping and reporting on socio-economic aspects of forests. However, some preliminary analysis suggests that the social forest per capita has decreased over the period, and this may also reduce the possibilities of nurturing people and environment by the nature.

This blog is developed based on the findings presented in Social Forestry and Climate Change in the ASEAN region: Situational Analysis 2016. The report will be launched at the upcoming 7th ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 12-14 June 2017.

For more information on the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change project, see: https://www.recoftc.org/project/asfcc

Endnotes:

[1] Greijmans et al. (2015). Building blocks for viable community forestry enterprises: Community Forestry Principles. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand.

[2] RECOFTC (2017). Social forestry and climate change in the ASEAN region: Situational analysis 2016. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand.

[3] The target year for Cambodia is 2029; Indonesia 2014; Myanmar 2030; The Philippines 2008; Thailand 2025; and Viet Nam 2020.

[4] This blog does not include the figures from Brunei Darussalam and Singapore as they do not have official social forestry program.

[5] RECOFTC (2017). Social forestry and climate change in the ASEAN region: Situational analysis 2016. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand.

[6] The projection is made for Thailand, Indonesia and Viet Nam

[7] Data from internal RECOFTC records for Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Viet Nam, and Thailand.

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on June 6, 2017  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on June 6, 2017

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/meeting-aseans-social-forestry-targets-how-far-have-we-come-on-meeting-the-social-dimensions-of-social-forestry/

To keep our coasts, coastal communities must benefit from sustainable enterprises

By David Ganz, Chandra Silori and Maung Maung Than

Three quarters of the world’s population living in coastal zones are in Asia[i]. These coastal communities are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, as a consequence of the dynamic economic growth being experienced in Asia that is driving a dramatic loss of biodiversity. Mangrove ecosystems – and the diversity of life they encompass – are critical for a healthy, safe and prosperous natural and social heritage. So how can mangroves be sustainably  managed, and what is the role of coastal communities themselves?   

Successfully tackling the challenges facing mangroves and coastal communities must be undertaken using a holistic approach. RECOFTC takes such an approach by testing, advocating and providing evidence of how community-based natural resource management can provide sustainable solutions for balancing human, social and economic well-being of coastal ecosystems. RECOFTC’s expertise on community forestry includes integrated coastal resource management, partnering with local communities and organizations like Mangroves for the Future (MFF).

Recently RECOFTC and partners had the privilege of awarding 18 Community Forestry certificates to 18 villages in Gwa township, Rakhine State, Myanmar. This was part of a three-year project funded by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Myanmar to scale up community forestry in Myanmar. RECOFTC was accompanied by the Ambassador of Norway to Myanmar, Tonne Tines, Myanmar’s Deputy Director General of Forestry, U Kyaw Kyaw Lwin and the Country Director of The Nature Conservancy (and former Executive Director of RECOFTC), Tint Lwin Thaung. Just a month earlier, RECOFTC similarly had the honor of hosting the Ambassadors of Sweden and Switzerland, Staffan Herrström and Ivo Sieber, and a representative of the Norwegian Embassy, Chatri Moonstan, to visit the coastal communities of Pred Nai, Trat Province in eastern Thailand. These coastal communities have all benefited from over 20 years of support from RECOFTC and MFF.

CF Area location map , Gwa , Rakhine AKN

As a result of the Scaling Up Community Forestry in Myanmar (SuComFor) project, RECOFTC and partners awarded community forestry certificates to 18 local community villages in Gwa township, Rakhine State, Myanmar.

Over the years, RECOFTC has been fortunate to work with MFF and have come to learn and respect the challenges of mangrove restoration and coastal resource conservation. While MFF and RECOFTC continue to invest in local participatory approaches to integrated coastal management, we are often reminded of sustainability concerns of projects, policy reform and regional coastal management initiatives. For both of the sites that we visited in Myanmar and in Thailand, success can be tempered by the increasing need for additional resources, namely donor-led initiatives. Now more than ever, there is an increasing focus on sustainable community enterprise development.

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor

RECOFTC and partners continues to invest in local participatory approaches to integrated coastal management, but now more than ever there must be an increased focus on sustainable community enterprise development.

In Thailand, the communities of Ban Pred Nai and Ban Tha Ra Nae in Trat Province have begun to tap into the local eco-tourism market. While these communities have pursued grants to develop mangrove walkways through the community-managed coastal areas, they continue to seek outside support for their community-led conservation and development programs to restore large areas of heavily degraded mangrove forests and set up rules and procedures to effectively manage natural resources within the larger landscape. In order to bridge the gap, these communities are looking to learn from the Marriott-inspired turtle conservation program in Mao Khao Beach, where each tourist is asked to contribute to a development fund upon checking out of their resort. The same could be pursued with the communities of Ban Pred Nai and Ban Tha Ra Nae and several large resort enterprises that have started to work with youth as local eco-tourism guides to escort tourists through the community-managed coastal areas.

In Myanmar, the communities of Long Kyo, Gwa township, Rakhine State, are in a very precarious situation. Road building and encroachment continues to threaten coastal areas and in particular a rare form of mangroves that are stunted in their growth and resemble bonsai trees. Now that local communities have been awarded CF certificates, these communities are in a better position to address threats. There is an expectation that a sustainable tourism enterprise can bring in much-needed resources to maintain the coastal resources for future generations. Despite being supported by the Rakhine Coastal Regional Conservation Association, these communities need additional support for developing economic solutions and building local partnerships with other economic development interests to help protect the mangrove and coastal resources. These communities, which have developed 30-year forest management plans (a requirement to obtain their CF certificates), are now bolstered in their ability to negotiate with outside investors or to develop sustainable community-led small scale enterprise that values the forests, rivers, wetlands and coastal resources.

Image may contain: tree, plant, outdoor and nature

The coasts of Gwa township, Myanmar, are home to a rare form of dwarf mangroves that  resemble bonsai trees.

Image may contain: 7 people, child, outdoor and nature

Now that communities have community forest certificates, local people are in a better position to participate in sustainable small scale enterprises as long as enabling conditions are met.

In each of these cases, the prevailing paradigm for RECOFTC and its partners is to promote integrated coastal management and private sector solutions which recognize that communities must have ownership the business and the businesses’ impact on their coastal resources. That is, these private sector solutions must have arrangements for communities to manage coastal resources that are built on a shared understanding between the community, local government and private sector.  There are a series of enabling factors that allow these critical elements of integrated coastal resource management to develop. These are:

  • The community has the capacity to make implementable decisions that reflect their objectives.
  • The community derives benefits from the integrated coastal resource management.
  • There are both an internal capability and external conditions for communities to make meaningful inputs into decisions on how coastal resources are to be managed.

Ultimately, these conditions must be met for sustainable community-led small scale enterprises to succeed. If outside investors are going to have entry points then they must focus on the community’s capacity to make decisions and give meaningful input into how eco-tourism or any other private sector solution is tested as a business case for sustainable community enterprise development. Organizations like RECOFTC and its regional partner MFF will continue to assist in these private sector solutions. While RECOFTC and its partners are well positioned to continue to build the community’s capacity to make these decisions and negotiate with the private sector, sooner or later, it will be very important for local institutions like the Rakhine Coastal Regional Conservation Association and the Good Governance for Social Development and the Environment Institute (GSEI) to step into this critical capacity building role.

For more information, see:

Embassy of Norway’s coverage of Scaling Up Community Forestry in Myanmar https://www.norway.no/en/myanmar/norway-myanmar/news-events/news2/scaling-up-community-forestry-in-myanmar/

Ambassador of Sweden Staffan Herrström’s blog on community forestry in Pred Nai, Thailand (in Swedish) https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1524082227604340&substory_index=0&id=120425627970014

RECOFTC’s country program in Myanmar https://www.recoftc.org/country/myanmar (in Myanmar-language)

RECOFTC’s award-winning video of Pred Nai communities in Thailand (in Thai and English) http://www.recoftc.org/videos/voices-forest-thailand

ScandAsia’s coverage of  Ambassador’s visit to Pred Nai, Thailand http://scandasia.com/swedish-representatives-visited-trat-mangrove-forest-restoration/

RECOFTC’s coverage of Ambassadors’ visit to Pred Nai, Thailand http://www.recoftc.org/press-releases/swedish-swiss-ambassadors-norwegian-embassy-visit-recoftc-field-project-prednai

[i] IUCN

2 Comments
by RECOFTC on May 31, 2017  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary, RECOFTC activities
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on May 31, 2017

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/to-keep-our-coasts-coastal-communities-must-benefit-from-sustainable-enterprises/

Advancing the rights of local people: How REDD+ can continue to foster open and honest dialogues about natural assets to better manage forested landscapes

by Dr David Ganz, Executive Director, RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests

22 April is Earth Day! To celebrate the occasion, RECOFTC Executive Director Dr David Ganz makes the case that now more than ever we must continue to work to empower local people to effectively engage in mechanisms like REDD+ and other forms of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) to better manage their forested landscapes.

I am often asked where I stand on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD+. As RECOFTC’s new Executive Director, I am also asked where the organization stands on REDD+. For those who do not understand this issue, let me briefly explain.

In the early days of REDD+, advocates of community forestry viewed it as a new way to compensate forest users for the opportunity costs of foregoing deforestation and degradation and incentivize more “climate-friendly” livelihood options, such as sustainable small-scale forest enterprises and climate smart agriculture. Protecting rights, including livelihoods, became a major concern in REDD+ policy, e.g., as reflected in the ‘‘safeguards” adopted at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cancun, Mexico in 2010.

However,  more than a decade after the REDD+ concept was proposed, direct payments to forest communities remain rare, while concerns about safeguarding livelihoods are increasing. The argument stands that while REDD+ has been very useful for changing the public discourse on conservation and the way national policy-makers view natural assets, the flow of investments, incentives and/or co-benefits has not made it down to the village level. Initially, REDD+ was viewed as a way to compensate actors for foregoing income-generating activities that involve deforestation and degradation. Therefore, we should have seen more smallholders and communities compensated for (or benefiting from) their opportunity costs of changing behavior and practices or development of other metrics that capture the co-benefits that REDD+ aspires to achieve.

While working with The Nature Conservancy, I had the chance to conduct research with Professor Kathleen Lawlor.  We analyzed the initial outcomes of REDD+ projects that systematically reported their socio-economic dimensions. We conjectured that REDD+ projects could affect local well-being by:

“(1) creating  (or  blocking)  material  opportunities  for  wealth  creation  and  well-being,  such  as  jobs, revenue streams, infrastructure, and improved educational conditions;

(2) enhancing  (or  weakening)  populations’  security,  including  tenure  security,  food  security, livelihood security, and adaptability to climate change; and

(3) facilitating  (or  preventing)  the  empowerment  of  individuals  and  communities  to  participate  in decisions affecting local land-use and development. “

DSCF3212

Eucalyptus felling in Srakaew, Thailand.

These are the underlying issues that face RECOFTC, which is committed to empowering local people to effectively engage in mechanisms like REDD+ and other forms of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) to better manage their forested landscapes. While RECOFTC works on advancing the agenda for local people to have a strong voice in climate mitigation and adaptation, there is still a perception that the social and environmental safeguards are not yet aligned with REDD+, the Green Climate Fund and more broadly, green growth finance. This is far from the case. In my humble opinion, the timing is right for even more investment in climate mitigation, REDD+ and PES, especially from the private sector.

Like other sustainable forest management initiatives, REDD+ suffers from the inability to transform government organizations and institutions into having stronger governance structures, rules, regulations and enforcement. RECOFTC remains committed to working with both state and non-state actors on climate change mitigation through improved forest conditions and improved forest governance. We have, and must, continue to remain active on issues like REDD+,  and now with donor support, we are working closely with Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements and these government-led dialogues to hear and incorporate “local voices” for more equitable decision-making processes that strengthen forest governance in the region.

Ahleichaung CF Rakhine explaining iron wood management3

Local community members in Ahleichaung community forest in Rakine, Myanmar discuss iron wood management.

Lastly, RECOFTC also must view its engagement with REDD+ with a “no regrets” mindset — just as many countries and donors have begun to do.  Overall, the investments into these approaches and initiatives  are helping to transform the forestry sector into one that takes into account the intersection with agriculture and other land uses — a more holistic landscape approach for the Agriculture Forestry and Land Use sector. REDD+ investments have been instrumental for forestry to take on this larger perspective, as well as to update and upgrade critical infrastructure like National Forest Monitoring Systems or set up National Spatial Data Infrastructure for initiatives like One Map in Indonesia and Myanmar. In many REDD+ countries, this investment has led to the development of robust, repeatable forested landscape inventories, sometimes including ancestral rights and land tenure systems. These investments have helped create open, honest dialogue about a country’s natural assets, how they are managed and, more importantly, how local rights are allocated and/or strengthened.

Now, when people ask me whether I believe we should continue working on REDD+ and FLEGT, I can honestly answer, “Yes I do…. as it can continue to foster the spirit of community engagement in forest governance and management”.

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on April 21, 2017  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary, FLEGT, RECOFTC activities, REDD
Tagged , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 21, 2017

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/advancing-the-rights-of-local-people-how-redd-can-continue-to-foster-open-and-honest-dialogues-about-natural-assets-to-better-manage-forested-landscapes/

How can FLEGT truly address illegal logging?

David Gritten, RECOFTC Senior Programme Officer, discusses how FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) provides a great opportunity to address illegal logging IF it is based on strengthening the rights of local communities.

My grandparents used to have a stuffed alligator that stood on a teakwood stand beside the gas fire in their living room. As a child I never thought anything of it, never asking where it came from. It is the same about so many of the things in our homes. We never think to ask: where did they come from? who made them? who benefited from their purchase? and who may have suffered in the process? These questions are particularly important for goods coming from tropical countries, including the Asia-Pacific region. This is especially the case for tropical wood products – with many coming from unknown and often from illegal sources.

Knowing the source of the wood products in your home is important because:

DSC_0382Millions of people rely on forests for their livelihoods. According to the World Bank, more than 1.6 billion people around the world depend to varying degrees on forests for their livelihoods. In the Asia-Pacific region this number is estimated to be between 481-579 million. Considering 70 percent of the region’s poor live in rural areas, this is significant.

Illegal logging is a massive problem and destroys the lives of many forest dependent people. In Indonesia it is been estimated that roughly 60 percent of all logging is illegal, in Lao PDR and Papua New Guinea rates are as high as 80 percent and 70 percent respectively.

Thankfully, numerous initiatives are trying to address the blight of illegal logging. One initiative is the European Union’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. The Action Plan aims to reduce illegal logging by strengthening the sustainability and legality of forest management, improving forest governance and promoting trade in legally produced timber.

The Action Plan has two main pillars:

  1. The FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) which is an agreement between the European Union and a timber exporting country to ensure that an effective system is in place to ensure that only legal timber products are imported into the EU.
  2. The  EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) requires timber importers and traders within the EU to take appropriate steps to ensure legal supply chains.

RECOFTC, along with many of its partners (governmental and non-governmental), recognises that FLEGT-VPA can provide benefits on many levels – beyond addressing illegal logging. Positive dimensions are highlighted in a recent review of the effectiveness of the FLEGT Action Plan initiated by the European Commission and coordinated by the FLEGT Facility of the European Forestry Institute. The evaluation finds the Action Plan is a relevant and innovative response to the challenge of illegal logging and has improved forest governance in all target countries.

RECOFTC works on FLEGT-VPA projects in four (Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand and Viet Nam) of its target countries. For example, in Cambodia and Thailand RECOFTC, with FAO support, is working to create an environment where those doing the illegal logging, those affected by it and those trying to control it are able to discuss ways to stop it in an effective way that, that does not penalise local communities. One key area is through providing capacity development to civil society organisations to support effective participation in VPA processes. In Myanmar, RECOFTC, also with FAO support, works with International Alert to develop the capacity of key stakeholders, particularly government staff to manage forest conflicts in a sustainable manner. FLEGT provides a window of opportunity for efforts such as these. Governments and companies realise that Europe will no longer be a market for timber products if they cannot prove the legality of these products. They also realise that to do this, they need to strengthen forest governance.

The starting point of RECOFTC’s work in this area, as with all our work, is that any efforts to achieve sustainable forest management in the region must be based on recognising and promoting the rights of forest communities, including smallholders. This comes from the basic understanding that local communities know the forest best, depend on the forest the most, are the most effective forest managers and most importantly, have rights to their forests. The VPA process provides a great opportunity to address illegal logging if it is based on strengthening the rights of local communities. However, if it marginalises these rights, as many initiatives in the past have, then it will be surely doomed to fail, and will result in continued devastation for forests and forest communities throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

For more information on RECOFTC’s FLEGT-VPA projects, visit www.recoftc.org/basic-page/transforming-forest-conflict

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on September 7, 2016  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on September 7, 2016

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/how-can-flegt-truly-address-illegal-logging/

Forests and Water: Unraveling the controversy and what it means to local communities in Asia

22 March is World Water Day 2014. To celebrate the day, RECOFTC is launching its new report Forests and water: A synthesis of the contemporary science and its relevance for community forestry in the Asia–Pacific region. The report aims to shed light on the relationships between forests and water in both temperate and tropical regions. However, it finds that there is a “popular narrative” that often runs counter to the consensus views of the forest hydrology scientific community.

Regan Suzuki Pairojmahakij, Program Officer with RECOFTC, reflects on some of the discussions and reactions that have ensued through the development of the report.

 

Photo credit: J. Broadhead, FAO 

Recently, I was thrown off balance. I learned that the brontosaurus never existed. The archetypal dinosaur of my elementary school books has since been found to be an imposter – a trick of science due to the mistaken (or fraudulent) assembly of skeletal remains belonging to entirely different dinosaur species more than a century ago. And yet, the impact of this knowledge reverberated a bit more sharply than would be justified by a simple correction of fact. How is it possible that this cornerstone of our imagined prehistoric world never existed?

A comparable disruption of commonly held belief has been occurring within my own sphere in community forestry.  The popular belief in question is that of the ‘sponge theory’ whereby forests have long been credited with ‘regulating’ hydrological systems – capturing water during rainy seasons and gradually releasing this throughout dry seasons. The sponge theory may well be supported in the very specific geo-physical context (namely the Swiss Alps) in which it originated, but is increasingly being seen to have less validity, if not downright detrimental land management implications, in regions such as humid tropics and sub tropics. Popular media and policy-makers throughout the region continue to embrace the sponge theory as a deeply held axiom and its resulting influence on public opinion has been profound. Propounded everywhere from school text books to newspaper headlines – forests, or the lack of them, have been associated with flooding, with the existence (or otherwise) of springs, and even local-level rainfall events. And these popular beliefs seem to be nowhere more closely held than by foresters themselves.

“Much folklore and many myths remain about the role of land use and its relation to hydrology, and these hinder rational decision-making. This is particularly true in relation to forestry, agroforestry and hydrology: claims by enthusiastic agroforesters and foresters are often not supportable. The perception that forests are always necessarily ‘good’ for the environment and water resources has, however, become so deeply ingrained in our collective psyches that it is usually accepted unthinkingly. The view is routinely reinforced by the media and is all-pervasive…” (Prof. Ian Calder, 2005)

 When RECOFTC decided to engage in issues related to water, for which a respected forester and hydrologist was tasked to produce a report on community forestry and implications for water management, Forests and water: A synthesis of the contemporary science and its relevance for community forestry in the Asia–Pacific region, few here were prepared for some of the results. As a community forestry capacity development organization, an exploration of community forestry and its presumed contributions to improved water regulation and access seemed innocuous as a topic.  And yet, it very quickly became a rabbit hole in which our epistemological machinery was suddenly laid bare with unsettling results. The pervasive sponge theory, not only may not be relevant to the geo-hydrology of this region, but may be the complete opposite of what good science suggests. Institutional consensus has led us to grudging agreement that there is a body of science that argues that forests, and particularly afforestation, may reduce ground and water flows (although this needs to be nuanced as dry season and total annual flows). However, this continues to be viewed as a one part of the evidence. The truth however, as pointed out in Gilmour’s report, is that barring several very specific and justified exceptions, there is no compelling scientific evidence contesting this.

The key findings of the report, simplified considerably, with relevance for community forestry and the regional forestry sector, are as follows:

  • Both natural and plantation forests managed by communities can produce hydrological benefits, but these are mainly locally specific, i.e., felt mainly on-site or nearby rather than far downstream. In absolute terms, hydrological benefits of forests are less than popularly believed.
  • Trees produce biomass by using water for growth processes. Generally, trees that are fast growing and produce a lot of biomass use a lot of water, thereby reducing both total annual as well as dry season flows.
  • Community forests in the Asia-Pacific region tend to commence in most cases with degraded lands that have lost their water storage capacity due to reduced infiltration rates. As forests are planted or restored, water yields can be expected to decline further and remain low for decades.
  • In small catchments and for small rainfall events, forests have a limited capacity to regulate stream flows. For large catchments and particularly for large rainfall events, forests have limited demonstrated capacity to regulate stream flows compared with other well-managed vegetation types. [1]
  • Increases in peak (flood) flow as a result of clearing forests are observable for small to medium size rainfall events in relatively small catchments. The major determinants of large scale flooding at all catchment scales are: rainfall amount and intensity, antecedent rainfall and catchment geomorphology—not vegetation type.
  • Community forests normally occur in a landscape mosaic of agricultural, grazing and forest land of different tenure—not all of it community managed. Management of community forests can contribute to these wider objectives, but the hydrological impacts of individual treatments at local levels will be diluted as the catchment size increases. 

What are we to take from this? The overarching lesson to be learned is the fallible and iterative nature of knowledge and the means by which we come to conclusions about the world. Related, is the often logic-defying strength of our conviction in certain axioms. It can be surprisingly difficult to wrestle beliefs out of the popular domain once embedded (in fact, science knew that the brontosaurus was wrong all the way back in 1971 – it has taken more than 30 years for this revision to gain ground in the popular imagination). For the field of community forestry, failing to conduct our work through employing the most current and rigorous science puts vulnerable communities and ecosystems at risk. If the sponge theory does not apply here, we have an obligation to consider alternatives and support communities in making the best land use management decisions on the basis of the best knowledge and models we have available.

[1] This effect can be enhanced with technical measures like check-dams and other water retention structures.

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on March 22, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on March 22, 2014

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/forests-and-water-unraveling-the-controversy-and-what-it-means-to-local-communities-in-asia/

Why REDD+ needs local communities, not the other way around

A commentary by Regan Suzuki, program officer at RECOFTC

Focusing on isolated islands of community forestry as entry points for REDD+ is not the answer. But we need to beware throwing the baby out with the bath water. Rather than dismissing community forestry due to legitimate concerns of leakage, the answer is to look for ecologically acceptable strategies that meet the multiple, and sometimes competing, needs of local stakeholders.  RECOFTC calls for an acceleration of the devolution of management rights of land and natural resources to local communities.

The recent series of Go-REDD articles for discussion by UN-REDD Asia Pacific on the topic of community forestry: “REDD+ and Community Forestry, revisited (October)”  and particularly, “Pondering the Role of Community Forestry in REDD+ (September),” raise a number of legitimate challenges associated with the design and implementation of REDD+ in community forestry sites.

Serious discussions of the overlapping frameworks for community forestry and REDD+ are timely. As the Bluffstone et al. article referred to in the September Go-REDD article points out, the extent of collective forest management has more than doubled in the preceding 15 years (granted, the starting point for area under recognized community title is low). In addition to its expanding role as a recognized forest management approach, community forestry is being seriously considered as a potential modality for the implementation of REDD+ projects and activities. UN-REDD notes this both in the October Go-REDD article, as well as in its policy brief on benefit sharing approaches for REDD+ which presents Participatory Forest Management (including Community Forest Management) as one of three likely approaches for REDD+ along with Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Forest Concession Management. While there is much to recommend community forestry as a suitable approach to REDD+, there is a thicket of difficult issues that surround the marrying of these objectives. Not least, are the arguments mounted on either side of REDD+ debates, either that REDD+ has the potential to strengthen the equity claimed by community forestry, or conversely, to tip the delicate balance away from the rights and interests of local communities.

There are several important omissions, however, that warrant discussion. First, is a clear understanding of what is meant by ‘community forestry.’ In its very first sentence the September Go-REDD article refers to forests under the management of communities and individual households, the subsequent sentence inferring that these are the constituents of community forestry. This is not interchangeable with the definition of Community Controlled Forests (CCF) used in the Bluffstone et al article, which refers to it as a specific form of common property management – an intermediary between public and private forest tenure rights. Nor does it reflect the ‘small c’ community forestry as described in RECOFTC’s strategic plan, which takes a broader view referring to a large range of local management options of forests including: “all aspects, initiatives, sciences, policies, institutions, and processes that are intended to increase the role of local people in governing and managing forest resources.” This ranges from management of sacred sites to small-scale forest-based enterprises, forestry outgrower schemes and company-community partnerships. Community forestry, in its more contemporary, flexible interpretation, encompasses the multitude of sustainable interactions local communities have at the interface with forest landscapes.

Associated with the concerns of fair compensation of local communities raised by the Go-REDD article, are higher-level questions of equity on national and international scales. Legitimate concerns continue to be voiced by civil society and others that REDD+ and even community forestry in some state-controlled contexts, pose restrictions on forest use that in combination with community level labor inputs and foregone opportunity costs, far outweigh benefits attained and rather instrumentally serve state agendas. REDD+ risks bolstering such agendas and offloading to local communities the burden of meeting national conservation goals, sweetened with prospective incentives, under a cloak of ‘empowerment’. Certainly, this is not the case in community forestry contexts broadly where genuine rights and benefits such as those pointed to in the October Go-REDD blog, are well documented., However the restrictions imposed by REDD+ on forest exploitation may be a move in the direction of meeting national and international conservation and mitigation objectives at the cost of real rights at local levels. To take this point on macro level equity further, carbon offsetting to allow continued emissions and energy inefficient development trajectories in developed countries may come directly at the expense of local communities in developing countries. Enhancing forests and afforesting for carbon sequestration goals requires higher consumption of water than other land uses, and where there may be growing threats of climate-related water and food security, these global mitigation goals may come into direct conflict with adaptation and the basic needs of local communities. As articulated in the joint RECOFTC – Global Alliance for Community Forestry submission to the UNFCCC in 2009, REDD+ can and must be additional to basic approaches of sustainable forest management (SFM) with decision-making and benefits devolved to local communities; not the reverse. This may be the most pragmatic ‘safeguard’ to ensuring both social and environmental objectives through REDD+.

The concluding statement in the September Go-REDD article is misleading: “This is not to say, that the idea of linking community forestry with REDD+ should be abandoned. Rather it means, that focusing on community forests while neglecting key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation may hinder the effectiveness of REDD+ activities. Nobody wants to see that happen.” The message could be misinterpreted to imply that community engagement is instrumental to the successful implementation of REDD+ activities. Rather we understand that the intended point is that targeting isolated community forestry sites as entry points for REDD+ miss the forest for the trees:  real and tangible reductions in forest-based emissions nationally depend on closing the leakage loop. Misguided focus on islands of community forestry will lead to leakage and displacement similar to what has been seen in Oddar Meanchey. RECOFTC’s position is that in order to avoid this, the answer is precisely to accelerate the handover of forest lands to local communities – whether it is for ‘big C’ community forestry or for decentralized management by smallholders. While this may lead to more production oriented forest management strategies in some cases and even forest conversion in others, the strengthened rights and livelihood options of local communities is vital to the long-term equitable and sustainable management of forests in the region.  Focusing on REDD+ while neglecting community (or local level) rights over forests may threaten the most vulnerable communities, and ultimately the global commons. This would be an outcome that nobody wants to see happen.

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on November 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on November 6, 2013

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/why-redd-needs-local-communities-not-the-other-way-around/

Community Forestry: The Next Generation

Maggie Kellogg, RECOFTC’s Princeton in Asia Communications Fellow, shares highlights from a visit to a community forestry site made by key donor representatives. The community members have worked hard to develop their sustainable forest management plan so that it is reflective of their traditional beliefs, but are unsure of what the future will hold as many young people are choosing to leave the village for larger cities. 

On 7 February 2013, a group of representatives from RECOFTC’s key donors travelled together with staff members on a 3-hour journey out of Bangkok to Suphanburi province to visit the Huai Hin Dam community and their forest. The group of representatives consisted of members from JICA, Norad, Sida and SDC. The purpose of this field visit was to provide an opportunity for the donor representatives to interact directly with communities that RECOFTC has been working with over the years. It was also an opportunity for them to see the impacts of their support, as well as the challenges that still needed to be addressed. This field visit was tied together with the RECOFTC Annual Review Meeting for donor focal points that was scheduled the following day, at which representatives from the European Commission, Kasetsart University, and USAID also participated.

The visitors enjoyed touring the Huai Hin Dam community forest on a tractor-pulled wagon.

The visitors enjoyed touring the Huai Hin Dam community forest on a tractor-pulled wagon. (Photo credit: Maggie kellogg)

As the donors saw and remarked upon throughout the day, this community and their forest are unique in certain key ways. As members of the Karen ethnic minority, the Huai Hin Dam community members believe that their forest is sacred. Their deep respect for the forest and awareness of the value of natural resources translate directly into their forest management plan. As healthy forests are a priority for this community, they have been able to successfully and sustainably manage their forest, even through use of the controversial slash and burn, or swidden, method of agriculture.

The after affects of the swidden practices employed by this community can be seen not only in the charred remains, but also through the very evident fertility of the soil, in which rice, chilies, tomatoes and other nourishing plants were growing at every turn.

The after affects of the swidden practices employed by this community can be seen not only in the charred remains, but also through the very evident fertility of the soil, with rice, chilies, tomatoes and other crops growing at every turn. (Photo credit: Maggie Kellogg)

The donors took note of these unique characteristics, and demonstrated their interest in the community’s history and the steps that they have taken to reach these achievements. It has certainly entailed a great deal of hard work and perseverance, but the effort that this community has put into sustainably managing their forest has paid off and set them apart from many other communities like it. However, the Huai Hin Dam community members also face many of the same challenges that are confronting small, forest-dependent communities across the Asia-Pacific region. One of the most difficult of these challenges is the flight of young people out of the villages to larger cities.

There is a very apparent age gap in the Huai Hin Dam community, which is comprised of plenty of older and middle age adults, as well as young children, but is lacking in young adults. The older generations are understandably quite concerned with this scenario. They are unsure of the best way to preserve their culture and way of life, and to pass this along to their children.

IMG_0499

Some of the Huai Hin Dam community members. (Photo credit: Maggie Kellogg)

When one of the donor representatives asked a member of the community women’s group who was accompanied by her young daughter about what she would like for her daughter’s future, the woman thoughtfully responded “I would like for her to stay and make use of the home we’ve built here, and to continue building the community…but she won’t be rich,” acknowledging that there were certain things and opportunities that the forest and life in the community couldn’t provide, and that ultimately, it would be up to her daughter to decide her own future.

Many young people from rural communities like Huai Hin Dam are finding the allure of cities and the promise of greater opportunities difficult to resist. And there is certainly a more traditional and less flexible lifestyle on offer in the village. One father spoke proudly about his two daughters, the younger of whom seems to always be saying, “Dad, you’re so old-fashioned.” While this is a sentiment voiced by young people – and a concern for parents – in virtually all societies around the world, this ethnic minority Thai Karen community’s way of life is particularly unique, and the need for it’s preservation particularly urgent.

It’s easy to understand how the young people in communities like Huai Hin Dam, who are connected to the outside, modern world in virtual ways, would like to be connected in more tangible ways. And it’s certainly difficult to imagine how traditional, agricultural-based, rural lifestyles could be more desirable to these young people, who are learning from a distance about the freedoms and new possibilities available in cities. However, an enthusiastic and active, if small number of young adults are returning home from sampling life outside of their home communities.

While some aspects of life in the community are more traditional, the community members are clearly very capable of adapting to and embracing change.

While some aspects of life in the community are more traditional, the community members are clearly very capable of adapting to and embracing change. (Photo credit: Maggie Kellogg)

We had the opportunity to meet one of these young people who made the decision to come back to the Huai Hin Dam community and work to preserve his community’s forest and traditions. Leeh is a member of the Young Seedlings Network, who is using the knowledge and support that he has gained through trainings and exchanges with other Young Seedlings across Thailand to encourage more young people to return to their villages and participate in community life. There are a few occasions throughout the year when most young people do return home to Huai Hin Dam, including New Years celebrations and the first annual rice planting. During these occasions, Leeh creates more engaging opportunities for the young people to get involved, including playing games to make community gatherings and meetings more fun and interactive.

IMG_0506

Donor representatives, community members, and RECOFTC staff. (Photo credit: Maggie Kellog)

The donor representatives were very impressed with Leeh and his work through the Young Seedlings Network, as well as many other things about the Huai Hin Dam community forest. At the end of the visit, they shared their reflections and feedback with the community, expressing their appreciation for the community’s efforts and perseverance to hold true to their beliefs and incorporate sustainable practices into their forest management plan. The community was encouraged to keep up their efforts, continuing to address the challenges that remain, and be another proven example of the potential and power of community forestry.

One of the last words shared by the representatives was a reminder that all stakeholders – be they donor agencies, international organizations, civil society organizations, or communities – play critical roles and must work together cooperatively to advance community forestry and community-based natural resource management. This is very true for the younger generation of leaders as well, and it will be up to them to continue to strike the balance between ensuring sustainable forest management and adapting to emerging challenges.

RECOFTC’s Young Seedlings Network is working to connect young people like Leeh to allow them to communicate and share their knowledge and experiences to make their difficult task a little bit easier. If you are interested in learning more about the Young Seedling’s Network, please click here.  

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on April 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 3, 2013

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/community-forestry-the-next-generation/

Green growth in Myanmar: an emerging democracy’s vision for future development

“Change is coming to Myanmar — the Southeast Asian country formerly known as Burma — at a rapid pace. With a burgeoning influx of outside interests looking to tap into Myanmar’s newly accessible resource wealth, the government faces some challenging choices: how to achieve its stated objective of green growth, while balancing the needs of foreign investors, preserving the environment and maintaining rural development.” –  Aaron Russell, of CIFOR, reflects on Myanmar’s aspirations for ‘Green Growth’, following his attendance at the Green Economy Green Growth Forum organized by GEGG Myanmar Association on November 14, 2012 at the Myanmar International Convention Center. Click here to read more of what Aaron has to say.

RECOFTC  was one of the participants in the forum, and Dr. Tint Lwin Thaung held a well attended parallel session on ‘Forests and People for Sustainability and Equity’ for the forum.

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on January 17, 2013  •  Link  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on January 17, 2013

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/green-growth-in-myanmar-an-emerging-democracys-vision-for-future-development/

The $30 billion Question at Doha

Jim Stephenson, Program Officer, provides an update on early side events at COP 18, Doha.

Welcoming session at COP 18 in Doha. Photo from UN climate change’s Flickr photostream.

As we look to the future of REDD+ finance in the COP negotiations, it is worth reflecting on what has been achieved so far – a subject which provided a fascinating contrast in messaging at yesterday’s side events.

At the Fast-Start Finance Information Event we heard from the Parties that, to some peoples’ surprise, the US$ 30 billion target for ‘Fast-Start Finance’ from 2010-2012 had been surpassed. While this is open to further research and clarification, huge numbers were reported even by individual countries, ranging up to US$ 17 billion, with a healthy chunk of this funding reportedly going towards REDD+. From the snapshot of Parties reporting, it was difficult to calculate whether the approximate REDD+ partnership target of US$ 4.5 billion in REDD+ Fast Start Finance had been reached, but it did not seem far off and was comfortably at 10 digits.

So three years and billions of dollars later, are we any nearer to tackling some of the “Persistent Issues” which face REDD+? The Ecosystem Climate Alliance’s side event of the same name suggested not, and questioned why, despite the large amounts of bilateral, multilateral, and private funding directed at REDD+, we have not seen much in the way of expected results (though there are clearly some important exceptions).

One of the Alliance members, The Rainforest Foundation Norway, claimed that far too much REDD+ readiness funding and time had been directed towards MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification – in their estimation 40% of REDD+ funding to date) when more fundamental issues such as land tenure and governance do not receive these levels of attention. A question I myself asked last year.

At the same event, Dr. Tim Cadman made good on his promise not to send the audience to sleep by giving a fresh perspective on how REDD+ efforts do not yet recognize and support what he terms ‘stakeholder driven governance’. Using Arnstein’s Ladder of citizen participation he showed how current REDD+ standards and safeguard systems only amount to what Arnstein describes as ‘Tokenism’ (i.e. informing, consultation, and placation). Dr. Cadman points out that we need to be aiming higher if REDD+ is to support good governance principles, moving from consultation and placation to partnership, delegated power, and even citizen control over REDD+. I would suggest that some of the leading standards and principles do aim at partnership with local stakeholders, but it is certainly agreed that we should be aiming higher.

RECOFTC has long believed that community forestry is an excellent way to aim higher and achieve partnership, delegated power, and citizen control over REDD+, allowing it to be locally driven rather than imposed by external actors.  During the Q&A session indigenous representatives repeatedly pointed to the fact that in their home countries REDD+ is being ‘pushed aggressively’ onto them by developers and governments. This is a fertile breeding ground for misunderstanding, manipulation, and eventually the failure of REDD+, ignoring the fact that ultimately local people hold the key to its success.

We hope that as Parties in Doha look beyond Fast Start Finance and begin to program the intended increase of climate funding to $100 billion per year by 2020, much more attention is paid towards supporting good governance and the meaningful participation of local people.

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on November 28, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on November 28, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/the-30-billion-question-at-doha/

What should Community Forests mean to Obama?

In the midst of President Obama’s much anticipated visit to Southeast Asia, RECOFTC Communications Officer Ann Jyothis describes how community forestry could align with and fulfill many of the objectives that the US has outlined for its potentially growing involvement in the region.

President Barack Obama walks with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

President of the United States Barack Obama walks with Thailand’s Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Image taken from The Nation, http://www.nationmultimedia.com.

As expected the media flurry of political and economic analysis of the Obama administration’s rising interest in Southeast Asia is raising speculation about the “true agenda” of his visit to Thailand, Myanmar and the ASEAN meeting in Cambodia this week. How will an emerging Myanmar, set to be the chair of ASEAN next year, affect the geopolitics of the region? What will be the economic and social impacts of ASEAN’s free trade zone proposal? These are a few of the important questions raised by many in and around the region. But here, we ask a relatively simple question: What could community forestry mean to Obama’s view of possibilities, in this region?

Essentially this question would arise from a more nuanced dialogue on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Given the current global outlook on the climate, it is pertinent to ask whether the US administration will raise climate issues in its discussions with Southeast Asian leaders this week, since, in reality, the scope of US foreign policy and trade interests are critical to the future of several forests and forest communities in the region.

In fact, almost every issue that Obama is expected to discuss during his visit is strongly connected to the forests of Southeast Asia, specifically, increased trade partnerships, energy and security cooperation, human rights and job creation.

The State of the World’s Forests report from 2012 emphasizes the historical connection between forest, markets and the expectation of higher living standards. Forests have always had a key role to play in trade, beginning with long timber for shipbuilding which enabled global trade, to guitars from Gibson Guitar Corp., which violated the US Lacey Act by purchasing and importing illegally harvested wood materials into the United States from Madagascar and India. Community Forestry is based on this connection between forests, markets and people; it embraces a sustainable livelihood system that enables caring for the forest as a livelihood production system rather than a finite resource base for windfall commercial gains.

Although the enforcement of laws such as the Lacey Act demonstrates the willingness of US lawmakers to take illegal wildlife trade and deforestation seriously, it has largely overlooked the human rights aspect of environmental degradation. The link between local people’s rights, natural resource management, and climate change adaptation and mitigation is widely missing in dialogues on climate. This brings us back to the question: What could Community Forestry mean to Obama?

The ASEAN region is endowed with rich natural resources and a strategic location providing economic advantages for international shipping and foreign trade. According to a report published by RECOFTC – The Centre for People and Forests and ASEAN Social Forestry Network (2010), millions of people across ASEAN countries depend, directly or indirectly, on a range of economic, environmental, and socio-cultural services derived from forests. With 49% forest cover in the region (FAO 2010), forest-based industries contribute significantly to economic growth, providing employment, raw materials, and export revenues. These natural resources play an important role in the economic and socio-cultural sustenance of the over 50% of the ASEAN region’s population who live in rural areas (FAO 2010). In effect, any trade and energy policies in this region must take into account that local communities and indigenous peoples view their assets and culture as an integral part of resource management (RECOFTC 2010). Disregard for this will lead to and has led to conflict over natural resources, especially land tenure.

Issues intrinsic to biodiversity conservation, deforestation and climate change are addressed within the scope of community forestry, which is a decentralized and democratic process, enabling a sustainable relationship between forests and the needs of human beings. Community Forestry can play a significant role in supporting economic stability while ensuring that local people’s rights and share of benefits are protected and strengthened. At a deeper level community forestry offers a reinforcement of governance processes in countries where democratic institutions are young or fragile. Over the past decade, several ASEAN countries, including Cambodia, have begun to realize the importance of giving land tenure to people and forests.  As a result, some ASEAN governments have begun to officially recognize the role of local people in managing their forest resources.

Community forestry is symbolic of a people based approach to poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability. As the US agenda for Southeast Asia unfolds, it is hoped that initiatives such as community forestry are given due significance in regional policies and agreements that will have an impact on climate change adaptation and mitigation, and human rights in the region.

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on November 19, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on November 19, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/what-should-community-forests-mean-to-obama/

Reducing the Gender Gap

A workshop held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on 29 June, 2012, reflected on the results of increased participation of women in community forestry management in the Prakas II project being carried out in Cambodia.

Participants engaging in group work.

Workshop participants engaging in group work.

Harnessing the skills and contributions of women working at the grassroots level – something which often goes unsung and escapes formal income assessments – is essential for any sustained success in community forestry. RECOFTC’s effort to mainstream gender concerns across its programs was the subject of a workshop organized together with Cives Mundi, a Spanish NGO, in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on 29 June, 2012.

The workshop on Gender Mainstreaming in Community Forestry Management Planning reflected on lessons learned and experiences from the Prakas II Project on “Community Forestry in Northeast Cambodia,” which is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development (AECID) and is carried out in the provinces of Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri, Strung Treng and Kratie. While the project seeks to strengthen the institutional and technical capacities of local NGO partners and forestry administration staff in community forestry management, it has also mainstreamed gender in the community forestry management planning of 16 community forest (CF) sites with the specific objective of improving women’s participation in CF development.

The workshop was attended by 56 participants including the gender focal persons from the 16 CFs in the target provinces.

Impressive Result

It was clear from the presentations that the field trainings on gender inclusion carried out in the 16 target CF communities by the forestry administration staff, local NGO partners and RECOFTC, had clarified concepts and helped identify existing gender gaps in the development of community forestry. RECOFTC and local NGO partners – the Non-Timber Forest Product Organization (NTFP), Culture and Environment Preservation Association (CEPA), and Kasekor Thmey (KT) – had established coordination links between community forestry  gender focal persons and women members of commune councils responsible for gender, to ensure that gender issues were integrated into commune development plans and mainstreamed into the community forestry management planning process. In each CF site, two gender focal persons (32 in total) were selected by the community members themselves to lead the process of mainstreaming gender in community forestry development.

As a result of these efforts, the participation of women in community forestry activities increased significantly. For instance, more women than is usual were involved in forest management planning activities – i.e. preparations for community forestry management planning (44% women), managing development funds (24%), dividing management blocks and field verification (34%), participatory resource assessment/forest inventory (20%), and drafting community forestry management plans (31%). These results have encouraged even more women to become active in  a range of activities including capacity building trainings, workshops and study tours. Some are already engaged as members of the community forest management committees (CFMCs) and are actively involved in the decision making process.

Challenges Remain

Though gender is integrated into community forestry management plans (CFMPs), traditional norms, culture and social constructs proscribe the role of women in Khmer society, particularly at household and community levels. Some women are still not allowed to travel far to attend relevant meetings and others can barely read and write.

Besides mobility restrictions, women’s low confidence, poor literacy and limited capacity, hinder their active participation in community forestry related activities. They are usually shy and barely speak about their concerns and problems.

However, there also has been a growing realization among forest users, community and local authorities in the project sites that facilitating and encouraging women through the process of gender mainstreaming would be an effective way to increase their participation and to change the attitude towards them in Khmer society. It was learned that women often discuss, find solutions to their own problems and define their roles and responsibilities keeping cultural norms and their rights in mind, but mainly in the women’s working groups.

Encouraging women through these groups to participate in capacity building training programs, with allocation of adequate funds for applying this knowledge and skills in the field, is a proven strategy for success. RECOFTC’s training-for-action approach, adopted by the Prakas II project to support women’s involvement in the process of community forestry management planning, has been very effective.

Institutionalizing Change

The results encouraged participants to suggest adequate funds be made available to continuously build the capacity of commune and community gender focal persons through various training programs that RECOFTC offers. They also stressed the need to reactivate the National Community Forestry Coordination Committee and establish the Cantonment Community Forestry Coordination Committee where gender-related issues could be raised and discussed. Ms. Bhawana Upadhyay, RECOFTC Program Officer for Gender and Rights, noted that any efforts at mainstreaming gender participation in community forestry had to include men, particularly when working with societies where women’s roles and expectations are traditionally defined.

In closing, Mr. Edwin Payuan, RECOFTC’s Cambodia Country Program Coordinator, said he hoped that the impressive response from the 16 target CF communities would encourage other local organizations, including the Forestry Administration, to further mainstream women’s participation in the country’s Community Forestry Program.

——————————————————————————————————

For more information on the Prakas II project being carried out in Cambodia, please click here.

To learn more about RECOFTC’s additional efforts to integrate gender as a cross-cutting issue in all of our programs, please click here.

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on August 31, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on August 31, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/reducing-the-gender-gap/

Can the Research Process Itself Bring About Change in Forest Governance?

Mani Ram Banjade reflects on 10 years of work with local communities, NGOs, networks and government in Nepal, and finds it is possible to make a positive change through critical action research, in a new book chapter on rethinking participation, learning and innovation.

How can action research contribute to equitable governance of community forestry in Nepal? Communities, governments and donors are increasingly concerned that despite the efforts of three decades and some notable contributions to forest conservation, community forestry has made limited contributions to livelihoods, equity and poverty reduction. Despite a third of Nepal’s population being engaged in managing about one-fourth of its forest area, why are the intended returns so disappointing?

A number of reasons are highlighted by several research and policy initiatives in Nepal. First, the existing local social structures are hierarchical in terms of gender, ethnicity and economic class requiring a major overhaul for inclusion, equity and poverty reduction to take place through community forestry. Similarly, though community forest user groups (CFUGs) are legally recognized as autonomous institutions, patron-client relationships with state officials still limit the opportunity to mobilize resources for the benefits of society at large.

Inclusive deliberations to foster change

We also were aware that no one actor could make this change happen. Therefore, we integrated active reflection and learning in our investigation into the community forestry system in Nepal, which involved diverse groups of forest dependent people as well as other stakeholders in the complex and dynamic socio-ecological system. That is, to address these challenges we forged a collaboration with local CFUGs, government forest agencies, NGOs, forest-based entrepreneurs and donors.

Our assumption was that by facilitating inclusive and deliberative processes at CFUG, meso and national levels as well as democratizing the interface of these levels, we could significantly trigger change. For that to materialize, we encouraged the CFUGs to experiment through various institutional arrangements to embolden marginalized members to participate in decision-making. Similarly, we facilitated reflective processes on how they were progressing in terms of inclusion and equity. At the meso and national levels, we promoted multi-stakeholder learning forums, which included mechanisms to include representatives and the voices and lessons from the lower level.

Did it work?

In this chapter, I include the ups and downs that I experienced as an engaged researcher. This retrospective analysis of my journey could be useful to others interested in engaged scholarship. Indeed, change resulting from our presence at all levels – from CFUGs to national policy deliberations – was very impressive. The changes include an increase in representation of, and benefits to, marginalized groups in the CFUGs, increased responsiveness of meso level actors to the CFUGs, and increased space for non-state actors at meso and national level deliberations.

Throughout the participatory action research process, sensitizing for significance of learning and integrating this learning into existing practices, was very challenging. This reminds us of the classic challenges faced by those attempting to embed research within an agenda of change. Similarly, deliberation within a governance process is usually subjected to existing power asymmetries caused by the differential possession of economic, cultural and symbolic resources within a community.

Establishing links between different levels through networked governance or deliberative multi-level forums often proved very useful in improving community forestry governance. Skilled facilitation and coordination functions were central to the success of this process and demanded additional resources and institutional commitment to sustain engaged scholarship at meso and national levels.

Our experience shows that challenges increase in promoting and sustaining deliberative forums at the meso and national levels. Nonetheless, this would help forge effective linkages between communities and these institutions.

The journey was, however, at times very exciting and challenging. We had to encounter enormous resistance and challenges in many institutions, and had to muddle through vested interests and power dynamics at different levels, while also managing frustrations and excitements within the team. The material expectations at local level, an interest in retaining control over forest governance, the limited competency of the researchers and facilitators, and mechanistic expectations of the donors constrained these worthy initiatives. Similarly, there is very limited support from the public sector to promote multi-stakeholder and discursive policy processes.

This chapter describes how we, as a locally-based action research team, tackled the challenges and contributed towards inclusive and equitable forest governance in Nepal.

——————————————————————————————————

Banjade, Mani Ram (2013). “Learning to Improve Livelihoods: Applying Adaptive Collaborative Approach to Forest Governance in Nepal.” In: Hemant Ojha, Andy Hall and Rasheed Sulaiman V. Adaptive Collaborative Approaches in Natural Resource Governance: Rethinking Participation, Learning and Innovation. London and New York, Routledge: 216-256.

Contact Mani Ram Banjade at: mrbanjade@gmail.com.

Please see our previous blog post in which Hemant Ojha reflects on the book as a whole, which documents on-the-ground struggles of those promoting  and facilitating adaptive collaboration, their strategies, tactics, tools and techniques to address various issues impeding learning and innovation.

3 Comments
by RECOFTC on August 30, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on August 30, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/can-the-research-process-itself-bring-about-change-in-forest-governance/

Scoping a Path for Community Forestry in Myanmar

Ronnakorn Triraganon found an enthusiastic response from a cross-section of stakeholders at a two day roundtable meeting in Naypyidaw. 

One of the local leaders who wanted to have community forests directly serve their village's needs.

One of the local leaders who wanted to have community forests directly serve their village’s needs.

A key challenge facing Myanmar as it opens up to outside development aid and trade is the careful management of its abundant natural resources and forests. It has the opportunity to put some sound environmental and community forestry policies in place, before the negative impacts of unplanned growth lead to irreversible losses. Building the country’s capacity to manage its forests equitably while protecting them and using them as a sustainable natural resource is a big task, but one which begins with small steps. RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests has been operating in Myanmar to support community forestry development since 2011.

On 13 – 14 August 2012, the Planning and Statistics Department and the Forest Department under the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry of Myanmar together with RECOFTC, jointly organized the First National Community Forestry Roundtable Meeting with key actors in community forestry. Supported by the Royal Norwegian Government through the Norwegian Embassy in Thailand, the aim of this meeting was to identify, consolidate and prioritize recommendations made in previous Community Forestry events so government agencies and civil society could explore potential opportunities for its development.

Though only a few tree species can grow in dry zone area, local ones have been protected for village use.

Though only a few tree species can grow in dry zone area, local ones have been protected for village use.

Altogether there were 39 like-minded people from the Planning and Statistics Department, Forest Department, Dry Zone Greening Department, University of Forestry, and representatives from civil society who wanted to make community forestry in Myanmar more progressive. At the roundtable meeting, participants gave priority to six main interventions that could support community forestry development. They include the development of a community forestry law, establishment of a community forestry government unit, a capacity building and research program for government and non-government personnel, establishment of a national working group, and a neutral platform for practitioners. Brief ideas and plans for making each intervention viable were discussed. Participants from both government and civil society were happy to share their commitments and contributions to support these interventions. They appreciated the roundtable as a good start for bringing practitioners from government, academic institutes, and civil society together, and supported the idea of holding such meetings regularly.

RECOFTC gained great support from the Ministery of Environmental Conservation and Forestry

RECOFTC gained great support from the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry.

In a follow up, the Forest Department of the Forest Research Institute together with RECOFTC, conducted a Community Forestry Action Research Formulation Meeting for research teams from different line agencies and representatives from civil society. The event was supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) through the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC). The meeting was set against a backdrop of efforts by the Government to promote community participation in forest management, however it requires some research to overcome barriers to improving community forestry in the country, as well as embracing the opportunities available.

The meeting aimed to help participants understand the fundamentals of action research and how participatory action research fits with community forestry; create a framework for developing a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project or undertakings related to community forestry, and finally to design an action research plan to address key issues in forest management and community forestry.

There were 30 participants from the Planning and Statistics Department, Forest Department, Dry Zone Greening Department, University of Forestry and representatives from NGOs gathered together in the Nyaung Oo Township Dry Zone Greening Office, Mandalay Division. Participants had an opportunity to use basic tools to formulate the research framework and try it out in real community forestry settings. At the end of the meeting, participants identified key research topics and developed analytical frameworks within which they will need to conduct participatory action research in the next 12 months.

This action research will be conducted by the Forest Research Institute with partners such as they University of Forestry under funding through the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change. The research topics included:

  1. How existing land tenure and rights affect the development of CF in Myanmar.
  2. Socio-economic potential of community forestry (including non-certified community forests) in Myanmar.
  3. Review of the processes for community forestry establishment (i.e. communities getting certificates for their forests).
People in Nyaung Gyi Village use palm leaves as a fuel source.

People in Nyaung Gyi Village use palm leaves as a fuel source.

At the meeting, participants agreed that there is a big need to improve the research capacity for community forestry development. Most are familiar with Scientific Forestry Technical research, but less so with social and participatory action research. RECOFTC will provide more technical and coaching support to the research team as they conduct their PAR for CF in the next 12 months.

For more information on our capacity building program in Myanmar please contact ronnakorn@recoftc.org.

2 Comments
by RECOFTC on August 23, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on August 23, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/scoping-a-path-for-community-forestry-in-myanmar/

Climate change adaptation and mitigation in community managed forests: two sides of the same coin

Regan Suzuki highlights key points from a new RECOFTC publication that explores the potential links between climate change adaptation and mitigation.  

Image

The women proudly show off the now verdant forest surrounding the Chapini River. As one of the few female-led community forestry user groups (CFUGs) in this conservative area of Nepal close to the Indian border, they represent a success story. They also offer valuable insights into the poorly explored intersection between climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Bishnupur community began planting trees and supporting natural reforestation alongside the river in response to flooding, a phenomenon that Nepal can expect more of as climate induced glacial outbursts increase.  Not only were their property and homes buffered from flooding, they began to observe a range of other benefits: improved water retention in areas adjacent to the forests; the community, and specifically the women, had their rights to the forest formally recognized; and finally, even district forest officials acknowledged the significant increases in carbon sequestration.

Until recently, climate change adaptation and mitigation have often been treated as two separate and independent approaches. The study of, funding pots and international discussions on each have taken place largely in isolation. Not only is this ineffective, it is potentially counterproductive. In a just-released publication, “Linking Adaptation and Mitigation through Community Forestry: Case Studies from Asia,” by RECOFTC and its partners (CDKN, REDD-net, Raks Thai and the Adaptation Knowledge Platform), authors argue that it is imperative for the two actions to be integrated.  The case studies, covering five countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand and Vietnam), illustrate that there is significant potential for synergies between mitigation activities such as reducing rates of deforestation and supporting adaptive capacities of rural communities (i.e. forest-based sources of livelihoods, strengthening food security and investing in agriculture-supporting ecosystems). But the links are not automatically mutually enhancing. Trade-offs exist and must be incorporated and addressed in project design.

The case studies, while still an early step in teasing out the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation, point to concrete examples of where real-life synergies and trade-offs are appearing.  In Ban Huay Win, Thailand, for a community located within a national park, conservation-oriented restrictions on land-use prevent community members from adopting potentially more sustainable long-term land management strategies. At the same time, however, the innovative introduction of improved agricultural practices, such as terracing, by NGOs has reduced some of the pressure on forestland, allowing, in some cases, for fallow land to be returned to natural forest regeneration. In the initial example of the Bishnupur community forest, as forest management plans develop, efforts to conserve forest are sometimes at the expense of vulnerable groups. Restrictions on the free grazing of cattle in the forest means that the burden of collecting fodder for stall-raised cattle and the loss of income from dairy as livestock numbers decline fall squarely on women.

Unlike at international levels, the cases underscore that at community levels the distinction between adaptation and mitigation actions is often blurred.  The main argument for community forestry, in the context of climate change, is that it responds to multiple interests.  Forests, and in particular community forestry, represent a bundle of assets and benefits. They serve as a safety net in times of hardship and support critical ecosystems required for well-being.  The cases point out that while the contributions of community forestry to mitigation are well-recognized, in the case of adaptation, community forestry is equally well placed to support adaptive capacity, but this is not automatic. A people-centered approach is required in order to ensure that mitigation or conservation goals are not pursued at the expense of local livelihoods. While community forestry does not inherently ensure improved resilience to climate change, if strategically mainstreamed within community forestry frameworks, it could be a highly effective approach for doing so.

Regan Suzuki is a Project Officer at RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests and Coordinator for REDD-Net Asia-Pacific.

6 Comments
by RECOFTC on July 31, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on July 31, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/climate-change-adaptation-and-mitigation-in-community-managed-forests-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

Are capacity building services meeting countries’ needs in Asia-Pacific?

Are capacity building services meeting countries' needs?Jim Stephenson summarizes key findings from a recently-completed assessment of capacity building services providers in four Asia-Pacific countries. 

Today, RECOFTC, with financial and advisory support from UNEP/UN-REDD, launches the full set of four country reports for a regional assessment of the organizations providing REDD+ capacity building services in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Viet Nam.

You may have seen the interim policy brief released for Durban last year, but now is the chance to explore the findings of the full assessment country-by-country.  Accompanying the country reports is an updated policy brief, to bring together the findings from across the region.

(more…)

3 Comments
by RECOFTC on May 28, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on May 28, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/are-capacity-building-services-meeting-countries-needs-in-asia-pacific/

Removing forest people not the solution to Thailand’s flood woes

A recent article in The Nation reports that “activists and experts” have called on the Thai government to “remove” as many as two million people from mountainous parts of the country in an effort to head off future natural disasters. The headline, however, distracts readers from the more nuanced message intended by these activist and expert groups.

“Govt called for moving 2m pp from mountain zones,” the headline reads; but this position was merely the “strongest” proposal put forward among more moderate options at a seminar titled “Headwater Forest Strategy and the Way to Prevent Flood and Drought,” held in Bangkok on 29 March.

(more…)

2 Comments
by RECOFTC on April 24, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 24, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/removing-forest-people-not-the-solution-to-thailands-flood-woes/

Green Business in the Himalayas

This year’s World Environment Day theme is “Green Economy: Does it include you?” The below video, from ANSAB‘s YouTube channel, highlights the community forest enterprises of seven communities in Nepal — all taking part in a green economy.

 

From ANSAB’s YouTube channel:

The video features ANSAB assisted enterprises in seven districts of Nepal involved in production and marketing of several non timber forest products including handmade paper, essential oils, juice and bio-briquettes. The video captures the enterprise initiatives and activities in Darchula, Baglung, Myagdi, Parbat, Dolakha, Sindhupalchok and Kathmandu districts of Nepal, and also includes views from ANSAB supported four entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs took the initiative to establish Community based enterprises, which are currently creating employment opportunities at local level, and also preventing the locals to go to Kathmandu and Khasa (Tibet) in search of work. Along with the views from the government officers, local representatives, local collectors, traders and business persons working closely to the forestry and small community enterprise sectors; the video also captures the principles adopted by ANSAB to support local communities for enterprise development.

2 Comments
by RECOFTC on April 20, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 20, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/green-business-in-the-himalayas/

Local Wisdom and Modern Science: Community-based Mangrove Restoration Research

RECOFTC supports Trat’s local knowledge center in combining the strengths of traditional and modern knowledge systems.

Photos and story by Estelle Srivijittakar

Rattika Pettongma, Supaporn Panwaree, Korakot Loisament, Loong Mongkol, Wasan Faotanom

Rattika Pettongma, Supaporn Panwaree, Korakot Loisament, Loong Mongkol, Wasan Faotanom

Pred Nai Village, Trat, Thailand: As many people look forward to the opening of Trat’s Community-based Learning Center (CbLC) on May 9th, 2012, a project funded by Norad and other donors through Mangroves for the Future (MFF), locals can say they’ve contributed to some of the center’s learning materials through their very own community-based mangrove restoration research project. The research, an activity under the CbLC, allows partners like RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests and Thai Fund Foundation (TFF) to work closely with communities in Trat to restore its mangroves and develop local practices for sustainable natural resource management.

(more…)

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on April 10, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 10, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/local-wisdom-and-modern-science-community-based-mangrove-restoration-research/

Thai Experts Push for Forest and Land Tenure Policy Reforms

Attendees at RECOFTC’s first Policy Dialogue on Forest and Land Tenure Review and Reform agreed on the urgent need for policy reforms to ensure fair and sustainable management of shared natural resources.

Photos and story by Estelle Srivijittakar

Agencies and organizations present social, environmental and economic implications related to current policies

Agencies and organizations present social, environmental and economic implications related to current policies

Thailand is facing pressing challenges related to natural resources and climate change, and balancing national and local benefits of conservation activities along with coordination of local and government efforts are major priorities. These issues, discussed in last year’s National Seminar, were echoed in RECOFTC’s first Policy Dialogue on Forest and Land Tenure Review and Reform held in Bangkok from 20 – 22 March, 2012, which brought together representatives from government agencies, civil society, academia, and forest communities. Coinciding with World Forest Day and RECOFTC’s 25th Anniversary, the platform was an opportunity for a group of specialists in natural resource management and human rights to gather with community forestry networks in a ‘think tank,’ deliberating on cutting-edge issues, projects, and ideas for improved natural resource policies.

(more…)

Leave a comment
by RECOFTC on April 10, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 10, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/thai-experts-push-for-forest-and-land-tenure-policy-reforms/

Experts Meeting: Unlocking the Wealth of Forests for Community Development

Rome, 28 March, 2012: Community forestry has the potential to deliver significant economic benefits for local communities. However, this requires that it moves beyond providing mainly subsistence goods to becoming a vehicle for the development of forest enterprises that can contribute to a genuine new forest economy. There is urgent need to remove regulatory bottlenecks and strengthen community institutions to negotiate and tap into profitable markets.

FAO and its partners, ITTO and RECOFTC, organized an Experts Meeting to develop a course of action toward an international initiative to promote the potential of community forests in contributing to sustainable development of community forestry. The meeting was attended by 26 Experts from a range of institutions and organizations from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and USA. Participants hailed from international agencies, government forestry agencies, NGOs, academia, research institutions, private sector, Indigenous groups, and community forestry alliances.

(more…)

1 Comment
by RECOFTC on April 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Commentary
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by RECOFTC on April 4, 2012

https://recoftc.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/experts-meeting-unlocking-the-wealth-of-forests-for-community-development/

« Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: